Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Personal attack by User:Camelbinky

This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [1]

"...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [2]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [3]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I add here that I consider Camelbinky's repeated comparisons between Noleander and myself to be further evidence of his/her 'guilt by (imagined) association' tactics - totally unsupported by evidence, as usual. See for example here [4] (where incidentally, I note that Camelbinky has never retracted an entirely unsupported allegation of antisemitism on my part), or here [5] where Camelbinky also makes insinuations about other contributors - commenting on the Noleander ArbCom case he/she notes that "Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why". So much for WP:AGF there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cb's gratuitous misuse of apostrophes is certainly an abuse of English grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have much time today to deal with this and find the particular diff on Andy's latest Busstop insult, but more information on it can be found at the WQA that he himself brought against Busstop, where incidentially they decided Andy had no case or legitimate complaint. And yes I have compared him to Noleander and I will because no one listened to me the multiple times I complained about what Noleander was doing, and in the end I was right and it took ArbCom to do it. Why do we allow those that are anti-whoever complains, to come to AN/I and trash the complainer? (something that wasnt allowed at ArbCom's Noleander case) Unscitilating is still upset that I called him/her out for intentionally removing a wikiproject's banner and then after I am the one that reverted and brought it back, Unsc removed it again and replaced it with a generic look alike then claimed to have put the original banner back on his own "out of good faith since people complained", and then WhatAmIdoing called him out on the fact that it wasnt the correct banner and he changed it. I pointed out to everyone what Unsc did since he/she was claiming to have done something that is not what he/she did. Sorry I have to defend myself on such a thing, back to Andy. As for Andy claiming that calling him a conservative is an insult–isn't that in itself an insult on our conservative and Conservative users, to claim being called one is an insult? Perhaps because I have a degree in political science I know the difference between Conservative and conservative in a way I did not realize Andy did not. Small-c conservative does not mean anything about the political party. In regards to editing Wikipedia it refer's to the literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the viewpoint of believing they must be applied strictly as they are written. Due to Andy's comments at multiple places in my opinion he IS a Wikipedia conservative. As for his Jewish/racial editing, he does in fact go around trying to make Wikipedia color blind, what is his motive? I dont know, but color blind editing is not always the work of those who have the best interests of minorities in mind, Andy needs to realize that if he wants to concentrate so strongly and forcefully on such editing and continue to tell Jewish editors they are wrong about their religion and continue in discussions with them confusing the difference of the religion from the culture and ethnic group (and in at least one case say there was no Jewish ethnic group); then yes, minority editors will not only get offended but will consider Andy's motives to be the same as Noleander's to not let Jews or minorities to be mentioned in Wikipedia in any way. If your end goal is the same as someone who gets a topic ban, even if your motives may be different, others from past experience may not realize your motives are different. Especially if you are rude, "grumpy" (they are quotations, not apostrophes btw), and insulting. I would be willing to back off if Andy apologizes (even though he did already last week and supposedly learned his lesson, but already unlearned it) and agrees that if he insults again he will not fight against a 3 day block, and Andy agrees to lay off Jewish/racial editing. I'm willing to compromise on the last part, but not on the part where if he insults again there are not SEVERE consequences. All he's learning from this is "I can insult and be grumpy and rude all I want, because whoever complains about me has skeletons in their own closet. I can just turn it on them".Camelbinky (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So once again I am subject to be subject to insinuations of antisemitism, entirely unsupported by evidence. Camelbinky, either provide such evidence, or retract your malicious and unjustified attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: would just like to say that I find the above diatribe against Andy to be unjustified, this debate is raging all over the place with a lot of the usual suspects continually reiterating positions that fall foul of WP:BLPCAT, in the discussions I have seen so far Andy is just trying to point out what BLPCAT says, as can be seen here at the BLPN. Okay so sometimes he's rude and probably oversteps WP:CIVIL but then again, having to deal with the same editors over and over, who jump all over the place and start the same conversations on AN/I, BLPN and numerous TPs, and who ignore all attempts to reason with them about WP's take on ethnicity and religion and it's inclusion as relevant or not to someone's BLP is debilitating. Oh, and also, trying to defend one's interpretations of WP guidelines/policies and avoiding WP becoming an ethnic database, only to be called racist, conservative or anti-semite is rather a kick in the teeth, methinks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It is true that there is a certain blurring of the difference, though I am sure it is only in a minority of cases? I tried to differentiate between ethnic and religious on an atheist persons article and I received a veiled accusation of anti-semitism "I even checked your recent edits to see if you were an anti-semite".

I wanted the sentence to read "ethnic Jew" rather than "non-observant Jew" as non-observant is a religious reference, akin to non-practising Catholic/Protestant. In fact, as Catholics and Protestants do not see themselves as an ethnicity per se it would not even arise as a problem.

It is distasteful that these sort of accusations go on around an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with saying someone is of Jewish, or Chinese or Martian descent, but this refusal to allow non-Jewish editors to clarify between ethnicity and religion has, on occasion, been taken a little too far. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to avoid bringing in the broader questions into this debate. Unless it was Camelbinky who made that particular comment (and I've no reason to assume it was), it isn't really an issue for this AN/I discussion. What is an issue is that Camelbinky persists in making insinuations about the motivations of those that disagree with him/her, and then not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'll not deny that on occasion I've let my temper get the better of me, but I think most people can tell the difference between a short-term lack of judgement/civility and a persistent pattern of unsubstantiated weasel-worded insinuations. Camelbinky basically needs to understand that (a) Wikipedia has, by necessity to use words like 'religion', 'ethnicity' etc in their general sense, even if this isn't in accord with his/her understanding of how his/her ethnic/religious/cultural group would like them used, and (b) that disagreeing with someone who happens to be Jewish, even over issues concerning the usage of such terms in relation to 'Jewish' issues, doesn't necessarily constitute antisemitism. If an argument is valid, its validity doesn't depend on who is doing the arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with Camelbinky, Camelbinky's participation in the encyclopedia goes beyond incivility to disruption.  (Please see comments at here in the section "Essay wikiproject" for a diff reference that includes personal attacks against me by Camelbinky.)  (1) I see that Camelbinky reverted me once, but I am not aware of any other preceding interactions between myself and Camelbinky.  (2) Camelbinky asserts that the trigger for his/her subsequent comments are the words "not an essay" in an edit comment (ref).  (3) Camelbinky asserts that he/she lacks choice, "No choice but to bring it up" (ref).  (4) An example of the sphere of Camelbinky's influence are the associated comments at WT:5 of another editor on the contributor, not the content:  one diff.  (5) When two other editors intervened at WT:5, I do not feel that Camelbinky responded as a constructive member of the community.  Replies to one editor: "is simply a jerky jackass comment", "caustic unhelpful comments", "topic banned".  Replies to another editor: "you obviously havent been following", "I'm surprised you didnt know", "Apparently you", "I dont have to answer to you".  (6) dmcq writes at WT:5 about Camelbinky, and IMO constructively, "even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia.  (7) The discussion at WT:5 has been shut down, which I believe to be evidence of disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating is not saying that User:WhatamIdoing is under my "influence" and I some how control that user's comments... In fact of matter my views on the 5P and most other broad ideas regarding how policy should be implemented were formed over the many years of learning from users such as WhatamIdoing and Blueboar and other long time users who knew more than me when I started as an IP over 5 years ago and went on to make this name 4 years ago. So I highly doubt that WhatamIdoing says ANYTHING because of MY influence, as What is more highly regarded and has a better known reputation than I. I find Unscintillating's insult towards What and myself disruptive. The discussion Unsc speaks of fizzled because as I pointed out and can be seen from the history of the talk page that my description of what happened is factual. Unsc got caught by What and I doing something, once it was fixed the discussion did not need to go further and there was no "shut down" of it, there was simply nothing else to discuss. It was not about the status of the 5P as an essay, if it was it wouldnt have even lasted that long because that is a perennial discussion that has been found a compromise consensus of basically "it's not anything at all" as codified in the "FAQ" section header. Unsc is new, but did bring up that question prior to his removal of the tag and was informed by What, me, Dmcq, and many others regarding why the 5P is not labeled as policy and is not. I am sorry if newbies have to question everything because they werent a party to the earlier discussions, but that's what archives and asking older editors come in to play. Yes, deference to your elders would do some good. I learned from What, Daniel Case, Blueboar, Kim Bruning, and many others alot. I never claimed to know the Truth better than they just because I can read the literal word of a policy. Andy in particular in his disruptive grumpiness makes "proclamations" regarding what MUST be done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since when has 'reputation' been relevant in Wikipedia discussions? What happened to 'comment on the edit, not the editor'? So no, I'm not going to start showing "deference to [my] elders" if their argument comes down to "I've been here longer than you, so I'm right". I note too that Camelbinky's voluminous screed (on a debate I wasn't part of, I'm glad to say) is long on assertions, and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious! "comment on the edit, not the editor" and yet all you and Unsc have done here is comment on me and insult me "is long on assertions and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there." Insult me some more. You'll end up here EACH TIME you insult ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Keep trying to attack me. I dont have to provide "evidence" it is clear what you do, you smear and take diffs out of context. I provide background of what you are doing, if someone wants diffs they can look them up themselves. Stay away from any of my comments or activities PLEASE, a voluntary ban on contact is best I agree with those above who recommended that. So I'll be looking forward to NOT seeing you at places. Back away thanks. Any interaction on commenting on where I comment and in particular ON my comment or ON me I will consider an intentional wiki-stalking and harrassment. Best to just not come around me. Thank you in advance, and Ill give you AGF that you'll not be around me.Camelbinky (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have to provide "evidence": Yes you do. Except you don't, because there isn't any. Regarding 'Wikistalking', I'll point out that it was you who seem to have the stalking agenda. You didn't have to go crying to Jimbo when I didn't get blocked for swearing, you didn't have to comment in the Wikquette alerts thread, and you didn't need to bring up your usual nonsense about Noleander and ArbCom. But you did. You even seem to bring me into debates where I've had no involvement at all: "You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere)" [6]. I've never edited either the Five Pillars article, nor contributed to the talk page discussion. [7],[8] It will be rather difficult to avoid 'interacting' with you if this involves not playing an entirely imaginary part in debates. Since you have provided no evidence whatsoever to justify anything you have said or done, I am going to carry on taking part in whatever discussions I choose, with the intention of seeing that Wikipedia policy is respected, and that those who wish to transform Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database against policy are prevented from doing so. I will clearly have to learn to control my temper, and be more civil on occasion, but otherwise, I see no reason to change my behaviour. If you insist on butting into a discussion on the appropriateness of a 'religion' field in infoboxes with a statement that starts off "Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.." (so what has it got to do with the 'religion' field in the infobox then?), and then launch into a long personal attack on me, based on nothing other than your fevered imagination, you can expect me to 'interact' - here. Any more snide insinuations of racism, or off-topic garbage about Noleander and ArbCom, again entirely unsupported by evidence, will no doubt be treated with the contempt they deserve, so I'd suggest you think before you give vent again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Policies are respected you say? Oh, ok so next time you quote a policy in which I personally helped shape I'll remember to let you know, with diffs!, what exactly we meant and why you are interpreting it wrongly by taking it by the literal word. That is your problem, you come here with no information other than quoting policies. Respecting policy means knowing how it is USED, not what it SAYS. You cant proclaim to people "Policy says X, you have to do it, and you're wrong I'm right. No discussion. No compromise". Policy is nothing more than the description of past consensuses on how we have done things in the past and a guide to shaping future consensuses on similar problems. It is not proscriptive of what must be done for all time. And before you argue, this is a disagreement settled over 2 years ago at WP:Policies and guidelines, but I understand anything that happens before you were around and you werent a party too is irrelevant in your mind. Others have come and gone like you thinking policies are laws and must be strictly adhered to. Dont know where you get the idea seeing as how we've taken out anything that possibly gave that impression.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that is not only entirely unsupported by evidence, but totally irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your repeated personal attacks on me, I have to ask why you bothered to post it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoping that feedback is useful, what I propose is that the subject of this ANI discussion ("the subject") be warned for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks.  Further, that going forward there will be a zero-tolerance policy in effect for new personal attacks by the subject, where the subject will be indef topic blocked on each Discussion/Project page on which it occurs.  Further, that the subject is not to use the words "you" or "your" in talk page discussion, as to do so will be automatic grounds for a new topic block.  Further, the subject is warned to provide evidence and avoid hyperbole.  Further, that the subject be blocked for one minute to post this warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another comment I must say that the attitude "I've been here longer than you, so there (i.e. just shut it!)" is completely untenable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Whether you have a gazillion barnstars or have been editing since the Big Bang, you are only human and to err is human, we can all get it wrong (policy, pov and so on) whether we have been on WP for 5 weeks or 5 years. So seniority on WP is not some sort of magic shield against being wrong, misinterpreting policy or suchlike.

From the same diff that Andy objects to about being jew-obsessed, [9], I quote:

• "You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia."

Well that's fine and dandy, but apart from lording it over (perceived) newbies, this is also plain daft - if a policy doesn't say what it's meant to say then it should be rewritten, what's all this crap about 'oral law'? "Well, yes the policy says that, but we decided this x years ago". Good way to encourage learner WP editors and kill rumours of cabals, methinks. Also, something decided two years ago, as mentioned above, is way out of date as opinions and povs change and policy and guidelines evolve (hopefully) to accommodate these changes.

Oh and there's a huge difference between 'you're a dick' (personal attack) and 'you're being a dick' (current behaviour/attitude), so for example 'your comments are meaningless or irrelevant or unsubstantiated' is not a personal attack but a comment on the comments.

Wikipedia:BITE, Wikipedia:NPA, Wikipedia:AGF CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

...

• gross incivility;

Unscintillating (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility is a policy that states:

...
We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please look

Allegations of misconduct on Kurmi (an Indian caste)

User:Sitush has broken the 3RR [10][11][12][13]. But I have an admin warning me about edit warring on my talk page User talk:MangoWong. The admin who warned me has also reverted my edit,[14] which was to put a cn tag in the infobox on a claim which has been disputed for long. I do not see why a cn tag is not needed in an infobox(as claimed by the admin who reverted me and warned me), and why the admin would see a necessity to revert a cn tag. Could I request some fresh eyes here. Please also take a look at talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected.-MangoWong (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary, a citation is not needed in an infobox or lead if it is summarising or quoting something that is cited in the body of the article. And Sitush is not guilty of 3RR, as they are four different edits he has reverted (if they're different edits, it's not even edit-warring, and he clearly explained the reasons why they were all inappropriate). Also, they are changes that have long been disputed on the Talk page and consensus is firmly against them, with nobody yet having been able to produce sources. I'm afraid we have yet another caste warrior here who just won't listen when we explain our policies on sourcing and consensus - I've tried explaining it all on the article Talk page, but as usual that gets nowhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, without examining the merits, but just on a technicality on first reading - is too a 3RR vio if there are more than 3 reverts. The policy is quite clear on "whether the same or different material each time" "on a single page". I've never particularly agreed with the brightness of that brightline rule, since I believe in defending the wiki, but my reading disagrees with yours. I did a 7RR once and came out OK due to the BLP shelter, and again, I;m not arguing the case. Your statement strikes me as odd though. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment. I don't see any 3RR violation in the article history; if there are 4 reverts, if I'm reading the article history right, they aren't within 24 hours. And I don't see removing edits that are against an expressed talk page consensus as, in most cases, edit warring. But I don't agree that 3RR wouldn't apply "as they are four different edits he has reverted." The 3RR policy says pretty clearly: whether involving the same or different material each time [it] counts as a revert. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, fair point, my mistake - but the repeated attempts to make clear anti-consensus changes without discussion and without providing sources is pretty close to vandalism -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: The warning I gave was for repeating the same anti-consensus edit after having had it reverted once -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just a caste warrior but one of a group of editors who have recently been tendentious across numerous India-related articles, eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna, Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Exceptions_to_national_varieties_of_English, Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni. There might be a boomerang to be caught here. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it any surprise that folks with whom I have a dispute describe me as "caste warrior". I am hoping for fresh eyes here. And I also completely dispute the claims that citations are unnecessary in lead and infobox. Anyway, let's wait for some time?-MangoWong (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Individual cases of the need for citations are decided by consensus. So if you dispute it, which is your right, then you should discuss it on the Talk page and not edit war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any point in discussing content issues with you. I also don't see why you would intervene by saying what needs a cite and what doesn't. You had claimed here that the lead and infobox do not need citations, that's why I had to dispute your claim here only. Can we wait for fresh eyes?-MangoWong (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are well aware that there are plenty of eyes on the article. There is a sort of debate brewing regarding whether the infobox would be better removed entirely, and certainly there is some agreement for removal of the specific field you refer to. However, while it exists it remains the case that the issue is cited in the body of the article and has been discussed at length on the talk page. Adding a cite to the infobox (which you could actually have done yourself instead of requesting one) is mere duplication and clutter. None of this is relevant to ANI. It is a content dispute issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@MangoWong: Two of us opined in the edit summaries that duplicated cites were not needed, and I also explained my view on your Talk page. Now, the place to discuss content and citation of a specific article is on that article's Talk page - and if you refuse to discuss it there and seek consensus then you simply get no say in the matter. And no, you can't just keep getting your own word in and telling me to shut up and wait for someone else to come along - if you misrepresent what I have said and done and you make accusations against me, I will reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I will surely discuss the content issue at the article talk page. But violation of 3RR and undue admin intervention are legitimate matters for this noticeboard. Being one of the accused parties, you don't get to close this thread. Please note you may have a COI here. I request fresh eyes. You are not it.-MangoWong (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't closed the thread, and I'm not stopping anyone else commenting on the 3RR accusation - in fact, don't you remember that I specifically suggested you should complain here if you had any issues with my conduct? Yes, of course it needs someone else to judge this, and I'm not for a moment trying to do it myself - but that does not mean I cannot defend myself against your complaints, and part of that was my explaining why I gave you that warning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have notified user:Sitush at his talk page that I have reported him. He is confident that my report will fail. User talk:Sitush. I have also notified the admin who placed a warning on my talkpage and who also reverted my cn tag.-MangoWong (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This incident is regarding article Kurmi.-MangoWong (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The page is about Kurmi, a Hindu Jati. As such the article lacks sufficient religious understanding of Hinduism regarding the Jati. As already discussed, the varna system is not ironclad(unlike racism, where race can not be changed by religion), though several references that indicate approval of the Kshatriya status of Kurmis(from reliable sources) has been ignored. This acknowledgement is completely absent on the page, which is also against the 'generally recognized Shudra status' understanding too, & therefore disputed.

Comparing with pages like Catholic Church or Protestantism, it can be said that there should be no such aversion to religious sources and these shouldn't be ignored by giving excuses like "ancient"/"mythological"/"unreliable"/etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The above from Thisthat2011 is completely irrelevant to this forum, as indeed it was irrelevant in several other places where s/he tried to gain attention. This is exactly the sort of peppering of multiple forums that has been going on. The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very relevant, considering that we are discussing notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' here as disputed. When in Hinduism at many places Kurmis are regarded as Kshatriya explicitly. The notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' does not hold true. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But that's a content issue. And you know where content issues get discussed, don't you? You certainly should, because you've been told often enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not try to explain content issues here. The main issue here is the 3RR vio by Sitush, (which Boing! said Zebedee claims is not even an edit war and did not even warn Sitush about, while he should have been blocked. And Boing! said Zebedee not only warned me for one revert, but also reverted) and undue admin interference by Boing! said Zebedee in content related editorial matters.-MangoWong (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're just mistaken, MangoWong. 3RR means no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The first revert occurred at 09:36 July 21 (UTC). The 24 hour mark from that first revert would have been at 09:36 July 22 (UTC), correct? Very simple. But the 4th revert didn't occur until 16:07 July 22 (UTC), almost 7 hours later than the 24 hour mark from the first revert. In other words, the 3RR limit was reached in that 24 hour period (and Sitush even acknowledged that in the edit summary of the 3rd revert), but was not breached. If you're asking for a block because the bright-line of 3RR was crossed, you either weren't aware that it had to be done in the same 24 hour period or simply misread the times that were logged with the edits. Either way you are mistaken. I don't see anything actionable, B!sZ made a good summation above as to what's going on, and I agree that all that needs to be addressed now is the dispute about content in the article, which isn't done here. -- Atama頭 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The 3RR is a non-issue. I found your comment on my talk page that reporting me here was a "morale boost" rather disturbing. Quite simply, aside from what BsZ has already said, the fourth revert was well over 24 hours after the first and I had already given warning on the article talk page that the changes being made were disruptive. You ignored that and umpteen other notices etc, which is why BsZ was right to jump in at your talk page and explain yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, although I really do try to assume good faith, I really am starting to see what looks a lot like deliberate pushing at the boundaries, seeking to pressurise the people working on these articles, to trying to pounce on us for alleged procedural failures - while steadfastly refusing to discuss the actual desired content changes and provide reliable sources. If anyone has reliable sources, all they have to do is provide them and get a consensus and that will be sorted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atama. Thanks for your time and for clarifying my mistake to me. I agree that your interpretation of this being a non vio of 3RR is correct. I apologize to Sitush and Boing! said Zebedee for my misinterpretation of events/timestamps in this regard. However, I have one more important issue here. Do you think it is proper for Boing! said Zebedee to give no warning to Sitush while he performs three reverts within a 24 hour period. But places a warning on my talk page as soon as I make one revert (putting up a cn tag) and also makes me a revert warrior and also goes on to call me a "caste warrior" and what not, and expects me to provide sources for some abstract material which I have never desired to put up. He also claims that sourcing is unnecessary in the lead and infobox and has also reverted my edit even when it was explained in the edit summary and was only a (citation needed) tag. And is also now claiming on my talk page that I should discuss things before making edits. And has generally tried to poison the well against me without showing any wrongdoing on my part. Besides this mitake in reading timestamps, could he show how my edits are wrong (for the tirade which he has put up against me). He is also offering to support me if I discuss things first. Why should he participate in ed discussions? Why should I want his support in these discussions? Is he not behaving in an undue manner and taking an undue interest in content issues and is he not giving some appearance of showing partiality? I have also tried to explain some of the issues with him on the article talk page talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could take a look at that thread....I would ialso be grateful if you may keep a general eye on Hindu caste articles. I desperately feel they are in need of fresh eyes. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave you the warning (which I was not an automatic templated one, and I didn't think it was unfriendly) after you'd made the same change *twice*. Have a look at WP:BRD. It's an essay, but it is meant to supplement policy, and explains pretty well the way to avoid edit warring. By all means make a Bold change (the B), but if someone Reverts it (the R), don't do it again, because that's the start of edit warring (and that's what I was warning about - I didn't want you to end up blocked for edit warring). Instead, you should do the D - Discuss. Whether a {{cn}} tag is or is not appropriate is a question for Talk page discussion, not for ANI, but you wouldn't take it there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A Question

(ec) I'd like to ask for some feedback on one point, if I may. My contention is that my actions (in protecting Kurmi earlier after IPs once again made anti-consensus changes, in reverting the start of an edit war, etc) were procedural, and that acting as an admin to enforce a consensus decided by other people is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED - I wasn't acting to protect my preferred version, but the version hammered out (quite traumatically) by lengthy discussion and source-based consensus on the Talk page. I also contend that I have taken part in none of the actual content discussions, only in procedural discussions, and I have no idea myself what the classifications of the various castes should be. I'd appreciate your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Counting this [15], you have personally reverted my edits twice. However, you have self-reverted. And the first edit which you reverted was a citation tag. You say it is somehow unnecessary. Why? Why do you interfere in these matters? You have also put up a message regarding this edit on my talk page, claiming that I should discuss before removing sourced content. Why? I think it is not part of your admin functions.-MangoWong (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See above - trying to make the same edit twice, after being reverted once (not by me), is a procedural issue and it is perfectly proper for an admin to take action to head it off - but please note that I did not actually take any admin actions in response to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can address both of you at once. For MangoWong, I wouldn't have warned Sitush either after that third edit, because Sitush made it obvious in the edit summary that he knew he was at 3RR. As to what B!sZ left on your user talk page, I don't see it as a warning at all. B!sZ reverted you and then left a note on your user talk page that you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is exactly what people should do to avoid an edit war. It seemed to be more of an appeal than a warning. A warning typically cites a policy or guideline you're breaking, or cites what actions can be taken against you for taking a particular action. I see the note on your user talk page as just a request to bring the issue to the talk page to avoid an edit war and it was appropriate.

Now, as to whether or not B!sZ became involved by acting in the role of an editor rather than an administrator... That's a bit of a grey area. I do believe that the intention wasn't to try to change the article to a preferred version. But at the same time, I don't see that it's an administrator's role to enforce consensus, at least not in that manner. WP:CONADMIN explains how administrators get involved in consensus disputes, and our role is to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and otherwise try to keep things from getting out of hand. But trying to maintain the content of an article to reflect a local consensus seems to me the role of an editor, not an administrator. Admins who choose to get involved in that way have to take off the admin hat, and I think that in this case, B!sZ did make himself involved (if inadvertently). Since that wasn't his intention, he self-reverted before further edits were made, and I think that is a gesture that clearly shows his intention to not be involved. Any further administrator actions should be appropriate as long as he continues to maintain neutrality in regards to article content.

Anyway, those are just observations from an outside admin, anyone can feel free to disagree with me. -- Atama頭 22:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your thoughts. Any further thoughts regarding my semi-protection of the article to prevent IPs (who are probably blocked editors) repeating the same anti-consensus edits that have been going on for months? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) (That had nothing to do with the MangoWong edits, btw - it happened earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC))

Any advice about how to "deal with" (poor phrasing) tendentious commenting on the talk page would also be appreciated, especially since it often also gets moved onto other pages. - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Atama for looking up my complaint and for your excellent and patient explanations. I certainly think that it should help in improving the situation. I again apologize to Boing! said Zebedee if I have been intemperate or rash or hurt his/her feelings in any way. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no worries about feelings, I've been in this kind of business long enough to be immune to such considerations. But I'm happy to apologise for going a step too far with the reversions - I should not have done that last one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Semi-protection or other admin actions seem okay as long as you maintain that you're only acting as an administrator at the article. My advice though, and this is just personal advice (and may not even be good advice) would be that if too many people are uncomfortable with your acting as an administrator that you step back and ask someone else to do it. On the other hand, sometimes editors use WP:INVOLVED like a bludgeon to drive off a disagreeable admin, or play games (like insulting an admin then claiming any further actions are retaliation for the insult). I don't see anything like that happening here (MangoWong's questions about the matter are reasonable) but it can and does happen (I see it too often on ANI actually) so it can be a fine line between trying to be civil and fair, and giving in to an aggressive editor. I do think it's a good thing for an admin to keep an eye on things at that article while the dispute is ongoing, to keep the peace, and you have an interest in doing it, so I'd encourage you to continue.

2) Tendentious comments can be a trial because when people play WP:IDONTHEARTHAT or refuse to drop the stick nothing can get done. So just try to compromise, be patient and civil, and if you just can't get anywhere try various tools shown at WP:DR. Content disputes can drag on for months if people are completely opposed to one another and there is no real black-and-white answer. I wish I had a magic trick that would solve everything but I don't think such a thing exists (if it did then maybe I could get back into mediation again without having to give up hours of my schedule).

3) MangoWong, you're very welcome and I hope that you and everyone else at the article can find a peaceful solution to the conflict. -- Atama頭 22:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate those thoughts too. On this and other related articles, over the past few months there have been a lot of people making apparently coordinated attacks on everyone involved and trying to turn them into caste-glorification articles, with a lot of socks and meats, a good few of whom are now blocked (though I'm certainly not accusing MangoWong of being one of them). That's the only reason I became involved, to try to protect the editors working there from abuse. It's hard to steer a clear path between doing that, and leaving myself open to "involved" accusations, especially as very few admins want to work with these article disputes. Anyway, your advice will help me, so thanks again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thank you. One final query if I may, Atama. You refer above to situations where there is no black-and-white answer. What about when there is a B&W answer (as in, no sources being found for the other POV or sources being found for it but which are not reliable etc) ? This is at the heart of some recent tendentiousness. Should such a situation be taken to DR and, if so, how does one judge when to do it? - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has had a dispute with you and you have not described them as "tendentious"/"troll" etc. about a dozen and a score times. Why do you imagine you yourself are free from these characteristics?-MangoWong (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, "black and white" is a situation where we have a clear policy that is being violated and the policy needs to be enforced. WP:V is a policy but enforcing it isn't easy, neither is WP:UNDUE. In the most extreme cases, a person who insists on including unverifiable information can be accused of violating WP:OR, and a person who habitually does so can be blocked. But usually it's a case where people disagree on whether or not sources are reliable, in which case they can ask for help at WP:RSN or just try to find some way to agree. WP:POVN is another place where you might be able to ask for help. In the absolute worst cases, where multiple people disagree, an RFC can't come to a conclusion, and mediation is tried and fails, you could end up at ArbCom. And that's never good. ArbCom doesn't help people make content decisions, ArbCom for the most part hands out bans and blocks, or discretionary sanctions, and some people aren't going to be happy. At times it's necessary but try as best you can to avoid going that far.

Tendentiousness on Wikipedia has a particular definition, and there are signs when an editor is being tendentious. If someone is following that pattern of behavior, they should be encouraged to change, otherwise they may face sanctions if they continue. If they aren't following that pattern, it's best to avoid using that terminology. -- Atama頭 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had read WP:TE and am not the only person to have pointed it out to this particular group of contributors. The NPOVN report is what caused the artiel to become fully protected for a week and, frankly, it has achieved nothing. I do realise that a week is not a long time but during it all that happened was mostly repetitive, irrelevant argument for a completely unsustainable POV (at least, unsustainable in the Wikipedia context). Almost as soon as the protection came off, IPs jumped in to make non-consensual edits, and then some registered users did the same. Then we ended up here. I will have a think about how to take this forward. Your comments are much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding self-righteous, those of us involved in caste cleanup are seeing about 95% completely WP-inappropriate editing opposing us, and about 5% opposition which is both evidently well-meaning and following WP procedure. Setting aside specifics of individual content disputes, I tend to feel like I'm working hard to give a full story and I'm against human waves of (generally inexperienced and unwilling to learn) editors who are hellbent-for-leather to erase anything "negative" from an article, particularly the term Shudra. In the entire six months or so I've been covering that specific angle, at not a single point has an ANI, POV, or WPINDIA consensus come back to say "stop doing what you're doing" or even "modify what you're doing". Instead all we've gotten is neutral admins saying "keep up the good work." Behaviour-wise, we've had a few "don't get tetchy" or "don't fall into a revert war", but nobody outside the argument has ever told us "stop writing Shudra, stop questioning Kshatriya claims." Imagine that happening for 20 articles in a row, and every single time seeing the exact same arguments, ad hominem "you don't understand India!!!", veiled legal threats, and every single time an abject refusal to actually deal with sources that actually say Shudra. I'm not being cute here, it's pretty much the exact same argument in each article, but with different people.

At this point, either I and Sitush and the others are due for a massive admin action to target out blatant malfeasance all over India topics... or we're actually doing the right thing in the face of all kinds of emotional opposition. Again, I haven't seen a single editor who didn't appear to be emotionally involved take issue with these trends in caste article cleanups, so as far as I'm concerned we're on the right track. That's exactly why I'm glad whenever an ANI comes up, because aside from extremely small procedural slips from time to time, we are genuinely working hard to ensure caste articles are not used for caste glorification, or to whitewash the not-so-pretty side of history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think MatthewVanitas has summed up the whole situation very well there. If we were to believe every unsourced or poorly sourced claim that castes are not Shudra but Kshatriya, we'd have to end up concluding that everyone in India was a warrior or a king, and there was nobody doing all the ordinary jobs. I have no idea which castes were what, and what proportion of castes are Shudra, but the logical conclusion of the totality of the claims the editors here are facing is clearly ludicrous -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that's generally what ArbCom is meant to fix. If consistently disruptive behavior comes from multiple people at articles that are related to a particular subject, ArbCom can hand down a discretionary sanction that says that anyone who repeats that behavior at those articles can be blocked by administrators if they persist after warnings. WP:AE is set up to assist with such enforcement. It's a long road to get there though, as I said they generally won't accept a case unless (1) all other options are exhausted (see WP:DR for a list of other options), (2) there is sufficient disruption that a remedy needs to be brought, and (3) they feel that they actually can do something to help. If all 3 of those prerequisites aren't met, it's unlikely that ArbCom will accept the case. -- Atama頭 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. This is particularly worrying where nobody seems to know what s***** means or why it is inhuman and have no clue why or how this is a sensitive topic. NPOV is OK with me, but I do not think it should be allowed to become a cover for asserting inhuman descriptions to what are humans.-MangoWong (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And there ^ is the unsustainable POV again. Wikipedia is not censored. The present group have been informed of that (with the link), had it explained to them etc on umpteen occasions. It does not matter what the law of India says and it does not matter if the term offends particular individuals. It was and remains a widely used term and until recently was even so in India itself. The present deprecation of the term is made clear in the article, although it is noted on the talk page that in fact the Indian government seems still to use the term itself even though apparently it is banned. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. Counterpoint: two eds who have no emotional investment in this particularly sensitive topic. As noted above, it is significant that nobody with a self-declared detachment from the topic is on the anti-us "side". I hate to use the term "side", but that is unfortunately kind of what it's been the last few months. One of us gets to an article, sees a bunch of inflated claims to being "kings and warriors" and descent from Hindu gods, we do five minutes of gBook searches of actua academics, and lo and behold its a caste of bricklayers or oil pressers or chartered accountants or what have you. We find sources that say "claim to be Kshatriya warriors descended from God XYZ", so we duly note that legend/belief, add details on how the Fooian caste was registered in British censuses as Shudra and by the modern Indian government as "Backwards", and then out of the woodwork come literally dozens of new-regs, SPAs, IPs, and to be fair a handful of more experienced editors, and we're simply bombarded with endless posts of "YOU ARE WRONG THEY ARE WARRIORS NOT SHUDRA!!!! CORRECT YOUR GRIEVOUS ERROR OR I WILL CONTACT THE FOOIAN DEFENSE SOCIETY FOR LEGAL ACTION!!!" We ask for cites, we provide more of our own cites, we suggest POV/ANI/DR to every person who accuses us of horribly bias and malfeasance, we refer people to WP:INDIA, we link them to gBooks and WP:N and WP:V and every other applicable policy, but the arguments just go on, and on, and on, and on.

Not every single caste article, but I bet I can't go more than a few days of caste-cleanup without inadvertently hitting a "land mine" of dissent. There have been a very few cases of running across concientious editors who grasp that they can't exclude things and that it's in everyone's best interest just to be straight-up (see the recent history of Reddy), but that is by far in the minority. I used to be able to get a lot of work done on all kinds of topics, but now the vast majority of my WP-time is in circular arguments about caste and getting accused of everything from being a Brahmin to a Muslim to a racist to (literally) a paid editor working to defame and libel the Fooian caste or what have you. So you understand why I've been a little sensitive about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes no logic IMO whether or not it is sustainable/unsustainable. And like everything else, IMO "WP is not censored" too has its limits. We won't go about writing that people of X state in Ajekika are vermin, jiljsi people are vermin, sauggfu people are vermin. Would we? It is also interesting that you acknowledge that you do your "research" (not your word) on GBooks. And my concerns about two eds overbearing influence on a whole topic stand.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If your position runs contrary to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and you cannot cause a change in those then your position on the POV is unsustainable here. I doubt that many university press publications etc say that "Ajekika are vermin", but there are plenty of reliable sources such as those which say that Kurmi are or were Shudra. It is/was a ritual "rank" in Hinduism: that is a fact and although I am not aware of any censorship limits to WP articles, this issue certainly would not fall into any such exceptions because the term is being used in an appropriate place and with an appropriate note for balance. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My concerns would cover a lot of articles besides Kurmi. But presently the India noticeboard has been declared out of bounds for any discussion. I do not see a better place than that to go about holding the discussion on this issue in a centralized way. I did not say that there is a source to say "Ajekika are vermin". I would have thought that it was clear that is was only a hypothetical example. Whether my position is in keeping or contrary to WP policy is not for you alone to determine. As Atama has been indicating, we may have a long way to go if we take an uncompromising stance. There certainly are proper and improper ways to apply the censorship policy. It is not a license to say obscene things. Is it? It should not also become a license to say obscene things about the "other". Should it? And how do you know that this word falls under the category of obscene/non obscene when you would not seem to have grasped its meaning? And I still find it interesting that you do not say anything when I note that you do your "research" on Gbooks. And my concern that two eds should be allowed to exercise an overbearing influence on a whole topic also remains.-MangoWong (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that your concerns extend well beyond Kurmi and indeed cover a swathe of India-related content, not even just caste/community articles. I was also aware that your vermin comment was hypothetical. Turning to your main point, I am afraid that you still seem not to be understanding. Wikipedia does indeed contain a lot of subject matter that various groups would consider to be obscene. There are articles on religion, on sex, on genocide etc which often give rise to some people wishing that the project was indeed censored. But it is not, or at least not in the way that you wish it to be. If something satisfies the standard requirements of WP:V, WP:RS etc and is not WP:FRINGE then it is valid content. One of the great things about having absolutely no connection to India is that I can see the wood for the trees and sometimes I feel that there is a massive COI issue here and perhaps some people would gain from doing a little work in an area from which they are equally detached: much can be learned from doing so. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My concerns could take me to any article which I could expect myself to understand and improve. I do know that we have numerous articles which say obscene things. But still. There are encyclopedic needs which may have validity. But beyond the point of encyclopedic needs, when something begins to become license for malicious material, we have to put the foot down. Whether my/your point be correct or not cannot be determined here. There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content. Whether what you want to do / are doing would be in keeping with these policies may also be debatable. I know why you bring up COI. I have known for some time that you want folks from my demographic pattern only to be prevented from editing articles related to them. Get that policy in place first. And I certainly would not go about editing articles about things like Haiku or calligraphy unless I knew something about them. Even if I did, I would not start dominating "History of Madagascar" on the basis of my Gbooks research. Maybe I could see through the spelling or check the references (to some extent) etc. But beyond that is not wise.-MangoWong (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please retract your comment about me wanting to prevent people from your demographic ... etc. Or show me the diff. It is another gross slur from you. - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush has not said that Indians should not edit India articles; I said that people who cannot edit a topic close to them but are overall well-intentioned, like some editors we've encountered in these caste articles, should be required to edit topics emotionally unconnected to them until they learn neutrality. I also said that it would be a very positive development if more non-Indians (like myself and Sitush) would work on India articles so that the "Fooian caste" article would not be 90% Fooians, 7% their enemy Gooians, and a few bewildered foreigners like me attempting to apply WP policies to the chaos. You fixate on gBooks: what of it? That's a place to find a lot of books in a searchable format. How on Earth does using gBooks negatively impact my credibility? Should I instead be pulling 19th century Gujarati history off the top of my head?

You say There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content; well, let's not be coy, explain to us which policies say "even if the Kurmi were Shudra, you shouldn't say it because it's not a nice word." I'd further argue that any visceral distaste for the term that you and others evince appears to be a somewhat modern trait, perhaps a result of the Indian government/society's stringent efforts to erase caste awareness in hopes of smoothing over long-standing grudges? I have had other editors literally tell me that I can't say X or Y about a caste (despite copious footnotes) because riots are caused over lesser arguments. I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How did this degenerate into discussion on behavior of the page when I was explicitly told "But that's a content issue.". Who is playing smart here?

Please focus on the topic and don't run off to unrelated propaganda. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, once again: ANI is about behaviour, articles Talk pages are for content, WP:INDIA is for either calling attention (in a neutral way) to ongoing discussions on articles, or for discussing overarching issues bigger than individual editors (ANI for that) or individual articles (at their own pages). For anyone unfamiliar with TT's discussion habits, see Talk:Kurmi. His are the sort of endless circular arguments which have been taking up vast amounts of our time, and we dare not simply drop out of the arguments since he'll lambast us for not replying to him (even if it's the same issue we've already answered him on 5 times and already addressed 20 times earlier on the page). I'm confident that a neutral editor reading Talk:Kurmi would agree that "tendentious" may well apply to his behaviour there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are in direct contrast to what User:Sitush("The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution") & Boing! said Zebedee("But that's a content issue") mentioned. You can't have different standards at different places. Anyways, I mentioned already that I had presented reliable sources regarding recognition of Hindu Kshatriya status to Kurmis in many regions and at different times, which was ignored completely. These content from reliable sources are ignored repeatedly. If ANI is about behavior, it is also not about lambasting others after rhetoric and assumptions of behavior by 'neutral editors'. I can put a dozen assumptions, too which I thankfully don't. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)Zeedee was wrong about 3R as pointed out by two editors above (2)Zeedee by his own admission was actively editing and then using admin tools in an article which should not be done, he should not use admin tools in an article he is involved. (3)Zeedee is wrong about citations in the lead, Manual of Style (lead section) The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." (4)He uses words like caste warriors, which are highly racist.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

sub-section

Yogesh Khandke named party's statement::(1)Sitush: above dropped an intimation on my talk page that brought me here. (2)Sitush has called me a tendentious editor above, (linked diffs involving me), which cuts both ways. (3)(a)Actually he hounded me and reached Sudheendra Kulkarni, by his own admission, he played tag, and got along a friend of his along. (b)On Kurmi he thinks that he has taken a copyright on facts, and he puts his head in the sand, which is a pity (c)The GangaxGanges dispute is going to be a classic long running play, I think, the wp:Article titles bit was just a small act. What about that Sitush?? Isn't bringing that up puerile? (3)Earlier he brought a sock investigation against me, just because we had a content dispute. (4)Admins: let us not discuss content, look at behaviour. Though because hanging a sock requires a machine, I came out of it unscathed, I am not so sure with humans, as Sitush rightly pointed out, user:Zuggernaut, was put in the freezer, when his RfC, bomeranged. (6)I wanted to discuss Sitush's behaviour on the India notice board, as a third party input before dispute resolution, but wasn't allowed to. I will provide diffs of each sentence, if anybody wishes. The problem is bigger than Sitush, he actually is much more benign than the other guys. (7)Today's a busy day for me and can't hang on. I just hope no action is taken without all parties given a decent hearing. (8)I had suggested a non-controversial way of dealing with caste see my Kurmi sandbox (9)Another thing mentioned above is that 3RR is ok if it is predeclared this came from an admin, is that a policy?? (10)On the Gandhi move argument someone just said that Indian editing is a plague hit on Wikipedia, what are you doing about that?? Or am I wasting my time here, just like someone said on the Gandhi page or in the context "Gandhi fight for justice was great becuuse he had to content with British police, British judges, British jury and British government" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the other member of the alleged team. I invite everyone to read Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni#Overlinking for one of the most ridiculous conversations in which I have participated ever. If there is anything remiss in my behavior, please, please trout me, or do whatever seems appropriate. LadyofShalott 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry LadyofShalott, I have nothing against you, nor do I have an axe to grind against Sitush, see this short thing on Sudheendra Kulkarni, comes across as ridiculous to you, perhaps because you know that there would be no confusion regarding Indian and Indian, why dont you folks follow the same logic with the Kurmi page, well we can have ghits and books and other things but that makes one only as good as a blind man of Indostan, no one above says "sacrifice Wikipedia principles", but why do you assume plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals and the like?? Sitush/ and I had said the same thing to Zeedee, MangoWango is right with the Madagascar example, Sitush that prevents one from making mistakes like Other Backward Caste on Kurmi page, or implicating Kulkarni on his page. You were careless about a BLP, which is a display of incompetent editing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Words like plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals are indeed reflected as uncivilized expression, regardless of who it is directed at. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one minds my dropping by. Just a friendly hello and a few observations. I am the one who is being quoted above about Gandhi. I do see a pattern when dealing with India related articles. India is a nation with more than 5000 years of history. It's highly complex and to understand it deep knowledge of topics is required. Just as I won't go on editing topics on rocket science, anyone who writes on this topics does need an understanding of issues at hand. I am sure that everyone involved here is trying to help wiki. There are some limitations due to knowledge and if someone more knowledgeable than us is speaking on topics then it's good to listen with open mind. I am very sad to see Gandhi termed as Racist due to his so called caste related ideas'. What can be far from truth. Gandhi was not assassinated by Godsey, I am seeing it happen now. The same is happening here. People are termed 'caste warriors' and what not. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, a lot of this "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" is pure red herring in my opinion. When I've written extensively on rather complicated but not unpalatable Indian topics, even caste issues like dress/cuisine/political-history, nobody bats an eye at the quality of my research. But yet when I have explicit academic references saying "Among the Shudra castes of this region are the Fooians", and a dozen other refs with similar or even more explicit statements, and I add and cite it, all of a sudden come the protests and "you don't understand India." Notice nobody objects to any "positive" material I add; never posts saying "Whoa, you called the Fooian caste major landowners who were very influential in Raj politics; you don't understand India!" Not that understanding India isn't important, but I think I'm doing a pretty solid job of summarising reliable secondary sources, and any slip-ups we make can of course be corrected by folks who notice a discrepancy ("hey, you wrote that the Fooians are vegetarian, but note [cite] that they also eat fish"). However, the massive POV issues which cause any "negative" content to be met with rage are far more troubling than a few non-Indian editors being slavish to gBooks resources because they're not long-term India hands.

So far as "rocket science": this isn't rocket science. Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere, and it's not like it's so complex that very basic historical statements can't be made from secondary sources. We've also been hearing the last few weeks accusations that we "don't understand what Shudra means", despite the fact that I'm actually doing cleanup on the Varna (Hinduism) and similar articles. And some of the editors here like to hammer the cuteness, so when we don't respond to that we get reams of "OMG!!! Did you see how he's tongue-tied when I said he doesn't even know what Shudra even means!?!?!" If by "don't know what it means" you mean "don't have a personal squeamishness about a historical term that prevents one from looking at it academically", sure feel free to call it that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering how "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" could be a red harring, one should also consider assumptions like "more neutral than Indians", and "Indians should rather edit something else" the same. As far as I can see, on the topic Kurmi there is an emphasis on how Kurmis have went about for Kshatriya status, more than how Kurmis are considered Kshatriya etc., regardless of reliable sources.

As far as "Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere", kindly let us know what other places(& all other places) that show a marked resemblance in history like the Indian history? That you don't know something and therefore later learn it might as well is no excuse to keep on editing pages and then learn by mistake/debate/RFC/ANI etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fellow Contributor, A lot what we know today about ancient India is due to great travellers such as Fa Hien, who were foreigners. I have no qualms about anyone. Great historians from different times have written freely about India. India as we know today is due to everyone who came there and mixed in that melting pot. These historians wrote from what they saw and based on their knowledge.

Just because pediatrics and gynecology both deal with human body it doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other. I just checked your contributions and I am happy to see your contributions across hundreds of topics. I am slightly concerned as these topics are on so many unrelated fields. I welcome you to visit India. I am sure you may already have. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas, if you want to perform experiments like these to find out whether what you say is correct or not, I would suggest that it is preferable that you invent your own human beings and do your experiments on them only. As for the limitations of GBooks, I think this is not the place to discuss it.-MangoWong (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No MV what was manifest on the Kurmi talk page, and later when my castexclass edit was reverted was sheer lack of competence.[16] The repeated reversions appear before the diff. And he had a friendly admin. Ugh.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse someone of incompetence without checking around first. For example, I know that caste/class are interchangeable words in the context which you refer to. The govt of India use both, the articles at WP use both. I did say on the talk page that if you really, really wanted one word rather than the other than that was fine by me. It didn't mean that I was going to change it myself. You are making another false accusation about my contributions, just as you have done above with regards to my contributions on the Sudheendra Kulkarni article. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

All talk and no diffs makes Jack a hot air balloon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The diff you requested. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any false accusations there.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but you never can, can you? Even when it stares you in the face, you find some absolutely ridiculous way to twist things. In recent days you have argued untenable points with BsZ about trivial stuff, with Salvio, with LadyofShallot, with me, MatthewVanitas and umpteen others. But you are never wrong, are you? You "win" (as you seem to see it) because you wear good contributors down. That is not what this place is supposed to be about. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You win Sitush. If that makes you feel better. Also [[17]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Honestly, I need to find a way to get a hold on all of this disruptive activity, and I will sooner or later. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Sitush, I agree that you seriously need to find some way to get your conspiracy theories out of your head. I have located the coordinators of these persistent attacks. If we keep inserting oceans of distasteful lies (please see my edit summaries in the diffs and see what its about)[18] and absurdities[19] and outrageously sick baseless falsities [20] in our articles, we are the ones who are coordinating those attacks. We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles. We tell lies and people object. And we also have a strong resistance to attempts to take our lies. (Please see the other edits around the diffs). So, why should these attacks not continue? So, who else is coordinating these attacks?-MangoWong (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The strong resistance to attempts to take down lies[21] still continues [22], even after this piece has been identified as a lie. The article has now been protected by Boing! said Zebedee.[23] And I have a thread on my talk page titled "Edit warring notice". I don't see why I should get such a section heading for performing one revert and for trying to tag a line which is a lie IMO. Is it wrong to try to take down what look like blatant lies, even when they are unsourced?-MangoWong (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I do sympathize with you. Let me check what this link means. I will get back on this in a few minutes or may be more. The text is in someother language that I don't understand. Let's see what google translate comes up with. Hang on tight soldier. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Google isn't of much help. It detects it as something else, but I do get the point raised there. I would have to give some points to the cleverness of that person whose post you pointed above. To test your knowledge about that topic, the person wrote something in Malyalam. You have no idea what those lines mean. But it does bring the same thought that these editors have been trying to communicate. Knowledge of a topic is important. Being neutral is what we must strive for, but it does require an understanding of the topic. I can see the same concers are being raised over and over again. I do hope that you do keep on contributing and try to be more accomodative. As Atama pointed out earlier admin MUST not get into content dispute. If that's what you wanted to point out earlier about the admins involved in this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Cleverness"? You think it's cute that IPs insult people in a language that don't know, and sagely opine that it highlights the supposedly vital point that we are not Indian? If anything, the example you cite shows that the people who "know about the subject" are often more interested in lambasting and arguing than making actual WP-relevant points. Again, I submit that any disadvantage arising from our non-Indianness is, per the vast evidence from many Talk pages, far outweighed by our neutrality on issues which evidently push many contributors into the realm of emotion vice fact.

We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles - I don't care if 10,000 Indian IPs come in and object; if they don't bring in sources to support A, and can't contradict B, than B stays in. Being Indian gives them no intrinsic authority on the subject. For example, if there were a controversial and heavily-cited paragraph in Vietnam War and tons of self-declared American editors insisted on removing comments which reflected negatively on American's participation, would you say "oh, they must know more about American history, I must be wrong" or would you say "they are clearly refusing to face uncomfortable historical facts and thus are resorting to edit warring and ad hominem atacks" ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If that paragraph had a potential to cause harm, I would object to that paragraph. And I have also provided some diffs in my above comment. I have no reason to think that the material in those articles is properly referenced.-MangoWong (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong is right in his comments. Guys here are trying to grope an elephant, and making a poor pie out of it. That is the consensus. Across a wide spectrum. Remarkable. Lack of competence. The C word. Ad hominem - Caste warriors, Hindu nationalists, pov warriors, plague, don't listen to them?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the late response; as the talk page was huge, it took me hours to go through. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear MatthewVanitas, I hear you. If by being neutral you mean fair and nonpartisan, then it's OK. It shouldn't be an excuse for ignorance or prejudice. I agree that what stays in wiki should be based on facts.It seems that you and Sitush have got fixated over the term Shudra. I saw the discussion over 'OBC' and 'they are considered Shudra' - OBC is category created by the GOI( Government of India). There is another category Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(SC/ST). The castes that were so called 'Shudra' are part of SC/ST category. For the list of castes that fall under the SC/ST category, check the GOI site - www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf . I don't see Kurmis there. Yes, there is no denial that Casteism existed in India, and still there is caste based politics, but in our zeal to show this ugly face, we must not wrongly categorize castes. This wrong categorization can be the reason you may be facing thousands of people who are opposing you. The castes that fall under OBC list are not Shudra. OBC list is based on certain economic factors, but none being the historic Shudra categorization. I would advice you not to insist on the term Shudra, and to change it to SC/ST. That would be more appropriate. GOI has reservations for SC/ST category, and it has various other programs to uplift SC/ST. Let me know if you want to know more about what India is doing for the SC/ST. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer - I personally have no interest to call anyone Shudra. The term was used to show the difference between SC/ST and OBC.

This is exactly the kind of logic that Sitush and MatthewVanitas have been working hard against. There are multiple, reliable, good quality sources indicating that Kurmi were classified as Shudra. Furthermore, your analysis that since Kurmi don't appear on one GOI list of SC/ST necessarily means they have never been classified as Shudra is your analysis (which Wikipedia calls original research). Kurmi, by the way, is one of the most balanced I've seen so far--it not only states that they're historically/academically classified as Shudra, but also what the GOI classifies them as, and adds in their own claims of Kshatriya status. What GOI says is not the be all and end all of anything. For example, if the US government tomorrow decided that all native Americans, regardless of tribe, should be called "Aboriginal Americans", that would not cause us (Wikipedia) to suddenly change all of our articles to that term and erase everything that's been said by thousands of reliable sources using other names. I've been lightly involved in a number of these articles, and so far have held off saying anything here because Sitush and MV have been saying it so well...but this is, in fact the problem. I want to add, though, that this is not any sort of criticism of you (Nameisnotimportant)--this is to point out that on many of these articles, people simply don't understand how Wikipedia decides what information to include, what is important, what verification means....And that wouldn't even be a problem, because educating new users is an important part of what all of us "experienced" editors do. The problem is really twofold: a number of editors, despite receiving this instruction, essentially stay in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and continuing making unsourced assertions; the other problem is that it seems like every few days, another "new" editor comes by with the same concerns, same arguments, etc., and its very hard to change things, especially when the number of people trying to enforce WP:NPOV and WP:V is so low. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Explain the term 'historically' and 'experienced'? Let's not get into what American Govt does, we will deal with it when that happens. From your long talk I hardly find thing that adds any value. GOI list includes any caste that was SC/ST. If you don't understand that, then it will help you to do some search on this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you don't understand why your point about GOI isn't relevant, then please read/re-read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, which are our core policies which all articles must follow--not just what one government says or how one editor/group of editors interprets a specific government source. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this, here you are talking about WP:OR and WP:V as our core policies. I think according to WP:V, any claim which is challanged should have an inline citation. I understand that this applies to the whole article. But on the Kurmi talk page, you are trying to explain to me why the cn tag was unnecessary in the infobox. Isn't there some contradiction in the concerns which you show here and what you say there?Talk:Kurmi#Fully protected. I have been describing the infobox material as false for quite some time now. And you don't think it even needs a cn tag, let alone a ref. You say that a ref can be provided to satisfy me, as if I am a stubborn kid adamant on some silly thing. Should it not need a cite after I challanged it and called it false. What is the problem if I put up a cite tag? Why should it be taken down and why would you defend the taking down of cite tag? I think according to WP:V, it should have had a cite tag and what you are saying is against WP:V. If your understanding of WP:V be poor, how could you explain things to newbies?-MangoWong (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)And looking at some of your previous comments at talk:Kurmi, I too had the impression that you say you say some quite stupefying and irrelevant things.-MangoWong (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article. If the Fooian caste has 45,000 people, we don't need to put the same footnote everywhere "45,000" is mentioned; we would footnote it under "Demographics" where we go into more detail as to which census, any caveats, etc. But in the lede and infobox we wouldn't have to redundantly cite it. How many times have you been told this exact thing? This is, again, why the word "tendentious" has appeared. How can it not be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for us to have "C is true [footnote]" and then you go on and on that the same page has "C is true" without a footnote? This is about as bad as the (many) other editors who post "WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE???" on the Talk page despite having four footnotes appended to the very sentence they question. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article." I fail to hear it because I fail to find the policy which says that. I interpret WP:V to mean that anything which is challanged or likely to be challanged needs a cite. Show me the policy which would say that info in the lead and infobox need no cite even when challanged, and you can easily have me hear it. Until then....And just having four footnotes appended to a sentence does not mean it can't be challanged. If all the footnotes are bad, the challange is valid and the sentence may need a reconsideration, despite fourteen footnotes.-MangoWong (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't challenge that by adding a "citation needed" template next to citations (like you did earlier today), as that doesn't even make sense. Instead, you discuss those specific citations on the talk page, and, if necessary, take them to the reliable sources noticeboard to determine what to do. Regarding the lead/infobox/body problem, how can you say "This statement is challenged" if it is accurately and well supported by reliable sources, just located at a different place in the article? However, because this is contentious, I think we've (almost) come to an agreement at the article talk page to duplicate the sources wherever they are needed; Sitush has kindly provided 15 sources with quotations, at least some of which are clearly good, meet WP:RS, and verify what the article states; let's discuss on the talk page which we will choose. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first point, MW, is wikilawyering, and you know it. It is utterly specious argument. If the stuff is cited in a relevant section then it does not need citing in another section or in the infobox. Forget policy: it is plain common sense. Your second point is valid but is why consensus kicks in. _ Sitush (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a cn tag is a good way of signifying a challange and I believe it is against established norms of WP to take down cite tags without providing proper citations or reaching an agreement on talk. Its not my fault. And what would be the great problem if it remained? There are some benefits actually and I had explained them on the talk page. Why did you have to make it an issue at all? Only to prevent others from getting a toe in? If challanged, everything needs a cite. That's the policy. Saying anything against this is against WP:V, one of WP's core policies. It is nice that we have quotes on the talk page now. And acting in good faith according to policy is not wikilawyering. Quit the accusationavalanche and ad hominems. It was a valid request. And we don't forget policy. Common sense is good, but if I had been convinced that the material was accurate. You don't see me going into articles and putting up 50 tags among 25 sentences. Do you? I would just take down bad looking material, easily if it is OR, with some logical looking explanation if the ref looks bad.-MangoWong (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Misbehavior in a dark part of WP

I think I should explain what I see as the problem. The area is very dark. Yesterday, I was trying to put back the tags on the statement which I consider to be a lie. [24] [25] [26] And I get two warnings. [27]. Unfairly IMO. All my attempts to put up the tags have been reverted. [28][29][30][31]. The strong resistence to having anyone else except a particular group of eds edit the article continues. I would not mind my edits being reverted if there be some mistake or some good reason for a revert. But I could see nogood reasons only. What is the difficulty if a cn tag would stay. People seem to be misinterpreting policy, telling me repeatedly that lead need not have cites, infobox need not have cites…. How could they misinterpret wp:V Even when they seem to be well aware of most WP policies. Sitush suddenly started claiming that I had agreed to something on baseless grounds, even when I did not. [32] And even launched a tirade on me for disagreeing with what I did not agree in the first place [33] calling me vexatious, and what not, for no reason at all. All I am trying to do is take down some misleading info. But….people capable of sophisticated levels of thinking are saying and doing illogical things. I couldn’t help getting the feeling that people want to “contain” me and “other”s. [34][35] I feel that the atmosphere around the caste articles is not conducive to editing by “other”s. All this happened while this ANI is on. When it cloeses…. The situation is sure to deteriorate rapidly Either some fresh hands are going to take charge there… or the situation will continue… to remain dark. Some folks just can’t seem to talk to me without mentioning “Block” and “boomerang” (intimidation tactics?) or without giving a warning (attempts to discredit and demoralize?) veiled or otherwise. Here is another example of a warning avalanche, much of it undue IMO[36]. The expected or possible results of warningavalance are explained in the lower parts of this thread. The need for fresh hands becomes even more apparent that these goings on are even penetrating the blogosphere. I would not have introduced this here but Boing! Said Zebedee has been telling me that it has already been here. I don’t know whether this is important or not.-MangoWong (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to the blog post containing a personal attack removed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

MW, you insist on passive-aggressive measures like {cn}ing "Shudra" in the infobox when the statement is clearly referenced in the lede, and to humour you I pointlessly duplicated that footnote to the infobox. I do note as well that the word "Kshatriya", also in the infobox, is unfootnoted but you don't mind that since your "side" keeps pushing and pushing that term and working for the elimination of the term "Shudra". This is not, as TT2011 keeps implying, a case of "two sides behaving equally badly", this is a case of one "side" attempting to show all angles of an argument, and the other "side" endlessly repeating points, wikilawyering, tying up huge swaths of multiple Talk pages, and for what? Literally the only thing I'm seeing you and company do on caste pages is fight to remove anything "negative" while championing legend-based Kshatriya claims. This is exactly the kind of caste-glorification that Wiki needs to be shedding the light of academic discourse on, not promoting. And to top if off, you and company accuse others of anti-Indian bias, of ignorance of India, etc. Can you imagine how terrible Wikipedia would be if only Lutherans edited Lutheran, only Serbians edited Serbia, only Greens edited Green Party? You simply refuse to believe that anyone outside can bring neutrality, and rather than bring your personal familiarity to complement our neutrality, you attack and degrade while contributing almost no content.

Your position is well-explained by your phrase which I consider to be a lie; you don't say "I'm not convinced on this Shudra issue, I'd like to see more data." You know, I just glanced at Talk:Kurmi and did Ctrl-F to find each time your name came up, and practically every single post you've made there is simply complaining, accusing, and just generally dragging down the discourse. I would encourage any uninvolved person reading this to do the same, and by MWs contributions there you shall know him. I'm working hard to improve caste coverage, including near-total rewrites of Kayatha, Kurmi, Kunbi, Dhangar, Ahir, Yadav and dozens of smaller articles, and now huge amounts of my time are being taken up responding to emotional accusations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with MatthewVanitas MV has brought out a very important and dark phase of history, in which people and whole communities were banished for something as simple as converting to another faith. For marrying outside the sects. I wish the debate could be as simple as calling Salmon a fish. This is bit more complicated. I would prefer to compare this to writing evolution of mankind, which went through different phases. Somewhere in between we were apes and somewhere we were tadpoles in the primordial earth. To sum it all, it isn't good to term shudra based on just gbboks powered scholars. If you want a neutral assessment, then people should stop searching with terms 'Kurmi Shudra' in gbooks. I am sure you get my point. Context is everything, just as Sitush said on Kurmi talk page. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that ANI is a nice place for playing the victim. There is a widespread consensus that the infobox doesn't necessarily require citations--I just pulled a random FA, Webley Revolver, and look at that infobox--nothing. If cn tags are applied selectively, as they seem to be here, then there's something rotten. Many of these articles indeed are in a dark part of Wikipedia, where the light of WP:V and WP:NPOV doesn't always shine very brightly. Indeed, this is taking up way too much time, and for what? Drmies (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, propagating a personal attack, as you have in reposting the blog link above despite various messages on various pages that you frequentd to point out that (a) it has been dealt with here before, & (b) it is incorrect, is not going to assist your already weak cause. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't even use the term "dark" here since POV-pushers will no doubt attempt to trick someone into using it and then accuse of racism/orientalism/systemic-bias, etc. But I do agree that Indian social issues suffer from a particularly extreme form of POV pushing. I sympathise to a degree that caste issues underly long-standing socio-economic grievances, and that people have been harmed or killed in such disputes in the real world even in modern times. I also sympathise that there may be "common knowledge" which is simply difficult to properly cite due to insufficient scanned documents online, language issues, academic bias/disinterest/failings. However, the solution to that is emphatically not to let people cite www.mycasteisawesome.com or add completely uncited cruft, nor is it setting a positive precedent to let editors like the above purge articles of their choice of any "negative" material, dump in poorly-sourced claims to milleniae of clear lineage and sharing bloodlines with gods. And rewarding them by backing down when they cry bias, orientalism, ignorance, discrimination, etc. will just encourage such behaviour. The last thing we need is a How-To guide on Orkut saying "if anyone removes claims that our caste is an ancient line of warriors and kings, make sure you accuse them of the following and they'll back down..." All we're dealing with his is a small but extremely vocal number of editors, several of whom do just about nothing but attack people on Talk pages. These editors are not like other editors, Indian and otherwise, who write and edit dozens of non-controversial articles and then just stumble across a land-mine, these are people who edit with an agenda. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, since MangoWong keeps propagating a personal attack despite multiple warnings, I've just blocked them for 24 hours. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the same thing: By repeating that the entire world is against me as everyone is engaged in an off-wiki thing. By stating that Indian social issues are an example of extreme POV may look like the same attempt of playing the victim. Sometimes a little knowledge is very dangerous, and gravest injuries are made with best intentions. Who has got so much time to indulge in such things? I hope we are all trying to get involved in an engaging discussion. Your talk above may give an impression of having some sort of anti-india bias. I know that's not what you may have intended. I am happy to help if you need some help on India. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• As Drmies says, ANI is indeed a nice place for playing the victim - it's also a place where you can easily get hit by a boomerang. I'd invite anyone with an interest to have a look over Talk:Kurmi and decide for yourself who's trying to build a properly sourced and well written article and who's trying to protect those trying to do so, and who's disruptively throwing accusations around (including suggesting that I'm not fit to undertake admin work there because I've been accused by some liar on a blog of accepting bribes), wikilawyering at every possible opportunity, trying to whitewash the article of anything considered "negative", decrying content he doesn't like as "lies" despite multiple reliable sources, and openly advertising his agenda ("I may still object as long as a single instance of that word remains"). You can then decide if any admin or community action is needed, and if so, against whom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I just read that blog. Wow. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, it's people who write and propagate that kind of venom that we're up against on these caste articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The hilarious thing (among many) about the blog is that users (as I recall, not even just MW) try to use it as an example of why I and others shouldn't be given "free reign" to spread our "ignorance" on Wikipedia. So evidently the argument is that our editing per WP procedure is directly responsible for one banned editor with his tail between his legs putting a bunch of silliness on a blog (is it even getting any hits?), and thus we should desist editing because we're therefore hurting WP's credibility. I do note that the last is a popular line from those who are stopped from POV pushing: "I'm just trying to correct the lies and YOU are perpetuating them! This is $%*$)@*#)(! and that's why nobody believes anything on Wikipedia and it's stupid and dumb!!!" In any case, Drmies, you see the kind of folks we're dealing with here. And as noted, the blogger was involved with the huge knock-down drag-out at Nair, so probably totally unrelated to the current group of folks getting upset generally about Deccan (West-Central India) issues. Wherever we go to purge out caste-cruft and demand proper citations, we'll hit suchlike landmines of interested parties who rally to "defend" a caste from "attacks". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Addendum @ BsZ 18:22 and others: the fact that we run across suchlike people in multiple unrelated places on this topic indicates to me that, if we're serious about cleaning up caste articles (many of which get 4k, 10k, 15k hits per month, so not huge but big) then we need a coordinated method to prevent us being dragged down by every "land mine" of POV defenders we hit. We simply cannot afford to repeat what happened at Nair in 38 other pockets throughout India, as it took up massive amounts of time from serious editors who would otherwise be knocking out dozens of 1-para articles with cites per day, working on a GA, etc. We're burning hours and hours per week doing literally nothing but arguing circles as at Talk:Kurmi with people who have an abundantly clear aim to give one narrow depiction of a group, and whose "contribution" seems to almost never extend to actually writing a paragraph and putting in decent footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's a major part of the problem, that it's not just the same people at each article. The first bunch I encountered when I started trying to help have mostly been blocked, which was relatively easy because their personal attacks, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry, were severe and blatant. But at the next article it will be different people (while we still have to keep our eyes peeled on articles we've moved on from), and they're getting less directly offensive and more wikilawyerish, and engaging in what seems like a war of attrition against people genuinely trying to get these articles into decent well-sourced shape - and the possibility that there is some off-wiki coordination going on has been raised by a few people. So I think the usual DR process is not really going to work - partly because it will take ages for each one and drastically slow things down, and partly because as soon as we get sanctions on one problematic editor or group, new ones will pop up and start all the way back at the beginning again. If anyone can suggest a good way to get some sort of protection in place for a generic set of articles against certain types of behavior by unspecified editors, I'm all ears - but if not, more admin eyes on the affected articles would be very much appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not true, BsZ : I hope you are not worried if more people are engaging in a healthy discussion. This should be seen as a victory for Wikipedia that it is successful in attracting more users. If something so crucial is being discussed we are bound to attract a lot of interest. I hope you are not overly worried about not being able to prevent users from engaging in a fruitful discussion. Blocking may not work and it may give an indication of some sort of exerting control. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nameisnotimportant- this is not healthy or fruitful discussion. These people are just ruining the reputation of all indian editors in wikipedia - they are demanding special treatment because they are indians and are creating the image we are some sort of prima-donnas who whine, sock, troll and attack when we dont get our way. I am very happy someone got blocked finally for peddling that disgusting offwiki attack site all over wikipedia. Blocking and banning is the way to respond to any editor (irrespective of any ethnicity or nationality) who behaves in such a disgusting way. There are hundreds of Indian editors in en wiki and other indian language wikis, who are quietly going about building encyclopedias. Actions of these few who have an agenda (which is primarily concerned with glorifying their caste/group), is making all of us look like caste warrior douchebags. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle, that's what I have been saying all along. Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord!   I have my full sympathies with you that you think this way. I hope you do see the core issue. Let's consider a hypothetical situation:- Someone does a search in google with 'tamil terrorist' and comes up with hundreds of articles that specify Tamils are terrorists. you will be surprised how many books you will find such references. Let me know if you want a count, google came with actually 14,300 results. Surprised?

Anyways, the main point is context and knowledge of the issue are most important. I can find other ingenious searches 'Madurai dirty', 'Kasab is Indian', or anything under the sun that is very dear to someone. I am not sure how you will feel, but I will definitely we feeling very upset about that.

The MO here seems simple, the angry guys are blocked as they are too passionate and as such blurt something that goes against any of the WP principles. Anons are blocked along with their IP and that too 'indefinitely'. When some rational people refer to relaible sources, the sources are termed unreliable. People have gone to lenghts to tarnish the image of Great Kings such as Shivaji. Anyone who objects to such a claim is termed POV pusher or a sock farm, and if nothing else can be proven, they are definitely meat proxies. Sometimes the 'ducks quack' or else 'something is definitely wrong, i will get to the bottom of it' . I think we must leave such childish attitude at home. This is wiki, and it needs mature peole. Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment. I spent the entire weekend to get to the bottom of this and I can clearly see that everything that tells otherwise was discounted as unreliable. Such actions do lead people to think that something is definitely wrong. If by voicing real concerns to right people the entire band of editors from India come in bad light, then I would doubt the point in having forums to raise voice. The year is 2011 and not 19th century, and we all live in free socities.

I am very happy to see that you are very passionate about topics, and are equally passionate about things such as Kasab. I hope you understand the core issue these guys are trying to address. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord! - Instead of being condescending to people who actually do work here to improve india related articles, why not work to improve some. Go ahead and maintain some caste related articles for a few months, you will know what goes on here. People who have been blocked and thrown out have been done so for the right reasons - operating sock farms, personal attacks, operating offwiki attack sites or publicising them here are against wikipedia rules. Any editor (irrespective of nationality or ethnicity) who socks or trolls should and will be blocked. This is exactly the attitude that is wrong here - "we are indians, our feelings are hurt, so we need special treatment". This is not maturity, this is pure childishness. I know exactly what these guys are trying to do - i have seen a hundred editors in different subjects do this exactly. But only these guys are trying to hide behind the whole Indian vs non-Indian thing. If reliable sources say "madurai is dirty", (or tomorrow it is established by reliable sources that Kasab is indeed indian or all Tamils are indeed terrorists) i have no qualms in adding it to the relevant articles. I can and do leave behind my personal preferences, "my upset feelings" when i edit wikipedia. My likes and dislikes have no role to play in adding content to wikipedia. If you feel you cannot abide by seeing anything negative added to a subject that is "dear to you" wikipedia is not the place for you. You are asking "Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment." - i have given you the answer above. Hundreds of indian editors including me work here and in other Indian language wikiprojects abiding by the rules. We dont go around complaining about our hurt feelings and asking for special treatment. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the thing these guys have been trying to bring forth - why the special treatment for some people. Now, to know who has been running from pillar to post crying wolf. That's no secret. Anyways, your opinion is already clear when you say glorifying their caste. Now how many examples do you want about the complaints these guys have brought forth? About the Kurmi article it is crystal clear the way things are painted.

OK tell me the difference between created and traced? Once you answer, I will show something interesting.

MW shouldn't have created the title as 'dark side of wiki'. I don't support it. But don't get side tracked by the personal attack angle, let's look at other things he pointed out. They look very valid to me. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss sourcing etc for a specific article then take it to the talk page for that article. OTOH, if you are still discussing alleged misconduct then feel free to continue here. And on that basis, please could you let us know what other things MangoWong pointed out "look very valid to me". Let's at least get this discussion on some sort of logical path. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Misconduct, alleged as you say, was the reason these guys came to ANI. Somehow, I thought that you were very clear that nothing will happen here. I may be assuming things, but why did you happen to feel that way? I am not interested in being labelled 'caste warrior' or plague, etc that's what is holding me back. I hope you and MVanitas will understand. Shivaji was and is a Demi-God in India. What was the reason someone wanted to pull his glorifications. I hope it wasn't due to some google powered search. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is well represented by the term "demi-god". Shivaji was a human being, and it would be completely inappropriate for WP to treat him as other than one. It would be inappropriate to make an article defaming him, and it is inapporpriate to have an article glorifying him. Shivaji should discuss his life and acts, perceptions and depictions of him, etc. It should be an article where both people who like and dislike him, or don't care either way, would read it and consider it informative. I would assume your angle is "nobody on WP should question his Kshatriya status", is that right? If so, there's simply no way we can just call him Kshatriya and be neutral. There is plentiful academic argument out there that he was from a pastoral jati, and then declared Kshatriya in order to crown him. If you're not happy with the full story being discussed, there's really not much we can do to help you. All kinds of political figure biographies may include facts that their biggest fans might not enjoy, but it would be horribly condescending to say "Indians just can't handle the truth, so let's treat their heroes with kid gloves." And for that matter, it's not that no Indians question Shivaji's legend, it's just that the minority of Indians heavily emotionally invested in him are apparently prepared to riot and file legal claims over the issue, but that is of no interest to us here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will talk to both of you, gentlemen, one at a time.

Sitush: 

a) When I specified created and traced, how come Kurmi is the first thing that came to your mind? I haven't even specified that it is related to Kurmi. So, did someone do a mischief there on Kurmi using the term?

b) You have mentioned yourself as Cantabrigian? I think you will know the difference between the terms? What is the difference, Sitush?    c) General Question for my curiosity: Can I use something similar on my page, not this title? Is there a verification process, or can anyone use such titles on their own Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nameisnotimportant, I didn't say that your comment related to Kurmi. I sought clarification & pointed out that if it related to sourcing of an article then the correct venue is not here but on the talk page to that article. I still cannot fathom what your original point was nor to what the new one you raise is referring. Consequently, right now I cannot respond further, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is wrong for WP to refer to one human as demigod, how is it right for WP to refer to millions upon millions of humans as sub-humans?-MangoWong (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave the emotive stuff off here, MangoWong. Forget your politico-socio-whatever agenda: if something is WP:V, WP:RS etc and not WP:Fringe or WP:Undue etc then it is eligible, period. If you cannot handle this then it is probably best not to contribute to those particular article areas because you are bringing a trainload of baggage with you. If you think shudra = subhuman then what on earth are the dalits? - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominems are not meaningful replies. They probably mean you don't have a credible reply. I don't think that coming to WP means stop being humane. Dalit is a completely humane word. If you agree to replace S***** with "Dalit", we have a nice solution there.-MangoWong (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest it there, then. Not here. I can guarantee you what the response will be, right now: "prove it". - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas: Completely agree. The question is still open? I hope the source of such knowledge about Shivaji wasn't cherry picked google powered search. Please, please, tell me. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush: I hope that by your last statement you are trying to prevent MW from asking you to prove something. I know that may not be your intention, but it seems like that. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand your logic, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They simply don't know how to make a wise choice. How can they be expected to do something that they never learned to do?-MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

... and I don't understand ^ this one at all but it seems like MW is tarring a group (which group, with what, and why for is anyone's guess). Are you two having some sort of private conversation in a public place? Look, I am a bloke, ergo, I do not do hints very well. If someone asks me to mow the lawn, I will mow it; if someone says that the grass is long, I probably will not make the connection. Either say what you want to say clear and loud, or forget the cryptic comments. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a good option there. Take it.-MangoWong (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Name, I've noted you've made several mentions of "cherry-picked google searches". First off, I'm not using random Geocities articles off Google, I'm using GoogleBooks, which is no different from going to a library and just opening a lot of books about a subject, except it happens to be infinitely faster. So far as "cherrypicking", yes, I do run searches for "kurmi shudra", but I also run searches for "kurmi kshatriya", etc. And I do note that the sort of people who complain about Kshatriya status tend to post gBooks links with "kurmi+kshatriya" in the code, and then often fail to address the extensive Shudra sources we provide. So far as Shivaji: can you honestly tell me that you are unaware of a legitimate scholarly argument that Shivaji was declared Kshatriya for political reasons, vice sudden really good research coincidentally discovering that he was Kshatriya "all along"? If you're seriously unfamiliar, I suggest you read up on the subject, no offense at all meant, it'd probably be really interesting to you. Do you have any reason why we should not explore that angle other than upsetting some Marathas?

To both Name and MW, and this part is just my general impression of the situation so nothing authoritative: it's appearing to me that a lot of the people shouting at me/others about ignorance, mistreating castes, etc. are themselves perpetuating the evils of the caste system. If every caste that had some Shudra heritage stood up and said "yes, I had ancestors that were oil-pressers or whatever, but it's time to move beyond that, admit that my ancestors were oppressed and that these past evils need to be made up for through education and economic opportunities", that would be a positive step. Instead, frankly, what we have is editors running about going "oh no! The Fooians weren't ever icky, icky Shudra!!! How dare you!!!" Treating "Shudra" as a dirty word is just perpetuating the belief that manual labour is shameful, and that this shame carries generation after generation. This may be my American bias, but in my country people take pride in saying "my grandfather worked in a coal mine, and my father worked in a steel mill, but they encouraged me to study hard and now I'm a doctor." If we encourage people to deny the past out of embarassment, we just legitimise the same prejudices that caused people to be hurt for eons in the first place. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That means "NO". They won't even explore the chance of an agreement.-MangoWong (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And they won't even seem to understand the trouble with using GBooks. They seem to think that doing a search for "Kshatriya+Kurmi" could overcome the problems with doing a search for "S*****+Kurmi".-MangoWong (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. To appease your ways of right and wrong, these races should accept all that you are saying. To disapprove and to discount the facts that Yadavs brought forth to prove their Kshatriya lineage, someone went to great lengths to tarnish the image of historians such as James Tod. Who would do that? Who would start on a half-witted attempt to distort a great scottish historian? James Tod's fault: James Tod mentions Yadavs as Kshatriya. I would think someone who wants to misrepresent the facts, ignoring any other facts. Section "Reputation" was added, adding citations which don't have any links. Purpose: to show any source that wrote Yadavs as Kshatriyas as unreliable. So much for your sense of right and wrong. Why can't you accept that you just can't se anything else except what you think is right. I can go and remove that section as there are no citations that prove that point. But I will leave it to the gentleman who did it to have the honour.

If there is any admin who is looking at this page, I will invite you to look as James Tod. Look at the section 'Reputation'. Talk page gets even more interesting. So much for your quest to bring the truth out. I am doing a lot of research on what all has been done. I will add more here on ya'all quest of 'bringing out' the Indian history. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That was jaw dropping!!!! Here's a diff of the pre Sitush version [37], and here's the current version. [38]. So NPOV.-MangoWong (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is NPOV. Good work I did there, even if I do say so myself :) - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That means "NO". They won't even explore the chance of an agreement. Agreement on what? Calling Shivaji a demigod and censoring any mention of the official legend maybe not being exactly accurate? Agreement on taking at face value the legendary claims of a given caste and not at all bringing up the academically-discussed issue that they might not be the descendants of Vedic kings and gods? I literally do not understand what you want us to agree on other than "don't use the word Shudra because it's nasty" and "we should take group claims at face value." The latter is, incidentally, why people love to quote Tod: he had no interest in really digging into origin stories, so an editor can quote Tod as though he were an actual academic verifying that everything the Rajputs told him was true, as opposed to an adventurer who wrote down cool stories.

And they won't even seem to understand the trouble with using GBooks. By all means, enlighten us. What is the problem with using gBooks? That the results you find don't match what you hoped to find? I do note that one quite a few Kshatriya vs. Shudra arguments, the only pro-Kshatriya links seem to find are Tod-style non-experts, sources which mention that a group claims Kshatriya status (which we are happy to note in every article where applicable), and the occasional source which uses the term with no context or claim of looking into the varna issue because their work simply isn't about varna (in which case their use of the term "Kurmi Kshatriya" doesn't mean "yes, I looked into it and the Kurmi are indeed Kshatriya." There are just about no groups in India that can be called "Kshatriya" without some extensive explanation as to how they claim to be called that, and the controversies involved. I got involved with this in the first place because dozens (if not hundreds) of articles were happy to put Kshatriya in the lede, in the first paragraph, or even the first sentence, and 90% of the time it's simply nowhere near that clear or definitive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Report of Vandalism

Resolved

 – See below. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people is constantly vandalised by IP users. -- 7D HMS (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to report this at WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, page was protected by User:Favonian ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)) --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

Hello folks. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar. Anyway, yesterday, I stumbled across the article at Gay Niggers Association of America while reading up on the old Scientology ArbCom case, and noticed it seemed a little - biased. As such, I drive-by-tagged it (apologies), and after the tag was removed, attempted to make a few changes myself. I made one (admittedly incomplete) content edit, trying to swing the article back to a more neutral state. Another user, LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again. So, I looked through the edit history and associated contributions, as one does. I noted that LiteralKa almost exclusively edits articles related to GNAA et al., and so I Googled the username. Not at all to my surprise, 'LiteralKa' is 'Director of Public Relations' for the GNAA group. I didn't think that LiteralKa's editing of the article was in the least bit appropriate, so I dropped him a note about COI. LiteralKa and I had a brief talk page discussion, and we left the matter at that. However, I also had a quick look at his contributions, and spotted a few AFDs LiteralKa had been involved in, as well as a history of 'owning' the GNAA and related articles. I'm going to make the following claims, therefore:

• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) is the Director of Public Relations at GNAA.
• Therefore, LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with regards to the GNAA and related organisations, and is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect.
• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has recently created some particularly pointy AFDs, both of which have the acronym 'GNAA':

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry
• I wanted to close these as 'disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point', but I think it'd be best to let them run. There's also Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, which LiteralKa has shown an interest in.

• There seem to be a host of SPAs, meatpuppets and potential GNAA members who edit GNAA articles, for example:

• Prozak (talk · contribs)
• 24.57.119.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• TrollHistorian (talk · contribs)
• NPrice (talk · contribs)
• Murdox (talk · contribs)

In short, then, I'm asking what we can do about this. Ideally, I'd like to get editors with a COI, like LiteralKa, to leave the GNAA article alone so that sensible, uninvolved folk can work on it. Some sort of topic ban? Community-endorsed? The Cavalry (Message me) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ban all forever. Don't forget snaphat (talk · contribs). See also this after I opposed the recreation of the GNAA article in February.  Diego  talk  22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That LiteralKa is associated with GNAA is not at all news to anyone who spends time at #wikipedia-en, where LiteralKa is a regular. As far as IRC members go, he has recently ranged from mildly constructive to mildly disruptive, but has previously had a history of being banned from that channel and socking to get around that ban, and spent a few days as the single most disruptive troll that I've seen in IRC space in the time I've spent there, which is nearly a year.

What does this mean for actual Wikipedia? It means that LiteralKa has proven that he has access to effective proxy services and is more than willing to sock. I would not be surprised to find that those SPIs are his sockpuppets, although it is likely that they are untraceable. At the very least, Murdox is also on IRC from time to time, so the two are either socks or meats. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the logical extension of that argument is that everyone on Wikipedia is secretly a sockpuppet of one dude with a lot of time and proxies. This is less of a matter of Wikipedia Administration and more of a witchhunt. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you just accused snaphat (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet when all he has done is vote against one of your articles. LiteralKa (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The vote is perfectly fine, and I'll leave it clear to you: I did not know of the existence of an article on mixed-breed dogs at the time I created the quiltro article, so I created it, believing it was some kind of "different" race when it is not. Snaphat's vote there is perfectly fine, yours is too; however, it is obvious you both are part of that so-called, racist organization I won't bother to spell.  Diego  talk  04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you're going to have to provide evidence that he is a member of the Gay Nigger Association of America before throwing accusations around. We've been over this before. LiteralKa (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple, user that edits very, very sparsely from 2005 votes in an AfD shortly after the director of public relations of the troll organization votes, too. Since there are no public records of who the members of the organizations are, I have no more proof than this.  Diego  talk  05:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, that is the flimsiest argument I have seen from you yet. Why would that have anything to do with the GNAA except for the fact that I happened to vote a little before him? If that's what you see as justification for banning, I sincerely hope that you never get the power to ban here. You should notify someone when you're accusing them on ANI, BTW. You're grasping at straws here, Diego. Give it a rest. LiteralKa (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and because you wouldn't notify him, I did. LiteralKa (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not related to GNAA. I didn't know it existed until the accusation. It is actually pretty clear who I am if you google my username. I'm not making an attempt to hide this information. snaphat (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore conflicts of interest exist everywhere because every single Wikipedia editor is involved with some other organization or interest, and they frequently edit topics of that nature. It's total hypocrisy for you to single out some who may be fans of the GNAA. death metal maniac (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note above user is User:Prozak. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say the AfDs should be procedurally closed. The ones that need deleting can be restarted with a nominator who isn't being obviously pointy. The AfDs weren't started in good faith, we should do the equivalent of order a mistrial. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would let the AfDs run. If the subjects were obviously notable, then speedy close would be reasonable, but they're not. Also, even if the nominations are pointy, the nomination statements themselves are reasonable in pointing out the deficiencies of the articles.. I don't see the point in policy-wonking this for the sake of it. Obviously if there is a sock issue on the AfD that needs to be sorted, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, the yearly GNAA infestation <yawn>. SOP as follows:

  Congratulate them on another successful op. Then nuke from orbit, salt the earth, close any procedures or related procedures started by GNAA puppets, Checkuser the bad guys, Get steward cover if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) it's the only way to be sure!

• Blocks all round, then? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They're not here to help build an encyclopedia. They're here for giggles. So yes, blocks all around. Let them get their kicks somewhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Get rid of the problem; yes.  Diego  talk  23:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. You're not assuming good faith on *ANY* of these accounts, and this really seems like a campaign against anyone who's commented in an anything-less-than-negative light on a GNAA-related article. I don't feel I've done anything wrong, and while I cannot account for other users, what's mentioned here hardly seems to warrant a permanent ban. If you look at past votes, they are clearly two-sided, and those who "lost" are now just trying to execute a vendetta against those who "won". Many of the accounts that have been listed are legitimate editors who edit on a number of subjects, and have participated in GNAA votes... Light-editing does not make a user a SPA or sockpuppet. nprice (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh! I didn't realize this was a topic ban, and after a discussion on IRC, not everyone who's put in their input seems aware of that either. If we do this, we should at least do it by each "suspected" user account, based on its own merits. You can't just do a blanket-ban on a group of people you've arbitrarily grouped together because of a perceived connection. Each user should have the right to contest any actions done to their account, by their own merits. What's happened here is that a list of editors has been compiled who have legitimate edits, but few enough of them that SPA can be cited the moment they do something pro-GNAA. In the last DrV, there were plenty of "keep deleted" votes from accounts with the same status. If this happens, the moment any sort of block is placed, a certain editor who's pretty vehemently commented in this "incident", and HIS group are going to take advantage of the situation they've orchestrated to get the GNAA article VfD'd again. nprice (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • One more comment - if you block any supposedly pro-GNAA people from editing, as well as their detractors, who does that *LEAVE* to actually edit the article? Admittedly, it is very polarizing, and this would just arbitrarily unbalance things one way or another. nprice (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It leaves neutral editors to edit it, who edit for a hobby, rather than for a cause. Some people are interested in organisations like this without being a part of them - I studied sociology at university, as well as computer science, so I actually find it rather enthralling. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It also leaves the multitude of editors who are forever biased against GNAA as a result of the many deletion debates. You know this. LiteralKa (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "[literalka] is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect." I'd like to see evidence of this instead of accusations being thrown around. I have attempted to follow the COI guideline to the best of my ability. "LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" I'd also like to see evidence of how I made it pro GNAA. As for trollhistorian (talk · contribs), he hasn't edited since 2007, calling into question the amount of research that Cavalry actually did. LiteralKa (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're the PR man from GNAA. Editing in the interests of public relations is frowned upon. Why don't you follow Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance, for example? Why do you consistently remove the 'COI' tage from the article, rather than waiting for a neutral editor to come along? It's all a bit fishy, if you ask me, and you're damned close to being blocked for being a single-purpose account. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have been editing for years across a wide variety of subjects. I find such accusations baseless, offensive, and childish. Coming from an arbitrator, no less. I removed the COI tag because no specific issue was taken with the article, aside from "LiteralKa edited it" (see WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits (mainly no. 6).) Additionally, you're going to have to prove that I'm "editing in the interests of public relations," instead of just claiming that I am. I have worked to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article. LiteralKa (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• IDGI Firstly, the implication that TheCavalry has "never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar." is a pretty false statement considering that's he's commented upon it multiple times in the IRC. Secondly, I'd like to further understand why I'm not a "sensible" editor considering that outside of attempting to reboot the GNAA article in my own userspace (which earned me a quickly overturned block) I've never made anything approaching unsensible edits on-wiki. That said, I don't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of wikipedia's version of due process and most of my knowledge of wikipedia's various bureaucratic branches comes from being referred to them continually. I understand ignorantia juris non excusat, but I'd appreciate it if you made it a little clearer what I'm being accused of. TIA. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• NB: If anyone feels I closed this inappropriately, feel free to open it again. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see this section closed by an administrator, considering the seriousness of the charges you brought. Closing because there is "too much drama here" is bogus; what did you expect? You can't just open up a huge can of worms and then just say "Nevermind!" FYI, I am a totally disinterested party who has never edited or even read the article in question and has never had any dealings whatsoever with any of the parties involved, nor do I particulary care about the outcome of this incident, except that it be resolved properly and competently. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problem with someone who originally brought an issue to ANI deciding to withdraw it, whether they're an admin or not. Sometimes one realizes that a particular issue is generating a great deal of noise, and not enough signal to bother with. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine if that's the case here, but in the meantime, if Cavalry wants to close out what he opened, far be it from me to stand in his way. (Sidenote, I'm using the pronoun "he" in the non-gender-specific manner.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry is an admin. LiteralKa (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and have been since 2007, so I thought it perfectly acceptable to close it myself - but I digress. I think we all dislike it when this becomes a drama-board, and the last thing I want to invoke is drama. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly tempted to close the AfDs summarily, as their intent is intentionally disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really disruptive to put articles that were created with the clear intention of "diluting" the GNAA disambig page up for deletion? I figured I would leave it up to the community to decide if they were notable for this very reason. LiteralKa (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say that yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate "dilution". The other articles, whether their subjects are notable or not (and that's still arguable...elsewhere), all bear legitimately-named organizations which just happen to bear the same initials. I'm not an attorney, but this strikes me as a prime example of scenes á faire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Created by the same editor during one of many GNAA arguments, one of which was mentioned in an academic paper once and another had nothing but passing mentions in sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I took a quick look at the histories of these articles and was going to snappishly post a response to LiteralKa along the lines of "these articles have nothing to do with the 'GNAA' controversy; they were created in 2005." But I looked a little deeper (after noticing that both articles on completely unrelated topics were created around the same time by the same user), and I now see the point LiteralKa is making. (Geez, I hadn't realized that GNAA has been a topic of discussion here since 2005!) I still think it would be better if these AfDs hadn't been created or had been created by someone else, but for what it is worth, I now see a somewhat greater substance to them than I might have initially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we please start assuming good faith on my GNAA-related edits now instead of just assuming the worst? I try to follow the rules as closely as possible when editing related pages. Also, I created {{GNAA History}} so that people could read up on the GNAA-Wikipedia relationship in as much detail as possible. LiteralKa (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to be fair to you. In fairness to me and others, you didn't make this point anywhere that I've noticed either in the AfDs or in this discussion, though it is one strongly in your favor insofar as the issue of intent is concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That was because the point was made already by someone else. (In hindsight, though, I probably should have been clearer in the nominations for each.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I have a hard time assuming good faith based on the comments contained in the very diff you link above. And I'm still going to have to hold by my earlier comment: because the articles at AfD appear to name valid, albeit arguably notable, organizations or entities that just happen to bear the same initials as yours, you will have the WP:BURDEN of showing the articles were created specifically for (to use a marketing term) brand dilution. And having said that, I'll now step back and watch. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As LiteralKa has noted, those claims are also my own, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon my shoulders as well. The fact that many find the GNAA distasteful isn't a secret, and years ago, those who found it distasteful sought to push the Gay Nigger Association of America to the back of the bus disambiguation page. One of these users was Astronautics (formerly known as Silsor). On December 7, 2004, Astronautics expanded the disambiguation page with three entries that didn't have articles at the time. On April 2, 2005, an anon removed the articleless entries from the page, and Astronautics's immediate reaction was to create articles on the Guilford Native American Association and the Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry in order to ensure that entries couldn't be removed from the page ever again. Astronautics then decided to belittle the Gay Nigger Association of America by having it listed last: [39]. Astronautics even tried to push GNAA as an acronym for the Great North Air Ambulance Service. Another user involved in similar activities was Brian0918. Brian0918 supported the idea of listing disambiguation page's entries by their perceived significance. When the tables turned on him, he pointedly added an articleless entry listed alphabetically over Gay Nigger and made an equally pointy comment: "alright, then, alphabetical order is fine." When Sam Hocevar removed those articleless entries, Brian0918 took a page out of Astronautics's book and created a Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica article. Those articles weren't created out of good faith; they were created solely to belittle the GNAA on a disambiguation page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the most flattering description I've recently heard of Wikipedia is "the place people go to win bar bets", and that Wikipedia itself won't allow Wikipedia articles to be used as reliable sources, I'm fairly well convinced that no one is going to take ANY article found on Wikipedia as God's Own Truth™, so an argument regarding irreparable harm to ANY of the article topics under consideration here is, in my mind, laughable at best. And now that I've said all that, here's what I see as the acid test for this case. Are the editors in question willing to accept a keep outcome on any or all of the AfDs in question? And what, if any, would the overall effect be on GNAA, other than having to share space on a disambiguation page? Yes, this is a serious question, and I'd appreciate a serious answer. And on a sidenote, I'd like to thank Michaeldsuarez for taking the time to lay out a clear, concise argument supporting his position...even though there are some who won't agree with it, it's a refreshing change from the dramatics I've seen lately on various noticeboards. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to address the issue of OWNership, I'm pretty sure that I have abstained from editing the GNAA article as much as I used to once it passed the deletion review (ie. entered mainspace.) Before that, my intention was (and still is) to help develop a genuinely acceptable Wikipedia article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As an experienced editor entirely uninvolved with any disputes about the other GNAA, I think that this tempest-in-a-teapot is exceptionally unfair to the Guilford Native American Association. This is a solid, worthy organization that has existed for decades, and reasonable people may well disagree about its notability by Wikipedia standards. However, the Guilford group has done nothing that justifies its online reputation being dragged into this "inside baseball" dispute on Wikipedia. It is unjust and distasteful. They've had an article here for 5-1/2 years. Consider the impact on uninvolved people who stumble into this debate while looking for information about a group that was founded 25 years before Wikipedia was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the view stats, I'd reckon that doesn't happen much, if at all. LiteralKa (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So, if its only three parents of Native American kids with problems, rather than 20, that's OK with you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how one of them is me, and the other two are related to the page deletion, yes. LiteralKa (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google reports that there are an average of 36 searches per month for "guilford native american association". Our article shows up at the top of that search. The potential for collateral embarrassment to this group is real.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The "collateral embarrassment" you mention would be made no worse: its "relationship" to the GNAA would be no more apparent than it already is. LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you then agree the converse is also true...the existence of the Guilford Native American Association, and hence its article, causes no "collateral embarrassment" to GNAA? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'd like it to be known that I am not any way related to GNAA. I simply voted once on some article AfD of diegos. Since it is very easy to look up who I am, so there is absolutely no reason why this accusation should have occurred in the first place. What can be done about this? snaphat (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree here. I don't see that you're a part of GNAA in the same way as LiteralKa, and it's LiteralKa's conduct I have an issue with in any case - everyone else seems tangentially related, and I'm not 'anti-' or 'pro-' GNAA. The only reason I've issued a block so far is that NPrice (talk · contribs) turned out to be a reincarnation of a blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks you! I'm not concerned with what is going on here beyond making sure I don't wrongfully get banned or sanctions against me as I've done nothing wrong. snaphat (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry, can you please provide diffs of LiteralKa's alleged meddling in the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's revisions after your own revisions appears fine to me, and LiteralKa provide clear edit summaries. Can you please back your "[LiteralKa] stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" comment? Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not specific edits, because the edits themselves are individually small and apparently harmless - but they add up to have a cumulative effect. I find it amazing that he's removing COI tags added by neutral editors - and bizarrely citing Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits as a reason for doing so. Ask yourself this: Why is the Head of PR, and the 'Head of Wikipedia editing' (easily accessible through Google searches, seeing as 'LiteralKa' is the username he uses all over the internet, for everything), for GNAA, editing the article at all? This is a man who wrote - just four months ago - Jimmy "Babyrapist" Wales... convicted sex offenders known on Wikipedia as "Sysops"... forcefully ejaculating into MuZemike's pedophile mouth.... And let's not forget the wonderful quote that The Wikimedia Foundation refused to return our requests for comment. Saying only that "those dumb niggers" do not "deserve a fucking article". The man who wrote this is apparently an editor without a COI? Would we allow this from the Head of PR for any other organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a COI to me. Given his background, LiteralKa should not be editing the article at all. snaphat (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When LiteralKa removed that COI tag, there hasn't been any discussion about COI since the previous discussion on COI and neutrality concerns was settled several days earlier. Cavalry didn't make any attempt to re-initiate that discussion, and there wasn't any answer to my call for evidence. Silver_seren also noted the lack of further discussion. There isn't anyone who takes anything say on the GNAA website at face value. It's unlikely that anything said on that website will harm the Wikipedians mentioned. LiteralKa uses the GNAA website in the same way I use Encyclpedia Dramatica: To be funny and entertain visitors. LiteralKa didn't use those press releases to out anyone. Should we ban anyone who mocks Wikipedia on Encyclopedia Dramatica or the Wikipedia Review? Only one thing matters here: How does LiteralKa influence the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's offsite activity doesn't have any effect on that article, so that activity is irrelevant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I disagree, and I do not have to cite specific edits, because the conflict of interest is plainly obvious. Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article. This isn't about WR, or ED - bringing those sites in is a fallacious argument, and a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue with drama. The only thing that matters here is: should the Head of PR of an organisation be the main editor of the article for that organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article"? I'm seeing a revision by you from July 8, 2011. You added the COI tag on July 14, 2011, and that talk page I had mentioned had only ended the day before. As the PR Head, LiteralKa has the best motivation to keep the article neutral and free of crud from those who despise the group. Why don't you point out how LiteralKa made the article less than neutral? Can you? You haven't done so so far. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're talking about allowing PR reps to be the main editors for articles because you think they're neutral? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with ChaseMe: this is incredibly peculiar reasoning on MichaelD's part. PR heads, by definition, want to shape coverage of their subject to fit their own agenda, which is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If PR people were truly neutral, we wouldn't have 1/4 the number of UAA reports we get. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I have to counter Michaeldsuarez' argument. As the self-styled PR man for GNAA, how can LiteralKa not have a COI when editing the GNAA article? I will stipulate that WP:COI specifically states that a voluntarily-disclosed conflict of interest should not be used as a weapon against the editor. However, WP:COI is also quite clear that an editor should avoid making changes to an article unless it helps the project as a whole, and given both the size and the heat emanating from this discussion, I can't see any help to the project as a whole. In fact, based on what I'm seeing, his editing is damaging not only the GNAA article (due to inherent bias) but several other articles as well, simply because the names of the articles have the unmitigated bad fortune to create acronyms of "GNAA". Add to that the comments from the GNAA Web site quoted above, and to me it adds up to a fairly damning case, very little of which is circumstantial. And before I go any farther, I'm also going to stipulate that I do NOT have a dog in this hunt. I have no association with GNAA (in any of the incarnations under discussion...hells, in at least two cases I couldn't even pass the physical!), I have not edited any of the articles, and I have not participated in any of the AfD discussions. My focus here is to examine the core issue and see if there's any sort of mutually-agreeable solution that won't wind up involving significant admin (or higher) action. Sadly, I fear it may be too late for that last, but that won't stop me from giving it a go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI - "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." LiteralKa (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The COI template doesn't mention citations, and I can tell you right now that #6 doesn't apply in the case you're talking about. If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit, and you shouldn't be making it at all. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The way COI works is this way... If an editor has a COI but complies with all policies and guidelines, and other editors do not object to their edits, then we allow their editing of the main space of the article (we even encourage it, really). If, however, the editor is being disruptive (either through conflicts with all other editors or violating policies and guidelines), then that editor can be blocked or banned. If we can verify either through technical or behavioral means that sockpuppetry has been occurring, that seems to me a valid reason to do both in this case. -- Atama頭 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got no prior involvement with this article, but having read through this thread, I'll just add that LiteralKa seems to have a pretty transparent COI regarding this article, and as such should (at the very least) publicly make that clear; and preferably should avoid making any edits to the GNAA article at all. Minor edits are OK but not if they're controversial (and if someone reverts them, that's a clear sign that they are). Robofish (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This recent edit by LiteralKa is non-neutral and the edit summary does not accurately describe it.[40] Given the history and the ongoing problems, I think that LiteralKa and Murdox, listed as GNAA president,[41] should not be editing the article directly, nor should they be involved in AFDs related to GNAA. It would be sufficient for them to use talk pages to suggest edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that something is "non-neutral." It's another to say why. LiteralKa (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but my ADHD makes it very hard to follow the thread of a huge discussion like this without losing track of the argument. Could someone point out to me specifically which edits on the GNAA article are non-neutral or controversial, and why I need to be blocked from editing the GNAA article? My vague understanding of COI is that it doesn't apply if the edits aren't controversial. Murdox (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're editing an article about a group of which you're the president then you should really become familiar with the relevant guideline. WP:COI.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep avoiding the issue of citing specific edits and saying how they're POV? LiteralKa (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I've violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. In fact, I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but I don't see why this means I should be blocked from making edits to the page I feel are appropriate? By all means, if you could cite specific edits or lines of policy it would help me understand your position more. TIA. Murdox (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit removed text illustrating the perception of the organization's name as racist, it removed (sourced) information about the group's antagonism toward blogs and Wikipedia, and another mention of the intentionally offensive nature of the organization's name. Either you're being disingenuous about the slant you're trying to put in the article, or unable to recognize it, either of which is a very valid reason to ban you from further involvement in editing the article. -- Atama頭 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The "racism" was discussed later in the article. Same with the antagonism bit. LiteralKa (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User ClaudioSantos (again), personal attacks

Disruptive user ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making numerous personal attacks against other editors, likening them to "buffoons" and "donkies". When reproached for this, he simply claims, in broken English, that this is how people interact in Spanish (namely, with insulting epithets and pejorative metaphors).

I quote him here:

"Your last comment is what we call here "un ladrón bufón" (a burglar playing also as a buffoon)." [42]

"[In referring to another editor] We say "un burro hablando de orejas ("a donky speaking about ears")." [43]

I will not go into his extensive history of disruption, right from when he was an IP-hopping editor. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You state he's using multiple accounts. Have you opened a sockpuppetry investigation? That seems to me the next logical step to take. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, AFAIK he is only using the ClaudioSantos account now. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if he's socking or not? Uncivil editor is uncivil. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So this didn't go to WP:WQA...why, exactly? That seems a much more apropos venue for the issue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because of exasperation with this user. He started off editing as an IP on Action T4 and reduce the pace to a shambles, despite the repeated intervention of admin TeaDrinker, who could not control him. He posted messages in ALL CAPS AND BOLD again and again on the Talk page, claiming that wikipedia was conspiring to murder people. Eventually he registered an account, which was blocked, and now another account, ClaudioSantos. As ClaudioSantos he is engaged in numerous edit wars on euthanasia-related pages, for instance:

1. Trying to insert the word "murder" onto Dr Jack Kevorkian's page
2. Trying to put an Infobox Criminal on Kevorkian's page
3. Trying to delete nearly all of the content on the pages Suicide bag and Exit International
4. Trying to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism "euthanasia" to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia.
5. Etc etc .. too much to go into here.

Bottom line is that this is a highly disruptive, bafflegab-generating, intensely POV editor who is harming the project in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. His egregious insults were the final straw. So I guess this is more, in the end, than an etiquette issue, and I should have said so in the beginning. This is really an extension of a previous incident on this noticeboard → here A search for "claudiosantos" on this board raises several other incidents on this editor, lodged by other editors (not me). Jabbsworth (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See also his list Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jabbsworth, who reported me here becasue alleged PA, he is currently being involved in a WP:WQA as another user feels Jabbsworth has been personally attacking him[44]. Few days ago Jabbsworth was unblocked after being permanently blocked due 6-sockpuppets. His 6 sockpuppets has also a long record of edit wars. Just one day after being unblocked Jabbsworth got another block due edit warring. I have also felt rude his comments remarking the users' religion[45][[46] and language[47][48]. And more than one user expresively asked to stop that sort of comments. It seems that as he is against my position on euthanasia then he encourages other users to report me to the ANI. Ironically the above user who complaint about Jabbsworth rude behaviour was in the past encouraged by Jabbsworth to report me to the ANI to get a block for me ate the euhtanasia articles. For my comments: the above comments were clearly explained in the respective talk page of that article, those are spanish expressions, adages, proverbs used to explain certain situations, and I expressively said that I was not referring to the users but to the situation, precisely "a donkey speaking about ears" is a proverb used when someone accuses or remarks faults allegedely commited by another people while he himself is commiting those faults, it is like a donkey speaking about other's ears. I do not know what is the respective english expresion. But after all I know why Jabbsworth did intrud in a conversation between me and another user just to encourage the other user to report me to the ANI because of my proverbs. Look my last editions on Euthanasia or in Richard Jenne and in the respective talk pages, to realize what are my real edits, all well sourced and all my efforts to argue in the dispute resolution there using reliable, verifiable references, etc (See for example this or this). For a change, it seems Jabbsworht is just trying to resolve the dispute through eliminating me out of the field. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. My own etiquette case involves a user who cannot produce any evidence of a PA, other than that I quoted his misspelled word with a (sic) next to it,
2. My recent unblock and puppet case involved me using multiple accounts to try to avoid persistent wikistalking and even real life stalking, and the evidence was accepted by Arbcom, so do not raise it again.
3. I have made no rude comments on anyone's religion, merely highlighted that some of the POV edits on euthanasia are coming from the religiously motivated (which everyone knows is true),
4. Likening people to "buffoons" and "donkeys" is not excused by claiming cultural differences. Perhaps, since you are a native Spanish speaker, you should take your insults to the Spanish version of wikipedia where nobody will take exception? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct link to that earlier IP-case mentioned is this one. It is a case out of 2009, so I have no idea what is the worth of it in 2011.

Secondly, Jabbsworth a.k.a. Ratel a.k.a. TickleMeister has a particular disrespect for people who's first language is not English. Referring to other peoples spelling mistakes is extremely annoying and, to my opinion, a PA. By the way: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Jabbsworth. There Jabbsworth disruptive and annoying style of editing is discussed. No matter what happens, he claims to be the innocent victim and the other guys is the bad boy.

Thirdly: it is just a content dispute. To my opinion ClaudioSantos is strongly against euthanasia, while Jabbsworth is strongly in favour of it (to the extent sometimes that he is promoting it).

In my opinion, the only way to solve this dispute is giving a topic ban to euthanasia related articles to both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos. (And I would accept one too, if necessary) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment above comes from someone who believes I am "promoting" a non-profit by adding the number of staff and names of key directors to the organisation's infobox on the organisation's wikipage. Is this a sane viewpoint? You do the math, dear reader! Jabbsworth (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is adding this picture neutral or a provocation? I take it as a provocation and POV-pushing... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You Jabssworth subtracted to the equation that NotBW is also reverting your attempts to publish in wikipedia parts of a manual to commit suicide, which is one of the well known purpose of that organization: to teach how to commit suicide. And NotBW not solely warned that is not the purpose of wikipedia to teach how to commit suicide, but he also (plus) warned that it also could bring adverse legal consequences for wikimedia foundation, because assisting suicide is against the law in most of the United States including Florida. Perhaps readers know more than subtract. Notice that NotBW never suggested that Jabbsworth's point of view was insane or illegal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Three month topic ban proposal

Proposed for community consideration:

Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed, and banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, for a period of three months. Any checkuser-verified sockpuppetry used to evade the ban by those users during the ban period will result in a six-month editing block on that user. Either user may make minimal reports to uninvolved administrators should they observe a topic ban violation by the other party that is not responded to, 24 hrs after the violation and in absence of any administrator reaction, but may not discuss it further after notifying of the diff and the applicable ban.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic and interaction bans based on observed exchanges between editors both at WP:ANI and on the Euthanasia talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree unless the ban specifically relates to Euthanasia and its subpages (ie Voluntary euthanasia, Non-voluntary euthanasia etc). This is, in fact, a proposal I put to ClaudioSantos myself, suggesting to him that we only make arguments on the Talk pages diff. Of course, he declined. But do not extend the ban, for me at least, to articles I have defended with consensus support, such as Jack Kevorkian, which ClaudioSantos has tried to vandalise by calling the man a "murderer" and changing his Medical Infobox to a Criminal Infobox, etc. For heavens sake, don't punish someone who is defending the Project from this sort of rubbish! Likewise, don't ban me from pages like Suicide bag, because this page is now under attack by an editor with a grudge against me (Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) who is trying to have it reduced to a stub on specious grounds. And at least leave access to all Talk pages. Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's not editing on the topic, there's nothing to have to defend (and others editing in consensus can do usual work on it). The proposed ban includes talk pages as both you and ClaudioSantos have had aggressive head-butting sessions on those. It's just better for both of you to step away from the topic and each other, and work on something else for a while. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok George, if that's what you want. I'm only trying to improve the euthanasia space, which has been sorely neglected and recently messed up by people with political or religious axes to grind. But there are a few good editors getting involved now too, so let them at it! Please consider topic banning Night of the Big Wind too please, as he's been fanning flames from the get-go, and he has invited one above as well when he said Claudio and I should be banned, "and I would accept one too, if necessary". That's an admission that he's been heavily involved in the disruption. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen much disruption involving Night of the Big Wind, but if others feel he should be included then the case can be presented. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A ban will not change that it was a jury who condemned Jack Kevorkian as a murderer so I was just editing the thing based on reliable sources. And be aware also that you Jabbsworth publicly attempt to pressume and publish my alleged religion, my country of location, as you have done repeatedly is a sort of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT. You Jabbsworth were already warned here. Your double standars are proverbial as I have noticed with my proverbs but also was noted by NotBW -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down and discuss constructively here, ClaudioSantos. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey George, it is absolutely not constructive that Jabbsworth have been referring publicly to my personal info, my "religious agenda", my "incomprehensible grammar", my "tenuous grasp of English", my "broken english" my "poor reading comprehension", and just here above referring to my edits as "vandalism", "rubish", etc.; and I am not the only user concerned (just above he said "grudge", "insane point of view", "bloody minded" referring to NotBW, etc.). I have also more than one time complained about these disruptive provocations but I have got no response from you George. So I also find far from being constructive that again and again you solely ask me to calm down, but again and again you let that sort of things pass, without not even a shy demand adressed to Jabbsworth about his disruptive, provocative and rude behaviour to the oher users. It seems a clew of certain sort of bias from you. If you would at least attempted to stop that sort of comments perhaps I would not had to publish mine nor to defend myself from those PA's. To get an objective panorama you also should have read my edits during the last days. For example you should take a look of Talk:Euthanasia and talk:Richard Jenne, wher I have been just providing sources and arguments, thus making strong efforts to argue and avoiding Jabbswroth provocations. While Jabbsworth again and again was solely "replaying" my comments with provocations and nothing else. So be fair to be constructive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the NY Times link in Claudio's post. -- JN466 05:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• strong support A classic tracert more or less confirmed my suspicion that you might have a conflict of interest in the whole Euthanasia-sector and Exit International. But is still only a suspicion. To me it seems a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. Okay, we're going to have to give you a chance to reword that there, because I just read that comment as saying that an entire country has COI and shouldn't be editing certain pages. That's an inappropriate remark to make. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This better? (after 3x bwc) Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Although Jabbsworth is not bound to publish his private information, does not should he let the community clearly know if he has a relationship with Exit International as it could constitute a COI given his clearly strong and biased engagement in that article and in Suicide bag which is also related to that organization?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to comply. I have absolutely no relationship to Exit International (a non-profit, BTW). I am guilty of owning a copy of The Peaceful Pill Handbook though, and like the vast majority of people, I support the concept of voluntary euthanasia, because I've seen people dying in agony, despite painkillers and hospice palliative care. I have no desire to force my religion down other people's throats, forcing them to die an undignified and horrific death because my god or ideology dictates it. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at any rate you are trying to force your POV on euthanasia here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• But first, would either Night of the Big Wind or ClaudioSantos do Wiki a favour and go to Jack Kevorkian and fix the claim that at least 17 patients who suicided "could have lived indefinitely". Might be OK for a newspaper to say people can live indefinitely, but Wiki hopefully has better scholarship than to perpetuate such an absurd statement. Moriori (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It was not NotBW neither me who added that sentence to that article. But at any rate, if eternal life is your concern may you should read that sentence literally. As "living idefinitely" strictly does not mean "living forever", but precisely: an undefined time. I now have to wonder if killing is precisely defining life's lenght. Whatever. You Moriori perhaps should also find absurd the wide spreaded slogan: "right to die", as if someone could be forced to live forever. Should it be rewritten "right to not live indefinitely"?. Whatever again. What I certainly have to write here is that the "right to live" is also a quite absurd statement that -nevertheless- had to be included into the law, precisely because people are indeed being killed. For example, in the German Weimar Constitution, there was not explicity a "right to live". But this apparently natural and self-evident right had to be included after WWII in the German Constituion and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because of the 60 million of murders, included those commited by doctors under the guise of euthanasia during the Nazi regime. Perhaps it should be noticed here that also the informed consent binding medical doctors, was also not a gift from the good doctors, but it was included into the law because of the indeed coercively medical practices in the nazi europe, but also at other places like the forced sterilizations in the United States. Excuse my non-indefinitely long response. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - CS seems to be edit warring again already on the Jack Kevorkian page. Let's end the disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit warring? For restoring a quote trimed by Jabbsworth just because a medical chief was critic to Kevorkian? In a paragraph with balanced pros and cons? A paragraph that was accepted by consensus with NotBW?. You must be joking or are you biased yourself? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You are up for a three month topic ban on the articles, and in the middle of that you've made the same edit three times [49] [50] [51] in less than two hours, reverting two other editors. Regardless of the content, that's edit warring. If it's that important, the best thing for both of you to do is to just leave it for some other editors who's not about to be topic banned. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, half of Kevorkian's "Legacy" subsection is occupied by a scathing comment from a man who runs the palliative care unit in a Catholic hospital. It should have been completely removed because it is nothing more than mean-spirited sniping, and has naught to do with his legacy, but I left some of it in to satisfy Claudio. That was not good enough for him. It's his all or nothing, take no prisoners approach that's making editing anywhere in his vicinity toxic. What's the Spanish word for "compromise"? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have read it properly, Jabbsworth. In fact the guy said plain: I like the way he stirred up the debat, but his methods were wrong. Then you should not chop away half of it. Page protection is requested to stop another of your editwars, but at least that is better then the page protection you have requested on Suicide bag to protect your own edits from evil guys. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Full Support I've protected three articles fully for 2 weeks because of the two and edit warring. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner, again

I've had the misfortune to get embroiled in monitoring Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs), who I recently blocked for a month due to a serious failure to disengage from mutilatio ex equus mortis. It appears that Tokerdesigner has, in a completely unsurprising move, chosen to use his month off to compile yet another list of injustices on his talk page. Could someone who has sensibly remained uninvolved have a look and decide what, if anything, needs done about this? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude is paranoid, obviously. At this point, even a brief skim though his contribs makes it abundantly clear that the (drug addled?) person behind he username is basically unfit to edit constructively here. I wish it weren't so, but this guy has been given every opportunity and then some. Increase the block to indef and walk away.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...but MfD the user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

mutilatio ex equus mortis, from the people that brought you Romanes eunt domus. People, if you are going to make up fake Latinisms, at least try to make them grammatically correct. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nil illigitimo clockwork, costus illigitimus (I'm sure you get the gist lol) Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole fun of pidgin Latin is to mutilate it. :) Nevertheless, I'm not entirely comfortable with increasing the block myself right now. If the soapboxing in question gets to Biblical proportions like the last one then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully support an indef block on Tokerdesigner. He seems incapable of comprehending and abiding by our content policies if they happen to contradict his own, shall we say... unique ideas about the proper way to smoke pot. This has been going on for years now and is unlikely to ever stop. I have been involved ina content dispute with him in the past and so will have to recuse myself from admin action here, but hopefully someone will step up and take the necessary action. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

*cough*At least the editor didn't print a book with an incorrect Latin title. ;) - SudoGhost 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Latine dictum, sit altum videtur. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner's soapboxing is clearly not going to stop. I suppose I should be flattered to not be considered a sockpuppet in his recent user talk page screed despite having blocked him for a week last month. I'd support an indefinite block and revocation of his user talk page privileges (since he's just using that page to continue the same behavior that got him blocked). I'd do it myself, really, I don't think anything I've done should make me involved. As long as nobody has a reasonable objection or expectation that he'll suddenly change. -- Atama頭 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth considering a topic ban on cannabis related topics, rather than an indef? How are his contributions in other areas? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonexistent. This is an WP:SPA, every edit I've looked at, going back several years is aimed at promoting his philosophies about safe pot smoking and/or discouraging the use of cigarettes or joints. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

These are his article edits not related to cannabis, out of all of his non-deleted edits:

All non-cannabis article space edits

Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche on February 18, 2011. Robinsons Galleria on January 27, 2011. Vascular plant on January 25, 2011. Symphony No. 9 (Bruckner) on January 23, 2011. Wood flour on January 3, 2011. Wood flour on December 21, 2010. Jorge Luis Borges on August 24, 2010. Troll on August 24, 2010. (Technically 2 edits.) Pijin language on November 9, 2009. The End of Man on October 30, 2009. The Bloody Exorcism of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Damned – The Strange World of José Mojica Marins on October 30, 2009. The Strange World of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Embodiment of Evil on October 30, 2009. 48 Hours of Hallucinatory Sex on October 30, 2009. Mozart and Beethoven on April 21, 2009. Choral symphony on March 11, 2009. Philip Glass on December 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 17, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 25, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 21, 2008. Symphony No. 39 (Mozart) on August 21, 2008. Carl Nielsen on April 7, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Symphony in F sharp major (Korngold) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Solomon Volkov on March 31, 2008. Alexander Glazunov on March 11, 2008. Sanding block on March 7, 2008. Ivan Sollertinsky on February 12, 2008. Plastic shopping bag on September 25, 2007. Plastic shopping bag on September 24, 2007.

Out of 1,330 edits, 37 of them were to articles that weren't related to cannabis. (There were also a handful of talk page edits to non-cannabis topics also but I didn't bother to document them.) The majority of those edits were minor. It has been 5 months since his last non-cannabis edit. It's pretty safe to say that he is a single-purpose editor and a topic ban would be a de facto site ban. -- Atama頭 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been a while, but that he has contributed to other types of articles indicates that there may be some point to topic banning rather than just outright banning / blocking him. Largely SPA, but not entirely. His problems seem related to the topic.

He might chose to walk away from other topics if topic banned, but perhaps a mid-term topic ban (1 month? 3 months?) with a community review to be based on his contibutions elsewhere in the meantime? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess a topic ban can be attempted, maybe he'll work on music-related articles. That seems to be the only topic that he has made any real substantial contribution to that isn't cannabis-related. I'll note that even many of those edits seem to have a good deal of WP:OR in them, which is part of the problem that he has had with his cannabis-related work also. If he is banned, and violates the ban (as I would predict he would) then it would probably just lead to an indefinite block anyway. -- Atama頭 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This has suddenly changed to an SPA issue? Would that address the topic of this thread which is epic soapboxing and incivility? Mjpresson (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if an editor is causing trouble that is exclusive to a particular topic area, sometimes they can be productive outside of the area, that's the whole point of having topic bans. A ban is easier to support if we can expect that the editor could be productive elsewhere, and one way to show the possibility of that is to show what work they've done on other topics (a real SPA would never have had any activity anywhere else). As I said, though, my experiences don't make me optimistic about the potential for the topic ban to work, but violating a topic ban would lead to an indefinite block anyway, so either way we can stop the disruption. -- Atama頭 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support A topic ban or indef block. Looking over his contributions I think he does more harm than good to project. A topic ban will, in my opinion, probably lead to a future indef block but if we want to be conservative then that would be the way to go. N^oformation ^Talk 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• My only concern with a topic ban is that his problem appears to be... well, um... mental. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, but it seems obvious that the guy is slightly unstable, and probably suffers from paranoia problems (which, as far as I understand, is a possible side effect of smoking too much reefer). I don't say that to disparage the guy, but to make the point that even if he complies with the topic ban (which I'm guessing will be a large "if") and moves to another area, all we'll be doing is spreading the problem around to other areas. That being said, I'm not adamantly against letting the block expire and enacting a topic ban, and I'm certainly willing to give an editor every possibility (to the point of slight unreasonableness, actually), but I'd hate to see him running around stirring up shit and driving otherwise productive editors away before we really give up on him.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't entirely appropriate as a line of discussion. If there's a topic ban from the community, they can stop editing or find other areas to productively edit. If they edit disruptively in other areas then that's handled. The objective of the topic ban is to handle the glaring problem but leave open a path to recovery and redemption, if they can move into a productive editing mode. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Right... like I said, I'm not adamantly against the topic ban idea. Go ahead and try it. <shrug> I'll just hang on to my "I told ya so" for later, is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have little confidence that it will work, since he's more a SPA than not, but it's worth a try. If he is topic banned, his user page needs to be cleared of all cannabis-related material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd already said that a topic ban might be worth an attempt, but I suppose I might as well make a formal approval of the idea. -- Atama頭 07:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

London School of Economics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – User:Bentheadvocate blocked as a sock

We're having a minor edit war on London School of Economics and Kingston University. I don't know how to proceed because my sourced edits are being reverted because another editor doesn't like me. If someone could weigh in I'd be grateful. It almost seems like he'll keep reverting even if he has no real reason to. BETA 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything beyond a content dispute here - AN/I is for issues that require administrator intervention. If you have a dispute that cannot be resolved easily on the talk page of the article, take a look at the other steps in the dispute resolution process. Looking at some of the edits involved, I also kind of have the feeling that a wp:boomerang may be involved here pretty soon... Kevin (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to report this here, but see that I've been beaten to it. BETA, who has been heavily involved in a contentious dispute over our Kingston University article, and stated on the talk page that he "believe[s] that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk" [52], has chosen to add a new section to our article on the London School of Economics, where he writes: "London School of Economics' Academic Board has voted for a self-imposed maximum of ₤8000 per year in tuition fees per course. The regulation is applicable to all courses. The school's Council Will firm up the final figures on a course by course basis, provided they fall withing this ruling. School President Charlotte Gerada stated that she is both "grateful and proud", considering their rank in the top 5th of universities in UK. Other UK universities, including Kingston University, have decided to opt for the maximium". [53] Note also the misleading edit summary "new section, looking to nominate for good article". As the article history shows [54] after I removed the gratuitous reference to Kingston University, he has reverted it. I had made clear to him that this will lead to the matter being reported here.

Given his stated POV, and his disregard for the integrity of other articles, I consider at minimum a topic ban on any matters concerning British universities is entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And when he mentions this POV problem, I promptly reassure him that my edits reflect the sources(though my most recent one had a minor accidental misinterpretation that was quickly corrected), my admitted bias about one particular university, created by the information I looked up for my contribution to the article, isn't relevant to my sourced edits. BETA 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:Boomerang. I mean this has been going on for a while on Kingston University before I even got to it. I might have gotten a little frustrated, I don't know. :0) BETA 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You add a couple of contributions and both of them are ripped to shreds, over minor things, it's bound to make you a little upset right?BETA 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "minor" isn't really in line with popular opinion. Even so, that doesn't excuse trying to make a point by going to another article and take the fight there. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if I were making a point, Notpointy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it". Showing readers a contextual distinction is not disruptive. BETA 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A "contextual distinction" between what and what? You edited the LSE article to assert your POV regarding KU. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me how my edit slanted the point of view of the article. I didn't say anything that was more positive or negative than the sources I supplied, despite the misunderstanding about the final decision. BETA —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Did you edit the LSE article (a) because you were "looking to nominate for good article" as you claimed in the edit summary, or (b) so as to include an off-topic comment about KU? Given your recent editing history, and your self-proclaimed low opinion of KU, it seems hard to believe the former. Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page, or to find some other way to make a general point about fees without naming one specific university? I think you are stretching credulity beyond reasonable grounds here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page" - again, double standard, isn't it the "logical response" before removing something to discuss it on the talk page. WP:NPOVFAQ:"Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." BETA 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You haven't answered the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Essay trumps policy? BETA 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing trumps anything. The two most important principles you can have for how to behave at Wikipedia are WP:UCS and WP:DBAD. Other policies, guidelines, and essays only exist for people who lack the ability to obey those principles. --Jayron32 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Wikilawyering isn't going to help, BTA. Taking a failed argument from one article to another unrelated one is pretty clearly a violation of WP:POINT. Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT is mostly about attempts to sway consensus, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. --BETA 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't going to tell us why you decided to edit the LSE article to include a gratuitous comment about Kingston University? I can't see any point in discussing this further then. You are clearly more concerned with pushing your personal agenda than with contributing towards Wikipedia, and as such, I'd suggest that maybe you would best direct your efforts elsewhere. If you continue in this vein, you may soon have no choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What ever you think your motives were, they look and feel like an attempt to bring your issues about KU (which is under full protection atm) to an article you could edit, you may think that was not to prove a point, others (including me BTW) think it was. As others have already made clear to you both here and at your talk page, if you carry on in this way you are likely to attract a block or topic ban.

(edit conflict)If you want some advice, before you make any changes to university articles think, is, or could this be, a contentious change and if the answer is "Yes" post a note on the Talk page and leave it 48hrs to see what others think. This is after all a collaborative encyclopaedia and not a web based university guide or review forum. Oh and least you are in doubt any edit involving either "fees" or, in your case, given your comments, "Kingston University" is going to fall into the category of "a contentious change". Mtking ^(edits) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Bentheadvocate for obvious reasons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Whatever his problem is with Kingston University, it shouldn't be allow to spill over to other articles as this behaviour is evidence of. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Can the exact nature of any proposed topic ban be made clear, for example is it Universities, UK Universities, UK University Fees, Kingston University ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related to Kingston University" would be plenty for me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related in any way to Kingston University" might be better, given BETA's predilection for nit-picking over semantics. I did however suggest a ban on edits related to British universities in general: my thinking was that if he has a strong POV on one, he is unlikely to be neutral regarding others, and a general ban is easier to define. Still if the ban is confined to KU, and enforced, it'll probably do the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Ben has been problematic in a number of places since he recently became active again, in particular he enjoys playing semantic games with people, pushing the lawyer talk to absurd heights. At WP:COIN, for instance, he has made arguments like this one which raise the likelihood that his goal is to get under people's skin and cause disruption, not actually improve the encyclopedia. I wish I could believe that a topic ban from KU-related articles would resolve the issue, but I doubt that it will, I feel that this just happens to be where he's currently active, and a topic ban will just lead him to disrupt elsewhere. I considered the possibility that the account was compromised, as is often the case when an editor returns after a long absence to cause disruption, but then I saw this comment from 2008 (before his previous absence), so I think this is just how he has always been. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Bans for Bentheadvocate and Cameron Scott. Such bans, absent threats or totally off-topic edits/vandalism generally should not be enacted, as this amounts to censorship, particularly when they are phrased so broadly as a ban on "anything related to" x.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would agree with Atama's analysis. The problem (to the extent that there is one) is not specific to Kingston University. I don't think he'd even heard of the place until he saw the kerfuffle and one of the editors being topic banned. His first appearance on Wikipedia was a very similar situation.

  1. User:Magnonimous had been edit warring at Coral calcium was eventually blocked indefinitely on 31 December 2007. [55]

  2. Bentheadvocate (BETA) registers new account one day later [56] and writes on his user page am not a new user, I have had some experience on wikipedia in the past. So don't be surprised if I seem to know more than I should.

  3. BETA then Proposes a new Wikiproject "CCE : Commission for Collaborative Editing" [57] (never enacted, no one signs up apart from him) but decides that Coral Calcium will be its first "case". [58] and sets about "advocating" for the blocked user's approach to the subject. Then appears to lose interest, moves on and stops editing altogether in May 2008.

  4. BETA returns three years later and heads for Samatha first as an IP [59] then as himself to edit war over external links with his previous antagonist at Coral calcium.

  5. BETA jumps in with both feet at Kingston University using similar tactics/arguments/alphabet soup to Coral calcium and Samatha kerfuffles.

  So no, topic bans are pretty pointless in the face of these kinds of shenanigans. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Shenanigan #6. BETA starts and perpetuates an edit war at London School of Economics and then procedes to nominate for GA [60], despite one of the basic critera being "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily re-opening file. In reply. Yes, If I recall correctly I had been editing via IP at the time, until I came across the notice board's record of the controversial gang-up that occured on Coral Calcium, by proponents of now defrocked Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch fame. And while I don't agree with the victim's response to the antics, I nevertheless felt compelled to intervene based on the slanted state of the article at that time, and the injustice of it all. I realized that if I were to take this on I would have to establish myself as a regular fixture on this site, at which point I created my User status. And from time to time I do try to make sure that the quote unquote enforcers and deletionists don't overstep their bounds, at the expense of encyclopedic quality, and the dignity of other editors. Thank you. Resealing file; July 23rd 2011 --BETA 08:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

??? In what way has Stephen Barrett been "defrocked"? Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Following this mornings reverting at Barbara Boxer, I am starting to think a 3 month "1RR" probation may be a better idea - comments ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Registering relevant 3RR against Cameron Scott

Since it pertains to this discussion, an assertion of 3RR violation has been made regarding edits to Kingston University, by User:Cameron Scott. Request that his vote be tagged as conflicted. Thank You. BETA 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Object to striking Cameron Scott's !vote. He is not an admin, so WP:INVOLVED does not apply. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that BETA posted the supposed (stale, and highly dubious) 3RR violation in response to Cameron Scott participating in this AN/I debate, I suggest that additional sanctions be taken against BETA for misusing the edit warring noticeboard. I think we've seen quite enough crap by now to tell that he isn't interested in Wikipedia, except as a place to push a POV, and to attack those who disagree. I think a block is now in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm choosing not to rise to the bait. Look at me I'm growing(a la chandler) :o] ...... p.s. This thread is pretty much done for me except for the 3RR. -BETA 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban broadly construed. That's arbcomspeak for "BETA will be in trouble if he tries to wikilawyer this ban." Bishonen | talk 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

User:Bentheadvocate/"BETA", redux

I have reinstated this section, as this editor has waited until the week's protection on the article has expired and immediately reverted it back to his preferred version, totally against consensus on the talk page, and with an edit summary of "reverting vandalism". I have reverted his edit (and previously commented on the talkpage) so I am wary of taking any admin action here but I think either a block or an actual enforcing of the topic ban which was discussed above is now necessary. This is clearly a user who is not prepared to edit collegially. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit [61] is not, despite its edit summary, reverting vandalism. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, quite the opposite - it is introducing POV material that the talkpage consensus was to leave out (not to mention that some of it is actually factually inaccurate, but that's another issue). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu's edit, because it removes properly sourced information, to further his POV, and because he did not discuss it beforehand, constitutes vandalism. If he thought he had good arguments he should have raised them on the talk page, instead of sniping.--BETA 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BETA, please see WP:NOTVAND. I don't believe there is a valid way to characterize the edit you reverted as WP:VANDALISM. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring on Kingston University. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The actual subjects of the articles seems to be irrelevant to him. From his very first edits in 2008, he has shown a consistent pattern of finding an article where there is a disagreement over the addition of material and then to "advocate" for the minority view, often edit-warring in the process, and wikilawyering on the talk pages and multiple forums. He registered an account 24 hours after this editor was blocked, went straight to Coral calcium to take up the cudgels on his behalf. He returned in 2011 after a 3 year hiatus and proceeded to edit-war over the addition of an external link to Samatha [62]. He then went to Kingston University and Peter Scott (educationalist) and edit-warred over the re-additon of material by an editor who had been topic banned from these articles. While Kingston University was locked down for a week, he proceeded to add material about Kingston to London School of Economics and again edit-warred [63]. He then apparently lost interest and stepped over to Christopher Walken in an unsuccessful attempt to re-add material about him being on the boat when Natalie Wood drowned. [64]. Then off to Barbara Boxer for another bash at re-adding a "controversy" against a clear consensus on the talk page. (He's now tried to bring it ArbCom [65].) This is becoming a rather disruptive and time-wasting hobby. When he comes off his block, a "1RR" probation might be in order. Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've only encountered this person in regards to the Boxer article, but it does seem there is a larger issue here. Does this person just look for wiki hotspots and dive in for the sake of argument? Are there any other editors common to all of the places he has visited? Perhaps there's an issue of wiki-stalking/hounding here. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it may be simpler than that. There was a report on the conflict of interest noticeboard that mentioned troubles with Kingston University as well as similar schools (see here). That report was placed on July 15. Ben's first edit to Kingston University was on the very next day. Ben's first edit to London School of Economics was 5 days later. I know that Ben was aware of that noticeboard, because he commented on a report just below it around the same time (see here). So he may have just found it that way. There was also a pretty public discussion of issues with those articles on ANI that was opened on July 14, so he might have also seen it there (although he didn't comment in that discussion at all, not until July 19 in this discussion did he involve himself with ANI discussion of the articles). So I don't believe there is any stalking, he just saw a couple of public disputes that drew his attention. -- Atama頭 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to sound paranoid about this sort of thing, but when Beta went to the Kingston University article to continue that argument there for a COI editor, my first edit had been several days before on the talk page. I didn't think anything of it, but two more "random" articles he went after were Christopher Walken and Barbara Boxer. The Boxer article I've edited recently, it's had some problems in the last month, and he jumped right in making the exact same edit I was a part of the consensus opposing on the talk page. The Walken edit was very odd, though. I made an edit removing unsourced info all the way back on April 30 [66], he reinstated it a few days ago [67]. I don't see anyone else reinstating that edit in the interim. Can that be explained as coincidental, or does this editor returning after three years to reverse edits I made in three articles indicate something else? I'm assuming good faith, but now that his disruption has continued, I figured I'd bring it here for further eyes. Dayewalker (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any history between you two that would prompt something like that? -- Atama頭 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, that's what makes this so strange. Beta is returning from a three-year hiatus, though. I suppose it's possible he's returning to an old identity, and we may have crossed paths in that three year span under an IP or different identity. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Based on the evidence presented above by Voceditenore, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here. I think it's pretty obvious that Ben is actually a sock of a known sockmaster, who was blocked years ago for similar behavior, and who returned to request an unblock just 3 days before Ben also returned. But I'm asking for CU to be safe on this. If a CU can confirm, or at least not rule out the connection, I'll block both accounts. -- Atama頭 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI closed as "Likely", but it's just one shy bit short of confirmed. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Magnominous was already blocked after the SPI resulted in what I guess can be called a "very likely" result. I've blocked Bentheadvocate as I said I would. -- Atama頭 07:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Should the supporting template of an article have a name consistent with that of said article?

There is a dispute going on at Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests over the title of the template. Myself and a few other editors have tried to move the template's name to Template:Arab Spring, as that is the name of the main article, only to be continually reverted by a stubborn User:Lihaas. He demands that a new discussion be started for the template, even though the main article already had such a discussion to determine the name (which was closed decisively in favour of "Arab Spring").

Per WP:AT, "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles"; per WP:TEMPLATE, "template names are exactly like other page names"; per WP:Page name, the policy on article titles is WP:AT. Thus, template titles are subject to the same rules as article titles. I maintain that starting a new naming discussion for the template is contrary to naming policy. In addition, any move discussion on the template would be a challenge to the consensus of the main article, and should be settled there; if a main article is moved, all other pages supporting it should have consistent names, with no new discussions needed to determine names. Any challenges to the name should be settled at the talkpage of the main article; if Lihaas has an issue with the title Arab Spring, he should take that to the Talk:Arab Spring instead of jealously guarding the name of a supporting navigation template.

Community/administrator input on the matter would be greatly appreciated, as discussions between the parties involved have been unproductive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As a template no reader sees (or cares) which title it is at... so it is somewhat irrelevant. Create a redirect at {{Arab Spring}} and get on with doing productive things :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but some closure would be appreciated here... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say, for the record, that User:Lihaas needs some wikilove, as he seems to be overly contentious in his editing and has some trouble assuming good faith (yes, I know, a rare thing indeed). Please see my talk to see what I mean. He is also not very clear when raising issues. Perhaps someone un-involved might remind him to be cool man luke... I have no idea if he just grumpus or doesn't get it, but I am afraid that if no TLC is shown, he might be a regular of AN/I...--Cerejota (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just a template; its name will not be visible to readers - that vast majority of encyclopædia users whom we are supposed to serve.

• "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" is clunky; perhaps in article-space there is some kind of policy-based argument for having such unwieldy text at the top of a page instead of the widely used "Arab Spring", but whatever that argument is, it can scarcely apply to templates. "Arab Spring" is straightforward, it's a known term, and doesn't seem particularly non-neutral.
• The idea that template titles should match article titles is a nicety but it can hardly be top-level policy - if anybody argues that a renaming of a template must trigger article renaming then I would encourage them to step back for a moment and look at a broader perspective. For a start, template titles are only seen/used by a small subset of the people who see/use article titles - there are bound to be times when the two sets have slightly differing interests. bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument "Nobody cares, it's just a template" is evidently false, as this AN/I thread exists. If I may direct your attention to the talkpage, the bottom two sections both deal with the name, and were both started by IPs. Any reader with the slightest curiosity of how this encyclopaedia works might be inclined to look at a template. Step back from the whole "it's just a template" line of thought for a bit, as such thought does nothing to resolve the dispute.

Re "if anybody argues that a renaming of a template must trigger article renaming": If someone were to argue this, I would agree with you. However, that is not what is being debated here. There is one main article for this topic, Arab Spring. When it was renamed, supporting articles such as Impact of the Arab Spring were renamed without further discussion. As I demonstrated above, template names fall under WP:AT policy. There is no reason why an editor must redemonstrate consensus for a template. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:NPA we discuss CONTENT not editors so refrain from ad hominem attacks. (per Cerejota, you can see on his talk page that OTHER editors have had issue with his norway page edits and lack of consensus building. trying to accuse me is like the pot calling the kettle black)

2. WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE, WP:BRD then needs talk. talk is no t voided because you deem it unncessary. if you feel it should move then the discussion belongs on that page. When consensus is garnered then the BRD protocol that calls for bold edits (note: AGF) to be discussed and then redone with consensus comesinto play. You seem to be usingl lots of content on the NAMING issue here which should be on either the tamplate page OR the discussion page for Arab Spring. (incidentally a media term, but thats for the discussion page). Furthermore, before ANI youre supposed to show attemts at resolving the disoute, of which im willing and have discussed on talk but there is still a defiocency in at attempt to resolve it. One such way would be to get another editor to put his 2 cents and gain consensus. Much easier to do that then come to ANI to force one way over the other. Your whole arguement would be much more helpful to gain consensus (and on your side at that) on the discussion page.Lihaas (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I WP:CANVASS for support? I brought the debate here because it is more visible than the template talk, so more uninvolved parties will comment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP 95.16.89.4

Resolved

 – IP blocked for one week by Ioeth. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Since this morning, this IP started a series of disruptive edits on some articles (can be seen on the User Contributions page), accusing of vandalism any opposition to the undiscussed edits.

Please intervene by a semi-protection on these articles: the previous vandalism on them was made by User:FAIZGUEVARRA and his multuple SP's, this time it is not him (I think) but (I suppose) a notorious POV-Pusher: User:Bokpasa ([68][69]), and I suppose that it is him since he was already blocked from editing (a few years ago?) for the same reasons... and on the same articles.

Thanks in advance.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ioeth blocked IP for 1 week. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that I was blocked as well since I was reported on the 3RR board (but not the IP)... even for previous reverts made under the quasi-approbation of this board [70][71][72] (the FAIZGUEVARRA issue)

Nothing more to say, I will let these articles as they are, even if they are not encyclopedic and that their current versions are the "vandalised"/undiscussed ones by the reported IP.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive actions by JohnInDC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action taken against JohnInDC: Ken keisel blocked for copyvio on the subejct article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This problem centers around user JohnInDC's actions on the articles LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN and Washington D.C. JohnInDC has demonstrated a personal bias against both the subject of the article (this is his second attempt to get the article deleted), the band he conducted (he has removed virtually all information posted about the band from the article Washington D.C.), and the music LCDR Mitchell composed (he has challenged the accuracy of a 'Washington Post' article that states the piece is the official march of Washington D.C.). JohnInDC has stated that he questions the validity of the 'Washington Post' article describing the composer's work 'Our Nation's Capital' as the official march of the District of Columbia beacause neither he nor his friends have ever heard of it. His efforts to get the article on the piece's composer removed from Wikipedia by challanging the artist's notability were failing, so he has just "blanked" the article as a copywright infridgement. I have checked the user's "Talk" page and note that it has been repeatably been blanked by JohnInDC. This is usually an indication of a long history of derisive behaviour which has resulted in comments on his "Talk" page that he doesn't want anyone to see. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Point of information JohnInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has not "blanked" his User Talk page. He has, in fact, archived older conversations, as evidenced by the Archival box on that page and by the page history. This is common with active editors, and perfectly acceptable. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just removed large chunks of too-close paraphrasing that Ken keisel inserted into the Mitchell article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I think that, rather than my going into chapter and verse on these issues here, reviewing parties would be better served with links to the three or four places most pertinent to Ken's concerns. They are:

Washington DC Talk page, wherein I set forth my concerns about the material that Ken would like to add (it's not a matter of sourcing but of weight); the discussion reflects the agreement of other editors concerning the omission of the material, and the reasoning;

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LCDR_Anthony_A._Mitchell_USN, describing my concerns re the subject's notability;

LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN, reflecting my blanking of manifest copyright violations on that page; and

User talk:JohnInDC, my Talk page, showing the links to five pages of archived material.

I think that the foregoing speak for themselves. My edits and reasons for them have all been proper and undertaken in good faith. Of course I would be happy to discuss this at greater length here, if that seems necessary. Please let me know. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem can be understood in the following statement by JohnInDC; It is from the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN in which he states;

"Subject fails to meet the general notability requirements of WP:BIO or the more specific ones set forth at WP:Composer. The only third party coverage of the subject himself appears to be his Washington Post 2009 obituary. He did compose a march that one or perhaps two District Commissioners declared in 1961 to be the "official" march of the District of Columbia, but the force of that declaration is uncertain and march's notability is questionable. The march appears to be unknown to residents (or at least, unmentioned) and rarely if ever performed. It is not mentioned in the DC Government webpage and the only other references to it that I could find were the above obituary, two brief references in articles (which in fact appeared to play off its obscurity), here and here, and at the Navy Band's own website here." JohnInDC (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) JohnInDC has taken a POV approach to the relivance of the march in Washington D.C. history, despite the 'Washington Post' article having been written in 2009, and has carried this view over to both the march's composer and the significance of the Navy Band in D.C. history. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I note that Ken keisel is the originator of the LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN article. Reviewing the AfD discussion, it appears consensus is developing to delete the article. As much as I'd like to assume good faith in this report, I'm getting a strong whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the reporting editor. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole basis of this complaint is verging on (if not totally) a personal attack on JohnInDC. Essentially, the argument is, "you disagree with me and I see no reason for the disagreement so you must be biased". Accusations of misbehavior lacking evidence are generally not allowed. -- Atama頭 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with both N5iln and Atama. This is a content dispute has devolved into unfounded accusations of bias by the reporting editor. -epicAdam^(talk) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[[User:N5iln|Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)Not sure where you are seeing any consensus on deleting the article. The first vote was to keep it, and there have been several further statements in support. Atama if I wanted to wage a personal attack why would I bring my complaint here? User JohnInDC has stated that his objections to any mention on wikipedia of this composer and his works is because he and his friends had never heard of him. He states this clearly in the passage I re-posted above. The basis for my complaint is very simple; that JohnInDC's lack of awareness of the composer and his work does not justify his deletion of an article about the composer, or the mention of his extensive contribution to the Washington Area music scene. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA#WHATIS, which includes, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I'm not accusing you of wanting to wage a personal attack, I'm saying that your unsupported accusations are a personal attack by our definition, or at least close to it. If you have a disagreement with someone, you can't attack their character in an attempt to convince others that your point of view is the correct one. An accusation of bias with evidence to support it is allowed, but you haven't done so. And you're now saying that he stated, "his objections to any mention on wikipedia of this composer and his works is because he and his friends had never heard of him". None of JohnInDC's arguments in the deletion discussion are anywhere near to such a thing, his argument was that he could find no mentions in media sources or other reliable sources, so I can only conclude at this point that you've just made up that claim from whole cloth. Unless you can point out where any of what you've claimed is true, I'm going to have to ask you to stop your complaints about JohnInDC's "bias", or you risk being blocked. -- Atama頭 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I almost hesitate to raise the stakes any further here but I feel as though I need to point out that Ken appears to have largely reintroduced the copyvio text back into the Anthony A. Mitchell article. I don't know how to invoke the Duplicate Detector without adding a template to the page but there are several substantially identical passages, and various other tight paraphrases, in the article as it now stands. (If I'm off base here, someone please let me know gently, eh?) JohnInDC (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, and blocked for a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now - can the collective tell me how I can extricate myself from this ANI? I seem to be here because 1) I disagreed with an edit Ken wanted to make to Washington, DC (which edit he reinserted in one variation or another no fewer than 5 times after consensus began to emerge against it); 2) I took an article he created to AfD, supported by clearly and dispassionately stated reasons (even if they may not carry the day); and 3) I blanked several paragraphs of blatant copyvio in that same article. I don't always mind a bit of rough-and-tumble in the heat of things on Talk pages and in edit summaries, but it's a chore to have to defend perfectly routine and proper behavior (even if all I really needed to do was point people to the pertinent discussions) and it's a further chore to keep checking in to make sure that I haven't, through some quirk, been sanctioned anyhow. I'd like to take this off my watchlist. How can I do that? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just let this thread die of a natural death at this point. :) -- Atama頭 04:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Apparent block evasion by User talk:71.56.23.123

History: 71.56.23.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a disputed edit on Virtual Console ([73]) and had it reverted per BRD, then insisted on redoing the edit without proper discussion ([74], [75], [76]). This eventually got his edits labeled as vandalism, with appropriate warnings sent to his user page ([77], [78]).

Since then, the user has argued non-stop with myself and at least one other editor over the definition of proper English and the level of knowledge and competence of WP administrators. The discussion went quiet for a little while, then without further warning Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the IP for one year, using the {{blocked proxy}} and the message "used abusively". I've asked Alison for an explanation on the block - the IP user made a few more edits to different articles that appear to have been at least marginally constructive, so I don't think a block was justified at that point.

However, this reply is clearly from the same person on a different IP address, and only continues the argument. I informed the user that I believed this qualified as block evasion (regardless of the justification for the original block) and would be asking for an uninvolved admin to review it. I will post a link to this thread on both IP talk pages. Please review, thanks. I am an admin myself, but since I've been personally involved in the argument, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to take disciplinary action. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm one of the other users who's been attempting to deal with the anon IP 71.56.23.123. After a number of good-faith attempts, I posted a final warning regarding the edits at Virtual Console. The user appears to have either heeded the warning or found something else to do, so I've had no further dealings with the IP. However, I did notice Alison's one-year block of it (along with removing the IP's ability to edit its talk page), and I agree with Kiefer that there didn't appear to be a need for that long of a block, so I'm hoping Alison can provide further information as to the rationale for the length of it. I also agree that it appears the user has switched IPs and is at it again, taking up the argument on the original talk page. There seems to be more to the story, but I concur with Kiefer on the main point and the purpose for this ANI listing ... this is pure and simple block evasion. --McDoobAU93 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...Bueller? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked, what else are you looking for? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe they're looking for either an explanation to show why the IP address qualified for a 1 year block (something that took several trips to AIV with one problem editor to get a 6 month block for one case I've been working with) or to have the block reduced in length. Sometimes it's not sanctions editors are wanting. I know, what a concept Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also looking for someone to review the fact that this user is EVADING this block via a different IP. How can I make the nature of my request more clear so there isn't confusion next time? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, because sock puppets (even only semi-clear WP:DUCK) are thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I presume nobody's going to evaluate the validity of the original block, then? I might as well not have even bothered saying anything, for all the good it did here. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposing block for disruptive new editor

Resolved

 – No admin. action required. CycloneGU (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The user ReliableCoaster has had at least three complaints in one day, on a talkpage and on his user-page. I propose a 48 hour block. Thanks Pass a Method talk 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User would have to receive a final warning in most cases before being blocked. I'm boldly closing this as resolved; there is nothing to do here at the moment as the user has not exhausted all warnings.

Also, you did not notify the user. Not sure if it's worth doing so since I'm closing this, but I'll do so. CycloneGU (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides all of that, the nature of the edits is important. Marking a non-minor edit as minor is worth a reminder but not something we sanction someone for (I've probably even done it by accident). The second warning was about an action that was questionable but not quite vandalism. The third warning (about the edit war) doesn't really even seem applicable, the editor isn't anywhere near 3RR. So there really wasn't enough disruption to warrant a report in the first place. My only real concern is that the editor doesn't violate WP:BLP in editing Anders Behring Breivik, but nobody has even brought that up with the editor yet. -- Atama頭 22:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin John: conflict of interest?

At the Talk page of Vincent van Gogh I recently opened a thread entitled "Editorialism" where I expressed particular concern about these remarks "While most of Vincent's late paintings are somber, they are essentially optimistic and reflect a desire to return to lucid mental health. The paintings completed in the days before his suicide are severely dark." which were uncited and had been left unchallenged for nearly two years, in the meantime being copied by dozens, if not hundreds, of mirror sites. I maintain that no art critic now or ever has made any such comment.

The subsequent debate did not go well for me. I was accused over and over again, especially by users Modernist and TruthKeeper88 of making personal attacks. I eventually withdrew. I have archived most of it that I can retrieve here on my Talk pages. I did this because my remarks were contantly being redacted, "archived" or refactored.

During the debate Modernist contacted administrator John asking him to keep "eyes" on the debate, saying it was insane and that I was edgy and agressive. This administrator then contacted me asking me for the IP addresses I had formerly edited under. I declined to give him these, saying that I could not possibly vouchsafe that information nor did I consider it a proper request. I also made it clear that I did not think Modernist tapping the shoulder of a friendily disposed administrator was a proper dispute resolution process. The discussion is here although a significant part has been redacted by John as well as removed from the edit history.

[redacted section]

I have now established that there is a direct connection between [redacted]. If this is challenged I can provide proof by email but any reasonably enterprising enquirer can quickly establish the facts for themselves. In my opinion it would be quite impossible for John not to have known that there was a conflict of interest involved in taking up Modernist's request for "eyes".

I believe this to be unjust and I ask for remedy. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin, you'll need videotape proof, and even that will then get him a 1 hour block.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate lighthearted attempt here, North8000, even though I think I know what you're trying to get at... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, speculation on-wiki concerning the identity of an editor who chooses to edit anonymously is rarely appropriate, and I don't see that this is one of these times. Nor should you disseminate information, whether confirmed or suspected, about an editor's identity, via e-mail or otherwise. If you feel it is essential to pursue this matter, you may send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee, which has the responsibility for addressing situations involving private information (although recent events have shown that the committee's privacy safeguards are not always impregnible). If the matter does not rise to that level, then it might be best to drop the matter, as I don't see any dispute here sufficiently serious to be worth creating a privacy risk, especially given (among other things) that the editor whom you are seeking to link to an article with a "connected contributor" tag, as best as I can tell, has never edited that article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the issue. It is the user Modernist who created and edited that article (all of it incidentally with citations which are merely blogs or self-publicised, the subject is arguably not very notable) and it is Modernist who subequently asked for "eyes" from John. FightingMac (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am annoyed that this issue is treated with such levity and I shall take it the arbitration committee (yet again I now have to spend time to find out how to do this). Of course it a significant matter for an administrator you've never heard of to come bullying their way onto your Talk page and interrogate you about your edit history in connection with a content dispute, and then to discover there is a direct connection with that administrator and the user you are disputing with. That is deeply unfair. Regarding the etiquette of the situation I thought my post sufficiently resepctful of John's privacy. The template {{Connected contributor}} is presumably part of Wikipedia policy and practice. You cannot expect ordinary users to know exactly how to proceed in these cases. I read through the material at the top of the page carefully and it seemed appropiate to post here. FightingMac (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see John raised a genuine concern that FightingMac is using an illegitamite alternative account indeed FightingMac has admitted to have previously editted wikipedia[79] but refuses to disclose the account(s)[80] (IP usernames are accounts and are sanctionable), said disclosure can be done in confidence to a sysop rather than publicly per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Given that FightingMac's resposne was an attempt to "out" John (a very serious breach of policy) rather than to follow the rules laid down at WP:AGF, WP:SOCK and WP:HARASS, and given the above self-righteous response to Newyorkbrad - why hasn't anybody else blocked FightingMac?--Cailil ^talk 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  Give over. Someone may well edit legitimately for years on and off as an IP before creating an account. John lilburne (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Cailil John never raised any such concern. I am not a sock and I have never had or have an alternative account. I have indeed edited Wikipedia for years and I include many Wikipedians amongst my close friends. It just so happens I have never felt the need to create an account. My editing for the most part was pretty ad hoc, that is to say I would read something and feel moved to contribute. Almost all of my knowledge of Wikipedia's working was gained within this account I have begun. That I was uncertain how to deal with this new issue is proof enough that I am not a seasoned sock-master (whatever). I did not out John. I can finally add that what is at stake here is not my behaviour but John's. I have now emailed arb committee about this issue. Why is my response to Newyorkbrad "self-righteous" and isn't that an uncivil remark to make? FightingMac (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, it's your problem if you aren't getting the hint that your actions here in attempting to do "opposition research" are inappropriate in the extreme. Attempting to post private information on another wikipedian, whether that post is accurate or not, is a very serious kind of harrassment. And BTW John's query to you is precisely what I stated - a concern over the illegitimate use of an alt. account - the avoidance of scrutiny of contribution history is against policy. It is the duty of sysops to investigate issues such as sock-puppetry and if a new account says that they've been editing for years then that account will be looked at whether it turns out to be one or not--Cailil ^talk 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He wan't concerned that I was a sock-puppet but that I had been editing IP. Here are the commencing exchanges from User_talk:FightingMac#Query my Talk page (note the subtle "presumption of guilt" whereas no charge was laid).

Extended content

What previous user name(s) have you edited under? --John (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC) None. FightingMac (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) So what did you mean here when you said you had been editing for years? --John (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC) What I meant at Polanski above replying to off2riorob (we're good mates now). All this at Van Gogh begins with this absolutely fantastic flame which I ask you to familiarise yourself with first. Are you an admin? Would you care to comment on that? I put a brief comment on your Talk page but didn't check. Off this afternoon. Might edit further later this evening, otherwise tomorrow morning. Happy to address any valid concerns of yours here but I'm not prepared to spend too much time over them. I am busy and this is just a hobby. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I see, so you have never had a named account and have never been blocked, but have edited for years with an IP address. What is that address please? Yes I am an admin and have been asked to look into your edits by another editor. There is no presumption of guilt at this point and I am just trying to look into your background to see what the next step is towards resolving the situation. --John (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your point can be and I have to frankly tell you I that I'm afraid I don't think it worth pursuing the issue with you further. Thank you for your input. FightingMac (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac this is dead simple. Your failure to get the point wrt alt. accounts is your problem. You brought yourself to the notice of everyone here in the worst possible way - you don't get to decide who moderates you or how they do it and if you don't like it then that's your problem too.
Not knowing the rules is not an excuse - certainly not in this instance as what you did was try to to undermine John and/or discourage them from moderating you by attempting to use private information (whether accurate or not) against him. That is harrassment as defined by wikipedia, and unless you start recognizing that your actions today have been in violation of WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF and WP:OUT you will continue to have problems because you will have learned nothing from the series of warnings given by admins and arbs--Cailil ^talk 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't have alternative accounts and I don't see why my own privacy is less important than the admin whose conduct I was complaining of i.e. to say why he/she can demand my IP addresses regardless of my own privacy which is extremely important to me and protected carefully. Of course I couldn't provide him/her with my IP addresses. Because you plainly don't get that is why I don't see the point of pursuing this with you. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether you were a sock or not is irrelevant. John merely fulfilled his duty by asking you if you had other usernames. In what appears to be an attempt at 'revenge' you decided to attack him with regard to an article neither he nor you have editted, and attempted to use private information as a weapon to intimidate. You are unrepentent of this & have thus far refused to recognize it. That's the problem. And as I said above you don't get to choose who moderates you - further disruption of this project whether to make a point or to haras another editor will be prevented--Cailil ^talk 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But you said that socking was relevant. That I had alternative accounts. But I don't. Regarding Newyorkbrad (an arb committeee member) on WP:OUT I have replied on my Talk page here. I posted no private information about the user concerned whatsoever. It's nothing to do with revenge but with righting a self-evident injustice in a content dispute which was raised to administrator status in a ridiculous over-reaction and which in itself amounted to harassment as I made clear in my remarks to the administrator involved interrogating me. It would be courteous if you allowed me the final remark here and at any rate do not again repeat yourself. FightingMac (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, then. Maybe we should try and find a way forward on the talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, with respect Casliber, no. I did raise the issue with John on his Talk page as I mentioned in the now redacted comments. I did so in a very neutral fashion, asking him whether indeed he had any professional or personal connection to the subject of the templated article and likewise with Modernist who had created and soley edited that subject's BLP. His response was to redact my query without comment and wipe it freom the edit history and I am now asking the arb committee to judge whether all of that was fair i.e. to say his treatment of me after Modernist asked for eyes and his treatment of my enquiry of him and I do want remedy. Wasn't Modernist's elbow-nudging trouser-rolled-up funny-hand-shaking of a friendly admin something that could fairly be described as "meat-puppetry", whereas I had applied for a third opinion, a legitimate form of dispute resolution? FightingMac (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points. First I think the involved parties should have been notified, and clearly John doesn't seem to be the only involved party. Also, I'm very unclear why what essentially was a content dispute that admittedly got out-of-hand, has been brought to AN/I, days after the dust settled. Time to let this all go, in my opinion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Also to add, since this has been brought here: I'd like to request that this subpage at least be noindexed. Other than the commentary at the top everything is in the Vincent van Gogh talk archives. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Itis no-indexed and has been right from the start as all my subpages are ever since off2riorobquite rightly took me to task for not doing so (I simply didn't understand the implication - see, not such a fantastically experienced wikipedian after all. As for the issue of editing Van Gogh that's of course not what has been brought to ANI here, though I trust some readers at least will care to reflect that fundamentally what is at stake here is Wikipedia's proud boast that "anyone can edit" - not at van Gogh they can't and you must know I'm not the only one to have had a severe run-in there recently. Hell hath no fury like FA editors protecting their own and you do call them your own, don't you Truthkeeper88? FightingMac (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the noindexing. Re the other edits, yes, when sockpuppets are involved: [81], [82]. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been more generous of you rather not to "thank" me for no-indexing but rather to apologise to me for supposing that I hadn't, thus I suppose implying something dreadful to the effect that I was conspiring with Google to broadcast your involvement in the great van Gogh "dark" debate all over the internet: something like "sorry, my paranoia again"? And are you implying that I am the sock-puppeter who has been doing all those dreadful things (changing column widths or something) to "your" Hemingaway articles, an author speaking strictly for myself I was through and done with before I was out of my teens, a more lamentable poseur I can hardly imagine and that also my prejudice about all who admire him I just add in for a halfpence worth worth since we're here and I don't know why. Nothing to do with me. FightingMac (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Meals

I have semi-protected the Jerry Meals page (which was created earlier tonight); Mr. Meals is a major league baseball umpire who made a controversial call to end the 19 inning Braves/Pirates game tonight. Most of the page history involves personal attacks and worse that violated WP:BLP; I would have deleted the page entirely, but after tonight, he is likely notable.

The reason I post all this here is that I have not been particularly active on Wikipedia recently, but saw a need and acted. I'm not up to speed on the most recent policies of the last year, nor do I currently have the time/energy to keep up with this page and the subsequent protection actions needed for it. I submit this semi-protection for review, and I welcome more active admins to do whatever they will with this page, including deleting the history if that is required. Thanks for all your help, and let me know if there's any more I can do. Eric (EWS23) 06:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I also semi-protected the talk page. Not sure what the policy is on that one, but I felt it prudent given the vandalism. Eric (EWS23) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's really that notable. If it's only for a single controversial call...he also has to meet WP:GNG and other sports article guidelines. CycloneGU (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You could be right, we shall see how much media attention the call gets in the next few days. I suspect it won't be as significant as Jim Joyce's call, but it will be something remembered for quite a while, considering the length of the game and the playoff implications for both teams. Eric (EWS23) 06:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If the called is overturned (by Pirates filing a protest), then the game has to be replayed from the 20th inning (as the call would make the runner out to end the inning), as well... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Such a protest would be denied, as judgment calls are not protestable. Only rules violations are protestable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but then again... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it would have only been the second out of the inning. There's a chance they could have gotten the double play by throwing to first, since the hitter tripped out of the batter's box. Eric (EWS23) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading the semi-protection policy, I unprotected the talk page for now so both the article and talk page wouldn't be protected at the same time, and I set up an expiration date for the semi-protection on the article page so it wouldn't be forgotten. Eric (EWS23) 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are articles on many current (and some former) major-league umpires; I had taken it (and I think it's still true) that this is one of those jobs that confers notability on those who hold it. If we are to have such an article, of course, it should avoid undue weight on one incident, and of course must not become a forum for abuse of the subject (this is a problem we've had with articles about sports officials befor, although I am sure Wikipedia is far from the only place at which venting at umpires and the like can be found). I've watchlisted the page and hope a few others will do likewise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding notability, WP:BASEBALL/N states that anyone who has umpired a Major League Baseball match is notable, so I'm fairly sure that, if the article went to AfD, it would be kept. Jenks24 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Someone nominated it for deletion. CycloneGU (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• If the article's not deleted - as it seems it won't be -, there is a good number of old revisions that might need revdeleting... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: the AfD has been closed as "nomination withdrawn". Agree with Salvio that a lot of the history should be revdeleted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On a point of humour, ClueBot is clueless when the majority of edits to an article are vandalism. Here are two funny diffs from the history, probably among those that need RevDeling. I have to admit I got a huge laugh when I saw them. CycloneGU (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now revdeleted much of the article's history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I honestly can't claim to be a baseball fan; in fact, at best I'm a half-hearted Pirates fan. However, in looking at this, I'd say the Jim Joyce article is perhaps the closest we have to such a thing (see this section). As posted above: this is likely the section that will be quoted most often (number 5). sigh ... first the Superbowl loss ... then the loss of Crosby and Malkin ... now when we might have a shot at the playoffs in the first time since I can't remember when, and we get this (ummm ... searching for allowable "wiki terminology" ... ahhh ...) not optimal. — Ched :  ?  19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations/plagiarism

Resolved

 – Noted already dealt with. CycloneGU (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with copyright regulations so I'm reporting suspected copyvios here. See All the King's Men, much of this edit can be found here and here. The end part was already in the WP article. I previously reverted a similar edit by the same user. I don't feel confident enough in copyright policy to try to instruct this user so if it is a copyvio then hopefully someone else can give proper instruction. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Dealt with by another admin. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:DÜNGÁNÈ instigating other user against me

Resolved

 – No personal attack here; Gun Powder Ma withdraws complaint. No further drama desired. Quigley (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I did not even know User:DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday, but just saw by chance that he has been instigating at least one other user (User:Aua) against me in a veritable pamphlet. The same he did on List of inventions in medieval Islam, where he suddenly came out of the blue, having to the best of my knowledge never shown an interest in the article in the past. This has clearly had an effect on User:Aua (who is new to me either) who ironically first seemed to regard me as Sinophile, but then promptly swung around to classify me as "equally critical of all non-Western lists. Whatever happened to honest contributing!" (1).

Given how elaborated and unprovoked DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me has been, I request a disciplinary block. By stirring up resentment against me he is bringing WP down to a low human level and there should be no excuse for that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: he has also been instigating other users against User:Aua. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I seem to be one of the "instigated" in this complaint, Gun Powder Ma did not alert me to this board. On the other hand, he did notify four other users heretofore uninvolved in this matter. The justification for this apparent canvassing is that they are "active at Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world", but the arbitrary list could just be a few of Gun Powder Ma's wikifriends. I don't think DÜNGÁNÈ's post to me was instigative. It simply alerted me to a series of instigative posts by Aua at Talk:List of Chinese inventions#This article is trash, which lamented the length and details of the entries, accusing contributors and discussants, including me, of being prideful Chinese (not true on both counts). Also, it's not true that you "did not even know DÜNGÁNÈ until yesterday". You have a history of hostility against him dating back at least a year, from accusing him of having a "false Chinese ethnic pride" and a "deep-rooted anti-Western bias" to telling him that he "confirm[s] the stereotype that Wikipedia is only flocked by nerds and singles with no life". This common type of battleground language makes working in China-related articles very stressful and sensitizes users working in this area to ethnic attacks against users perceived to be Chinese. Quigley (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that User:Quigley holds a grudge against me and, just as User:DÜNGÁNÈ now does, likes to talk about my person, not my edits. He is the person User:DÜNGÁNÈ has notified about User:Aua. But this is all ancillary to my inquiry here which is how the community views DÜNGÁNÈ's attack on me. I repeat I do not know DÜNGÁNÈ, the one-year old link you have posted is about some user named Дунгане. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a grudge against you, and it's uncivil for you to suggest that. DÜNGÁNÈ, fyi, is Дунгане in the Latin alphabet; he got a username change. To address your complaint, this mountain of a molehill began when Aua confronted you about your blanking at List of inventions in medieval Islam. Aua wrongly perceived from your username that you were ethnic Chinese, and that you were removing entries on that Islam list as a way to bolster Chinese inventions. Aua then made a series of offensive comments at Talk:List of Chinese inventions#This article is trash suggesting that the featured list is a product of "national pride run amok", promising to cut it down, eye-for-an-eye, to hurt (the supposedly prideful Chinese) Gun Powder Ma. DÜNGÁNÈ's message to Aua was not an attack on you, but a demonstration to Aua that your agenda on Wikipedia is clearly not to bolster Chinese achievements, an idea you agree with. Now it seems you've reconciled yourself with Aua, so the sensible solution to this problem is for you to make a similar friendly overture to DÜNGÁNÈ instead of asking for a block. Quigley (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, Дунгане has had several name changes. Дунгане's battlefield mentality seems to originate this time last year; his own behaviour has been less the exemplar.Nev1 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ri) I feel like I have to say something since I have the distinct pleasure of being both instigated and instigated against. First, a reply to Quiqley: no, I did NOT come to the Chinese list seeking revenge. If you check my edit history, you will see this [83] before Gun Powder Ma did anything to me and before my reply to him. Timestamps don't lie, although I can understand why you would think that way given my earlier confusion about his contribution pattern. I need to assure you again that my edits to the Chinese list were before I ever encountered Gun Powder Ma or ever heard of him, and my concerns about the length were expressed before and I still stand by them.

Back to the issue here: DÜNGÁNÈ. He is pretty edgy, and on consistent basis too. I don't know about a block, but he definitely needs to be less defensive/offensive when dealing with other contributors. You saw the way he jumped on the IP's suggestion, and then the way he assumed I was a sockpuppet, and how he assumed that me asserting there is lots of national pride was an attack on the contributors.

I didn't deal with the issue perfectly, but you really can't say I was being offensive (save for an ESL remark, which was totally justified. Remember DUNGANE corrected my grammar).

People, just take it easy.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Huh? Is this report a misunderstanding? I think matters started at Talk:List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world#Gun Powder where Aua made a misguided post with erroneous claims of vandalism directed at Gun Powder Ma (GPM). Then Bloodofox gave a polite comment supporting (by implication) the edits made by GPM to the article. I added a more pointy response to Aua noting that use of rollback and claims of vandalism where inappropriate. One of Aua's replies seemed to suggest that the "Chinese list" had some problems, and there may have been a hint that GPM had some preference for deleting items from the "medieval Islamic" list than from the Chinese list. At that point, DÜNGÁNÈ made a comment in reply to Aua, but indented the message as if replying to GPM. My reading is that DÜNGÁNÈ was supporting GPM and refuting Aua's position. Just prior to leaving that comment, DÜNGÁNÈ had left a message at User talk:Aua#Personal attacks which I interpret as providing strong support for GPM. As far as I can see, WP:CIVIL has only been breached by Aua, but it looks like that is behind us now. GPM: What is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is getting confusing. :-) I have actually a simple and straightforward complaint: My report is about a personal attack on me by User:DÜNGÁNÈ and nothing else. I am totally fine with User:Aua and comments by User:Quigley are largely irrelevant and have unfortunately only served to distract from the topic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see how you are confused, but the message left by DUNGANE was not in defense of Gun Powder Ma, but rather it was referring to me saying there was lots of national pride on the Chinese list talkpage, which DUNGANE took as a personal insult to himself and other contributors for some reason.

Cheers

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, even though I've tailored my comments to your complaint, your behavior as the complainant is not above scrutiny on this board. Let me say it more clearly: there was no personal attack by DÜNGÁNÈ in the discussion you point to. DÜNGÁNÈ simply provided diffs to Aua to demonstrate that you were not, as Aua originally thought, a nationalistic Chinese editor. DÜNGÁNÈ did this to save a featured list from what he feared would be retributive blanking by Aua against an article Aua thought you favored. Aua has since clarified that retribution is not his intent, so neither you nor DÜNGÁNÈ have any reason to perpetuate this silly dispute. Quigley (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, DÜNGÁNÈ's post complained of cannot remotely be characterized as a personal attack. Sadly GPM carries his battleground mentality with him wherever he goes. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Still grinding axes, John? Hmm, but now that you say it I have to kind of agree: on a closer look this seems to be more in line with the usual renrou sousuo, certainly a sign of low moral standards but not a personal attack per se. So let's drop this, enough WP drama for today. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Andrzejbanas

Resolved

 – User:Andrzejbanas notified of thread; 86.135.7.232 warned. No admin action necessary unless 86.135.7.232 acts in an uncivil way again. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to get this user banned/blocked for a certain period? He has removed all the song genres from Judas without a proper explanation, and I can see from his talk page that he has already been warned about this. 11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User:Andrzejbanas was not properly notified about this on his user talk page. Instead 86.135.7.232 made a threatening remark to Andrzejbanas. Andrzejbanas made a perfectly reasonable explanation for his removal of the material: it wasn't sourced. WP:ANI is not the appropriate venue for this kind of dispute, and suggesting bans or blocks or, indeed, getting the user "indefinitely banned forever" is over the top and is not assuming good faith. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The previous "warning" came in the form of another specious "I will get you banned" comment from an IP on the same ISP as this one. Wasn't you, by any chance? Anyway, Andrzejbanas is perfectly right. The genre field is not a plaything for anonymous music experts to decode: unless the genre is self-evident then it does need a source, and seeing as no two reliable sources seem to be able to agree as to exactly what genre Lady Gaga belongs to removing the text from the infobox for now is the right call. No administrative action required here, at least so long as nobody is edit warring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. I removed the genre as there was no obvious explanation within the article suggesting the genre(s), nor was there citations in the infobox. I'm willing to discuss it on the talk page, but I was a bit too bold perhaps. Hope you still don't want to ban me! ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats

User Fatimiya, fresh off a block for personal attacks [84] is now making legal threats.[85] Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No threat has been made. A formal complaint has been filed today by the Fatimiya Sufi Order with a body who investigates claims of religious discrimination and religious persecution regarding the activities of the Bahai Internet Agency and its taskforce (i.e. Edward321, Jeff3000 et al) on wikipedia. Archives regarding present outstanding issues and ones former where the aforementioned editors were involved have been forwarded to the body for its investigation --Fatimiya (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fatimiya is right off a 12-hour block that I issued for personal attacks on Jeff3000, who had nominated two of Fatimya's articles for deletion. While this is not a legal threat exactly, the clear intention is to intimidate editors into leaving Fatimiya's edits alone. He's been filing retaliatory sockpuppet investigations against any who oppose him [86] [87] [88] and there appears to be a considerable amount of meatpuppetry going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours, sound good or am I too nice? (Nuking SPIs fyi) -- DQ (t) (e) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was apparently too nice with the 12-hour block; I had some hopes they'd learn to argue on the merits of the sources rather than on the basis of a perceived grudge. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looked things over, ya it's more disruption that I thought when I did 31 hrs, upped to 1 week now. After this I recommend the scale hits the months if we don't see the stop. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) As point of background, it appears that the extant dispute centers on Fatimiya Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the associated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order. The editor Fatimiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a staunch defender of the article. The article topic appears to be a relatively new and relatively minor religious sect.

I gather that the intent of Fatimiya's comments (on this page and as linked above by Edward321) is to imply that some manner of formal complaint has been filed with a quasi-judicial body with some sort of statutory powers and authority (eg some type of human rights commission). The fact that Fatimiya is consistently and deliberately vague in identifying the body involved is rather...unhelpful.

As I see it, one of two possible things are going on here. First, Fatimiya may have filed a complaint with a bona fide human rights commission or other quasi-judicial body. (I make no judgement of the merit of such a complaint.) If that's so, then WP:NLT explicitly instructs him to avoid editing Wikipedia until the conclusion of his case; if he does not do so voluntarily, we are compelled to enforce that by block.

In the alternative, a complaint hasn't actually been filed, or a complaint has been filed with a body that is lacking in statutory authority, lacking in jurisdiction, or is otherwise irrelevant. In this second case, the purpose of Fatimiya's comment would be to chill and discourage comments by his opponents with the implication of a legal threat. In that case, Fatimiya should be blocked under WP:NLT until he explicitly withdraws any threats of legal action and/or fully describes to the administrators here precisely what it is that he is threatening, so that the applicability of WP:NLT to his complaint can be reviewed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read Fatimiya's comments similar to TenOfAllTrade's statements above - I have upped the block to INDEF. Should they strike/revoke all NLT claims, someone can reset back to the original 1-week for NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD nominations by SPA

Resolved

 – All closed, and editor final-warned

User:FireTool87, who previously edited as the IP User:184.164.148.90, is upset over the deletion of Wilma Pang and the lack of support for their position in the resulting DRV. The disgruntled editor has been rummaging through the edit histories of the closing admin and other participants in the discussions (myself included) and listing articles they've created on subjects which they believe are less notable than Wilma Pang (a bit POINTy, but not out of bounds despite some significant inaccuracies in their comments), and has now begun creating retaliatory AFDs on articles, without properly creating the individual AFD pages or listing the articles in the daily AFD log. The discussions involved are (so far):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Benchley (created by discussion participant User:MelanieN)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter R. Nickel (created by discussion participant User:MelanieN)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entry clearance (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative removal ‎ (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration Rules (created by closing admin User:Spartaz)

The IP has also added deletion tags, without creating AFD pages, to other articles, including Harry M. Wegeforth and Stanford Roble Gym.

The nominations clearly qualify for "speedy keep" as disruptive; it's evident both that the nominations are retaliatory and that the deletion rationales are unresearched boilerplate (for example, Belle Benchley, the subject of the first created nomination, proves to have hundreds of GNews hits, was the author of multiple books published by a major trade publisher (Little Brown), described as a "best-selling author" by Life magazine, and is discussed in scores if not hundreds of published books/magazine pieces, per GBooks.) I therefore ask that these discussions be closed as "speedy keep" and that an appropriate warning, if not a stronger sanction, be placed against FireTool87. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• All closed per WP:SK#1 and WP:SK#2. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like the AFD pages were never even logged? Perhaps they should just be deleted; I don't see much point in keeping them as records. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is Wilma Pang???? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

John Galt's half-sister, maybe? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisions deleted here

What's up with the rather extensive use of revdel here, for every revision between 22:01, July 26, 2011 and 00:33, July 27, 2011?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a link to a blog that personally attacked one of the editors involved in that discussion. Quigley (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's not as extensive as it looks, if I understand RevDel properly; it simply makes it impossible to access any version of the page where the offensive link was displayed. The text from the other intervening edits is retained; it's just no longer possible to follow those changes step-by-step. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No. It was oversighted, not RevDel'ed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, oversight would mean it doesn't show up in history, even to the admins. Those are RevDel'd, as far as I know. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User: Johnmylove has now re-inserted the same claim that Anders Behring Breivik ‎is a hindoo a number of times, and has breached 3RR,

[[89]]

[[90]]

[[91]]

[[92]]

There seem to be other instances of this hindoo POV pushing, but I won’t list them.

Added to this is that he claims its well sourced when (as far as I can see) only one (possible not RS) source makes the claim. I asked the user to take this to the talk page and informed him that he was in danger of breeching 3RR [[93]] the reposes was to accuse me of having a personal agenda [[94]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since launching this he has reverted again [[95]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There does appear to be a misrepresentation by Johnmylove as to what the sources he cites actually state. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have well sourced material...Respected administrator, I would like you to read the source well yourself and provide whether the particular information is correct or not AS the User:Slatersteven seem to have remove my material again and again by having different accounts on wikipedia...I want to you take severe action against User:Slatersteven for trying to push personal agenda on the site. I would not mind editing the articles as long as I have the proof and well sourced material. Thank you --Johnmylove (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a PA, and if you have evidacne for the claim I susgest you raise an SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'source' is an anti-Hindu website, with no evidence of any credibility whatsoever. Not that this matters, given WP:3RR policy, and your personal attack above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable; this is disrupting Wikipedia, damaging a BLP, and a very high visibility current events related article. I have left a final warning for Johnmylove for disruption. Further activity along these lines will result in a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They're not the only one using non-RS on that high-vis BLP. That's why I wish the BLP1E redirect here hadn't been undone. We should be covering the event, not the person.  Chzz  ►  19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There really should be a note added to BLP1E enforcing that it is doubly important when it come to white supremacists, Scientologists, Republicans et cetera. These Internet Sleuth Squad character profiles are well beyond a joke now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A worrying user page

Resolved

 – User blocked. causa sui (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see this user page and this edit and this one. If this is the wrong place to bring this up, please delete. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor notified [96] Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What is this... I... don't even... causa sui (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone's sick idea of a joke, no doubt... GiantSnowman 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably a sock puppet. Aside from the fact that he claims to be a registered sex offender, looking at his contributions,[97] his third edit ever is to nominate an article for deletion, not exactly someone with 2 edits worth of experience would know how to do.[98] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. We don't need that here. TNXMan 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Revenge of the Nmatavka

After the topic-ban passed, I wake up today to find this from an IP editor, followed by an addendum shortly thereafter. Could someone give him a very strong warning about personal attacks and sockpuppetry? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IP flagged using {{IPsock}}. A Checkuser will need to do the low-level comparisons. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• That IP has been used previously, though. I'm unsure as to whether a long term block on that IP would be effective (this depends on the ISP providing the IP, obviously). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not after a block; I'm after a final warning. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP. There's no way to predict if or when he'll be assigned that particular address again. The Contribution history shows a mix of constructive edits and vandalism. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I'm after a final warning for the named account Nmatavka, not the IP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood. (And ran out of coffee.). My 2p is that if he's using a IP to make what to me are retaliatory attacks because of a topic ban, he's gone past where a warning will suffice. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I gave an only warning; the edit violates both the sockpuppet policy as well as NPA. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's review: user creates a page of naughty images from Commons (complete with homophobic comments); page is deleted; user recreates page; page is deleted and user told not to do it again; user makes homophobic personal attack; and user is....warned. That seems about right. We wouldn't want to drive away useful contributors. The only thing that puzzles me is I'm pretty sure Nick isn't in Slovakia... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

On that last, I'd say the edits are duckish enough to raise questions. The WHOIS looks like an ISP, and I don't see any indications of an open proxy. I checked for a TOR exit node and it came back negative. So from a technical standpoint, either Nick found a proxy in Slovakia he could access or there's a meatpuppet involved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IP talk page abuse while blocked

Resolved

 – Talk page edit access revoked by Elockid, additional article protection by Penwhale. Nothing much to see here, revdel will occur as needed. CycloneGU (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• 71.71.196.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - currently blocked, but vandalizing/abusing IP talk page. Examples: [99], [100]. –BMRR (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page privileges revoked. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

+ 1 week semi, due to possibility of further misuses. We might need to revdel a few of those things in the history, too... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bogdan Nagachop and page moves

Bogdan Nagachop (talk · contribs) has been promoting a new schema for naming of Indian articles (WP:NCINDIA) and has been moving many many articles (over 1000 in the past two weeks) citing this proposal of his as an accepted guideline (which it is not, see the talk page where there's nothing but objections). In the process he's been moving primary topics to disambiguated titles and creating multiple WP:SIA pages which are either a duplicate or subset of existing dabs (Uppal, India vs Uppal etc). The problem is that he's refusing to stop and goes on these page move sprees which include quite a few incorrect ones which are difficult to catch. He's been told many times about using the WP:RM especially for controversial moves, and just after that he went and moved Banga, India a page that was moved by consensus at Talk:Banga, India. When anyone objects, he throws up the bias card and accuses them of being anti-Indian (also [101]. Also, last two times I left him a talk page note: Please stop and Page moves, he moved them on to WT:INB -- Please stop and On going accusations by SpacemanSpiff. It's getting to be very difficult to have a conversation with all these accusations bias etc flying about. When asked to work with consensus (at least 2-3 times) he has replied: I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates. WP is voluntary.. To one thread today Crusoe8181 responded and immediately Bogdan Nagachop refactored his response to a section titled "Accusations by Crusoe8181". In addition, WT:INB and WT:NCINDIA are spots where conversation has taken places, there's a lot of them.

I'm bringing it here to see if a stop can be put to these moves until some sort of discussion and consensus happens on the proposal page. cheers. 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I get what he did with Crusoe8181, he wanted to reply to both individually. However, he did it COMPLETELY the wrong way. This aside, the bit about not having to follow consensus tells me he is not fit to edit on Wikipedia. Wikipedia runs by consensus, not by an individual volunteer. CycloneGU (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem doesn't exist with many moves IMO, but then there are some that he shouldn't do especially when he's making this proposed guideline on the fly and then over the next few hours he moves hundreds of pages citing it. I've asked him repeatedly to take these controversial moves through process at WP:RM but that hasn't helped (he's sent a couple through that, but that's all). —SpacemanSpiff 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• This "Anti-Indian" thing has been resolved. One user brought in a good example that was quite convincing. I never did say that again. Bringing up old stuff that has been solved is not honest. Consensus you find at [102] rgpk, Crusoe8181 and me agreeing, no opposition by SpacemanSpiff. Then later on SpacemanSpiff popped up on my talk several times. I asked what was wrong and said thank you for his hints and followed exactly, I stopped removing "district" from dab tags even if Crusoe8181 and me agreed "Without the word district" [103]. So, I don't know what issues SpacemanSpiff currently has???
• Sorry, what do you mean by "the bit about not having to follow consensus tells me he is not fit to edit on Wikipedia" - WP is voluntary, I can always leave. No one can force me to do what SpacemanSpiff or any consensus dictates. I dont' understand what you mean.
• The thing is, I don't know what you regard as controversial in the first place. I stopped referring to the guideline, I stopped removing "district" from the tags ... but I couldn't know beforehand that these things are wrong. Especially since the majority on the talk agreed. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So you didn't respond to my objection then? —SpacemanSpiff 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I missed that, it was in the section "by district" and not under "by state at least". Still, 3:1, and then later on India Noticeboard one more person even agreeing with dab "by district", I wonder what would be wrong then with using Andhra Pradesh for dab. But this is now at Talk:Hyderabad,_India#Hyderabad.2C_Andhra_Pradesh_and_WP:BIAS. What else is a problem, CURRENTLY? Did you see that there are several Banga, India? As for so called duplication DAB vs SIA, please read WP:NOTDAB / WP:SIA. These listings as exemplified at Dharampur, India can become very different from DAB pages. I also once redirected DAB pages to SIA, but after objection by Crusoe8181 I never did that again. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the whole problem, every day someone objects to something and you go on to something new. I've asked you many times to use the WP:RM process or wait for consensus to develop on the changes itself but you don't want to do either. —SpacemanSpiff 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "the bit about not having to follow consensus tells me he is not fit to edit on Wikipedia" - WP is voluntary, I can always leave. No one can force me to do what SpacemanSpiff or any consensus dictates. I dont' understand what you mean.

In response, I present evidence given above: ...he went and moved Banga, India a page that was moved by consensus at Talk:Banga, India. This is doing something against a previous consensus. And telling us that you feel you don't have to follow consensus is telling us that you are God, we all must worship you and what you want to do. So even if you don't mean it, your statement comes across very negatively. As for the bit I responded to regarding the not following consensus, follow the link in the heading post to the passage in question. CycloneGU (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you all are as free as me. And if consensus is to not use the country level for dab, as is done with the US and UK, then it is fine to enforce that consensus. At the Banga, India page a new situation was discovered, the page had been moved from Banga, Punjab to Banga, India, because Crusoe8181 introduce ambiguity [104]. But the new name is still ambiguous. So I moved it away from that ambiguous name. And this was under consensus to not use country level - So what??? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff deleting pages to advance his opinion

Resolved

 – Waste of time, look up. CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I had created a WP:SIA page at Banga, India, he deleted it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Banga%2C+India !!!!! Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. You made a move against consensus, he has to move it back to satisfy the consensus. Of course he's going to delete the redirect so the page can be moved back.

That is all, marking resolved. CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's be clear, a page was moved to Banga, India per a move request/consensus at the talk page. YOu then moved it to a different title and added the names of a few more places with the name Banga. I just moved the page back. —SpacemanSpiff 20:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Let's be even more clear: Banga, Punjab was moved to Banga, India, because Crusoe8181 unilaterally introduce ambiguity [105]. But the new name was still ambiguous. Furthermore on WP India there was consensus to not use the country level for dab [106]. So I moved it away from that ambiguous name and did so under WP India consensus to not use country level. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• At CycloneGU, it was not a redirect, but a SIA page, part of a project that some people really like [107]. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)