Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.50.86.207 (talk) at 06:40, 20 November 2010 (→‎User: Spartan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Misuse of Nazi images in an essay

    Resolved
     – Discussion closed with no consensus for 1) the block being lifted; 2) the block being extended to indefinite; or 3) a topic ban being enacted to prevent Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) from creating other essays or editing articles relating to race et cetera. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Community discussion
    * The result of the discussion was not to unblock Christopher Connor (talk · contribs); therefore, the remaining time of the 1-week block will remain in force.
    • The result of the discussion was no consensus for this user being topic banned.
    • The result of the discussion was no consensus for this user being indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.
    As a result, the remaining time of the 1-week block will remain, and the user is not, at present, topic banned from creating other essays. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Corr --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) has just created the essay Wikipedia:On being Jewish. He has also linked to it from the main BLP policy page and given it the shortcut name WP:JEWISH.

    The topic of how we decide which individuals should be considered Jewish for purposes of writing and categorizing Wikipedia articles may be the legitimate subject of an essay. However, Christopher Connor has chosen to illustrate his essay with two images. The first of these is an image of Adolf Hitler leading a Nazi military rally or parade, and has been given the caption "a Nazi informs his personal army of the definition of a Jew." The second image is the file "Kiev Jew Killings in Ivangorod 1942" and has been captioned "categorizing an aryan as a mischling is a BLP violation."

    The use of these images, with these (or any) captions, to illustrate a Wikipedia space essay on categorization, is offensive and reflects a deplorable indifference to the sensitivity of these images and the events they represent. Moreover, this is not the first time Christopher Connor has conducted himself in this manner. Last month, Christopher Connor used the same image of Hitler addressing a rally to illustrate his essay "Wikipedia:BLP Nazi" (subsequently moved in toned-down form to Wikipedia:BLP zealot). Discussion on Christopher Connor's talkpage and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi should certainly have made it clear to this editor, as if it could ever have been in question, that depictions of Nazi and Holocaust related events are not suited for decorating essays on editing policies.

    That Christopher Connor has repeated this behavior suggests to me that this editor is deeply insensitive to the feelings of his colleagues here, and I recommend that he be blocked from editing or, at a minimum, that he be appropriately restricted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request

    Christopher has now apologised and agreed not to repeat his actions in an unblock request on his talk page. I think with his previously clean record, we should give him this chance. StrPby (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) :I concur. The article text and the images are at odds with each other as the text was not racist nor baiting but seemed to be an attempt tp clarify and help some BLP issues. The images were clearly beyond the line and the block seems to have gotten his attention. JodyB talk 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Unblocking. After the reading the diffs below I must conclude that this is a pattern of insensitivity. Although his block log was previously clean there is ample evidence that he has been and remains clueless. JodyB<subBold text> talk 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree there, the images are what hurled it over the line. If he'd further say he'll be more careful with any images he uses in hoped for irony, I'd see no need to keep the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've come to oppose an unblock, given CC's later answers on his talk page left me neutral but mostly because I wasn't aware of the DYK diffs shown by iridescent. Taken altogether, I've meaningful worries he may not have made these edits for encyclopedic reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall that caption. I took it as sarcasm which was so startlingly botched, it indeed looked like trolling, but likely was not. I think almost all sarcasm is baiting in some way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock—so let's recap: this guy writes an essay at WP:JEWISH, which he illustrates with images of Hitler and the Nazis. He is blocked for a week. He says sorry. We unblock him after seven hours. Seriously... no. I cannot imagine any good faith explanation for his actions, other than possibly the most serious case of gross insensitivity I've come across in a long while.
      In fact, the case, bears a striking similarity to Berlusconi saying that he shouldn't be blamed for telling a Holocaust joke in a speech; rather, "the bad taste was in those who published it."
      This guy seriously needs a block for more than a few hours to demonstrate to him that the project doesn't consider this sort of thing acceptable, thus preventing further future disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      But blocks aren't punitive, and he knows that if he messes up again he'll likely end up indef-blocked. So what's the harm? StrPby (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The harm comes from us sending out a message that blocks for the most outragoeous behaviour will be overturned within a couple of hours if the perpetrator says, "Oh, I'm tho thorry I made a mithtake." We need to make it plain to this editor that we will not tolerate actions such as the ones they took; if we do not make this plain, it is plausible or even likely that they will repeat them. And by unblocking this soon, it looks suspiciously like toleration to me.
      The let's-unblock-and-then-if-they-do-it-again-reblock argument should really only apply to behaviours which the person involved didn't know were problematic at the time. But this guy must have known that his Nazi snaps were inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock. Lord help me, but I'm actually going to agree with TreasuryTag on something; an unblock for something which no reasonable person could have considered legitimate sends out the wrong message about Wikipedia's values and aims. This isn't a one off incident ([3], [4], [5], [6]); this looks to be someone with an agenda. – iridescent 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock Frankly, I one of the first to say Wikipedia can be over sensitive to Jewish sensibilities and throw round anti-Semitism charges far too quickly, which tends to have a chilling effect. However, this editor is clearly over the line. This is trolling. An apology might be good enough, if it had been a case of "he's learnt his lesson", but he was heavily criticised for his Wikipedia:BLP Nazi recently, and had evidently not taken the hind. A week block is very lenient, and should be served. Next time, I'd propose an outright ban.--Scott Mac 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the boosterism problem: Can either of the two of you remember where the criticism was that Wikipedia biographies tended to start in their first sentences with a whole string of religious, ethnic, sexual, and geographic associations, each with reams of citation cross-links, before even getting to the important stuff about a person for which they are actually known? I think that we already have a non-Godwinized essay on the general subject, which is far from specific to Jewishness, but I cannot remember where I saw it. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock. I fully endorse every word of iridescent's rationale. Hans Adler 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock This Editor is not a a noob, Mr. Connor knows our norms here. Especially on the heels of the BLP nazi incident. Commons sense should have WP:CLUED him in. Its not rocket science to figure out that having an essay filled with images nazi would cause an adverse reaction with out the essay being called Wikipedia:On being Jewish. We are extremely lucky one of us found it and not the Media or a one of the many Jewish advocacy groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock - User should be on a short leach also when it expires. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock. What Iridescent said, and the diffs Iridescent provided. Saebvn (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock I agree with Iridescent. There is something not quite right here. In addition to the diffs Irridesent gave, there are many other questionable edits, for example just recently a DYK with unnecessary details of a lynching. [7] In the diff where he created Jewish lawyer stereotype, he claimed to be one.[8] That article has problems going back to its creation: Shylock evidently was not a lawyer in the Merchant of Venice (the "lawyer" in the play was of the fairer sex). Thank goodness he forgot Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth in that first irksome diff. Was it some kind of bad taste joke? Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock. I edit conflicted with Gwen Gale on declining the request. Editors have expressed concern over his edits in the past, in relation to DYK hooks and elsewhere, and those concerns should have given him pause - but did not. I appreciate that this editor works on articles where few editors are wont to tread, but that doesn't give him license for these edits. It may be helpful if he were able to show that he understands why everyone is so upset over this incident, and the previous ones, before requesting unblock again. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock at the moment. I'm not convinced the content was intended to be as bad as it was, but intent only gets you so far. Also, it's not necessarily racist to point out that "x% of people arrested for jaywalking are Lower Slobovian", if the police have a predilection to bust Lower Slobovians and let Upper Ombrians slide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock It's pretty clear from his talk page that he doesn't get it and is blaming everyone else for the mess he finds himself in. N419BH 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs. There is also something ineluctably weird about the apology itself. Not buying that. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs, and the fact that the essay was entirely inappropriate and a simple apology is not enough. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock An apology is not enough. Inka888 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Up to indef

    My reading of the discussion above, especially the comment by Mathsci, is that we cannot trust this editor not to engage in subtle vandalism to insert anti-Jewish rhetoric into Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (clarifying my comment - I should have said "the level of disruption is not very high when compared with the constructive contributions" - I was not suggesting that the offensive behaviour itself was insignificant, even if not intended to be offensive) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to this thread by Christopher Connor

    On his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding "But simply proposing those hooks is, according to ANI, racist. That seems to me to be twisted", you've had it explained to you (repeatedly) what the issue is, but each time go into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode; see the discussion here for instance. You're cherry-picking facts (e.g. "15.7% of those convicted for homicide in Australia are indigenous", "indigenous Australians make up 2% of the population"), disregarding other information (differential conviction rates, relative probabilities of success of police investigations in close-knit communities vs large urban areas) to come up with the synthesis of "Indigenous Australians committed 15.7 percent of homicides in Australia". If this was a one-off incident then yes, these things happen, but as you yourself recognize you have a long history of being warned for inappropriate comments and suggestions (from most people I'd take this as a ham-fisted joke, but in this case I'm not sure), but your response seems always to be that the problem is with everyone else, not yourself. – iridescent 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion - topic ban

    I suggest letting the week long block stand, and then imposing (preferably with his agreement) a topic restriction on all race-related content, commentary and comment. He also should not initiate any new essays without consulting others as to their appropriateness.--Scott Mac 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Without consulting others" is a woolly and meaningless phrase which is essentially courting disaster. Needs tightening. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; just make it clear that he's prohibited from initiating new essays at all if he cannot be trusted, or throw the last line out altogether. As for essays relating to race, that's covered by the first part of the topic restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Supportin lieu of full of indef block this seems to be a good alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) This seems to be the most reasonable action for now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the topic ban. The nature of the restriction on creating essays needs to be made clearer, if there is to be a restriction at all.--KorruskiTalk 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the topic ban, can't see the point of the essay thing (assuming the topic ban wld preclude essays dealing with race/ethnicity issues)appears to be more a problem of pushing peoples buttons occassionaly, hopefully the block will get the message thru--Misarxist 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support The block should stand, and if an indef block isn't applied he should at the very least be restricted from all race related topics. AniMate 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, strongly. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ban on racial topics/edits, broadly construed, throughout the en.WP space, which he can ask to be lifted after 3-6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good solution. As others have said, it should be broadly interpreted so as to include all the problematic articles mentioned so far. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, but... when I read this whole thread, User:Wassermann, indefblocked since June 2009, kept popping into my head. You remember Wassermann's incessant bad-faith category lawyering? Connor's ban must, apart from articles and essays, include categories, very broadly construed; i.e. he doesn't get to add categories touching on nationality or ethnicity in any way. We need to set something up that doesn't take up too much of the time and energy of other editors to check on and argue about. Do we also need to make a sock check? I'm asking, not accusing; not being much good with socks. Bishonen | talk 04:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Comment A broad topic ban across the en.WP space would mean categories were out of bounds, too. So long as the ban was broadly racial/ethnicity, I think that would cover any contentious nationality cats. A topic ban needs to be simple and straightforward, easy to understand and follow, otherwise breaches and a long block are more or less foregone, I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - The essay alone shows he can't be trusted in this area, let alone the other dubious edits he's made. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support The diffs provided above show the editor is using Wikipedia to push an inappropriate agenda: if there is no indef block and no one is volunteering to closely monitor the editor, a strong topic ban is required to avoid further wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - have you looked at the article he created on the Lynching of Ell Persons?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, that was a worthwhile contribution to the project. I could support a time limited topic ban to allow him to edit constructively in areas unrelated to race and to gain some trust and more understanding of policy, perhaps three months? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The article does not bear close scrutiny. Much of it is written using primary sources (contemporary newspaper reports from 1917) rather than paraphrasing summaries of the material from secondary sources. There is a problem with the whole of the first three paragraphs of the main text: they fail WP:V and WP:RS; they are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR pieced together from local newspaper reports at the time. I tried to check the statements about the theories of Alphonse Bertillon (seeing the image of the murder in the dead girl's pupils): I found nothing in the 2001 Law Review. One published article relates [13]: "The most convincing evidence against Persons was an alleged photograph of Antoinette Rappel’s decapitated head in which Officer Paul Waggner claimed to see Person’s forehead in the victim’s retina." I did find a report that Waggner was trained in "Bertillon technique" in an uncited 1928 Ph.D. (J.R. Steelman), [14] But that is not what can be read in the article. Similar questionable edits on lynchings precipitated the indefinite block of MoritzB (talk · contribs) in 2007, also discussed here on ANI. Elsewhere this editor uses "google translate" to access French documents and has not so far noticed that "Par" is not a first name in French. There is something not quite right in all of this. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainstream newspaper reports are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable sources WP:NEWSORG.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Local newspapers in Memphis in 1917 in the days of segregation? You must be joking. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Toddy1. Just let the block expire as planned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - A single article does not automatically make him a constructive editor. I'm going to need more than that to prove he's able to keep his opinions to himself. Given the essay, I don't think that's going to happen.. not to mention his past behavior. It's a problem that he can't figure out, and thus cannot be trusted with. Support topic ban per Toddy1.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose In a nutshell, this situation is too complex at this moment for a simple solution like this. What puzzles me about this issue is that, prima facie, except for the images used I found nothing objectionable to this user's now-deleted essay: it was a a banal restatement of a number of such truisms as a proposed definition for labelling someone a Jew, that being identified as a Jew can be controversial, etc. This does not mean I endorse the essay: I just don't see why anyone would bother to write it, thus leading me to suspect that there is something in it only someone familiar with anti-Semitic hate speech would catch. (And while the apology on his Talk page isn't exactly what I'd label a "non-apology apology", it isn't what I'd expect to see in a sincere apology either.) In other words, this guy seems to be playing games with the rules, & while I can't say what his intent could be I don't entirely trust him. Subjecting him to anything but the simplest & clearest restrictions will only make the rest of us work harder to sanction him if it becomes clear that he is harming Wikipedia. I believe letting him come back after a week with no new restrictions -- but keeping an eye on him -- will be the simplest & best solution. If this guy pulls another stunt like that essay, we can then ban him for good without needing to take any further steps; if he is editting in good faith, & this was simply a case where he was putting his foot in his mouth, then all of us can step away from this with no unintended bitterness or dramaz & move on to better things. -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support The hastily-applied air-freshener spray doesn't cover up the stink. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Supportish - Editor should be allowed to submit work via proxy editor if that work is acceptable within an article (I'd volunteer). It walks and quacks like a duck, but is it a duck? If that's the impression that's been created, perhaps some sort of absolvency (<-- new word) should be permitted. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: seems overkill per those opposing above. -Atmoz (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Text of deleted item is innocuous in the extreme - sans the images this is storm in teacup. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Oppose llywrch sums it up nicely. He's wikilawyering, no need to give him more rules to lawyer about. If he steps over the line again he can be tossed. -- ۩ Mask 03:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Putting those images in the essay was tasteless, but I don’t think it’s been demonstrated that he’s actually unable to contribute to race-related articles in a neutral manner. Having created several articles related to racial stereotypes (such as those linked to by ResidentAnthropologist) doesn’t demonstrate an agenda if the articles are about notable topics and don’t give undue prominence to minority views. And if they do, that hasn’t been demonstrated in this thread. Since Christopher Conner has no prior blocks, he may have learned the lesson that he needed to from this block. We should wait and see whether he has after the block expires. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP obsessed by birds...?

    Resolved
     – IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been doing some vandalism patrolling and come across an IP editor making edits to a large number of Birds in (A Country) articles. No edit summary, and I have no idea if this is vandalism or not, but thought I should raise it. See Special:Contributions/96.4.125.2. I asked on the talk page but no response although edits have continued. The IP is from a US school and came off a year block about 3 days ago. Please could someone have a look? Mechanical digger (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears they do not understand the term extirpation and are removing it and replacing it with extinct. Should probably use twinkle rollback AGF and leave a note explaining the terminology. N419BH 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    98.65.217.30 (talk · contribs) was making similar edits a couple of days ago too. The edits are similar to what the IP was blocked for last year too. I'll start rollbacking as the edits are clearly incorrect but any help would be nice. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All rolled back 68 pages in total. I can't explain biodiversity well some one wanna leave the note? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. I left another note, perhaps lacking in zoological technicalities but sufficient if they ever read the talk page and decide to engage with others. Mechanical digger (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He just did the same thing to two more today... Can We get a Block laid down before he starts another spree?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and a few more. They've been AGF reverted. N419BH 23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked I think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Ckatz and Destinero

    Resolved. Editing restriction enacted for Destinero (talk · contribs). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask to check behaviour of Ckatzchatspy who repeatedly disrupts Wikipedia article American College of Pediatricians by removing facts documented by highly reliable expert source simply since he don't like those facts and threats me on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destinero#November_2010 --Destinero (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never had problems with Ckatz before that I recall, but this does seem odd and inappropriate on Ckatz' part. I don't understand the reasoning behind this removal at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At first sight, Destinero and Ckatz appear to be edit warring at American College of Pediatricians. Ckatz may consider that his actions are justified by his admin role, since he is taking out a passage that deplores the ACP in Wikipedia's voice, and which uses a reference linked to a primary source, a brief that was filed in a court case, though some of the participating organizations might have published their views elsewhere. Some of the language Ckatz was removing was "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions.." This is being stated in Wikipedia's voice as a matter of fact about the American College of Pediatricians. At a minimum, the language needs fixing for neutrality, and a legal brief should probably not be cited. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:UNDUE policy specifically requires: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
    WP:GEVAL policy specifically requires: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."
    Please, explain and clarify what exactly should be fixed for neutrality in current version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397345997&oldid=397268492 I consider it fully in compliance with Wikipedia standards. --Destinero (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Destinero needs to stop the edit warring and justify the changes they want to make. They appear to be inserting analysis not supported by the supplied source. Franamax (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? Amici curiae (National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers - West Virginia Chapter, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence) are national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children. "Amici sumbit this brief to (a) inform the Court of the extensive body of social science research demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples develop just as well, and are as healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual couples; (b) show the Court that this research has been embranced by every authoritative professional organization devoted to the health and welfare of children." (page 1) "Every authoritative child welfare and child health organization of which amici are aware recognizes, and an overhelming body of scholarly research demonstrates, that children fare just as well in families with same-sex parents as in families with heterosexual parents." (page 10) "Every leading professinal child health and child welfare organization recognizes that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted childre. The policy statements issued by these organizations reflect their professional experiences and their expert reviews of the research related to the effects of parenting by gay men and lesbians on childhood development. The statements are striking in their unanimous rejection of the assumption that optimal development requires heterosexual parents. Indeed, amici are unaware of any authoritative child welfare or medical organization that gas taken a contrary view of the research and policy implications." (page 12) "A group of approximately 60 of AAP´s more than 60,00 members opposed APP´s adoption of this policy and in dissent, formed the "American College of Pediatricians" ("ACP") in 2002. This small and marginal group has filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents in keeping with the ACP´s position that "it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation." Dr. Joseph Zanga, one of ACP´s charter members, has described the ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group´s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of childre." "This small faction´s views are out of step with the research-based positions of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities." (page 15) http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/march09/34618SocialWorkers.pdf
    Thus, to put it simply, there can not be absolutely any doubts I contributed solely the facts supported by the most credible expert sources in the field describe the views of ACP "in their proper context with respect to established scholarship" as fundamental Wikipedia policies reqires. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither one has posted anything to the talk page. Destinero, there's no question in my mind that the lead should include something along the lines of what you are adding -- but you're going to have to work it out on the talk page, and what you have been adding can't be framed in the voice of Wikipedia itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment While it is certainly premature to do so, I'm not surprised to see that Destinero has brought this matter here. Frankly, I think it is probably best that there is a chance for more eyes to look at the situation. I'll state categorically that this is not a "POV" or disruptive move on my part; a simple check of the article's edit history will show that I've no real interest in the topic. My concerns here - and with several other articles that touch on the same subject matter - lies in Destinero's approach to editing on Wikipedia. I have had to intercede on numerous occasions with regard to his habits, which often as not involve adding POV, non-neutral material to articles that reflect his personal pers\pective on the matter. The worst instances of this have involved incidents where he has dropped boiler-plate text into a series of articles, and where he has misused sources as references for a message he wants to get across. Please note this excerpt from the text [he has repeatedly posted to the article], which demonstrates the nature of the problem:

    "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children."

    Destinero likes to insert loaded terminology into articles; in this case, "out of step" and "small faction" are used to dismiss the organization in question. My apologies if my edit summaries were lacking in this case, but after a long period of dealing with the same problems one can sometimes get frustrated. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have; again, I would really appreciate it if more people could review Destinero's edit history with regard to these types of edits. --Ckatzchatspy 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop acusing me of liking loaded terminology when I showed here that I contributed solely the facts presented by the national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children including the largest social work association in the world to the Court, all of which can be everytime checked by everybody. I am expecting your apology since you not able to support by reliable sources how views of ACP are not out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children (see LGBT parenting article for details on decades of conclusive and widely-accepted research on the issue) and you are not able to explain how ACP founded in 2002 by 60 charter members are not small faction in comparison with American Academy of Pediatrics with 60,000 members and all other mainstream expert bodies in the field including National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members), American Psychological Association (150,000 members), American Psychiatric Association (40,000 members) etc. --Destinero (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Destinero, since this entire discussion ought to be taking place at the article talk page and you still haven't started any discussion there, I doubt you'll get the apology you are seeking. Again, you can probably add something along the lines of what you are after, but go away and do it the right way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably because this is indeed a user conduct issue: In my experience, (a) edit-warring to insert a patently inappropriate POV (sourced to a brief in a lawsuit!) into an article, and (b) wall-of-text-ranting about it on noticeboards are the classical symptoms of a soon-to-be-indef-blocked user. Destinero, if you keep this up, that will be you.  Sandstein  21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I improved that by referencing the actual AAP position statement. Destinero and I had a discussion about this before: I think that citing one page position statements is preferable to dozen-of-pages briefs/affidavits. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The language was from the brief, bottom of p. 15. Something like that usually needs to be attributed. Again we had the issue of copy-pasted statements without quotes... Tijfo098 (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Sandstein's analysis here. Destinero's behavior does not look like civil discourse aimed at arriving at a consensus version of an article. It looks like trying, by any means necessary, to force through a particular viewpoint into an article, including stretching the use of sources of marginal appropriateness, coming to ANI rather than the article talk page to contest the edits of others, and most importantly, insisting that others (and not himself) have the burden to justify the removal of his additions. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that the conservative approach must be taken with contentious material. Challenged material is to be left out, and it is the burden of the person wishing to add it to prove, via reliable sources and reasoned discussion with others, that it belongs it. When someone behaves in the opposite manner, it is a red flag that they aren't interested in playing by the rules. The issue of copyright violations and plagiarism is also MUCHO serious, and needs to be addressed as well. --Jayron32 04:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to ask that there is an examination of Destinero's recent edits, which - despite concerns raised here and on his talk page - are a direct continuation of his regular behaviour. Not only has he apparently ignored concerns raised over the American College article, he has also made significant undiscussed changes to LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage that have raised concerns over copyright violations and the use of weasel words. --Ckatzchatspy 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See my comment on new developments in the ACP article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed that from the ACP article, clearly very pointed. I think Destinero has a particular and deep POV on these topics; there is no reason to stop them from editing, but they need to understand why their edits are problematic and often pointed. I think we made movement on this on ther LGBT parenting article. I also have concerns with the consistent use of "not needed" as an edit summary for quite substantive edits. This should be discouraged and instead Destinero should try to use much more explanatory edit summaries to clear up their reasoning --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am satisfied with the current versions of LGBT parenting and ACP article. What a difference to the Ckatz POV version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397489091&oldid=397268492, isn't it? Yes, I care much about these topics, but please, that does not mean I want to push some POV agenda. I understand copyvio and other concerns mentioned and take them seriously and I really appreciate the movement and feedback. The reason why I wrote not needed in edit summary were motivated to reduce duplicate material and focus on the essence of documented facts and adress copyvio and weasel word concerns. For example, I see no reason why include rather esseistic and defendable writing than document clearly current scientific research-based knowledge and expert consensus to let readers to make up their own opinions on the topic. Is it clearer, now? --Destinero (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some context around that diff.
    Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just want to make it very clear for the record that, Destinero's errant claims of my "POV" version to the contrary, I have no personal involvement in the page as an editor. My involvement in this matter is solely and completely based on responding as an admin to what appears to me to be yet another case of Destinero's problematic editing style, as I have had to do elsewhere in the past. --Ckatzchatspy 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting, a case that I mediated. (I am no longer mediating any case involving Destinero). I thought that I had successfully explained to Destinero that his interpretation of WP:UNDUE was an extremely odd one (to say the least), and one not shared by the rest of the Wikipedia community. He seems to believe that if a claim is attributed to a source written by a respected expert on the topic, it can then be written in Wikipedia's voice. I assumed good faith with Destinero by suggesting this was a linguistic issue. However, I believe, since this issue has recurred, Destinero is attempting to game Wikipedia policy to his advantage, and has created disputes where none exist with some very experienced Wikipedians who are trying to write articles in an NPOV manner. He replies with walls of "lawyering" text when editors attempt to explain to him his strange, self-exculpatory view of WP:UNDUE.
    • Therefore, I suggest that he be subject to a "softban" from inserting text in "Wikipedia's voice" on subjects relating to LGBT parenting and parenting in general, of which this is another example. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I hereby propose the following softban. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting.
    • Ban enacted. Editors are free to dispute this limited-behaviour topic ban if they desire. I would have liked comment on this; however, Destinero's record of disruptive editing in these topic areas should not be entertained any longer, since it is wasting editors' and administrators' time. A cost-benefit decision must, therefore, be made. The ban will be noted in the appropriate venues. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Page ban request

    Somebody uninvolved (=not me) close this or mark it "resolved" or something, please? Dr.K., the user who placed the request, asked for that to be done ages ago, see bottom of thread. I suggest collapsing it, too. Keep ANI tidy! Bishonen | talk 22:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I would like to request a page ban for Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) due to long term edit-warring against literally everybody else at the articles of Prahlad Jani and Inedia. Nazar despite long conversations about OR and SYNTH just seems to not get the point thus wasting a lot of other editors' time which could be spent much better elsewhere. This massive effort has included multiple reports at RSN, ORN multiple RFCs and ANI reports including a recent WQA alert against me. At that WQA alert I was advised to bring the matter forward to this board. After some initial hesitation I did finally decide to bring it here. Thank you for your consideration.

    Here is a sample of Nazar's long-term edit-warring at Prahlad Jani.

    1. 17:52, 14 June 2010 Escape Orbit (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: Removed paragraph of original research that analyses the cite provided rather than conveying what it says)
    2. 05:15, 15 June 2010Nazar (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: - restore strict info about video materials, remove POV, no personal analysis)
    3. Revision as of 14:12, 15 June 2010 (edit)Escape Orbit (talk | contribs) (→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: This analysis is not IN the cite provided, but instead is OF the cite provided. That makes it original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia)
    4. 15:21, 15 June 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,818 bytes) (restore as per WP:FILMPLOT, please discuss on talk page before blanking...) (undo) Here s/he accuses user Escape Orbit of blanking.
    5. 00:41, 16 June 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (15,744 bytes) (→Reactions: I agree with Esxape Orbit that this is WP:OR. Also FILMPLOT applies to movies. This is not a movie, at least not yet) (undo)
    6. 09:54, 4 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (13,907 bytes) (→Reactions: - restore the info per consensus) (undo) The claimed "consensus" was by a single IP which was probably trolling, while all other editors disapproved of this edit. The relevant diff is: Revision as of 09:29, 4 August 2010 (edit) (undo)Nazar (talk | contribs) (→Request for comment: - agree, restoring...). It is also worth noting that Nazar waited three weeks for this reversion.
    7. McGeddon (talk | contribs) (12,052 bytes) Revision as of 10:15, 4 August 2010 (Reverted 1 edit by Nazar; Rv unambiguous WP:OR - no consensus for including an editor's personal "closer examination of the video montage". (TW)) (undo)
    8. 12:58, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,365 bytes) (→Reactions: - reconstruct, no OR now, I hope.)
    9. 13:11, 5 August 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (14,264 bytes) (Removed synthetic observation.) (undo)
    10. 16:45, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,960 bytes) (Undid revision 377330681 by Dr.K. (talk) + improve)
    11. (Reverted good faith edits by Nazar; We have an RFC going and a report on WP:ORN Surely edit-warring to add this synthesis can wait? . (TW)) (undo)
    12. Revision as of 12:33, 25 August 2010 (edit) (undo) Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (Too much synthesis. Restoring version by MiRroar (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 25 August 2010)
    13. 12:52, 25 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,081 bytes) (Undid revision 380941035 by Dr.K. (talk) - please stop vandalizing the article.) Here s/he accuses me of vandalism.
    14. 21:53, 1 October 2010 Johnuniq (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv edits by Jumbo108: no useful information available yet; see Talk:Prahlad Jani#Austrian documentary) (undo) This edit is provided as reference. Article stands at 10,431 bytes due to a massive cleanup effort by user:MiRroar. In the next edit Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup.
    15. 08:00, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,214 bytes) (→Investigations: - update refs to exclude non reliable sources. restore official press release info.) (undo) Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup. Article now almost doubled in size (19,214 bytes) due to reintroduction of edited-out material.
    16. 09:22, 13 October 2010 Nuujinn (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (Reverted to revision 388203785 by Johnuniq; restored cleaner version, we need to talk about these edits. (TW)) (undo)
    17. 09:28, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390493189 by Nuujinn (talk) - remove questionable youtube ref, restore rest, as based on acceptable refs) (undo)
    18. 10:46, 13 October 2010 McGeddon (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv per talk - Nazar's edits appear to be the blanket reintroduction of inadequately-sourced material that was cleaned out last month) (undo)
    19. 12:05, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390506280 by McGeddon (talk) - please don't remove official referenced information. see talk. thanks.) (undo)
    20. 11:51, 15 November 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (12,747 bytes) (→Investigations: - clarified who made the announcement) (undo) In this one s/he uses a misleading edit summary and removes maintence tags for OR and SYNTH. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some background (I am involved in this dispute): The issue concerns Prahlad Jani, who has lived without food and water since 1940. Jani's powers have been investigated by an institute, and there is an enthusiastic supporting doctor (see this page on the doctor's website for text like "Can you imagine a human being staying alive & doing all routine activities even at age of 70, just by Sungazing – i.e – Surviving on cosmic – Solar energy"). Media reports repeat the findings, and Nazar can use all this to add tidbits to the article to suggest there is some scientific basis for Jani's claims. I have tried to argue that WP:PARITY means that sources like this should be permitted to refute obvious nonsense, but WP:IRS rules that out (see this RSN discussion). The most recent incident was when Nazar claimed a wikiquette breach (see WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dr.K.), where two uninvolved editors suggested a topic/page ban would be appropriate. I'm hoping for suggestions on how to maintain balance at Prahlad Jani and Inedia because policies that I've seen are currently allowing nonsense in these articles, nonsense that has to be cleaned out every couple of weeks with no long term resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current version of the page looks pretty neutral to me. It speaks of facts, findings, and criticisms of said findings. Furthermore, it is decently sourced. I'm gonna say you need to hash out on the talk page what should go in the article and what shouldn't. Work on a mutually agreeable solution. Include some of the claims and some of the criticisms of said claims. Be sure to provide reliable sources for this in accordance with WP:SOURCE. Edit warring, however, will lead to blocks for all parties involved. Alternatively, the article could be fully-protected in order to force everyone to the talk page, but I don't think any of you want that. N419BH 07:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had never heard of this article or this editor before seeing the Wikiquette alert in question. Then I read the article talkpage, and found I can muster no understanding of N419BH's strange hints. Everybody is already on the talkpage; that talkpage is a monster, a monument to the way one editor can waste everybody's time. Please see Nazar's Wikiquette alert against Dr.K. where he claims everybody ought to apologise to him, including the neutral editors (me and the polite Looie496) who respond to the alert. The whole thread at WQA is telling. But it's on the long side, so I offer here a potted version of my own comment there:
    I can fully understand the irritation sometimes expressed by the other editors towards Nazar, who indefatigably argues his points, big and little, word by word, against consensus, with great stubbornness and much repetition. Such editing wastes other people's time woefully and stops the creation of an encyclopedia in its tracks; you never get anywhere. I believe a page ban of Nazar on this article and similar subjects, broadly construed and including talk pages, is becoming necessary. Either that or a block for long edit-warring. I've considered an RFC/U, but those are only useful with editors who are somewhat prepared to take community criticism on board. Nazars resentment and conviction that he's right and everybody else out to get him seems to militate against the hopes for a helpful RFC/U — and everybody is already tired. It's time the other editors at Prahlad Jani got a chance to work on something more constructive than fighting a rearguard action against the story of the man who has eaten nothing for seventy years. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The timewasting aspect of all this struck me forcibly when I saw Nazar declare on the talkpage that he saw editing Prahlad Jani as a bit of a joke:
    I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Wikipedia, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).[15]<br
    That post (from a month ago) is discouraging to see. For is Nazar's game fun for anybody else? I doubt that. Is it helpful for Wikipedia? Oh, dear, no. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    (Nazar, could you please not post in the middle of my post (again)? It really is confusing for other people. I'm moving it down again. It's right below. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC).)[reply]
    • I think it's more confusing if you move my posts without proper indentation (like you did in WQA) from the place, where I put them to be relevant to my cited words. But whatever, please have it the way you like. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not 'have it the way you like', it is an accepted norm of this site not to post in the middle of someone else's post. As you have been informed. pablo 13:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok. Thanks. But I was posting relevant to my own post, which was cited, therefore I posted below my own words (which were cited). Sorry if this was wrong, but this was my logic. -- Nazar (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my reply from WQA to the above passage, thanks. -- "I'd like to comment on that, to avoid misunderstanding. It's just my personal attitude, which, I suppose, is useful in cases when lots of my work invested into an article is removed because of some reasons (valid, or invalid). I believe it's more constructive to see it as a game, rather than make a tragedy out of the difficulties experienced. This 'playing' attitude also proves more productive in many cases, like children find it easier to learn new things and overcome emotional stress when they 'play' with the subject, rather than take it deadly seriously. This attitude is not intended to be a sign of disrespect towards other editors, or their work. Thanks." -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this ANI. I think it'll be a good test and an opportunity to review their past actions for all of the involved parties. I don't claim that all of my previous edits were perfect, but I did my best to bring in new referenced information and ensure the neutrality of its rendering in the article. I respect the efforts of the opposing party to cut off the pieces which are not in accordance with the current Wiki Policies, as well as to represent a skeptic and critical view of the case, which is necessary too, of course.

    I'd like to mention that I have no major problems with the current version of the article, and don't really see what more could be added based on the currently available references. However, it may be seen from the editing pattern of my opponents, that none of them originally cared to introduce new references or expose the case in a more accurate and versatile way. It was mostly me who provided the references and attempted to build the article, as well as it was me who started it and filled it with information. My opponents usually were the ones to cut off and remove, as well as critically edit the pieces they found not appropriate, for which I am thankful to them in many cases (although, I also think they might have overdone it in some instances). Since the case is an ongoing study, I'm concerned that if the page ban they request succeeds, then only one of the parties, namely the skeptic one, remains entitled to edit the article, or rather not to edit it and not to add the new information, which may become available as the research progresses.

    Regarding the possible offenses other editor might have taken during our disputes, I'd like to apologize for these, as we've had many emotional points, and I'm sorry to say I wasn't always able to maintain a perfectly neutral and balanced attitude. Thanks everyone. -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also sorry my current time limits (it's currently office hours in my time zone) do not allow me to examine in detail the diffs provided by Dr.K., and since they are mostly pretty outdated and represent issues which had already been solved and discussed in much detail before, I don't see much sense in going into these old arguments again. But, as far as I remember the case, the edits of my opponents have not always been accurate and based on neutral rendering of available referenced information. Also, my opponents were reluctant to revert their own edits themselves and usually used the tactics of ignoring the points I raised, even if proved wrong in discussion. But again, I don't see any points which need more attention and further arguments at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've managed to briefly review the first 10 diffs provided by Dr.K.. They are all related to the subject of inclusion of a neutral description of Sanal Edamaruku's criticism of the case, including my attempts to provide information about the video plot and subtitles, which were used as an argument in that criticism. That issue has been discussed in much detail on RSN, NOR and article discussion page. It's been closed since over 3 months now and all my subsequent edits were fully in compliance with achieved consensus on that issue. I don't think my opponents would be able to provide any diff to prove the opposite. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. I've reviewed all the 20 diffs provided by Dr.K.. I don't see anything bannable in them. 11 or 12 of them are about the video issue I mentioned above, which had been closed very long ago. There's one major update I made after MiRroar's edits. I'm sorry if this update was too massive, but MiRroar's changes were very inaccurate and did not correspond to the referenced sources. I think we've sorted out the issues raised in that update long ago too. At least over a month ago, I guess. I have no problems with the points raised there at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also like to add that I'm not very happy about Dr.K.'s attitude towards me and my edits. I wouldn't like to repeat offenses I suffered from him and enumerate again the points where he was inappropriately aggressive towards me. I don't have a problem with that at this moment either and would not like to request any sanctions against Dr.K., though I would be pleased if he reconsidered his attitude and his position towards me. I only think it's relevant to say in the context of this dispute that the edit-warring which I'm being accused of can be attributed to Dr.K.'s actions in the same, if not greater degree. No offense though. I believe it's a part of the game ("game" here not meant as 'just for fun', but the serious editing process) we play here, and we have to be ready to spend our time for sorting out such issues. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If this ANI is Dr.K.'s revenge for my WQA request regarding his use of the word "hectoring" No.2 to describe my polite notifications, then I'd like to remind that I addressed WQA for mild non imperative mediation and as a first test of how that noticeboard works. I explicitly stated there that no administrative actions against Dr.K. are requested. I'm sorry if that was taken as an offense, but the repetitive use of "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages does not make me very happy. -- Nazar (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You raised the same points at WQA and you were thoroughly rebuffed. Now you repeat them here as if they have a better chance to stick. They do not. Until you own up to your actions noone is responsible for your edit-warring except you and you are liable to repeat the same pattern of behaviour that brought you here. The list of reversions I added above shows you edit war against multiple editors and not only me. Stop blaming the victim. You are talking about revenge for me bringing you here. I don't think that you read my initial post carefully where I mentioned I was reluctant to do it. But three respected admins Jehochman, Elen of the Roads and Bishonen gave me a strong hint to do it. I agreed. Please WP:AGF at last. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but regardless of my own faults I don't think that "hectoring" is an appropriate word in civilized discourse. While I do admit my actions were not always perfect, I consider Dr.K.'s accusations excessive and overly aggressive, trying to negatively interpret my attempts to improve the article in question over a very long periof of time. They are also outdated, as the issues to which the diffs were related had been solved long ago, and I've taken into account the remarks about my own failures at that time. Bringing them up again now after I just briefly mentioned that I'm not happy about the use of the word "hectoring" seems more like an attempted revenge, than a constructive work on the article content. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat my reply to you from WQA:
    In the link you provided you mentioned: == Skeptic SYNTH == Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Your tone in telling me to avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH is reprehensible. Using the verb "push" against other editors is demeaning and incivil. I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me. It was a clear case of SYNTH on your part, yet you chose to come to my talkpage and accuse me of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", but you did not come to the article talk page to reply to my arguments and McGeddon's. I call this harassment. What is "Skeptic SYNTH" anyway? The only SYNTH added in the article is by you and it keeps getting removed by many other editors. If I need any mediation is by someone to save me from your personal attacks and innuendo.Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you may follow the hint of the mentioned users, if more baseless edit warring is experienced in future, but it's probably not very wise to follow it, when all the issues have been settled and there was no edit warring for extended period of time. I'm also not seeing the diffs in your request which were not within the limits of acceptable dispute, although a bit lengthy and stubborn at times. -- Nazar (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your logic that my message to your page was related to the points you discussed on the article talk page saying : I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me, I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. Your message on the talk page came almost 2 hours later after my notification to your talk page, and it was related to totally different edits. -- Nazar (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My message on your talk page was related to this edit you made. Thanks. Please also see the timing of the messages. -- Nazar (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)x2I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. shows your clearly bad faith. Your message on my talk did not specify which edit you were referring to. As far as I remember that was the only edit I reverted. I don't have time now. I have to go offline. But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other. But I will come back to your accusation later. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other." -- can you please provide the diffs showing this "massive SYNTH"? I'm sorry, I did not mean to be of bad faith, therefore I used the word "likely". If it was not your attempt to mislead the readers, then please accept my apologies. My message on your talk page page came very clearly after your removals of reliably referenced information, which removals were promoting a one-sided exposure of the case. Later on other editors agreed to include the information I referred to to uphold the neutrality of the rendering. Nevertheless, you keep messing up the issue now in this massive attempt to accuse me of the things I did not do, confusing the readers with misleading cross-linking to passages which were related to completely different points and were handled differently. That is one of the things in Dr.K.'s behavior which causes a lot of stress for me, and which is also a clear cause of massive edit-war required to clarify the issues he occasionally messes up. I'm very sorry to say this, but this behaviour, whether made in good faith or in bad faith, is seen as rather aggressive from my point of view, and I'd be happy to receive at least a mild apology for that. I have to spend a lot of time and go through A LOT of stress and humiliation to prove simple, clear, and valid points, and then at the end all I get is "who really cares" from my opponent. This is not Civil, at least in my understanding. -- Nazar (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably noteworthy to say that also the previous time Dr.K. used the word "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages, he tried to mislead the administrator who was involved into the dispute by manipulating the timings of the messages and trying to show the sequence of events in a twisted way, thus distorting the facts and demanding an administrative action towards me for things I did not do. Maybe this had been done in good faith too, but here it happens for the 2nd time in the circumstances very similar to attempted revenge on a particular user. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just presenting the facts... And I'm just wondering, because I had to spend a few hours of my office time to untangle this confusion at least a bit, who's wasting who's time here? And what would have happened if I just wasn't there to dig up those discrepancies in timings and show how Dr.K. manipulates the situation? Would it just go unnoticed, or maybe I'd get a straight ban for his baseless (but skillfully mustered and presented) accusations? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, again, facing no unsolved article related issues at the present moment (and it cost me really lots of time and nerve to deal with confusion and incompetence of skeptics in that article, but that is OK), do I really have to spend hours of my office time for rebuttal of these highly aggressive, revengeful twisted accusations by Dr.K. presented in this ANI? Don't you think that a page ban for him would be more appropriate (though I'm really not requesting it)? -- Nazar (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I know that reading through all of the above is painful, but it would be helpful to get some additional feedback on this issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Painful is right..if this section is anything akin to the what's going on at the article...I say a 2 week page ban is in order for Nazar...at a minimum.--MONGO 23:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there have been moments:
    I'm not sure what an appropriate solution would be, and at this point, would just welcome any suggestions or comments. I will say that in my opinion Nazar has some interesting views on how what sources are reliable and how to apply the no original research policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Dr. K., for the WP:BOOMERANG comment. Your list of links was WP:TLDR for me and as such I simply looked at the page history for the article to get an idea of what was going on. I also hardly ever look at diffs posted to ANI because they often show the worst of an editor and usually do not provide a neutral overall picture of what is going on. Nazar has made it pretty clear with his posts on this page what's going on; the comment about him seeing it as a game is most revealing. I don't know however if a topic ban is going to solve the problem. Nazar's apparrent refusal to respect consensus may be grounds for a simpler solution if it is determined to be disruptive. An admin however will have to make that determination. N419BH 03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't mention it N419BH, no need to apologise at all. As I hope you may have guessed from the tone of my previous reply to you, your BOOMERANG comment did not bother me at all. I took it as a good faith attempt at highlighting the pitfalls of any ANI report for those brave enough to attempt it. I agree with you about the diffs. I too don't get to open too many of these when I see them. I find the task tedious and time consuming, especially when the internet connection doesn't cooperate. I tried to make my links a bit more descriptive than mere "diffs" but your TLDR comment covered that, so I guess I failed. I also tried to highlight the most salient examples as best I could through those diffs. Anyway, concerning the rest of your comments this has been a long and difficult haul. It shouldn't have been that way if more admin attention were paid at some critical points and a few blocks for disruption and WP:TEND were effected but these are the mysteries of admining for you. Hopefully we'll get some fresh perspective and solutions out of this latest foray at ANI but judging from the activity of the other threads this one sure looks quite slow by comparison. But who can tell. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does appear this thread is fairly quiet. I've been involved in a content dispute myself over at 2010 Polish Air Force TU-154 crash, see the talk page for the way I solved that problem. Might be a method to try. Chances are if no admins have responded to this thread yet they don't see anything actionable. At heart this is a content dispute and must be hashed out as such. I don't see any violation of WP:3RR or other issues. There doesn't appear to be consensus for a topic ban. My advice would be continue to work toward a compromise on the talk page. If a full-on edit war breaks out, bring it here or request page protection. I've got the article on my watchlist and will be keeping an eye on it. Take care and good luck! N419BH 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, blatant WP:OR and SYNTH, especially if it is against consensus and fuelled by incessant, long-term edit-warring, does not qualify as a content dispute. Because there can be no dispute as to what constitutes blatant OR and SYNTH. This is a case of SYNTH 101 and OR 101. But I will not belabour the point. Thank you for the TU-154 suggestion. I'll have a look. As far as RFPP, I have tried it at Prahlad Jani without too much success. But recently, over the past few weeks, user Looie496, an admin, has been instrumental in preventing old-style edit wars and this has helped in keeping some semblance of peace at these two articles. The involvement of Bishonen and her astute observations have clarified the issues and increased the visibility of the problems faced at the articles. I think that today we are in a much better place than we ever were during this conflict. Thanks again and all the best. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to thank N419BH for a fairly neutral and balanced approach to this issue. I'm sorry again for some of the more emotional points above, I was rather stressed yesterday, as I invested a lot of work into the mentioned article (actually it was at larger part me who built it), and now facing a page ban would be just utterly unfair. I'd like to repeat that at the present moment I do not have any major problems with that article and really don't have any ideas as to what could be added or further disputed about it. I was always doing my best to fight for neutral exposure of relevant points. I might not be happy about some of these points being not exposed fully enough because of limitations of video descriptions in Wikipedia, or some other Policies, but well, I do accept the policies currently in force and I don't think I can be accused of ignoring the achieved consensus on any of the major disputed points we had in the past. That is true as well about the use of sources in the mentioned article, though personally I might disagree with the way policies were applied, but I respected the consensus reached and never tried to edit against it. I hope I'll be able to come back to this article after some time (maybe months, maybe years) when more reliable sources and stronger evidence is available. On the other hand (this if for my opponents to consider), I also do recognize an option that further evidence may reveal the fraudulent nature of Jani's claims, and I'll be happy to include the respective reliably sourced material into the article as well. Thanks so far. -- Nazar (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though I do not agree with Nazar's characterisation of the editors disagreeing with him/her as "opponents" instead of say "fellow-editors", his/her latest statement holds enough promise for the future that I do not, in good faith, believe any longer that there is danger of continued edit-warring at the articles. Therefore I ask that an admin marks this as resolved and close the thread. In closing I wish to thank all the parties involved in this thread for their valuable input. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Misleading claim of 'vandalism' by IANVS at 'White Argentine' article

    USER:IANVS has reverted a large number of edits to the White Argentine article (diff here), describing them as 'multiple issues of vandalism'. The are clearly nothing of the kind. There is a long-running content dispute over this article, and the edits are evidently part of this.

    Given that (amongst other issues), much of the text restored by IANVS is in clear breach of WP:BLP as it includes an unsourced categorisation of living individuals to a supposed 'ethnic group' that the article itself provides no valid evidence for the existence of (the term 'White Argentine', or a close equivalent in Spanish is not a term widely used in Argentina, as one of the leading contributors to the article (User:Pablozeta here) himself acknowledges), I ask that IANVS be required to work within Wikipedia policy, and deal with issues on a case by case basis, rather than engaging in mass reverts with misleading edit summaries, and furthermore, to ensure that any text restored confirms to WP:BLP.

    AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The "mass reversal" I did was because the IP user effectively did not made a case by case edit of the article, making it impossible to separate the viable edits from the vandalic ones. In fact, after the mass reversal I began to re-introduce valuable edits by the IP user. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any edit to improve the Wiki - even if it is incorrect or misguided - is not vandalism and should never be called such. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, I've should said "rv mass edits including some vandalism in it". Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I said "estore last good version -. multiple issues of vandalism." Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please make clear what it is you consider 'vandalism': I can see no evidence of any. And can you furthermore assure us that any restoration you make conforms with WP:BLP, and does not make assertions about the supposed ethnicity of living persons? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor deleted links to other WP article, deleted references and sourced content, and segments or entire sections without a rational explanation ("c'mon be serious" kind of explanations). Much of these was vandalic behavior, that I could not undo without this mass reversal. I restored his valuable edits however, and I recently hid the extensive lists of names possibly subject to BLP policy, while tagging the most problematic section (Influence in culture) with a BLP concern tag. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is very clearly a proper reversion by IANVS, as a significant amount of things by those two IPs were vandalism. There were one or two good edits in there that might want to be reinstated, but it was for the large part just section blanking, reference removal, and the addition of non-neutral sentences. IANVS was right in reverting it to what it was before. What BLP problems are you speaking of, Andy? SilverserenC 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Silverseren - A content dispute is never vandalism.
    With regard to BLP issues, I'd draw everyones attention to the following (from Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality):
    General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations:
    ...
    Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.)
    ...
    Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)
    Note that even if the supposed 'ethnicity' is sourced, it arguably fails to meet the requirement to be "specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities". In any case, the article provides no valid justification for using the term 'White Argentinian' as an ethnic group: ethnicity is something one ascribes to oneself. Instead, it is using an external 'ethnic category' as a basis for inclusion or exclusion. This is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your concern on BLP policy is tangencial to this partial reversion (I restored everything that was not vandalic, hid the most problematic lists from the BLP perspective, and even added a BLP tag). We should be discusseing this in the article's talk page, Andy. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It should not be on the talk page, because the issue is not entirely the content but has progressed to your inability to recognize what 'vandalism' is. The edit was clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Not one part of it was vandalism, from looking at the diff at the beginning of the thread. Most of it was probably worth a reversion, but the labeling as vandalism to clearly out of line. Not a major major issue, but probably worth a note of apology on the ip's talkpage. -- ۩ Mask 08:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A point of information here: Once more, edits (not mine) as part of a contend dispute are being falsely labelled as 'vandalism' in edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since there seems to be quite the edit war here today, I've protected this article for three days. Hopefully, this will encourage some further discussion. Frankly, I'm seeing some bad edits, but nothing I would overtly call vandalism. If you see something you think fits taht criteria specifically, it would be helpful to call it. Kuru (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I insist, removal of sourced statements and references, relevant wikilinks, as well as entire sections without a proper WP:ES is vandalism, not legitimate edit warring. --IANVS (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unimportant how do we name the things going on. Whenever it was vandalism or a content dispute, the important thing is that it was not correct to remove whole pages in a single edit, or to remove them and expect to discuss over a done deed. The restore of the deleted content was correct, at least until consensus or mediation say otherwise. MBelgrano (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually quite important to label them correctly. Good faith edits that simply come out wrong are not vandalism; you are in a content dispute and labeling your opponent as a vandal does not help bring them into line with our editorial process, nor does it grant you an exemption from 3RR. The IP editor engaged on the talk page; I would strongly encourage you to resolve your dispute there instead of edit warring when the protection expires. Kuru (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    <facepalm>
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I'm rarely edit on wikipedia and just when I went ahead and actually did some work. I get a great response on my talk page that is quite an inflmmatory personal attack. The editor in question is supposedbly seasoned and but did not even want to discuss anything and just kept pushing unilateral POV's before responding to my attempt to talk to him with blaring attack. I don't even want to care about wikipedia anymore. The POV pushers are too much and the people are simply too mean and assume whatever they want. I don't know what posting here does but here's hoping that someone notices what kind of an editor Dr. Blofeld is and taken some action against him. Personal attack happened on my talk page. User_talk:Pal2002 More nationally-aimed personal attacks and false assumptions on this page. User_talk:Lerdthenerd No response on the article's talk page where I tried to start a dialogue. Pal2002 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The diff in question is here. TNXMan 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment I've already made to the three of you still applies. Blofeld, be politer to new users; Pal2002, don't act like you're the owner of an article and throw hissy-fits when someone else dares to change it. – iridescent 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    <edit conflict>Blofeld makes a clear threat of violence in that edit. "I'd knock your teeth out if you in this room right now" is completely unacceptable. Regardless of the circumstances, is the appropriate response really "be politer"? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tendentious civil POV pushing tends to bring the worst out of people. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but there might be more to the picture than what meets the eye here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certain that there is more than meets the eye (hence my caveat "regardless of the circumstances"), but a veteran editor threatening to knock another editor's teeth out is just...wow. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really care what else Blodfeld adds as long as he doesn't clutter the article with way too muchd detail or push his POV again and again as in the removal of the census table. You should read the article before I forced Blofeld to condense it. 70% of it WAS on random buildings. All whatever problem he's got with my point, it does not warrant his blaring personal attack. Pal2002 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No—neither you nor he gets to set conditions on what the article says. Since Blofeld has a long history in writing reasonable-quality articles on Asian cities, frankly I trust his judgement. – iridescent 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look. I know you really like this guy, but go back and look at the state of the article. If you think 70% of the article on New York City should be on its skyline and buildings. More power to you. Pal2002 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's hoping that someone notices what kind of an editor Dr. Blofeld is and taken some action against him. Amen to that. Without me there would be no WP:Tibet or without myself and Nvvchar you would not have the gift of good articles on Tibet like Sera Monastery, expansions to Norbulingka, articles on Lhasa Gonggar Airport and so on... NOt to mention articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, Kathmandu, Thimphu all of which are wee balanced and informative articles on Asian cities which I was gradually working on with Lhasa to get up to a similar status. I'm not sure what he is trying to achieve. Ban me so I can't improve Tibet articles? Not even going to waste me breath here. The article history of Lhasa and the original message on my ralk page explains my reaction. If not see my comments on the situation at User talk:SarekOfVulcan. I will say no more. Grill me if you like but the fact is this trouble maker removed the entirety of Architecture of Lhasa form the article without warranty and then had the cheek to talk to me as if I'm a lousy contributor see his original malicious message left on my talk page. Time waster. Most people who removed sourced content like that without even discussing it from Tibet articles are PRC pov pushers. CHeck the history of the Tibet article. I've alreayd apologised for being civil but I will only apologise to Pal2002 once he stops tring to make the situation worse and works in good faith to improve the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "I've alreayd apologised for being civil but I will only apologise to Pal2002 once he stops tring to make the situation worse". I'm sorry myself that I just cannot find any real apologies anywhere. I hear "it happens on wikipedia" and that you still think I'm a PRC POV pusher and a "time waster" and I think you probably want to punch my teeth out even more foor coming here if I read that statement right. Pal2002 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not going to get an apology just because you or someone else demands one. What is clear is that Blofield has appreciated that he overreacted, and he's not going to continue saying he wants to punch your teeth out because it is so frustrating to work with you. Notice how Blofield isn't demanding an apology; he simply wants you to cut this drama and work in good faith to improve the article. That you've repeatedly acted in a manner that seems to want to inflame matters rather than resolve them is a problem. If you genuinely want to resolve them, please take the advice you've been given below; back away from the carcass and move on. You are not accomplishing anything useful at this venue; anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course Dr. Blofeld again completely avoids to discuss why he personally attacked me or his POV's I keep trying to point out. I would also like to point out this isn't the 1st time Dr. Blofeld has commited personal attacks. His block log indicates that he's already been blocked twice for personal attacks. And yet he's here again making more of them. Pal2002 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Look dude. Maybe you are a very old man who has false teeth or none at all. Frankly my dear I don't give a damn. It was a figure of speech for "how dare you speak to me like that". No it is not civil or accpetable but neither is it for you to talk to me like that given what I've done for Tibet on wikipedia. If you genuinely want to improve the Lhasa and are not the usual People's Republic of China POV pusher we have on here trying to deny all existence of Tibetan heritage which I had initially (maybe wrongly) passed you off as given your peculiar edits which stripped the article of its heritage I would be happy to work with you. But coming here to get me blocked or banned?? makes it look as if you are intentionally causing trouble and are miffed because your edits were reverted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Its hard to piece together the timeline between snarky edit summaries and edits on various people's talkpages. Where in the timeline of edits did you tell him things looked 'terrible'? Is that before or after he got mad? Syrthiss (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks very much like a content dispute and the only thing I could think to add to Iridescent's reply would be consider taking in a third opinion or request for comment to resolve those disputes that can't be handled civilly on the talk page. Being a prolific contributor is not a reason to drop threats and insults on someone's talk page, and will just get you facing increasing blocks for incivility until you can't edit anymore. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    His message was: "Your detailed additions to the Lhasa city article are NOT improving the article. In fact, it turned an okay article into a mess where 70% of the article is dedicated to buildings. It is an article on the city in general and does not need history on every building in it or even a carpet factory. It is far better to create new articles and LINK those to the city article than adding all the clutter to the city article. An example of what a city article should read like is New York City. Oh and also, please do not add empty headings if you have nothing to say under it. It just looks terrible."

    The expand tags and "empty" sections were due to be expanded by myself in the next week and add content related to relgion in Lhasa, the mosque it has, sports, healthcare etc, content any article on a major city should have. I had only got around to adding alandmarks section which itself needed condensing when I had written the article but had to do now just to keep it half decent. Maybe I overeacted but his tone and edit summaries in the lhasa article really got to me and if you compare his editing history compared to mine. I happened to read several negative messages at the same time this morning and I lost it. I'm sorry but it happens occasionally when I log into wikipedia and encounter it first thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly what my timeline and contribution studies say, so IMO going off the rails isn't great...but when someone tells you your additions to the article were terrible, makes snarky edit summaries, and then on their talkpage essentially are taking credit for your work once they've moved it to a new article I'd say thats pretty justified. Syrthiss (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How did I take the credit? I even responded NOT to take credit for the new article. I'm sorry that I don't know what to put in edit sumamries but here you are saying that justifies him threatening to "knock my teeth out"? Pal2002 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You made a grand total of 9 edits in your entire history before you started throwing your weight around at Lhasa. I'd say Blofeld's reaction was mild. Give it a rest.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is more assuming. Personally I don't like to edit in my account because of situaions like this. I don't edit that much, but I have done enough IP edits to know my way around wikipedia. I would not have even found this place if I was THAT newb. Please, quote the entire thing and put it inside your talk page if you believe that was mild. (Personally I think judging editors on # of edits is very wrong but that's not the point here.) Pal2002 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially admitting to sockpuppetry is not your best course of action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Trace my IP for all you want. This is the ONLY account I have. I don't login all the time to edit. Show me the rule on wikipedia that you have to login to edit. Pal2002 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that you made enough IP edits to know your way around Wikipedia - could you link to the edits you are referring to? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fantastic idea! You first! (sarcasm) What would the point of that be? He's been warned, you've both been warned. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know why there's a debate over content here. Find me even a half-assed "sorry" and I would be more content. But all I got from Dr. Blofeld is even MORE insults and false assumptions on top of the original insult. Pal2002 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    On his talk page he was praised for his "tremendous efforts" at "writing" Architecture in Lhasa by a new page patroller, but the content was ironically what he removed from the article for being a horrible mess and for what he left do NOT messages at me for. And if you actually look at how much research and effort went into writing that information from book etc which John Hill and I have mostly writtwn in the article themselves it was a shock to have somebody with 9 edits editing the article and pseaking to me like that. I agree that the article need condensing in a manner I've now done but why couldn't you have discussed it civilly first? I'd have been happy to work with you on it and flesh out the terrible empty section which do need writing wither way. And I am fully aware that Lhasa is a prefecture level city, I've done years of work on this part of the world. But it covers over 30,000 square kilometres and for the very sake of articles being terribly bloated it is more feasiable to write about the urban centr eof lhasa and then about the wider prfecture. IN due course I will write a nice article for Lhasa Prefecture summarising the counties which I have mostly started and developed myself as well as landmark summarie slike Sera, Ganden Monastery etc which are not in the city itself. I hope eventually to have two GAs on it as Lhasa is probably one of the world cities I most adhere to. I would be extremely surpised if Pal2002 is not a sock puppet. No newbie throws their weight around life this surely...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, I immediately declined the praise if you will actually notice. I actually already toned down my statement to you, it is nothing close to what you retuend to me. And now, instead even offering a half-assed apology you will now go on to accuse me for being a sockpuppet. If you seriously believe that, have admins trace my IP and do whatever you want. But try and at elast stay on topic. Pal2002 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Genuinely I would be more overwhelmed if you weren't and were actually an editor who actually genuinely wanted to write a more much resourceful article on Lhasa with me. Such an occurence would be rare but I would welcome it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you had your explanations that you did here on my talk page instead of threatening me on my talk page, this would not have happened. Instead, you come here to insult and accuse me even more. Truthfully, I don't care if you get blocked or not, I just want a real answer and some "justice", whatever that means on wikipedia. You're a prolific editor and probably a great contributor to wikipedia and yet you always seem to resort to personal attacks. (as evidenced by your blocks) If you cared about the trouble, maybe you should tone down your own POV's and stop personally attacking people. Pal2002 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Justice on wikipedia? Mmm maybe you really are a newbie... The admins here (yes there are many of them I actually like and think are crucial to the project, several of them have commented on this post today) mostly do a great job in blocking out vandalism and stopping the truly bad editors but if we truly had justice on here hundreds of our best editors would not have left the project and at this moment would be heartily writing articles for us and pretend policeman (they know who they are) would be getting on with writing an encyclopedia instead of playing the rosy policeman with shiny badge and fake plastic handcuffs and persisting to send warnings to me over seomthing that happened ten hours ago and which I've apolgised for but the reaosn why I reacted is obvious.. I am sorry for my initial message in anger. I really don't know what more I can say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It might help if both of you looked into dispute resolution, cited as many reliable sources as possible, justified edits with referral to policies and guidelines, solicited input from the relevant wikiprojects and overall tried to find the positive aspects of each others' contributions rather than reverting and dropping insults. Dr. Blofeld, a high edit count doesn't mean you get to ignore policies and guidelines (including the ones like CIVIL, CONSENSUS and DR); your experience should make it easier to justify your edits and thus make your point. You could be educating a new editor rather than berating. Pal2002, Dr Blofeld has an impressive edit count, is in the top-10 of all contributors to wikipedia (see WP:WBE); he's someone worth listening to. You may want to scale back the WP:BOLD and present discuss your ideas and intentions on the talk page. I see only one edit to talk:Lhasa and zero references to any relevant policies or guidelines in your edit summaries. "Taste" is generally not considered actionable on wikipedia, you need to work within the existing framework of rules, suggestions and good faith. I'd be irritated too if someone with 1/4500th my edit count started reverting without referencing any of the organizing principles on the site (that would be the policies and guidelines again). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually WLU I have already taken the iniative to do so and have invited Pal2002 to help write an article on Lhasa civilly, the ball is in his court. Neither of us should have spoken to each other in that way but a half amicable query about the article on my talk page would have prompted a more than productive response. Not the best way to address a situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I'm here is for the personal attack, not a content dispute. (I agree that content disputes should ->article talk page) The major reason for my original conflict has been actually resolved since Blofeld made his sections more concise (although IMO just a bit more would be better). I stand by my initial criticism as harsh as it may have sounded. But Blofeld's attack was definitely unnecessary and provacative.

    ->WLU: I really don't buy the patronage system has any consequence on wikipedia. In fact, that kind of thinking goes against all that wikipedia stands for, a free encylopedia. Pal2002 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unnessecary? Yes, probably. Provocative? Er, I'd say that your message was the provocative one. Even the other editor told you to tone it down Pal2002. As for why we are still here and you are still trying to get me blocked when I've made a conscious effort to move this into the talk page for devleoping the article beats me. This is essentially a content dispute. Obliterate the entirety of my hard work from an article with snarky edit summaries in doing so and leave a DO NOT message on my talk page telling my how crap my work prompted a reaction. If you had approached the article and myself more amicably and in good faith we'd be discussing the Lhasa article way forward. Edit count means nothing to me when I reached 100 k is really became irrelevant to me. What matters to be is article content and developing wikipedia to fulfill its potential. I genrally do so with no reward and usually no thanks. Which I accept. But when people who have not created or written a single article on wikipedia,, not even a stub have the audacity which you did to say DO NOT write informative well sourced and researched content to articles like his it really becomes surreal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's put it this way. I was and still am ready to drop it. I've made my case and that is all. But you again come and inflame it some more. The reason why we're still here is because you're not dropping it and you still think you had every right to say what you said. Pal2002 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    Someone's now blocked Blofeld for this. As is fairly well known I'm definitely no fan of Blofeld, but that seems a ridiculous overreaction to a one-off incident of minor snappiness. Since he's now not in a position to ask for it, is there any consensus at all for reversing this? I'll get the ball rolling with a support unblock. – iridescent 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) So, what is this "preventing", Burpelson? And how come "assume good faith" only applies to the person who happens to agree with you? – iridescent 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't "you" both "ask" the "blocking admin" these "questions" instead of issuing impotent challenges to someone offering a harmless opinion? I'm sure he or she will be quite willing to unblock your special friend who no doubt is as pure as the driven snow. God forbid anyone should ever speak against the great untouchable Wikipedia Diva cadre. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 00:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny how "civility" only goes one way, isn't it? I'd recommend doing your basic background research before you offer half-baked opinions on issues you don't understand, by the way—the mutual animosity between Blofeld and myself is notorious (example). Just because I think he can be a pompous prick doesn't mean I think he warrants being hounded off the project by the Civility Police and a couple of wannabees. – iridescent 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we all please try and calm down, take a wikibreak for a day or 2 and come back relaxed, refreshed and free of bias on ALL parties. Thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny how I give not a fig what you "think", iridescent. Do you actually want him unblocked are are you more interested in grandstanding and posturing at AN/I? I'd recommend approaching those who are in a position to "do something" in this matter, such as the blocking admin, if the former is true. If the latter is true, I'd suggest getting a life. Clearly, anyone who disagrees with "certain people" here is either an "enemy of the people" or an ignorant half-wit. I really don't care if I get blocked for that, I'm sick of the arrogant posturing and condescending bullshit of the same 4 or 5 people, content or no content. Just block me already, for I've committed the grave sin of criticizing the Divas. I'm logging off until next Monday, enjoy your drama fest. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it does seem to be for mouthing off he did earlier in the day. At the same time, it was very loud mouthing off - and warning an admin [16] never goes down well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say browbeating anyone like that should warrant the same response. Lacking a good explanation of why Dr. Blofield should be allowed to attack another editor like that, I'd say a 48 hour block is more than fair. Resolute 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blofield has too many edits. I support his retirement, until the rest of us catch up with him, in terms of edit count.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an early unblock. this had all but died down, with an apology for the original outburst already made hours before, and the "browbeating" of SoV long over. He lost his cool, he had already recognized that, and things were winding down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As blocking admin, let me say that I had no clue this thread existed. The block was based on the threat of violence, and the abuse being levelled simply because he was validly warned. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block was imposed for comments (which ["browbeat Sarek") that occurred between 2 and 4 hours earlier. It appears that since that time, he had moved on from there (and this incident above - which he apologised for) onto article content building. That same "browbeaten" Sarek edited the same article minutes before the block. Later, Sandstein declines the unblock, and cites a comment which was already discussed to death above (and apologised for). Given that admins should know that blocks are not to be punitive, I fail to see what is being prevented here; what I do see is three administrators favouring form over substance which has possibly resulted in the loss of an asset - and all because Blofield admitted he started off a day badly with overreactions - which seem to have been apologised for and which the rest of the project seemed willing to move on from. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Response:

    I had already apologised for my initial outburst and actually invited this 2002 user to write the lhasa amicably with me. I had moved on to sweeter pastures when Sarek turned up 8 hours after it happened to rub my nose on it and point his moral finger. I responded to him and said surely he has something better to do and then to add further fuel to the fire his friend sheriff turned up also to tick me off. If you check the history of my talk page I was the one harrassed by them 3 times in total and sheriff even provoked me into answering his question on Sarek's talk page when again I had moved on and was writing an article. I gave him an honest reply that I think he should quit playing policeman and write articles and did it in a light hearted fashion which was intended to be humorous. I certainly did not say anything uncivil to them except that I said Sarek tdoes zilch to contribute to wikipedia but runs about on his high horse preaching at people. Again I had moved on writing an article when this block came about which was ridiculous givne that I had not only apologised to 2002 hours ago, even if I had every right to be angry with him. I had genuinely offered Sarek of Vulcan to constructively edit an article with me and was actually writing an article, not harassing people when I was blocked. I was led to Sarek's talk page provoked three times. The block was completely unwarranted and poorly timed. I even pout up a wiki break banner this morning to acknolwedge that I needed to cool off. I cooled off lunch time but later Sarek caused unnecessary conflict when he should just mind his own business. There really has to come a time and a place when adminstrators actually investigate "uncivility" and to find that in cases like this they are entirely provoked by other people. That doesn't make it right to threaten to "knock somebody's teeth out but if they actually investigated what happened as at ANI I was justified in being angry. As for me swearing I rarely if ever use very strong profanity considerably milder than the words that often appear on the main page and which I objected to last Sunday. I tend to call people assholes a lot because that is the way they are acting. Look it up in wiktionary for a definition. If you part in hard work to wikipedia and you have it obliterated and then an editors rants on at you about DO NOT write it, somebody you used to consider a friend tells you NOT TO CREATE ARTICLES and DUMP them and somebody places a deletion warning on a vlaid article and you receive thes emessages all at once first thing in the morning when you log in feeling rotten anyway and you try being sweet about it. No it is not acceptable to be uncivil but SERIOUSLY the blocking admins in cases like really do need to why a person flared upand that they have human feelings. If people stopped messing with me and worked with me to write articles absolutely nothing like this would ever occur. This should never happen again. Blocking me is the most pointless thing possible. Is it meant to teach me a lesson? Because nothing can stop me flaring up from time to time if I feel I've been badly treated. Its a natural humane reaction. 99% of the time I am more that civil to people and happen to be one of the most encouraging editors on wikipedia to content contributors and have a great dela of respect for them which I hope is reciprocated. Unfortunately we are surrounded by many negative people who do little to generate content and pretend to govern the site. I've invited Sarek of Vulcan to write n article with positively but is he interested, no, because he will only be negative about everything. We are better off without having these sort of people around. Look what he cuased here last night. Nothing but aggravation and blew it all out of proportion by making snide remars when the situation had alreayd been appeased. For heaven's sake I'm much better than all this. Stay out of my affairs and I'll remain civil, but people have to treat me with some respect otherwise the bad feelings will be returned. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Blofeld blocked

    Dr. Blofeld is one of our major contributors and sadly he was blocked and has quit Wikipedia can anyone look into this as I am unaware of this.Please he/she is one of the major contributors to Wikipedia with nearly 1/30 of the total content.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Read up. AD 00:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see Blofeld getting unblocked in under the 48 hours (or I guess coming back) with this almost holier-than-thou attitude. Blofeld needs to calm down, take a break, have a drink, a nap and then come back with fresh eyes on the whole thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^ Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to be a prude, but how long has this user been here and still does not know accounts cannot be "deleted"? –MuZemike 00:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They can't be deleted (well, they can, but we don't). They can, however, be 'vanished' if Arbcom decide they want some dirty laundry covered up, though. See anything in Rlevse's contribution history? – iridescent 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the semi-vanish: now at User:Vanished 6551232. Nifty. As for Blofeld, fairly typical. He got hot under his collar, snippy, and failed to kowtow. Users that damage content repeatedly but remain wpcivil carry on.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be as cool as a cucumber until somebody destroys content and acts out of line. When that happens you don't want to get on the side of me. If people did not destroy content and were constructive it would not be typical of me. Rather its typical of the beahviour of others who provoke me to act like that.. I'm a passionate person but that pasison also comes with a price that I can get particularly nasty if disturbed. Just saying.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Blofeld wants to play the WP:DIVA card, so be it. But looking at the history of Lhasa, I think the summary-style cleanup work was actually warranted (i.e. Pal2002's movement of content to Architecture in Lhasa), and Blofeld's abusive outburst at Pal2002 for doing that was excessive and wholly inappropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No it was not the history of the page that concerned me. It was the way this unexperienced editor left a nasy message on my talk page with a heated tone telling me NOT to write content. Of course Andrew you've never been angry in your lifetime and mouthed off at somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we all please try and calm down, take a wikibreak for a day or 2 and come back relaxed, refreshed and free of bias on ALL parties. Thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be best to take no action as regards deletes or whatever, at least until the 48 hours have passed. [No issue now] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A block seem highly appropriate for anyone, no matter how well established a contributor, who would say to another contributor here "I'd knock your teeth out if you in this room right now.". There is never any conceivable justification for this. If it's objected we're blocking a particularly skilled contributor, stopping this sort of language will help get us many more of them: one of the standard reasons experts give for not editing here is our propensity of this sort of thing. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the case DGG. I was not even officially blocked for "I'd knock your teeth out". I was blocked for apparent "harassement" of Sarek of Vulcan evne though I'd moved on at the time of blocking. The original outburst happened at least 8 hours previously to the block, if I had been blocked immediately afterwards in the morning for that it would have been more justified. At the time of blocking I had not only apologised for the initial outburst and had invited the person who slated me to write the Lhasa article together but I had requested Sarek of Vunclan stop being negative towards me and to write an article, one he had started which I was working on devleoping at the time of the block. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't we just unblock him, he got a tiny bit hot under the collar, I know the encyclopedia is mostly written and we don't need content contributors as much as in the past but he is not a danger to the wikipedia is he? Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please get a dose of reality swiftly. Ucucha 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why can't we all just let this matter drop? Clearly wikibreaks are needed to clear the sometimes heavy bias on BOTH sides. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 01:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ucucha, I don't need any reality, especially here. It would be better instead of your attacking comment towards me, if you actually said something about the actual issue. Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This has nothing to do with bias, or sides. Threats of violence , even rhetorical ones, require a block to make sure it does not continue. I might be willing to pass over something like this with a warning if it were a unique occurrence , but the editor has previous blocks for NPA. It's time we took this seriously. People who expect to be excused from the ordinary rules of behavior because of their quality as editors are a threat to the growth of the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really; there are usually already far too many people who think they have something useful to say on "issues" like this. However, "the encyclopedia is mostly written" is false, and I wouldn't want to let it stand uncorrected. Ucucha 01:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well its a lot more written than when Blofield got here. All the main articles are totally complete, updates and new creations of obscure subjects, is all there is left. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I thought that you were writing tongue-in-cheek, and I was about to say the same to Ucucha. But now I'm not so sure. If you're not, then please note that Ucucha is quite right. There's a pernicious idea that we're mostly done, now, that is exemplified by complete baloney such as Wikipedia:Concept limit. But we're really not. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Concept limit for clues. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok it seems he was joking in fact Yes, these comments ("I know the encyclopedia is mostly written and we don't need content contributors as much as in the past" and "All the main articles are totally complete, updates and new creations of obscure subjects, is all there is left" are the silliest and most ill-informed things I seen said on WP for a long time, but sadly I don't think he is joking. We still have areas with little or no coverage, and thousands of "main articles" that are stubs or starts. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering what he said wasn't an actual threat anyway (Tuberville v Savage), it might have fallen under WP:CIVIL, but IMO a warning should have been enough. If it wasn't, the action was arguably proportionate. However, I know full well that this encyclopedia is barely started, let alone finished. Ask me in 100 years time. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What this shows is we have a number of administrators on this website who look upon their roles as police officers working for the prosecution trying to secure as many convictions (via blocks) as possible. Gone are the days where we have janitors who will not look for lame excuses to impose (and keep) punitive blocks. I've already noted above why the contribution history shows that there was no threat of any further attacks or violence given that the entire incident was resolved via an apology in the thread above and that content building was happening. Yet, the block is still in place. The policy governing how admins should use their tools is obviously not working, and it seems we should limit the situations in which these tools can be used if admins are not going to show good judgement (first and foremost by fully familiarising themselves with the circumstances). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for actually examining what happened. I had not only apologised to 2002 and asked for him to constrctively move and discuss the Lhasa article and write it together but had actually alos asked Sarek genuinely to expand one of his articles which I thought he might be interested in. His friend sheriff also left a pointy message which meant I went back to his tlak page again. This editor asked me why my comments were constructive and I told him in what was intended to be light hearted humor that he should hang up his badge and write articles instead. I did not say one uncivil thing to them, except I said Sarek does zilch to generate content and runs around on his high horse judging folk. If I had been blocked yesterday morning immediately after my uncivil comments then it would have at least been jsutified which is why I put up a wiki break tag to acknolwedge i lost my temper and was backing away. I actually did that and cooled off lunch time but I had work to be getting on with with Uruguay. I did just that and had moved on when I had harassed by Sarek. If you had minded his own business it would never have happened, and if I had not been left with a nasty message over Lhasa, Albania and an unwarramted article wanring over a nunnery all at once I'd not have reacted now would I?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy requiring that an admin check on ANI and AN to see if a threat of violence was under discussion already. Such threats are taken seriously from first instance, and should be removed or stricken by someone if they're retracted and a situation is resolved. Any unretracted legal threat or threat of violence should and usually does trigger an admin block on discovery.
    There's a credible argument that someone should unblock now, but the block wasn't bad.
    This - like legal threats - is not a subject people should be joking around about. Comments that are perceived as abusive or threatening actively disrupt the community. The user it was directed at took it seriously and came here. That it was intended jokingly is an explanation, but not a defense.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an expectation that an admin will check an editor's contribution history before they do something - precisely to avoid doing something stupid. If an admin does not see red flags when an obviously established contributor engages in this conduct, and that the contributor has made several recent contributions to an ANI discussion titled "Personal attack", then there is a serious problem amongst the so-called basic model of adminning which we needs to be changed. The comments were obviously avoidable, but so was this block; and unless admins are going to look into things properly, I see no reason why we should let this sort of thing continue on what is becoming more of a pattern on ANI rather than a yearly incident. That we have potentially lost a solid contributor as a result of this incident is not something anyone should be proud of, least of all the admin who declined the unblock. The reasons for the unblock have not emerged from something that happened after the block; it's based on things that already happened before the block (and should have been looked into already). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a bad block. A blind block, oh is there a thread at ANI I didn't see that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you realize that that threats of violence are taken as seriously as legal threats? Joking or not you WILL be blocked for them! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will punch your lights out if you keep posting in capitals, is not really severe or serious is it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Its the same as "give him a slap". It is really not intended violentally, rather an expression of how angry I am with him. If I wanted to be violent I'd have said I'm going to cut off his head of with a machete or something, gouge out his eyes and play tennis with them and then run over it with a bulldozer. That would be violent. I'm not the only one overreacting here...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is serious. Whenever you make a threat of violence towards anyone they will see it as a serious threat regardless of your joking or not joking. Wikipedia also takes these as seriously regardless of the level of jokingness. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're suggesting is out of whack. Everything has a context and a set of circumstances; if admins are not ready to take the time to fully familiarise themselves with it, then even those provisions are going to need to be amended (either to force admins to do so or to reflect the unfortunate reality we have encountered today). What happened here does not become black and white just because a couple of sentences were read as threats of any kind. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my unblock decline, I believe that this block is correct. Conduct policies apply equally to all no matter how much good content they have contributed. Threats of violence, even if it is clear that they are unlikely to be realized, severly degrade the collegial and courteous atmosphere we should strive to maintain.  Sandstein  07:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus to unblock?

    I believe we have a rough consensus towards unblock, but have asked Bwilkins for input or comments, and would like to ask that any other yes/no opinions be focused and clarified here.

    As I stated above, I do not feel that the block was bad, but I do feel that the totality of circumstances argue for an early unblock (without delay other than procedural for consensus). I believe that there's no ongoing active threat to prevent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone should probably mention that YellowMonkey unblocked Dr. Blofeld about a half hour ago... --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, fwiw. StrPby (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And I was just composing an elaborate reason to unblock. Sanity has prevailed. I just vandalized his talk page. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See here for a review of this case Count Iblis (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    How is it that a dispute between 2 people over the skyline of a Tibetan city can turn so rapidly into a circular firing squad of 15 to 20 senior editors and administrators? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what happens with bad blocks; they piss the content providers off big time to the detriment of all, something the clueless trigger-happy civility police can't seem to grasp. "oh, look, someone's used a naughty word - let's block them!!! Yah!" --Michael C. Price talk 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's that intentional misrepresentation again. He threatened to knock someone's teeth out. Not a naughty word in there. Civility is not now, nor has ever been, about swear words. People who don't like it when their friends get blocked like to pretend that it is, even when the real reason for the block is something different. If people can threaten violence against others with impugnity, how long before the only people left are the threateners, as the good content editors who DON'T stoop to that level are driven away. Again, I want Blofeld to edit, but I also want Blofeld to not threaten to knock people's teeth out. It would be really nice if he could do both. --Jayron32 05:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not "intentional misrepresentation" since I was characterising a generic problem. And BTW civility is often about naughty words. It shouldn't be, of course. --Michael C. Price talk 11:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I woke up early because I could feel the hot breath of ANI in my sleep. A few comments:

    • before blocking I had no past experience that I can think of with DrB
    • the inappropriate altercation appeared to be in-progress when I issued the block - I saw no de-escalation on the go
    • I recognized that DrB is a large scale contributor - but nobody is above basic levels of behvaiour
    • we cannot choose to "not block" someone simply because of what they might or might not do (ie withdraw their services). This created a hierarchy that does not exist
    • In the end, although I "advertise" that I will do "tough blocks", this was not one of them. In fact, it was based on policy and behaviour, and was intended to prevent additional behaviour. The length was based on past history. Not blocking would have sent the wrong message to others in the project, as would an early unblocking.

    (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply:

    Nobody said it did. But i had alreayd apologised for my initial outburst and actually invited this 2002 user to write the lhasa amicably with me. I had moved on to sweeter pastures when Sarek turned up 8 hours after it happened to rub my nose on it and point his moral finger. I responded to him and said surely he has something better to do and then to add further fuel to the fire his friend sheriff turned up also to tick me off. If you check the history of my talk page I was the one harrassed by them 3 times in total and sheriff even provoked me into answering his question on Sarek's talk page when again I had moved on and was writing an article. I gave him an honest reply that I think he should quit playing policeman and write articles and did it in a light hearted fashion which was intended to be humorous. I certainly did not say anything uncivil to them except that I said Sarek tdoes zilch to contribute to wikipedia but runs about on his high horse preaching at people. Again I had moved on writing an article when this block came about which was ridiculous givne that I had not only apologised to 2002 hours ago, even if I had every right to be angry with him. I had genuinely offered Sarek of Vulcan to constructively edit an article with me and was actually writing an article, not harassing people when I was blocked. I was led to Sarek's talk page provoked three times. The block was completely unwarranted and poorly timed. I even pout up a wiki break banner this morning to acknolwedge that I needed to cool off. I cooled off lunch time but later Sarek caused unnecessary conflict when he should just mind his own business. There really has to come a time and a place when adminstrators actually investigate "uncivility" and to find that in cases like this they are entirely provoked by other people. That doesn't make it right to threaten to "knock somebody's teeth out but if they actually investigated what happened as at ANI I was justified in being angry. As for me swearing I rarely if ever use very strong profanity considerably milder than the words that often appear on the main page and which I objected to last Sunday. I tend to call people assholes a lot because that is the way they are acting. Look it up in wiktionary for a definition. If you part in hard work to wikipedia and you have it obliterated and then an editors rants on at you about DO NOT write it, somebody you used to consider a friend tells you NOT TO CREATE ARTICLES and DUMP them and somebody places a deletion warning on a vlaid article and you receive thes emessages all at once first thing in the morning when you log in feeling rotten anyway and you try being sweet about it. No it is not acceptable to be uncivil but SERIOUSLY the blocking admins in cases like really do need to why a person flared upand that they have human feelings. If people stopped messing with me and worked with me to write articles absolutely nothing like this would ever occur. This should never happen again. Blocking me is the most pointless thing possible. Is it meant to teach me a lesson? Because nothing can stop me flaring up from time to time if I feel I've been badly treated. Its a natural humane reaction. 99% of the time I am more that civil to people and happen to be one of the most encouraging editors on wikipedia to content contributors and have a great dela of respect for them which I hope is reciprocated. Unfortunately we are surrounded by many negative people who do little to generate content and pretend to govern the site. I've invited Sarek of Vulcan to write n article with positively but is he interested, no, because he will only be negative about everything. We are better off without having these sort of people around. Look what he cuased here last night. Nothing but aggravation and blew it all out of proportion by making snide remars when the situation had alreayd been appeased. For heaven's sake I'm much better than all this. Stay out of my affairs and I'll remain civil, but people have to treat me with some respect otherwise the bad feelings will be returned. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    support unblock, it is a sad day when an experienced user like Blofeld gets blocked, yeah his comment was harsh but the problem was solved when I told him to go on a wiki break, now some editors have dragged the topic back up and antagonised Blofeld to the point of blocking him, editors should have waited until blofeld had calmed down before coaxing him for an apology and a promise not to threaten users again. Now sadly one of our finest editors has retired--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    fantasticfiction.co.uk

    Resolved
     – No admin action needed at this time. –MuZemike 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be the wrong spot, so feel free to redirect me if appropriate (with a note on my talk page!)

    The website "fantasticfiction.co.uk" is apparently linked over 1600 times. Based on it's about us page it appears to be some sort of private website that lists information about books and authors, with links to sales sites. There's a spam report, and there may be more. It doesn't look like it's a reliable source, it doesn't fit as an EL 'cause it's not reliable and links to sales sites. Normally I'd just remove them as I found them, but there is a lot, which makes me suspect someone has been very diligent about adding them throughout the project. On project pages it comes up as well in AFD discussions, but doesn't seem to be a convincing source/website (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Lord, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rehak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Parker Hits The Small Time).

    So I guess my question is - should they be removed? If so, is there an easier way than 1600 manual edits? Is the site reliable? Is a blacklist appropriate? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2925 links according to LinkSearch. Rehevkor ✉ 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    yes its not a site that has any functional use on Wikipedia. Can we blacklist it and maybe get a bot to remove all the links? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who reads and owns a lot of SF and reads a lot of reviews, I agree that this site is basically a sales site and needs blacklisting. It needs to be proposed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there evidence of abuse or a concerted effort to spam this site? Or is it likely the result of good-faith additions? If good-faith, we usually default to using XLinkBot instead of blacklisting. --- Barek (talk) - 19:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked into perhaps 10 articles and found the contributor different in each case - sometimes editors with very low edit counts, sometimes experienced editors. Either there's a lot of sockpuppeting happening, or people simply use it as a generic source. I've only seen it used as a source for extremely basic plot, different versions of books, different books by one author or as an external link (i.e. little more than sales spam). When it is used for a source, it's usually for information that can be directly attributed to the book itself (ISBN, version, author, plot) and therefore not much use. Haven't seen it used as a review or impact reference, but given the site I don't know if they do reviews.
    In other words, it does look like good faith additions that are either unnecessary or inappropriate - and often both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've submitted a request at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#fantasticfiction.co.uk. --- Barek (talk) - 20:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the links and accounts I looked into, all seemed to be in good faith, but there's a lot of links to search through. Rehevkor ✉ 21:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good faith or not, if it is not a reliable source then it is not of use to us. If it is making money off the links while not acting as a reliable source then it is harmful to our project. I say clense with fire. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll chime in with Dougweiler as another heavy sf (and fantasy) reader; I'm convinced that these are good-faith adds, because fantasticfiction.co.uk tends to appear high up in Google results pages for less well-known sf/fantasy authors and books, so people looking for refs for a book or author are likely to stumble on it. I believe the site is run by sf/fantasy enthusiasts who make a living out of their main interest and hobby (the lucky so-and-sos) but all the same it is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used as such. I can imagine occasional cases where a link could be appropriate, and would not advocate blacklisting, but hold no strong opinions about that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to assume good faith too, but its worth mentioning that spamming wikipedia with external links is a good way to manipulate page rankings on Google. Though I am inclined to beleive a fair number are good faith. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Incident report: "The Indonesian Chef"

    This AN/I post is for information purposes only.

    It has been noted that a large number of articles are being created by a multiple-account, multiple-IP user, whom I shall christen The Indonesian Chef. These short, unwikified articles are written entirely in Romanised Indonesian. All of these articles appear to all be copyright violations of some kind, and are all articles describing Indonesian cuisine; they sometimes include recipes. The Indonesian Chef creates new, copyvio articles reclassifying content from Indonesian-language websites under what appear to be either unknown transliterations or colloquial terms.

    For example, the original content of an example article, Pangsit goreng sayur (before the redirect) was lifted from this Indonesian website -- the formatting text, which resulted in correct formatting on that source, was left in the Wikipedia incarnation. In other cases, it appears that specific words have been added to otherwise translatable text that is indeed a copyvio, such as the former Gempo article. To further complicate the issue, the source websites for the copyvio text have, in some cases, apparently been originally machine-translated from English into Indonesian, as the Google Translate output is eerily perfect. It is possible that the user is recreating deleted articles from the Indonesian Wikipedia.

    Accounts include Adena dwi ratnasari (talk · contribs), Yunirpas (talk · contribs), Venatrivena (talk · contribs), and many other sockpuppets; a complete list of sockpuppets is currently being compiled with CheckUser evidence by MuZemike (talk · contribs). This incident was first noted by Roleplayer (talk · contribs) at the village pump.

    The correct administrative action to take when encountering a page created by The Indonesian Chef is to speedy-delete the article and indefinitely block the creating account. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Simliar Behavior by Hahndyto (talk · contribs) with this G.A. Siwabessy article though not about food it is poorly translated see this Reversion here. Might be our Chef though not a food article. Also had numerous scans at commons deleted. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are ample crap Indonesian editors, it's hard to tell which is which. I would say that simply bad Engrish is insufficient to suggest it's the same person - the subject of ths report writes in Indonesian. We've got plenty of half-assed articles, e.g., [17] but I doubt they are all the same.Sumbuddi (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am currently looking at this right now. Due to the sheer size and scope of the socking, I have asked for 2nd opinions from some other CUs on this; please be patient. –MuZemike 23:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Purely pedantic, but Indonesian is always romanized. (Javanese uses a type of sanskrit, but a very different language).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Javanese also uses Arabic script in some context. --01:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soman (talk • contribs)
    Someone kindly translated this one: [18], the problem is that there is already sambal and I'm not sure this is notable enough to get an entry on that page, let alone its own separate page. Anyway as it's misspelled, and 'ketan' is simply glutinous rice, there doesn't seem any point in keeping it around. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue is much wider than the picking up by other editors the junk that has been created by one sock master (example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketan_sambel&action=history) - the soccer mad indonesian ips and editors are intent on copying over soccer team articles like:-
    as well as a mass of one liner BLP's SatuSuro 07:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know if this is related, but on 15 Nov 2010, I A#10 tagged this subsequently deleted article. Was an untranslated copy and paste from the Indonesian language Wikipedia Halloween article.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ad Base Systems, Inc. IP range blocked

    Resolved
     – IP rangeblocked, relevant material added to the spam blacklist. –MuZemike 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP range belonging to the internal network of Ad-Base Systems Inc., a call centre service and communications provider, for a period of 1 week. The CIDR range is 72.251.44.0/24. Roving anonymous editors in this range have persistently reinserted a telephone number in the External links section of Reverse 911 tendentiously, ten times since November 17th; see the article history. This appears to be either 1) an attempt to divert interested readers from a competitor's emergency telephone communications product to their own; or 2) self-promotion, if Ad-Base Systems is a contractor for EADS North America, the provider of the product. This range has also inserted similar telephone numbers in the Call 911 article, in a similarly-repeated way. IPs in the range have been blocked previously for varying durations by other administrators. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. We don't need that level of disruption at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just perm it? You know the IPs range is from an ad company. HalfShadow 05:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because IP ranges change from time to time, and someone may start editing properly from that range someday. --Jayron32 05:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the insertion of the phone number something that can be handled via the spam blacklist? Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The spam blacklist only handles external link additions. I've seen phone numbers occasionally pop up in #wikipedia-en-spam, so I've asked Beetstra whether XLinkBot can revert such additions. MER-C 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What's that bot that automatically reverts additions of certain strings of text? I always forget the name of it but that would probably work well in this case. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a rule to the linkwatcher so they now 'see' telephone numbers formatted like this, and have added this telephone number as a rule to XLinkBot. I am careful with this automated catching of telephone numbers, there are too many numbers which look like telephone numbers. Those with access to the revertlists can use the functionality also for telephone numbers, but please take care. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catalyzingevent is back

     Done

    Suggested Catalyzingevent's talk page for semi or full protection. HalfShadow 08:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest semi for the time being. Might a rangeblock also be in order? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Love the edit summaries: "Extreme abuse happened here, I’m not amused, do behave..." Doc talk 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can keep this up all night, and, admittedly, all he's doing is inflating my edit count, but could someone stuff a cork in the proper hole, please? HalfShadow 09:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, but likely not resolved in the longer run (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User FactStraight: edits to multiple talkpages

    Hello. This morning i noticed that user:FactStraight added a critique of the article Éléonore de Bourbon at Talk:Éléonore_de_Bourbon. I wondered why he would write such a rather general critique on that page, regardless of wether he was correct. One look at his talk page and then his contributions page showed that he has copy/pasted this critique on atleast 50 pages. Now, i have only checked a couple of these pages, but i noticed they all share one thing aside from being articles about nobles - they were all edited by the user user:LouisPhilippeCharles. Now, from user:FactStraight's talk page i could gather that he has had problems with user:LouisPhilippeCharles. Infact, theyve both been banned in a RR3 incident before, and theyve been arguing on multiple talk-pages. But the thing is, multiple times user:LouisPhilippeCharles merely copy-edited the articles in question; he added references, corrected links and added categories. And in my oppinion, the articles which he did substantially add too, he wrote good, interesting information, and he didnt add any trivial information. FactStraight claims these articles consist of "Speculation, Trivia, Redundancies and Extranae". It seems to me that FactStraight is actively stalking LouisPhilippeCharles. Any article touched by LouisPhilippeCharles seems to become automatically become "Speculation, Trivia, Redundancies and Extranae" in FactStraight's eyes. Omegastar (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that spamming the same message across that many articles constitutes a personal attack against the other editor, and have issued a final warning. If he has problems with another editor, this is not the way to go about resolving it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone with the relevant tools organise the appropriate mass-revert, please? David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they are all gone now. If he feels that strongly, he can start an RfCElen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I understand your concerns. I carefully avoided identifying any person who inserts trivia & redundancy. What the articles have in common is that they are bios of historical royalty, all of whom are on my watchlist because that is my primary area of editing interest (please check my contributions to verify): that interest is shared by several Wiki editors and you will find that many of them have edited the articles on whose talk page I posted. I did not state that each article currently contains trivia or redundancy (or I might have edited as much of it as I could). The reason I posted those warnings (if you check, I've been posting similar warnings on specific pages for 3 years back) is that the pattern is so consistent and so massively implemented that I wanted to give fair notice on articles on my watchlist that such content will be edited or reverted, and I wanted to give very clear, specific indicators as to what the objectionable content looks like and why it is objectionable. As for the allegation that the complainant here did not find any "trivial" content to which I had reason to object and that I am "stalking" despite having made repeated, protracted efforts to obtain reduction of trivia in royalty bios, please note the Third Opinion given following the discussion here in a case where I requested review (and my extensive efforts to resolve the matter on the talk page were rebuffed). In the past I've been told that before reverting, the editor should be informed exactly what it is that is objectionable so that they have an opportunity to avoid such edits or to work toward consensus language on the talk page before reverting becomes necessary. It is still my intent to provide that notice and clarity. I will gladly edit the notice to remove content that is "identifying", but I see nothing inappropriate about explaining the basis on which I edit articles on my watchlist. I trust this clarifies? FactStraight (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on your talkpage, start a request for comment on the user. If he's as bad as you say, it'll gather evidence for requesting a topic ban. Do not do anything like this again, it is not appropriate and will get you in trouble instead, which is not the outcome you are looking for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am bewildered by this harsh response. I do not and never have wanted a particular user blocked from editing royalty bios, as clearly indicated in the discussion on this issue here. My intent was and is to discourage inclusion of trivia and redundancy in such articles along with informative edits, which I value and do not think should be diminished or excluded. I hoped to do that by expressing as clearly and explicitly as I could on the articles on my watchlist what I consider to be trivia/redundancy and am therefore prone to edit or revert. When that information is available on a talk page, might it not help editors reach consensus rather than engaging in years of revert wars over countless articles? I don't understand what rule is violated by pro-actively, non-accusatively posting that kind of info on a talk page -- given that I have offered to edit it to your satisfaction? FactStraight (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look - you may not spam the same message onto the talkpage of fifty articles because you don't like the way another editor is editing. What part of this is so hard to understand. If you think an article has problems, you tag the article. you edit the article to correct it. If you have issues with another editor, you follow dispute resolution as repeatedly advised. You do not spam an edict about what you think is acceptable editing onto 50 talkpages.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yogesh Khandke and Three Admins

    Original poster:

    Admins:

    1. A group of administrators is threatening me with blocks. One has abused his administrative privileges by using administrative clout when the discussion got argumentative. In a discussion in which he was a participant I was warned for being tendentious[19], after [20] I had withdrawn from the discussion about a specific point. Later I took opinions on the concerned page then wrote that I had withdrawn from the article page, [21] After my withdrawl a final block warning for being tendentious was issued.[22]
    2. When I was warned for canvassing [23]- for writing to those whose views on the subject were known to me as favourable, inviting them to participate in a discussion, I was not aware that it was breaking the rules, and when it was brought to my notice I immediately stopped doing so.[24], to make amends I wrote to those editors whose views were known to me as unfavourable to make up for the earlier canvassing.[25] [26] After this I was issued a final warning for canvassing.[27]
    3. Earlier I was blocked without warning for 15 days.[28] After the warning expired I wrote on the blocking administrators' page asking hin to justify his action.[29] A month has passed but I have not received a reply.[30] Now this block is used against me to create some kind of criminal record.[31]
    4. An editor learns by the mistakes he makes. Some I corrected myself. I did not repeat mistakes. I have made ammends to the mistakes I have made. I appeal for action against the following administrators.

    The concerned administrators are user:YellowMonkey the administrator who made the first block without warning and without justification, user:RegentsPark who has mis-used his administrative privileges when the discussion got argumentative and user:SpacemanSpiff issuing a final block warning without reason. I do not know what comes first the chicken or the egg, so first I am issuing this ANI and then posting notice on the concerned administrator's pages. If I am breaking rules I will apologise and even face the necessary penalty, but if I am not then the three administrator's should be reined in. They carry their bias into their job and do not deserve to be administrators, unless they learn and improve.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone's welcome to take a look at the contribution history and the sequence of events. I don't think I need to say anymore, my warning was quite explicit and there should be no confusion on that.—SpacemanSpiff 14:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The contribution record is here as evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After I it was brought to my notice that I was votestacking (out of ignorance), my thanked user:SpacemanSpiff, for his notice. The wikirules are How to respond to inappropriate canvassing: The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Immediately on receipt of the notice, I stopped without arguments. Please see contributin history. Why then the block threat? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier I was wrongly accused of Forumshopping by user:RegentsPark, unprofessional behaviour unbecomming of an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A two week block for trolling as a first offense with a user who has run up several thousand edits without trouble seems ... stern.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was strange in that, there was no warning at all and Yellowman User:YellowMonkey never once posted to the blockees talkpage or left him a template or anything at all. A few days after the block he did appear to have emailed twice to the blockee but the user didn't see them for some time. Discussion of emails is here. No comment of the general editing of Yogesh but there is a fair bit of disruption in the wake of them. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean User:YellowMonkey, the former arbitrator and functionary, or somebody else? Jehochman Talk 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The email was posted after the block was enforced, not before. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, User:YellowMonkey, corrected, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3-tier diff and link series
    Yogesh Khandke, please avoid lengthening the thread. Please wait for the administrators you have accused of impropriety to respond. If would be helpful if you added some diffs to your above statements so the observers could know which specific warnings or comments you object to. The comments of Wehwalt and Off2riorob while possibly correct may be premature. We don't know if all the facts are on the table yet, so let's be patient until everybody involved has a chance to comment. The user is currently not blocked, so there is no urgency. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC), 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To say it is stern is hardly prejudging the outcome. Either way, we do need an explanation from YellowMonkey.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but let's not start the party without him. For the record, the OP has notified all the admins in his complaint. I reserve comment until YM has had a chance to share his thoughts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We may be waiting a while, given that YellowMonkey has yet to explain the controversial unblock (without consultation with the blocking admin) of Dr. Blofeld which occurred last night and about which several editors asked for an explanation on YellowMonkey's talk page. However, not everyone lives on wiki, we can afford to be patient.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are asking for an explanation for a block that occurred a month ago. That's a lifetime in wikitime and responding to this request may not be easy. Generally, and this is addressed to YK, it is better to bring up the matter when events are fresh. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean during the two weeks when he was blocked without a block template telling him how to appeal it?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean during the one month that has passed since his block expired. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    YM has served long as an admin and in other positions. I am not aware that YM suffers from lapses of memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither am I. I am also not aware what speculation about his lapses of memory has to do with this discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Then there should be no trouble about an explanation of the block, though it took place a while back.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have missed seeing my comment above (or perhaps you forgot) ([32]). Since the events happened more than a month ago, he may not remember the details. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are talking at cross purposes; my point was that YM is likely to remember and be able to explain to us--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure 'cross purposes' describes it accurately but this ain't going no where. So ok. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I should make a comment here. YK was soap boxing and engaging in tendentious editing here. I warned him about that. He showed up on my page with complaints about abusing admin privilege (here) and I explained that warnings are not an admin function. He didn't get that and continued to post on my page I (gently) let him know that he was now being tendentious on my talk page as well. He started an open move request at Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga and then went and started an RfC on the same topic (here). So I directed his attention to the policy on forum shopping here. He is clearly being tendentious on the talk pages of British Empire Talk:British Empire and on the move request Talk:Ganges#Move_Ganges_to_Ganga. My suggestion is that he heeds my well meant advice that he realize that it is better to withdraw from a discussion sooner rather than later (given here). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This user does appear to be rather tendentious - see previous ANI thread: [33]. He has been accused of trolling which I think is rather unfair, he is just a far-out Hindu nationalist.
    This [34] was the state of Talk:British Empire before he was blocked. He does not appear to have received any warning. See also [35].
    Any recent warnings of this user would seem appropriate given the user's editing style; what doesn't appear to have been appropriate is blocking him for two weeks with not a word of warning or even notifying him on his Talk, which was basically dead prior to his block. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SpacemanSpiff is known to me to be an over-zealous administrator, warning and banning editors without giving in-depth consideration to the matter. He repeatedly violates the basic foundational pillar of Wikipedia - WP:Civility and refuses to AGF.

    I have borne the brunt of his administrative actions when I was still a newbie here when he removed well-sourced content and contradicted himself in the edit summary. That showed that SpacemanSpiff either doesn't read edits/study the matter in its entirety before making use of his administrative privileges or lacks competence. This is a pattern, not just 1 or 2 incidents. He is doing damage to Wikipedia by refusing to AGF and by scaring away constructive contributors. I have asked him to step down as an admin in the past and urge him to do so again. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:RegentsPark has indulged in hounding me See his edits on a issue proposed by me, that is his first edit on the Ganges page in many thousands edits, and he has opposed my proposal.[36], such actions do not behove an administrator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that just in a cursory check of the most recent contributions from RegentsPark I found edits to Burmese and Indian topics, it is not at all unlikely that they would also be monitoring the Ganges article. Syrthiss (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check his contribution history, I did to as far back as September 2008, no contribution to Ganges.[37] [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

    Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting ridiculous (and potentially disruptive). I'm willing to respond to reasonable requests, but this is mere delusion. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that exhaustive list. That doesn't however invalidate what I said: RegentsPark has edited on many different India-related articles. It is not unlikely that Ganges would be on their watchlist. I have lots of things on my watchlist that I've never edited, that are even outside the topic areas that I've edited. However, please feel free to keep digging and assuming bad faith. Syrthiss (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to add that we are all humans and all have our failings, so administrators should also assume good faith, instead of calling names and terms like disruptive. If you can give user:RegentsPark who is an administrator the benefit of the doubt, even though he needs to be judged by a higher standard, why do you not understand the hurt of a common editor and how he feels threatened with blocks for flimsy reasons, and accusing him of digging as if he is some grave digger? Please be fair and bi-partisan.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    user:RegentsPark asks why I delayed in reporting user:YellowMonkey to ANI, that is because I wanted to avoid official action, but my previous block was brought up as some criminal record which forced my hand.[60] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I do not need the 'benefit of the doubt'. The move notification is posted on WT:IN as well as WT:AT. I would have to try very hard to miss it. You need to get a handle on yourself and think about changing the way you're approaching editing here. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No unsolicited personal comments or advice and stick to the issue at hand, (1)Administrators' haste in (mis?)using administrative privileges, and browbeating editors using them. (2)user:RegentsPark's sudden interest in Ganges, and editing against a proposal submitted by an editor to whom he had issued a block warning. (3)Why is user:RegentsPark speaking on behalf of user:YellowMonkey, he should keep out of any discussion but himself, he is not a third party here and such actions consists of hounding! (4)Action to be taken against such administrators. It is 12.32 am local time, I need to call it a day. Good night. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While I disagree with Yogesh on the move proposal he's making right now, I do agree something smells rotten about these three administrators actions. We've got truly and repeatedly warned disruptive users that pass through here who we can't get blocked for 15 minutes and they had a 2 week block with little to no warning? Yeah. I don't think so. YM's diffs seem clear, as do spaceman's. However I'd like to see some clear diffs on where Regentparks misused his power during a heated discussion. I see one linked warning, but that's hardly sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be missing something, but I can't see a problem with SacemanSpiff's warning [61] - it appears justified, as the editor does appear to have been editing tendentiously. Part of the problem seems to be that the editor is finding it difficult to distinguish between a warning and an administrative action, in spite of attempts by RegentsPark to explain: neither SpacemanSpiff nor RegentsPark have misused the administrative privileges, as claimed. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about YellowMonkey's block, but concerning recent activity, Yogesh's editing on the Ganges move request has been disruptive and tendentious. It was bad enough when he rebuked an editor for voicing an opinion, but when I saw he started going after editors on their own talk pages (here and here) I understood and supported SpacemanSpiff's warning. --JaGatalk 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, I have no idea as to what the underlying dispute is about but none of those three diffs you link to is in anyway problematic. Rebuking somebody for "voicing an opinion" - usually called "disagreeing with someone" - sometimes happens in the real world. The other two diffs are same thing; evidence that a disagreement exists nothing more. Calling it "going after editors", which implies an attack of some sort is itself a form of personal attack since it violates the part of WP:NPA which states that personal attacks can be Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, check out the discussion and decide for yourself about Yogesh's behavior. I thought he was coming on a bit strong... --JaGatalk 05:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether they tried to use their administrative powers or not, things have a greater weight when said by admins. That's a fact of life on Wikipedia and why people often bring things here. When random editor X warns someone that they might be blocked for action Y, the response, if they're not an admin, is many times not what we'd hope for. On the other hand if an admin repeats the warning it's taken with far greater importance. A final block warning after someone has disengaged seems inappropriate. More so when it comes from an admin.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuisance...

    Just a quick note, will someone please block this guy already :P. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, they seem to have paused for now (perhaps). I've asked them to stop the back-and-forth on Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; their edits there are obviously unhelpful. If they continue, I'll block if I'm here, or obviously anyone else can. I'm not too familiar with that subject area though, so I'm not sure if there is something else which applies (arbcom sanctions, maybe?) --Kateshortforbob talk 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, someone else blocked them. --Kateshortforbob talk 15:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, perils of logging on at work - I blocked the user then someone came in or the phone rang and I forgot to get back here. I blocked him 48hrs for edit warring - I don't know if any other sanctions apply, although I suspect they might. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't work out whether his edits were nationalist (seems to have a thing about croats) or just vandalistic. He could be in line for a Digwuren warning if the former --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not really "either-or" :). They're both. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – the Vulcan got 'um --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just saw this [63] "legal warning" on the Talk:Villains and Vigilantes page from AlabasterKnight. His talk page [64] pretty much establishes his conflict of interest, and his edits to the page [65] deal with the legal matter, and actually suggests anyone who disagrees start another Wikipedia page. I'm headed out for the afternoon, but would an admin mind taking a look at this? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:NLT they should be ordered to retract the threat or be indef blocked--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User warned of threat and notified of this thread --Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked and cleaned up. That was pretty un-ignorable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing a quote from a user page

    This is going nowhere and is rapidly descending into bickering and off-topic discussion. Any future complaints about Nableezy or other editors should go in a separate thread; potential ARBPIA violations should be dealt with at AE, not ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unresolved
     – Cptnono (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In this edit I removed a quote by Brewcrewer from Nableezy's user page. Nableezy has queried my action, but not reverted. Nableezy has been notified of WP:ARBPIA, but doesn't have any special restriction relating to civility etc. Was my action ok? PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's what Brewcrewer said and he's OK with Nableezy putting the quote on his userpage, I don;t see a problem with it. If not, then it could be seen as provocative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to see the generalizable principle that leads to the conclusion that it's appropriate to remove it. PhilKnight, could you please articulate it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my edit summary, I described it as uncollegial. Also, I suspect that Brewcrewer would find it as provocative. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If Brewercrewer finds it provocative to have his words quoted in that way, perhaps that suggests that he might do well to rethink his post on that talk page. The fact that Nableezy is quoting it can't be the only thing amiss here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    :::@PhilKnight, I am afraid you removing the quote from Nab's user page shows yet another time that you are not uninvolved administrator concerning I/A conflict area.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry it was a wrong post.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Mbz1, could you explain? PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Phil's action. WP:civility as the basis. Which, inter alia, says: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely". And that "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". This appears to be less than civil. What is needed in the I/P area is greater civility by editors, not efforts by editors to inflame, insult, or bait each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec w Ep) The edit, especially considering the edit summary, adds more ammunition to an already active battlefield. The rule is that we should always comment on content, not the contributor. The rule is there for a reason, and if editors cannot abide by it they should think about removing themselves from the contentious topic to somewhere they can focus on content. If an editor has problems with another editor, there are ways of dealing with that such as RFC/U. Posting such as this to their user page is not part of the dispute resolution process. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles section 4.1.2 - Decorum. The first line is clear. And the trolling line might also apply. There are two problems, though. Previous consensus has allowed Nableezy to do whatever he wants on his user page and another admin has mentioned that this sort of thing should be at AE instead of ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    While it is nice that so many familiar faces have made an appearance, I would like to ask a few simple questions. How is quoting a user and providing a diff for the quote uncivil or an attack or "ammunition to an already active battlefield"? The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area. I dont think there is anything wrong with including such a quote, I make no disparaging remark about the quote, I simply show what a user thinks, that the sources are "irrelevant". If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that accurately quoting a user and providing a diff for that quote is either "trolling" or "brings the project into disrepute" that user should be required to back up that claim with more than his imagination. Either that or strike the absurd line. I would like somebody to explain to me why what a user said on a talk page cannot be quoted on my userpage. With a reason with more substance than unsupported assertions that "civility" demands it. nableezy - 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, see the first line of the decision. It should be crystal clear. In regards to trolling, if you did it to make a point about the editor and to get under his skin then it might be considered trolling. Is it fostering courteous interaction with the user? Is it highlighting your constructive and collaborative outlook? No. It was a poor comment (assuming there is no other context) and it looks like you are attempting to showcase that and bring ridicule upon the other editor. But like I said, admins have allowed you to continue your behavior. I don't know why but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is accurately quoting a user either an attack or the recording of a perceived flaw? The flaw is with Wikipedia in that it allows editors who say that in a conflict on where a place is that what sources say that place is located is an "irrelevant straw man". How is accurately quoting a user and providing a diff of that quote a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC? And if it were, shouldnt MFD be used? nableezy - 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MfD is only for deleting entire pages. Under the circumstances, notably your repeated disagreements with Brewcrewer about I/P issues, the quote cannot be understood other than as an attempt by you to mock or disparage Brewcrewer. That is not allowed.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But Im not mocking brewcrewer, Im mocking Wikipedia. If you look at the talkpage I thank brewcrewer for his honesty on this subject. I dont have a problem with brewcrewer feeling this way or voicing this opinion. I do however have a problem with the administrators here who think it is a bigger problem that I quote a user saying the sources are irrelevant than the problem that there is a user who actually says the sources are irrelevant. nableezy - 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hadn't noticed the comment until I was notified of the discussion. In general I would not have a problem with being mocked over something silly that I said. But this "quote" of mine is being taken out of context. Anyone who reads the discussion in its entirety will see that I did not mean that in general "sourcing is irrelevant." I meant that for that particular discussion sourcing is irrelevant because the issue was which sourced content should be primary and which sourced content should be secondary. This much was explained to Nableezy at the talk page,[66] but s/he chose to ignore me and post the taken-out-of-context quote on his user page. These type of strawman arguments and incivility are par for the course in my interaction with Nableezy as seen at Talk:Rachel's Tomb#Location and Talk:Psagot#legality.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The context is provided by the diff. You cannot in good faith claim that the quote is taken out of context when the entire context is provided. These type of bad faith arguments are par for the course in my interaction with editors who disregard sources in favor of their own personal wishes. nableezy - 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But you can in good faith argue that "The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area" while the edit summary says "return brews finest hour" and it was posted 12 minutes after brewcrewer commented on an AE report concerning you, but almost two weeks after he actually made the comment you quoted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because what you write isnt entirely true, but that is to be expected from you. Brew made the edit on 21:39, 21 October 2010. I initially added it to my userpage 6 minutes later. I took it down and then put it back up in the edit you reference. nableezy - 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you put it back up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's absurd. brewcrewer basically admits that nableezy is right, that's it's in the West Bank, but that the location should still be decided on who controls the area and his idea of what readers are interested in. The sources against Rachel's Tomb as being in the West Bank include an Israeli High Court decision; even Israel disagrees with brewcrewer's proposed location. The quote sums up the only reasoning justifying the edit. It's in the context of the exact same argument used in every disputed bit of Israeli occupied territory, that we should say it's in Israel because Israel controls it. This cycle is repeated over and over and over in different articles by the same editors, wasting massive amounts of time. Maybe nableezy should have just reported brewcrewer for tendentious editing but it's a perfect crystallization of what goes on here (and looks even worse in context).Sol (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious brew was saying "the sources are not the issue" not "the sources are not important".
    Why did he put it back up when he did, right after brew did something he didn't like? Coincidence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont know, whys the sky the blue? nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Scattering of sunlight by particles in the atmosphere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame you can't be honest about why you did it. Do I really need to dig up the previous times you put stuff on your user page just to annoy other editors? You didn't used to be shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The placement is intentionally provocative. Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been handled with kid gloves despite a multitude of violations on WP:ARBPIA such as calling fellow editors "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" and assuming bad faith, ignoring factual data as it is presented to him :
    His style is to allege others are bad editors and his efforts are meant to counter them, which is a horrible starting point -- and leads to a horrible editor to work with. One that uses red herrings and ignores content and attempts at reasoning.
    With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You really want me to respond to this nonsense? You might not look so good if I do. nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "With respect", after all that?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual phraseology would be, "With all undue respect..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Even starting with an assumption of good faith, and ignoring that Nableezy has just been blocked elsewhere for incivility, I find it difficult to believe, after hearing about the history between the two, that Nableezy was doing anything other than engaging in uncivil mocking. And therefore find it unduly stretching credulity to believe his statements here that that was not his intent. But we need not go there, unless someone is seeking to have Nableezy sanctioned for incivility. All we need to do is let Nableezy understand how his edit is seen by the community.

    Understanding (now) the consensus view on the subject, of course he, as a non-disruptive editor who is most assuredly not seeking to mock another editor against core wp guidelines, will be quite happy that the offending language that he had posted has been removed. End of story.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhh no, there were a few uninvolved views here, and Ill pay attention to them, but for the most part this section has been dominated by users who havent done much in the past few days except for request that I be blocked. Ill just have to find a creative way to include this quote, a way that would not be "uncollegial". nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy, I would suggest that you respect consensus. You were blocked this week. You now indicate a lack of interest in respecting the views of those who supported you being blocked -- as though their opinions about your editing or disruption are not legitimate. You have it wrong. As you were blocked on the advice of those editors, it is precisely those editors who you should be heeding. WP:consensus does not suggest that Nableezy should only heed the views of those who agree with him, and not the views of those who the blocking admins agree with. If you are indeed intending to be non-disruptive, as you maintained, you will heed the view expressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In 3 years I have been blocked for 3 hours for civility. I understand why you are repeating this line, Ive seen you play this game before, you like to pretend that a somebody is a "problem user" with a "history of disruption". I dont see a consensus for anything here, and even if there were a drama board is not the place to determine the consensus on what may be placed on a userpage, MFD is. You can continue to comment here, but it wont affect anything I do. If uninvolved users have something to say I will certainly pay attention. Bye. nableezy - 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Nableezy. If we start using labels like "problem user" with a "history of disruption" for every editor who's only been blocked 6 times this year [67], we're setting unreasonably high standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ahh, but all my blocks are in my one block log. How many of your friends can say the same? nableezy - 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you have evidence of socking, you should retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nab -- as you know, you have an impressive number of blocks, and separately an impressive number of bans. Some of the editors who you don't want to listen to here are the ones who contributed to complaints about your behavior that led to your blocks and bans. Again, I would suggest that those are precisely the editors you should heed, rather than ignore, if your goal is to be a non-disruptive contributor to the Project, which of course I'm sure it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually appears that adding up all of your blocks results in a number greater than mine. Does that mean that as you have so many blocks your view is irrelevant? Color me confused, I thought you kept raising others history because you had a clean one. Back to the point, Ill pay attention to whatever uninvolved editors have to say. That doesnt include the editors who made a complaint about my supposedly incivility which resulted in a 3 hour block for me and a 48 hour block for the user who wrote the line that prompted my response. Funny how not one of you had any problem at all with what that user wrote. TBS funny. nableezy - 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    couldn't be maybe that the other user's block for PA was disputed by all but three out of about a dozen or so editors, whereas your comment was an undisputable PA; could it? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opinion - If we want to talk about quotes, I think his "All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions", said in regards to this AN/I filing, was spot on. If we strip out the noise from the above discussion, we're left with one legitimate opinion against the quotation usage (Sandstein). So how about this; all those involved in the topic area zip it, and let people with no horse in the race get a word in edgewise if they wish. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc -- I encourage you not to zip it. Let's AGF, and assume that even editors who have observed and supplied information relative to Nab's prior blocks are entitled to contribute to this discussion. It makes little sense to censor out of the discussion those editors who have made legitimate complaints regarding Nab, that have been supported by admin action. If fairness is our goal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it would seem the most logical conclusion would be that if brew doesn't mind the comment on nableezy's page, it's fine. that said, if brew feels the comment is being taken out of context in order to portray him in a negative light (which does appear to be the intention), it shouldn't be there. on another note, as per usual nableezy appears to be treading the civility line very carefully, being as condescending as possible without stepping over it (i.e. calling other users comments "nonsense" in this thread). WookieInHeat (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to propose we start a page somewhere called "I/P Bickering", thus allowing the rest of the wiki-verse to return to more productive things. This has already become the predicted forum for attacking favorite targets. Sol (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unarchived

    Nableezy has again brought attention to Brew's quote (out of context and consensus seems to be against him doing it like that) while also adding two quotes from me on his user page. They are also out of context.[68] Yes I said I was anti-Arab but then I clarified it when requested. Yes I said there should be white supremacists editing but made it clear that it is because articles related to them are skewed. He cut out those bits. If he is purposely pushing people's buttons he needs to be banned from the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The old thread, which you've unarchived, was focused around whether my removal of a diff from Nableezy's user page was ok. My understanding is there wasn't a consensus that I had made a mistake. Also, from my perspective Nableezy's user page was problematic as it named the editor quoted, and that is no longer the case. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread consensus then. S is it OK then? If so, I will edit my user page accordingly.Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I went ahead and removed the problematic material, and the discussion amongst uninvolved editors was finely balanced as to whether my actions were acceptable. In this context, and given this time around the content is less problematic, I don't intend to go ahead and remove the diffs. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I put on my user page "This user is an asshole." is it acceptable? I know how dumb that sounds but it is essentially what he did and I am not using his name.Cptnono (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    TLDR, but to me, the quote seems fine. It is not an attack against the editor who made it: they said it, why would they post an attack against themself? That is a ridiculous argument. So as per WP:USER, it comes within the boundary of what one can generally post one one's page. For instance, I have a diff of someone PROD-ing my talkpage because I am "extremely shameful" – it's just a bit of humour. Cope. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool. This can be marked as resolved. It looks like I can add "This user is an asshole." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)
    If you're replying to me, then I never said anything of the sort. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 19:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I was. You said that his user page was acceptable. Read the comment right above it. To be honest, it is not something I am not comfortable adding but it makes sense that it would be acceptable under the reasoning provided.Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said is that the quote referred to at the top of this thread is, in my view, acceptable. What I did not say is that rampant personal attacks are permissible. Perhaps you should read it over again. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But he is saying essentially the same thing. He is making me look like an asshole by taking the quotes out of context. I wouldn't mind looking like a different kind of asshole (a jerk instead of a racist) if the full conversation was there, of course. I just don't see the difference.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) He is quoting you. If you'd said that he was publicising the fact that you made yourself look like "an asshole" (your words, not mine) then I might have agreed with you. But if you wanted to avoid the appearance of "an asshole" then you shouldn't have made that quote. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 19:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But he didn't use the full quote which changes the meaning of the quote.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But he did link to the full quote which clarifies the situation (if you say so). ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a cop out. He is skewing the meaning of my quote and adding a small link that makes it say something different.Cptnono (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What size do you think the link should be in order to make it fair, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he should provide the full context clearly without the need to use a link. I stand behind what I said but I don;t stand behind he impression he is trying make.Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did you complain, just above, about the "small" dimensions of the link, if they are actually irrelevant? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is a small link. But even if I described it as a big link it doesn't change the scenario.Cptnono (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I assumed that your phrase, "...adding a small link that makes it say something different," was an objection to the size of the link. I think that's how a normal person would interpret it. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you weren't normal. But is the size of the link the only thing you wish to comment on or will you comment on the stated (and even clarified) concern? You ignored my primary reason and instead started playing a game with single word out of numerous comments.Cptnono (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. But I did it brilliantly. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 22:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User:Nableezy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HalfShadow 19:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nableezy's whole user page appears to be a soapbox and his wikilawyering in this thread is tedious. The quote removed from the user page was an out-of-context dig at another editor. We're usually pretty loose about userpage contents simply because most users aren't so tendentious. But at the end of the day, user pages are supposed to have encyclopedic purpose or they should not remain on the site. If Nableezy wants a soapbox for his political views, that's great, he can start a blog. WP is an encyclopedia and we're not here for that. Also, not that I'm any fan of huckster "street artists", the Banksy painting image on Nableezy's userpage is probably a copyvio.

      Nableezy's conduct (battleground editing, wikilawyering) seriously fails to adhere is in tension with the purpose of Wikipedia, possibly to the point of serious failure to adhere. As such, remedies under ARBPIA discretionary sanctions would seem to come into play. I haven't followed the soap opera enough to call for stiff sanctions right away, but a formal "thin ice" warning seems to be in order.

      In short, cut the crap. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that calling yourself Anti-Arab probably isn't going to get a very good reaction from Arabs or most people in general. Qualifying it with "Arab governments and the predominant religion over there have historically been problematic" isn't helping matters. There's precious little good will in the I/P edit battles as is and branding yourself as against a group of people tarnishes a hardworking editor. Sol (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was addressed to Cptnono not to me. I haven't looked into Cptnono's edits, which may also be problematic. In my view these long term edit battles shouldn't be allowed. If WP isn't capable of putting together a neutral article (as agreed by consensus) on a topic after a reasonable amount of time, it should boot the article to incubation and leave a protected redlink in article space until a neutral version is developed. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was, my bad :P My functional IQ plummets from its already modest heights by the end of the week. Sol (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have to agree with TreasuryTag. Seems innocuous, and he links to the full diff. Aren't there more important things to care about? -- ۩ Mask 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all very fascinating, but I have a question. Would an editor who publicly states that they are an antisemite, or "anti-Jew" to make the comparison clear, be allowed to edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? What if they said that Judaism has "historically been the problem" in the Middle East? nableezy - 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here? There's half a chance someone would give them a barnstar. IronDuke 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You think? Personally, I would hope a ban would fall on that editors head swiftly and without warning. nableezy - 01:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty disgusting that I haven't been quoted on Nableezy's userpage yet. Apparently I haven't said anything provocative enough. For the record, I hold exceedingly biased pro-Israeli and pro-Arab viewpoints. You can quote me on that, and put that in whatever context you want, provided you wikilink pro-Israeli to Bar Refaeli and wikilink pro-Arab to Rima Fakih. Scandalous!
    On a more topical note, if editors were to retract the quoted statements in question (by striking them out, for instance), would Nableezy then be required to remove them from their user page? ← George talk 01:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP

    Resolved

    Ip blocked for one month

    Is it possible to address the actions of this IP Address please. There edits are just purely disruptive as can be seen from their edits just for today here, here, here, here, here. Apart from the going against WP:IMOS these articles are all subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case. It just appears to me that ClueBots notices are having no effect. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 19:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Students with too much time on their hands. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I've blocked the IP account. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. One less to worry about. --Domer48'fenian' 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous harassing NYyankees51

    The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs) was was warned by two separate administrators (first warning and second warning) to stop harassing User talk:NYyankees51. Despite two warnings, as of today, the user is again harassing NYyankees51; such as, but not limited to, referring to NYyankees51's actions as sloppy and adding disparaging comments about the user on other talk pages. NYyankees51 is currently blocked, and an unblock request is currently being handled by arbitration. Would be nice if The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous left NYyankees51 alone, and let arbitration handle this. Can an administrator take a look, and see if any action is needed? Will notify user of this AN/I immediately after saving page. Akerans (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NY51 has a record of extreme mendacity, has vandalized his own talk page to hide an admins damning statement. I discovered the deception, affected its restoration, and documented that NY51's latest reason/lie for his redaction for the benefit of ArbCom and other editors who inexplicably believe NY51 has reformed, or was never in error and deserving of a block. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. What a mess that is. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with the block; I was far too subtle there earlier. Kuru (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thought I'd leave these two difs [69] [70] for ANI's perusal. The latter is a removal of the block notice from the talk page, which is not permitted. The former, while not a breach of conduct regulations in and of itself, is a good demonstration of The Artist's attitude. Seth Kellerman (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully they're indicative of an intention to turn over a new leaf, but, regardless, he can remove what he likes from his own talk page. The only exception is declined unblock requests and that's only while the relevant block is in effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm loth to say "censorship" but...

    I thought that my previous close was quite clear, obviously not, so - Stop It

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

    So I contributed my little bit of satire to WT:ACN. It was removed as "incorrect" – which led me to add a disclaimer which rendered it not only satire, but harmless satire.

    Now Iridescent (talk · contribs) has decided to twice delete it, the first time with a vaguely POINTy edit-summary.

    I can't find any clause of WP:TPO which permits the removal of jokes and/or banter, and while it may not be the most erudite of comments, it's not remotely disruptive, and I'd be interested to be told of any policy basis for its removal? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't have a God-given right to post irrelevant nonsense on ArbCom pages, and the fact that three independent editors removed it should be a hint enough for you to desist. Wikipedia is not, or at least does not aspire to be a bureaucracy; not every right action must be justified by written policy. To accuse any other party in this teacup storm of pointyness is showing either breathtaking lack of self-awareness or deliberate obtuseness. I suggest you take the advice in your signature and stop wasting everybody's time. Skomorokh 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opening sentence appears to imply that others do have a God-given right to delete any material they want, whether or not it is actually disruptive. But I'm sure that can't be what you mean? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It ain't worth fighting over. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes across as disrupting a serious request. That said, we tend to allow a little levity on talk pages, even of serious subjects, while trying to keep the article pages a little more straight-laced. If the announcement had been on the Noticeboard (why doesn't it belong there), I'd say the edit was quite misplaced. Tougher call on the talk page.--SPhilbrickT 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would absolutely agree with you if it were on the Noticeboard itself, but on "general participation" pages, the odd sarcastic remark is generally permissible, and practically never deleted. Even on ANI ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to know how Giaco's post[71] is any more worthy of staying on the talk page, especially as someone responded to it as if it were for real. TT's comment was obviously a joke. [Black Kite has informed me that some kind of ID, though not necessarily a passport, is indeed required. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]
    They also left one out: Regardless of skills, you have to run through a popularity gauntlet to be accepted.
    Meanwhile, if any users are unhappy with ArbCom in general, they could always volunteer to be part of that gauntlet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh. I completely stand by what I did and reserve the right to do the same sort of thing in the future. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Attempts to use Wikipedia as a collaboration on Yu-Gi-Oh!

    This user created the "article" Yugioh Deck as an attempt to establish a collaboration site for fans of Yu-Gi-Oh! ([72]). I prodded it ([73]), which he removed ([74]), then I tagged it for A3 ([75]), which he also removed once ([76]) before adding a {{hangon}} tag ([77]). He then asked me a question on my talk page ([78]); I responded that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for collaboration on any subject not related to building the encyclopedia, and I even pointed him to Comparison of wiki farms and WP:OUTLET ([79]). He still has not gotten the message, and created the similarly-named Yugioh Decks (since deleted) in an attempt to evade the deletion tag. I request that this user be blocked for disruption/abuse of editing privileges, and Yugioh Deck and any other article he created related to this subject be deleted immediately. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the one who CSDed the Yugioh Decks article, and first saw KardGame on the Yugioh talk page advertising the article.--intelatitalk 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see his (or her) plea for help --intelatitalk 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like probably a very, very young user who really does just want to chat about his favourite card game and likely wouldn't have the patience to set up a new wiki all on their own (nor should they, as there's already a Wikia for it). Their contributions are in good faith, just misplaced. They should instead be incouraged to find a Yu-Gi-Oh forum where they can talk about their deck all they want. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosnian War Introduction

    There is a discussion on the Talk:Bosnian War on how to improve the introduction on the Bosnian War article. Myself and other users are experiencing frustration with a certain user by the name of Alan.Ford.Jn which I think has a clear POV and a irrational behavior and even though lengthy discussions and tries to rationalize with him, he continues to revert and disrupt even though he clearly has no consensus nor support. It would be useful if an admin could perhaps help to clear things up. --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure your response to Alan.Ford.Jn's first post is particularly AGF-y but then again I'm sure you have a lot more experience with these editors (this editor?) than I do. If you still think this is a sock the place to report that is WP:SPI. Otherwise, this is a content dispute and you're gonna have to hash it out on the talk page. You might include a general overview of the race relations perspective since as I recall ethnicity was one of the triggers of that conflict. N419BH 23:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuisance #2

    Checkuser finds accounts to be unrelated. behavioral discussion should continue above. N419BH 04:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone just block this guy as well. He's User:Historičar's Unbelievably Obvious Sock No.324. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved this here since it's a duplicate. No comment on the editor in question. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This was checkusered and found Red X Unrelated to Historicar ( [80] ). If there's strong behavioral evidence it can be presented, but the CU opinion carries a lot of weight... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reasoning seems a bit tenuous; the primary account (and the socks) is interested in the language, the other account seems interested in the war. Other than them both being Bosnian based, there seems to be no real overlap. HalfShadow 04:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User that does not seem to want to edit by Wikipedia rules.

    Resolved
     – Both indef'd by GWH. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rizzoli Isles (talk · contribs), formerly Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs) (both accounts still active) is once again putting up non-free images, and immediately replacing them if removed (latest example Katee Sackhoff), changing cast table formats after being asked to discuss first in talk pages, making uncited edits or citing from blogs, refusing to use edit summaries, creating character pages for actors not confirmed to be added to show casts other than from blogs, gossip or fan sites then edit warring when they are reverted and just too many other Wikipedia rule violations to list. This editor has repeatedly been counseled by more experienced editors, admins and even threatened with being blocked - but these actions only result in a short term improvement. I have requested help and advice before from more experienced editors and admins, who have recommended I bring it here. I have tried to write this off to the editors age (self admittedly mid-teens) and that he lives outside the US, but he has no trouble with the language - the problem seems to be attitude and refusal to accept there are rules that must be followed. Can ANI please investigate this and take some kind of action? Thank you very much for your time. Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reviewed - Per the history over the span of the two accounts, and the prior ANI discussion here I have indefinitely blocked the user.
    They may be able to come around to editing productively at some future point. If they agree to abide by Wikipedia policies and can convince any administrator that they understand those policies, any admin may unblock at their discretion without prior consultation with me, though I would appreciate a notification afterwards. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP anon going around changing "Burma" to "Myanmar" despite being told not to

    Resolved
     – Sock? block rinse repeat. Policy on naming within Wikipedia clarified. Nothing further to do here. N419BH 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    112.205.7.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    See also: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Issue: Myanmar v. Burma

    We have this anon, 112.205.7.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), going around changing all mentions of "Burma" to "Myanmar", claiming "Wikipedia is not a sockpuppet for human rights activists". This is a perennial issue, for which there is no consensus to use "Myanmar" over "Burma", i.e. the status quo should be used.

    A quick check of the contributions history shows some POV pushing and interesting vandalism, including changing the image of UN HQ in New York to one of the Nazi Parliament in 1939.

    He's been told, both in edit summaries and at User talk:Jimbo Wales (which he's clearly reading often), that he has no consensus for the changes, but he's still doing them. He's also at three reverts on Burma, so I'm about to warn him against 3RR, but we could do with some admin eyes on this. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, that was fast, blocked by Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) before I even posted this here. Either way, just an FYI. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually considering a longer block as the IP reminded me of banned user 23prootie (talk · contribs). The IP geolocates to the Philippines specifically the Manila area which is one of 23prootie's location. The IP was edit warring and 23prootie is an edit warrior. I have further suspicions because 23prootie has the same stance on the naming convention for Burma/Myanmar. For those who may not be aware, there is a discussion at Commons. The reason I didn't block this IP longer was that it geolocated to Manila (23prootie uses many open proxies to try and conceal their location), the IP didn't seem like an open proxy and is in a different location (Greater San Francisco) from the IP that I have concluded they were editing extensively after several sockpuppets. It is common for Filipinos though to obtain tourist visas to the U.S. and it could be he/she returned to the Philippines. If anybody sees this as an IP sock, please feel free to block longer. Elockid (Talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For my own and other interested editor's information, why does Wikipedia continue to use Burma when the country's official name is Myanmar? Can someone link to the appropriate discussion? N419BH 03:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The change was done by the current de-facto military government. A wide range of groups and individuals (and not a few countries) didn't accept the change as valid or legitimate (and many don't consider the current military government legitimate).
    Which is correct depends on quite a number of geopolitical factors which have no single right answer.
    Wikipedia isn't here to declare one side right. There's widespread disagreement; asserting one is correct is not our place. We have to have some name for articles, but forcing a single uniform standard for them would be taking sides in the dispute. Our default under these sorts of circumstances is to cross-link and assert that the first name used in a given context is appropriate for that context, and not change them.
    This is somewhat frustrating and confusing; but it's equally frustrating and confusing to everyone, and it's not judgemental as to who's right in the real world. It maintains Wikipedia's neutrality.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Assumed it had something to do with the Junta, hence Suu Ki still referring to the nation as Burma. Thank you for the clarification. Marking thread resolved. N419BH 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FAIL

    Resolved
     – User directed to WP:VPM N419BH 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I honestly am not sure where to go with this. It's probably not here, but hopefuly someone can quickly point me in the right direction. Recently, I was commenting on an AFD that was so blatantly unencyclodepic that I chose, in humor, to write WP:FAIL as my reason for deletion. I was surprised that WP:FAIL was actually an active link that directed me to two essays that seemed to be at odds were with each other. One seemed to indicate that failure, in general, was an inherint part of Wikipedia, and it was OK to learn from your mistakes. The other essay was about how Wikipedia, as a concept, has failed. This doesn't seem right. I don't want to delete, or even disagree with either essay...I just think that to very unrelated views shouldn't link to the same "short cut." Thanks, The Eskimo (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more appropriate to WP:VPM. The admins have nothing they can do about this issue, so it should probably be moved to the Village Pump. --Jayron32 03:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken your suggestion thanks. Hopefully resolved, at least for this thread :) The Eskimo (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Spartan

    Hi I realize people probably don't know about this case since it was kind of a quick decision, but I was told to come here. My account (User:Spartan) had some trolls on it earlier in the year and by the next time I logged in it was "indefinitely" blocked. The admin in this case was Ryan_Postlewaite, who I am told is trusted, which is good. I sent an e-mail and multiple inquiries to him and several other admins but they seem to have stopped editing during the summer. I talked to another and she sent me here. I'm going to edit regardless it's just a matter of having my editing privleges back on my old account, which is not compromised. Is there anything that can be done? 96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

    Just as an add-on, I'd just like to say that all I want to do is resurrect the dead account. I created several new pages on the account in the past and I want to get back to doing that. Thanks...96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried emailing WP:ARBCOM? They usually handle requests of this nature, specifically the ban appeals subcommittee. --Jayron32 06:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll try that, thanks. 96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=397820496"