Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 07:08, 28 February 2012 (→Request for block review: winner). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    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


    watchdogs

    No admin action required. Possible misunderstanding of figure of speech is the most likely explanation, rather than a personal attack. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear all, I do not know how you deal with personal defamations. Today I was editing an information about a case of manipulation on de:WP (see documentation). After some hours User:Estlandia made the following contribution. I went to the discussion page of this User and wrote the following, but received this reaction. This user wrote about me: ‘DE-wiki watchdogs like the ardent political POV pusher KarlV’. Is this the normal communication on en:WP? Would someone be so kind to advise this user for a better behavior? Thanks and regards. --KarlV 12:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact I would appreciate if neutral parties would take a look at the relevant discussion on talk page concerning persistent removals of a sourced section that KarlV and a number of other DE-wiki users dislike. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Estlandia, your comment made is inappropriate and reads as a personal attack on the talk page of the German Wikipedia page. You're not welcoming German editors to your page which would personally offend me being German myself and considering opening up myself to translating pages. Can you provide diffs to support your accusations?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,462,046) 14:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit of a challenge with that interpretation. That said, let me start by saying "keep your filthy battles on other Wikipedia projects off of this one. Period". Now, back to the topic: it's ironic that one party says they don't want to hear from editors from the German Wikipedia (not Germans as a whole), but then wants to link to situations from the German Wikipedia ... can't have it both ways! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is some of that statement referring to me?—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,465,503) 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was a response to the long diatribe against my person posted by User:Toter Alter Mann - a statement in which he claimed [1] that

    Most of his [i.e. mine] “translated” articles here are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists

    and that I promote “ultra right-wing and right-wing extremist POV”. This is blatant lie. I've written 80 articles here (compared with 1 (!) article by this user) and none of them include anything remotely far-right!
    It's no surprise 'Toter Alter Mann' would come to attack me - I've added a number of times a section summarising the recent criticism on German Wikipedia [2]. This was removed numerous times not because there was anything wrong with it, but because main editors of German Wikipedia won't tolerate any criticism of the project at all. One of the articles concerned has been written by Doctor Jean-Paul Picaper [3], and the other article by the newspaper documents in detail what they regard as political manipulations in German Wikipedia, advanced by anonymous users, including this 'Toter Alter Mann' and de:Benutzer:KarlV. The dominating hard-left majority (in the political topics) of contributors to the German Wikipedia cannot stand any criticism. In their Wiki, they will simply block you, here they will erase whatever critical is said of the situation in the project and call you a Nazi in turn (see above). Estlandia (dialogue) 14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Where did I say that I don't want to hear anything from Germans? There are many constructive German editors active here. Please don't misinterpret.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And why are you doing defamations against me, if you are responding to another user?--KarlV 14:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence, me interpreting your hostility against German editors. I would suggest that Estlandia, not respond to any remarks on public talk pages and respond patiently and in a non-bitey way on their own page instead of removing with summaries like "you're not welcome here".—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 518,470,032) 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting here. Just yesterday there was an edit on the arbcom page by someone frome here (EN), saying, that we on DE are discussing in a way that wouldn't be possible on EN. And now, I read words like watchdogs, you are not welcome here ... Do you have some explanation for that , Estlandia? Regards -jkb- (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't say that. KarlV named this section "watchdogs", as he likes to be called. Others name it conspiracy theorists.-- KarI Vl  Talk  15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The main problem is that KarlV has apparently a conflict of interest as he is one of the antagonists in the described passage about German Wikipedia. -- KarI Vl  Talk  15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonator blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wanting to sound as anti-DE-Wiki again, but given that a heavy campaign of canvassing is going on there, perhaps all the related DE-Wiki accounts (there will be a LOT of them soon ;-)) should be considered as meatpuppets for the purposes of the article German Wikipedia? Estlandia (dialogue) 15:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a recent posting on the German Administrators notice board about the conflict you brought from de:WP to en:WP. If someone would try to discredit the en:WP on de:WP - be sure - you would read a similar posting here.--♥ KarlV 15:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one is discrediting the German wiki apart from you and some of your pals doing this with this kind of behaviour. Accepting critical views is a normal part of life, and we here have learned to live with criticism, cf relevant parts of the article Wikipedia. There are numerous critical newspaper articles referred to and everyone can live with that. Estlandia (dialogue) 16:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So - as I can read - I cannot expect an apologize from your side - which would be a first step to enter in a normal cooperative communication.--♥ KarlV 16:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Are you seven years old? You cannot "force" an apology, and thus issuing an ultimatum that you won't cooperate unless you get one is pretty rampantly ridiculous. Wise people take the higher road than that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont read it as a demand for an apology. I read it as "If you want to be mature about this, let's talk, if not then I don't want to waste my time." Personally, I think de:Wiki issues should stay on de:Wiki and KarlV is right to say he shouldnt be slandered here.--v/r - TP 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know this Estlandia guy, but as he refers to the Preussische Allgemeine Zeitung-Affair, I can testify that a group of right-wing-activists is trying to whitewash articles about their organisations or media, like the Preussische Allgemeine Zeitung. We have had many problems with these people, I would advise the local administrators to ban activists like Estlandia on sight due to their disturbing activities. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know Liberaler Humanist. He is famous on German wikipedia for his arbitrary proposels and he belongs to the inglorious Diddl-Club, a host for trolls. He and KarlV try to whitewash German wikipedia from everything which fits not into their left-wing to pretended humanistic point of view. Please stop this and let it stay in German wikipedia.--Humanistic liberal (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above user has been blocked for reasons that should be obvious upon a comparison of his username with that of the editor he's accusing. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quod erat demonstrandum: “I would advise the local administrators to ban activists like Estlandia on sight due to their disturbing activities” Exactly, who disagrees with us shall be banned on sight, just the way the comrades are used to in the project controlled by them. Only that it's not gonna be that way here, Genossinnen und Genossen! Otherwise, agree with the comment by Humanistic liberal.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The german Wikipedia is object to far-right-wing-extremists. A lot of users with left-liberal-modest point of views are banned for political reasons in the german Wikipedia. Some of the right-wing-Studentenverbindung-people made even career in the foundation like FrankS. People, who openly disagree with some of this right opinion-leaders are mobbed and banned. Information within the german Wikipedia about right-wing-activities is deleted immediately, f.e. POV-Information about Nazi Herwig Nachtmann by KarlV.. Herwig Nachtmann is member of the german Nazi-Party, member of the Schlagende-Burschenschaften (students organisation), and is to be assumed to have a lot of wikipedia-accounts in the german Wikipedia. The CEO of the german chapter PavelR. is famous for his critics-zensorship-activities in right-wing articles about persons like the nazi-philosopher (der Führer schützt das Recht) de:Carl Schmitt 1), 2), 3), 4) (but only before his career in the german chapter). This people are in no way representing the scientific community, even they are claiming to be students or part of the "traditions" of german schlagende-students-verbindungen. To make a documentation about the far-right-and-antisemitic-activities in the german Wikipedia, I started my thomas7-Blog outside of the german wikipedia: http://thomas7.bloggles.info/. HabenDruck (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC) aka Thomas7[reply]
    Newspaper sources demonstrate left-wing, not right-wing bias. It's just your conspiracy theory and irrelevant here. Estlandia (dialogue) 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a conspiracy theory, FrankS. is member of a Schlagende-Studentenverbindung, and PavelR. could be seen in the article-history. I do and will document it on my blog.
    Some articles with strong right wing bias are:
    The not very important newspaper Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung ist a right-wing publication, which is mentioned in the article correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HabenDruck (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    HabenDruck (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue is that a section covering criticism of political bias in German Wikipedia (section concerned, (history)) has been persistently removed by users from DE-Wiki (and re-added numerous times).Estlandia (dialogue) 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the internet has started to make the world round (and smaller). HabenDruck (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    HabenDruck, have you posted at de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme? GiantSnowman 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did that 8 years ago. At the end I only includes the NPOV-Tag in articles, since my hints where deleted again and again bei studenten-verbindungs-members (f.E. User:Ale! and User:Rabe). At the end, the NPOV-Tags were removed and my user account was attacked by 5 election-frauded votes. The fifth voting excluded my account from the german Wikipedia, so I (Thomas7) "emigrated" to the french wikipedia 7 years ago, where my account was accepted by a public voting. 5 years ago, my french account was deleted silently by User:Bapti, who was incited by german right-wing users. The right-wing studenten-verbindungs-member FrankS. (made career in the wp-foundation) deleted silently my outreach-foundation-account, again without reason. Thomas7. HabenDruck aka Thomas7 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a content dispute with some edit warring and personal attacks thrown in. Stop edit warring and personal attacks. They are not allowed and maybe cause for a ban. Take the content dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution, and act like mature encyclopedia builders, while there. You will need reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How to react like an hero, if you are faced with right-wing-mobbing? HabenDruck (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one should be mobbed but there is little that an be done about a content dispute here. I'm unclear on who the parties are but I understand some want to add or change content on the German Wikipedia article, and others oppose that change. If that is the case, and you cannot settle it on your own. One of you should file at WP:DR/N. Identifying all involved parties. I understand there maybe language issues but they also maybe able to find a German speaker to assist them. They can also help you make sure conversations stay civil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that we can move this issue forward here in the English Wikipedia. We certainly have sympathy with someone being mobbed but we cannot add to your arguments. I wish you well! jmcw (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not understand why the discussion are going far away of the main incident in en:WP (see the first post in this thread). The incident was the personal attack from User:Estlandia naming me e.g. a watchdog.--♥ KarlV 14:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You are right; it could be construed as a personal attack, if the user actually meant to call you a "dog." On the other hand, it could be a poor attempt to describe your behavior, as an over-eager "watcher." Estlandia should more carefully choose his words, if the latter, and should stop it, now, if the former. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I assume this is user:S1 also known as A.Savin in German WP. Has nothing to do with en:WP. Close that thread.--Angel54 5 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Deleted Talk Page Entry Too- Article Kabir

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

    Resolved
     – just a misunderstanding Nobody Ent 03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    When I saw Kabir article I found a part of the article is badly messed up, with unnecessary bold letters in a whole paragraph, no space after a sentence etc. I did not change any content of the article, only worked on formatting and following Guidelines mentioned about the edit in article's talk page.
    Later I found they not only deleted edit from the article, he has deleted my talk page entry too.
    I can understand about the article. The whole section was not very good written with some formatting errors, that's why I tried to fix it there. But, I strongly object the way my talk page entry has been deleted too.
    I am not mentioning the editor's name here, since I am mainly talking against the act, and not the person, but, once again, I strongly object the way my talk page entry has been deleted--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, the editor had a point in undoing your edits to the article, since the information you added was unverified and the tone far from neutral. I don't know if such editing was the reason for the article protection. But while I don't rightly see the merit of the talk page edit, I don't understand the reason for its removal either and will revert. Now, this is not a matter requiring administrative intervention: you could have reverted the talk page entry yourself. Drmies (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You must be confused, Titodutta did not add any material, he just cleaned up the formatting [4] Yoenit (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're correct. Let me just say that on the whole the edit in question by Sarabseth is mostly fine, but the edit summary is misleading. Titodutta, my apologies, there was nothing intrinsically wrong with your edit; I should have looked farther back in the history. We do have, then, a misleading edit summary by Sarabseth (it speaks of "edit", singular, when it reverts maybe two dozen of them) with an incorrect use of the word "disruptive". This is ironic, given that the editor earlier blasted someone else for an unclear edit summary. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing your talkpage post is a definite violation of wp:TPO I will warn the editor of this. Don't think administrative action is required at this point. Yoenit (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved

    My apologies, twice over.
    First for the Talk page edit. I just didn't think it was necessary to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been made to the article (and nothing more than that) since that's already recorded on the History page. But Titodutta could have just reverted my edit instead of bringing it to the ANI noticeboard.
    Also, my apologies for the inaccurate edit summary. The background is that on Feb 19, there were repeated attempts by an anonymous editor to keep adding the same material, although it was repeatedly reverted by 5 different editors. This culminated in the page being protected, with the explanation "persistent disruption". It appears that along the way what was intended to be an edit reverting the disputed material accidentally left it in. And subsequent reversion edits reverted to this version, so the disputed material was still incorporated in the article.
    My edit to the article that is in question was just correcting this situation. Substantively, I was just restoring the version that existed before the edits by the anonymous editor that were labeled disruptive not by me, but by an admin. Titodutta's edits were modifying the disputed, disruptive material; consequently, they were reverted too in restoring the last clean version. I realize that I didn't dot all my i's and cross all my t's when I put down "reverted the disruptive edit that sneaked through before the page was protected" as my edit summary. But to call that summary misleading sounds a little extreme. --Sarabseth (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just didn't think it was necessary to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been.......
    Reply: It is sometimes highly helpful. For example, you could simply clear everything by writing in my same talk page entry something like, :Hi, Tito, I have made some changes and reverted last few edits. Unfortunately your this edit where you have made some formatting correction has been reverted too..... It is not possible in Page History. So, I feel talk page entry is sometimes very helpful.
    But Titodutta could have just reverted my edit instead of bringing it to the ANI noticeboard.
    Reply: Yes, I could revert your edit (but, I generally don't to avoid wp:editwar), but deleting a talk page entry was something very surprising for me. I have never seen anyone deleting a valid talk page entry. I was highly puzzled.
    The background is that on Feb 19...
    Reply: Yes, I noticed the recent incidents and edits there, and that was the main reason, I added the talk page entry. See the starting of the entry Since it seems to be a sensitive article to edit, I thought of this talk page entry - it'll make sense, I hope.
    Titodutta's edits were modifying the disputed, disruptive material......
    Reply: Actually I got suggestion to edit this article from suggestbot, see Add Sources section. I felt bad to see that the article on Kabir has got only one star in sources. Anyway, that's a different thing.
    --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still don't see how it's helpful to post an entry on the Talk page just to say that an edit has been made to the article (and nothing more than that). --Sarabseth (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is reasonably common to post such to the talk page, including a diff is good too, in just these sorts of situations where confusion may occur. It is not common to remove talk page posts, unless they contribute to disruption for instance. Both editors have acted here in good faith. NewbyG ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button"

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

    Resolved
     – Eschoir blocked indef pursuant to later thread. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Votestacking-I read the article after I stumbled across this discussion [5]

    [editor1] has referred above to a past problem with the article Origin of the Eucharist. The problem is again as acute as ever. Only two editors are active in opposing the lone editor about whose apparent aims I say nothing. I would be grateful if editors with greater knowledge than I have about Wikipedia rules would give advice. One solution with which I am toying is to let the lone editor have free rein, so that nobody then reading the article would take it seriously. [Editor2] (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

    One thing I am not sure about is this. Does Eschoir have a possible WP:COI issue there? That may be one way to resolve it. As I said before, I have 1,500 pages on my watchlist, so I can not get involved in details there right now, and that is why we need a general 9-1-1 call system or a Mayday button (perhaps built into the WikiProject Christianity banner) as [editor3] suggested so editors can be called for help. [editor1] (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

    What an interesting idea: add it to the banner. Well, if you like the "Click here in case of emergency" button I just added to the top of this talk page, it should be relatively easy to add the button to the banner. It would take a consensus, of course, and we'd want to coordinate with John's redesign of the banner. – [editor3] (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

    [editor3] has helped very much, and I express my appreciation. As for Eschoir, I think he just enjoys stirring others up. In the past, another favourite target of his was Free Republic (see the archived talk pages). [editor2] (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

    The button looks good, I hadn't realised that's what you meant. [editor4] (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

    In response to [editor1], we could, maybe, have some sort of dedicated section to this page, or some other page, in which we could list subjects which would seem to require immediate concern. There is material in the banner which allows us to indicate that an article needs immediate attention, but all it does is add the article to a category of such articles, and I'm not sure how many people watch that category. Personally, I would have no objections to seeing such a section added to this page, maybe at the top? [editor5] (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2012(UTC)

    The 9-1-1 button adds a section on the talk page with a standard section title and all those dark, home of a big red warning sign. It also adds a standard edit sum to the history which is easily seen if you watchlist the page. A seperate section on this talk page for time-sensitive items is a good idea, but it won't generate a pre-formatted edit sum. That means you'll actually have to read this page to check for critical items. WPConservatism is setup to use the banner paramenter for "Needs attention", and our To-do list displays a little message that there are articles that need attention. It is largely ignored. I think a better solution would be to put the 9-1-1button we use here on the banner: it would be availab e at articles and when clicked it would create a preformatted section on this talk page. A 9-1-1 button only works if people are watching for it, and know what to do when they go to the page. I'd like to propose that we create the position of Seargeant-at-arms. They would have to study WP:DR and how to close discussions. Their duties would entail watching for 9-1-1s on the noticeboard and responding as appropriate.– [editor3] (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

    and it seemed germane. But I r eally don't know what to do. The idea of creating an officer to learn how to close down discussion is chilling to me. Eschoir (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Complete outside opinion here. I have no interest whtat-so-ever in this subject...I'll let others make the philosophical argument...but this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Quinn ░ RAIN 04:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Germane to what? I don't see how this is vote stacking, or where your officer comes from. Are you perhaps not on the winning side of a conflict? Drmies (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken the liberty of notifying editors 1 through 5, though not necessary in that order. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This notional 9-1-1 button is exactly the sort of votestacking concern that has repeatedly been expressed regarding the Conservatism Project. "Help me, I need a yes-man." Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pretty obvious to me that the very last thing that should happen is that any so called 'Seargeant-at-arms'(sic) should do is close a discussion. In fact, in any situation where the 9-1-1 button was used, I'd be dubious about anyone from Wikiproject Conservatism closing it. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI this is not about WPConservatism. It is about a proposal at WPChristianity. I am the editor who came up with the "Sgt-at-arms" idea. The idea was that a neutral, uninvolved editor could act as a mediator at contentious articles, and formally close discussions that had run their course. Sort of "admin-lite". Nothing remotely resembling vote-stacking here. – Lionel (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it was a remark by me that occasioned the "red button" proposal, I have been in no way involved in discussing it. I would make a few observations here:
    1. I fail to see anything wrong with drawing attention on the Christianity noticeboard to a Wikipedia discussion on a topic concerning Christianity.
    2. I presume that the sergeant-at-arms proposal was not meant to confer extraordinary dictatorial powers on a single editor. In any case, it remained a proposal of a single editor that received no support from other editors. The place to discuss that proposal was where it was put forward. Proposals made by just one editor and accepted by no group of editors and not even by one other editor must be in their hundreds each day; they don't qualify as "incidents" to be discussed on this noticeboard.
    3. Even the red-button proposal itself (on which I express no opinion) is still under discussion on the page where it was made and has reached no precise conclusion.
    4. The editor who raised the question here under the non-neutral heading Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button" is the subject of discussion on another noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that the comment by me that occasioned the red-button proposal did not come out of the blue. It was a follow-up to another editor's remark: "I have seen good and knowledgeable users just stop. Consider User:Jpacobb. He was knowledgeable and nice. When he first started, I tried to encourage him to edit, alas a short time later, disaster struck on Origin of the Eucharist (where some user may have a WP:COI) and Jpacobb has not edited since February 6th. That is called a 'loss'. He could have been a good editor, but was probably too nice to deal with that situation. Had there been more support for him, he may have stayed. The editor he (and myself) argued against was blocked for a day, but then continued on and on again. My guess is that that was too much for Jpacobb who wanted to do 'cooperative development' but realized that is not how Wikipedia works, despite the smiles shown on banner ads at fundraising." My comment should have been placed in its context. The text of my comment is given above as that of Editor2: not a request for others to stack up, but for advice on what I myself should do. Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The immediate problem that I see is that Eschoir has been reverting against consensus since late January at Eucharist and Origin of the Eucharist. He was recently reported at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Eschoir reported by User:Lionelt (Result: ). Eschoir does not make clear that he copied the comments by others (italicized above) from Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard#Origin of the Eucharist. You can get some impression of Eschoir's style of negotiation (or lack thereof) by reading the last part of his talk page. He returned to Wikipedia after a long absence in January, 2012 and resumed a war at Origin of the Eucharist that he had last engaged in in 2008. He was blocked 24 hours on 8 February for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for mentioning the wrong Wikiproject. My comments still stand, any 'sergeant-at-arms' appointed by any wikiproject should not be closing any discussions raised by a '9-1-1' call at the wikiproject, nor should anyone from that wikiproject. I agree Eschoir is a problem but that doesn't affect whether this is a problem or not. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I kinda remember Wikiproject Catholicism getting in some hot water over something like that, but I may have been thinking of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The sergeant-at-arms proposal, made by one editor only, has won support neither here nor on the page where it was put forward, and can be considered dismissed. The complaint here was instead about alleged "institutional votestacking- '9-1-1 button'". Esoglou (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I mean, that mfd I linked to was about a votestacking squad. There have been a few other such incidents (i.e. other wikiprojects of various sorts turning into canvassing operations) too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The still on-going discussion on the page where the red-button proposal was raised shows that it is not aimed at vote-stacking but at "ask(ing) for comments from those people who know the topic, because the basic idea was to get input based on knowledge of the topic, rather than just general ideas". So what is the alleged "incident" that is being discussed here? Esoglou (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What would qualify as an incident for discussion on this noticeboard is instead the behaviour of an editor who, as well as (in good faith, we must presume) misleading others here into thinking that a project (of which I am not a member) was vote-stacking, insistently edits certain articles in a way that utterly ignores the consensus of all other editors (cf. the discussion on the question). Esoglou (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: This kind of Alerting, with the exception of the Article Alerts system, is the exact thing WP:CANVAS warns about. I would like to draw a parallel from this set of proposals to the way that the Rescue tag was used to solicit action from a set of editors who had a specific viewpoint about deleting articles from Wikipedia (The [[WP:ARS|Article Rescue Squad). In 90% of the cases, the intention is to provide a good notification system, but almost always gets abused and becomes a vehicle for canvassing. Hasteur (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Esoglou was formerly known as Lima and Soidi and Platia and Decahill Eschoir (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And after an ever-so-brief pause in his incessant disruption after being hit with a report at 3RR[6], Eschoir has resumed edit warring against multiple editors [7]. Indef anyone? – Lionel (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bullied

    A lot of users on Wikipedia re bullying me. I evem told them I face real life harassment and they reverted me. I have no girlfriend. I'm ugly. No one ever responds to me or tries to help me. I wish somethign would go right in my life :(. Please help me. Are any of you women on Wikipedia single? SKeptical of Love (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't shoot yourself in the foot - do you realy think your edits were neutral or even worth of inclusion? [8], [9], [10]... was this civil?. Best to read over Wikipedia:Five pillars before you proceed.Moxy (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the issue. The issue is my whole entire life no one has cared about me. No one. No one loves me. I call for help and no ones hear me. I have no heart because the heart I have was broken. Do you understand this or are you lacking in any human compassion? Do you not care if everyone hates me? SKeptical of Love (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This ain't the site for you, maybe. It's not a therapy session. Doc talk 07:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Suicide responseMoxy (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To put it bluntly, Wikipedia isn't a website to help people who are suffering of depression ot to give emotional support. Nor is it a place to meet a person to fall in love with. While we can sympathize, we still have rules. Rules that you broke. You're more than welcome to contribute of course, once you don't break anymore rules. However, you have not been bullied. If anything, your statement of telling another user to shut up, could be considered bullying. Gorlack36 (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Or even more bluntly. Wikipedia is not for you, given your current sentiment expressed in your messages above. You need to seek something in real life to do to aid your problems. S.G.(GH) ping! 07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised that this new user knows the acronym "AN/I". I'm also surprised that this user is not blocked after committing an egregious BLP violation, something no good faith new user would stoop to. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a troll—no one goes on ANI to complain about his deficient love life. Recommend indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Goodvac (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A troll? No way. Nope. Doc talk 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree Doc9871. There are only good faith edits by this user. A quick google for "Lela Star" "Peter North" overturns the worst of the accusations. This is a lonely person who is sitting at their computer because they have nothing RL to do. What part of this is unusual ? Penyulap talk 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure Doc9871 was joking (correct me if I'm wrong). His edit summary was - ;P. Goodvac (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for my actions on here. I will try to be better from now on. I'm not gonna lie, you guys surprised me in a good way. I will do what I can to be better. I do have a lot to offer. On Wikipedia and in love. SKeptical of Love (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy happy joy joy! Doc talk 10:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The following users are  Confirmed as each other:

    --MuZemike 13:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone ought to block the latest sock for block evasion. Night Ranger (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All the accounts are blocked except for the main. In the future, I do urge Skeptical to keep to one account to avoid unnecessary complications. Also, while involvement and collaboration within the community is encouraged for the purposes of encyclopedia-building, Wikipedia is neither a social networking or a dating site. —Dark 14:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw he had done some good editing, and didn't see him showing a preference for social networking, but I didn't (and can't) check the lot. Either way, if he is more more interested in editing I say ban him as an act of humanity. and me too Penyulap talk 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some people think this editor is for real?? From his user page:

    All I want is love, But love isn't for me. I'd do anything to find love. That is my downfall- that I care too much. I am too good to be evil and too evil to be good. I am the ghost in the night, the shadow of all life. Hatred and lies is all I know. Judge me and label me. For I have judged and labeled you. Hate me. For I hate you. Together let's show the world its folly: Hope and faith. Belief. Love. Eradicate it and show all who live that love does not exist and only evil can survive.

    I don't think so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    well spotted, tanslated it Penyulap talk 18:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you can't "translate" his user page for him, at least not without his permission. I reverted your change.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Bbb23. I'm very perplexed that some can still show good faith to this user. "I'm not gonna lie, you guys surprised me in a good way." confirms he was just trolling us, as does looking at his contributions under the other socks. Goodvac (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed this phenomenon before. It's a judgment call, and it depends on the editor as to where they finally give up on another editor. I draw the line earlier than some.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not trying to troll you guys after the fact you showed kindness. It sounds corny, but its true. I sincerely was bad on Wikipedia, because I actually thought you guys were heartless. I'm not saying I deserve to be thought of as good or evil. I'm not your average user. I have a lot of emotional issues. I do want to contribute and I have made good edits in the past. I understand that I have created many accounts. I have been a major troll in the past. Back to when I was 13 years old in 2006. It is mainly because I really don't have the happiest life. I troll people. In real life, I cause a lot of problems too. But I'm trying to help myself and I have been seeking counseling. In my honest opinion, it is irrelevant to me, what becomes of this. i want to be a good user. I really do. I just wish there was a way I could be a good user and forget about my past. if you think those are the only accounts I have created on Wikipedia throughout the years, you are mistaken. I have created a lot of accounts. I am not a saint when it comes to using one account. I'll be the first to admit that. But I can do a lot of good things. I know a lot about sports. I believe I can edit sports articles and make them better. The thing is, I'm not good at the actual formatting of articles. I'm not good at creating tables and charts and graphs. I'm not good at making headlines to articles. heck, I don't even know how to format and create a userbox. If I am determined to be of good faith and I agree to use just one account. I request the Technogreek43 account. That is the one I have the most history with, and the one with the fondest memories. Call me good or evil. I am both. But If people help me, I will be of great value to Wikipedia. I truly believe I am one who can help. All these years I just never believed anyone would really want to help me because of my past. I apologize to all I have hurt. But as for now, I have a duty. And that is to make the sports articles on Wikipedia better. SKeptical of Love (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    'I actually thought you guys were heartless' really ? here on wikipedia ? NO! (<-epitome of sarcasm). I expect this editor can use his experience and skill to write about his experiences as he has done here, to help other young editors to be better writers. We need this editor on wikipedia to help translate policy guides into ENG:VAR 'teen rebel', using firsthand experience.
    This editor as he is now sets a perfect example of RL and WP civility and honesty with his recent apologies and openness. Too many editors here could learn from his mature example, rather than playing hide and seek with pedantic adherence to misinterpretation of policy. I think he could make a fine leader until he is inevitably burned at the stake in the inevitable drive-by judgment, or not. Penyulap talk 08:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to suggest the previous blocks no longer apply and ask SKeptical of Love to choose a new name, rather than an old one, so someone can assist him according to the relevant policy. I'd suggest the current one is fine, but whatever. Penyulap talk 12:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi guys, I;ve just dropped a note over on this user's talk page. I think it's possible that what this guy/gal needs is a tolerant, patient, understanding small group of mentors with similar interests (sports, probably) who can make him/her feel useful and welcome, and encourage him/her to get into some productive stuff. If, as a community, we can find a way to work with, and bring out the best in, this editor, we may find ourselves with a real asset to the 'pedia. I don't share similar interests myself but I'm happy to offer advice and a friendly ear to listen / shoulder to cry on, as and when it's needed. Are there a few kind folks out there who might be able to offer some support and education? Some consideration of this thread on Jimbo's page might be in order here; so if anyone with similar interests has any particular skills or experience relevant to this, I think that might be particularly helpful. I don;t think this user is "evil at heart", just similar to a young colt with an odd kick in its gallop, or a high-spirited and boisterous pup which needs careful and sensitive training. Any offers? Go visit the guy / gal's talk page, and see if we can find a niche to slot this editor into, where he/she will feel useful and welcome. Pesky (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally would welcome the opportunity to clone my special style, which is so adored by the masses. A mini me. Oh yeah ! Tooth fairy lookout ! (oops! I have to be more careful what I type) Penyulap talk 10:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Year-long pattern of disruptive editing by User:Lung salad needs to be addressed.

    Admin attention is needed with respect to the ongoing pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing by User:Lung_salad. I have come into contact with the editor at Talk:Josephus on Jesus, where his engagement has been fractious, leading to an earlier block for a 3RR (in fact 11RR) violation. But it appears as if this is simply the latest irruption of a larger trend of difficult and disruptive editing. The mounting frustrations of many editors who have responded in good faith at the above page mirrors the experience of editors elsewhere, including discussions from the following articles:

    And there are no doubt others. AFAICT the editor is bringing a curious POV to certain pages that may reflect some elaborate theory that he has developed. In the case of Talk:Josephus on Jesus, the user is insistent that leading academic sources should be discredited and is insistent on editing the article to contest an academic consensus with which he disagrees. Attempts to engage the editor on his talk page have not been successful (examples: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). This, it appears, is a recurring theme. So we have wasted a lot of time with this, and there is clearly a major problem here as editors at one after another article have had to expend a great deal of effort pushing back against what comes across as the editor's single-minded POV. I will notify other editors who have been involved in these disputes to weigh in as they may be able to provide more insight. Whatever the case, something needs to be done. Eusebeus (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me just say that in this discussion 4 editors commented, and 2 of them stated that Lung Salad's edits and explanations are "bizzare". I would also use the term bizzare, so that makes it 3 out of 4. And the 4th editor said it was like WP:TE. The problem is that these cyclic discussions are eating up time like Pac-man as I said on that page. As stated there, he again asked for references which he had previously modified to diverge from the source. I called that "puzzling" but it should really be called bizzare. At one point I counted that he had been told to read WP:V 21 times, now it is about 30 times. It was borderng on comedy, so I joked that he needed to call the WP:RS expert he was disagreeing with (based on facts) and get the expert to write another book, for the expert's current book was against Lung Salad's unsourced edit. And he just said that the expert "has been dismissed". This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see problematic editing, but I do believe that WP:RFC/U is the right route here, rather than the immediate intervention for incidents ANI is supposed to be for. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. I do not know how to start that type of process, and I am just out of breath repeating "please read WP:V" so I hope someone will start that process. But it really needs to be done. In the meantime, can we get a temporary help on the talk page by virtue of the WP:TE that is stopping everyone. After 30 mentions of WP:V we are now getting long repeated arguments based on facts and primaries. If a temporary restraining order can be issued, we can at least have a few days of calm. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided User:Lung salad with a very detailed final warning. I have been watching his page since he was first blocked a couple of weeks ago - he is likely to merely remove the warning, and ignore it. Should he be blocked again, I will warn you: he will bombard you with e-mails, so be prepared to remove e-mail access. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not "bombard" anybody with e-mails, and I can easily meet WP:V. I can reach my books on the shelf of my library. Lung salad (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and how about WP:CONSENSUS? How's your score on that? It is, after all, number 1 around here ... you seem to think it's somewhere beneath you to acknowledge it and back off, even when reached ... consensus does not mean unanimous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus can produce POV articles if the majority of editors have only one goal in mind. Lung salad (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be a good time to point out that User:Jayjg, who is a highly accomplished mediator, has offered to mediate the content dispute on Josephus on Jesus. Maybe everyone could just step back for a few days until the mediator shows up and give mediation a chance to work. I think this problem can be solved pretty easily if the disputants would just calm down. With respect to the user conduct issue, many of the interventions could also be described as aggressive WP:Wikilawyering. I agree with the earlier suggestion that WP:RFC/U is the better way to go than some kind of summary judgement by WP:AN/I. This will also allow people to take a step back and have a more measured perspective. Ignocrates (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments, Ignocrates. On this issue, let's let Jayjg mediate. An RfCU is the way to go for Lung salad. There are problems with his editing but ANI isn't the place to try to fix them. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, let an RFC/U get started in any case, but I would recommend some action in any case just based on "the current activities" which are pertinent to WP:ANI. And in response to the attempt at a positive depiction of the situation, I should say that we have a user here who:

    • Is aware of what a source says, for he has used that source himself.
    • Goes to the page and modifies the quote from that source as well quotes from other sources, to make them deviate from what the sources say.
    • Is notified about it, and asked to correct himself, but refuses.
    • A week or two later asks for the same sources to be reproduced again, asking if they actually exist as sources! And when reminded of his own source deviant edit, just stops.

    So the term "bizzare editing behavior" clearly applies here, and attempting to portray it in a positive light is just taking up time that would have gone to productive use elsewhere. How does one mediate the disruption of sources and a request for them again - that is not a content issue, is a "behavior issue". We have clearly disruptive editing behavior here that is taking up productive time. This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Basic information that can be easily cited from verified published sources relating to Origen about Josephus is being blocked from the article. In a nutshell. Lung salad (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiability is not, however, and never has been, the only basis upon which material is added. WP:FT, WP:WEIGHT, and other policies and guidelines exist as well. There does seem to be some reason to suspect that this editor has a limited ability to grasp those other criteria, or, possibly, he might be driven by some form of POV. I request input from others about the propriety of sharing information this editor shared with me via e-mail, which I think might also perhaps be relevant to this discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be open about it and let us know. We are all getting to be 95 years old by the time this discussion is over. I see no reason to not let us have the "facts" now that facts have been the issue again and again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no. I'm not aware of a consensus on whether unsolicited email is private or not; lacking such consensus basic respect would mean keeping it private. Nobody Ent 21:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Says here pretty clearly not to post online. Nobody Ent 21:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I remembered something like that. That being the case, however, it should be noted that the editor's own user talk page history may well indicate that he has a perhaps less than good grasp of things like FT and WEIGHT, and, also, perhaps, less than an outstanding grasp of some religion related reference materials. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I any case, as you stated there are clear indications that there may be various root causes for the bizzare editing behavior we have seen. However, the bizzare behavior can not be allowed to eat up the life of other Wikipedians, and slow down the progress of other pages. And I would also note that Lung Salad did not dispute that he had deliberately edited quotes to make them deviate from sources, and that he had asked about the same sources again yesterday as though he did not know about them, but just changed the subject. History2007 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The longer this commentary goes on, the more I wonder if WP:AN/I is being asked to look in the right place. The few statements User:Lung salad has made here seem to be, for the most part, focused on improving article content (as she/he sees it). By contrast, the counter-parties to this dispute have made numerous non-specific statements about "bizarre editing behavior" that could be construed as escalating the edit conflict and WP:PAs. Maybe it's time to end this deliberation. Ignocrates (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I must tell you very frankly Ignocrates that I think the sideline coaching you have provided to this user all along has wasted significant amounts of my time in dealing with this. We have "clear diffs" that show edits that deliberately distort content, do not stay focused on a topic, ask about the same issue again, etc. etc. And apart from you others seem to think we have a problem on our hands. After you advised the user to stay quiet until this thread gets archived there has been some calm, but we can all read, as you know. And as John Carter said, it is not clear if the WP:Truth-related issues will go away. There have been no page improvements after all this mayhem, none. Just wasted time. Just wasted time. You spend very little time on it yourself, but are putting a driver on the road whose driving behavior has been just bizzare. The term "bizzare" was used by 2 out of 3 other users on that talk page, as you know. And from what I hear, he has bombarded people with emails. Just tell me with a straight face that is not bizzare behavior. Just tell me it is not. Do you think I want to spend time on this answering the same questions about WP:V again and again? We have a problem on our hands here. Just accept it. There is no need for wearing rose colored glasses here. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I don't have the time or energy to engage in this debate, I speak honestly from personal experience when I say that User:Lung salad is one of the most obtuse and disruptive editors I've come across in my 7 years and 10 months contributing to Wikipedia. On several occasions, I've seriously considered initiating the procedure to get him indefinitely banned from Wikipedia but he would always give up arguing with me and temporarily disappear before I reached the breaking point. This is why I think he needs to be neutralized once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignocrates, please do us all a favor and read that a couple of times, at least. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have great respect for Loremaster and his opinions, I think his concerns, and yours, are best handled at WP:RFC/U, as several people have suggested. With respect to your comments about me, I think this whole line of argumentation is off-topic and highly inappropriate. If you have a problem with me, you can take it up with me personally on my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I do not know you, and do not need to pursue matters on your talk page. My problem is "wasted time" based on the current brouhaha caused by the edits which started this thread. I do not see the logic in your comments made here, hence I will comment here. You have seen the edits that distort sources, etc. Then did I read that they are for "page improvement"? I suggest you need to read those diffs again and retract the statement they are for page improvement. And I do not see the logic in just dismissing Loremaster's comments or those of Eusebeus, etc. If you have respect for Loremaster, please respect his statements. Today, because there was no brouhaha and because I did not have to use my read WP:V mantra I actually managed to write a few articles. The problem is that having to repeat that mantra next week will be counterproductive to Wikipedia. That is why something needs to be done. History2007 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, given that as another editor commented on the talk page there, calm seems to have returned, and constructive development can resume, I will stop here as well so we can move on. I do not really want to spend the time doing an RFC/U now, nor do I want to spend the rest of my life on that article or Lung Salad. So I will just move on now, and if calm does not persist, we will just have to restart here again based on the material above. But I hope not...I hope not... History2007 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

    In spite of opposition expressed at this ongoing CfD, User:Stefanomione continues to create more "Terminology of..." categories, this one just moments ago. He continues to remove pre-existing categories on Jungian and Freudian psychology in favour of his new creations. I recommend a block on further category creation until we determine what consensus is, including here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Five years ago, I created Category:Terminology by ideology, which got promptly a CfD - result: still standing ... pity my talk page hasn't any records of that. In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments. But I agree here and will refrain until the conclusion of the discussion. Stefanomione (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Terminology by ideology is exactly the sort of category that Stefanomione delights in churning out. It has never been through cfd (see its history) and IMO would be unlikely to survive. Perhaps an admin with access to deleted (or renamed) categories could produce a list of Stefanomione's deleted category creations. (There were several cfd discussions on S's creations in mid-2011 such as Novels by parameter.) Oculi (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is: I don't work at these cat until the matter is settled on the discussion page. (And indeed many of my categories were renamed/deleted (I guess 1/5, 2650 still standing), but that's not the point here). Anyway, it's impossible to create, I think, without revisions/renamings. Stefanomione (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked at Category:Freudian psychology, and it's not clear to me exactly which articles should be in it and which shouldn't. I noticed Stefanomione's removal of the category from articles and thought it was rather strange, but I didn't revert him, since I assumed he must have some kind of reason for doing it. Before reverting him, it would be helpful to discuss exactly what the purpose of the category is, as that doesn't seem fully clear (at least it's not clear to me). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Axem Titanium's proposal for a restriction on the creation by Stefanomione of new categories. There is too much work by editors in cleaning after their creation, and Stefanomione seems to be showing contempt for efforts to seek consensus. For example, Stefanomione was notified at 14:36, 25 February that Category:Terminology by author was being taken to CfD, yet still went ahead and created the subcat Category:Terminology of Carl Jung at 23:29, 25 February 2012. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the discussion ultimately endorses the category; what matters is that when the issue has been contested and is under discussion, a responsible collaborative holder will hold back and see what consensus emerges.
      And yes, Stefanomione did know about the CFD discussion: zie made over 50 edits in the period between the CFD notification and the creation of the second category, so the talk page notice will have been drawn to hir attention in the usual way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just put up another in a long series of category renames based on the works of Stefanomione. I understand he is well intentioned, but those of us on CFD have had to do more work to fix his mistakes than for any other editor, by far. Sadly, while he remains polite and cheery, Stefanomione doesn't seem to get why these convoluted category names and rabbit holes he creates are so vexing to other editors. I see nothing negative in Stefanomione's attitude, but after a couple hundred category renames, some sort of process needs to be put in place to stem the tide. If a category creation restriction were put in place, I am sure there are editors on CFD who would be willing to check any list of categories Stefanomione wants to create before he creates them and explain whether they are likely to fly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd volunteer to be one such 'pre-checker', if a block was in place. I wouldn't want to be the only one, to be sure, given the sheer volume, but I'd be one. Stefanomione has recently stated that he sees CfD as the place to figure out what categories should be about, seemingly as a substitute for actually considering main articles before cat creation. Mike's way would be much less work for the rest of us, in the end. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I share the concerns voiced above. Stefanomione's success average when creating categories is way too low. He claims only 1/5 of his creations get deleted but if that's the true number, it should be noted that no editor comes even close to that level of errors and it is a significant strain on CfD. Moreover, he doesn't always seem to take criticism on board. I think a discuss first/create later approach would be best and would allow Stefanomione to continue working in the area he likes but would lower the error-rate to something acceptable. Note that this would also be a net benefit in terms of time for Stefanomione: I think he has spent a depressingly vast amount of time building now-deleted categories that others would have advised against creating. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the idea that he should talk first, create after consensus. And his statement above "In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments." - If you're told stop, and discuss per WP:BRD, the answer isn't to continue on. If you don't understand or agree with the policies of it, here's another reason not to: that can get you blocked. And I might add, you all are fortunate. My experience with the editor had been that they ignore talk page queries until "forced" to comment, such as at cfd (or here, for that matter). I also think that the editor should be banned from using any automated tools related to categories. Maybe having to do things more manually will help with the stop and discuss process. If this was a bot user, I think the bot would have been blocked by now. - jc37 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some "charts" that are quite accurate (based on my watchlist, not my talkpage): 2650 categories still standing, 210 renamed, 180 flatly deleted (of these, 16 created again by another editor). Those renamed categories are mainly ill-named structures (the content-grouping itself not being discussed), like illustrated by Mike Selinker. So, naming things appears not to be my best talent (I intend to ask for more advice here before creating new categories - I would like to do this on a volontary basis). I agree, 6,1 % (2650/164) of my category-production is problematic and I intend to "lower that error-rate to something acceptable" by spending more time (talkpages, ...) on the namegiving. I would like to keep the automated tools. Stefanomione (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those statistics are kinda horrifying. Stefanominome has created no less than 180 categories which have been deleted, and doesn't see a problem? Another 210 renamed, and again no problem? Really?
      This is a contemptuous attitude to the time of other editors, who would also like to be doing other things on Wikipedia rather than tidying up after this editor. A total of 390 categories changed at CFD. Let's assume that there was some grouping of the CFDs, and generously assume an average of 5 categories per discussion; that means that Stefanomione's categories have been the subject of 80 CFD discussions. Each one of those discussions involves a lot of work by the nominator (a group nom is a lot of work to set up), more contributions from editors who participate in the CFDs, and then a closing admin has pass the instructions to the CFD bot. After that, watchlists get beaten up as every individual article is edited by the bot.
      Enough already. Time to require this editor to gain consensus before category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stefanomione's numbers suggest a 15% error rate, not 6.1%. But more importantly, the other 85% are not pristine. There are many places he has created categories where I have looked at them and thought, "Wow, this is going to be a nightmare to sort out," and just haven't had the time to nominate them. So just because we haven't put more than400 categories of his through the discussion process is no reason to believe the other categories are safe from problems. Now, here's the good news: When given direction, Stefanomione is more than happy to do the work himself. So once the creation ban is in place, it seems possible to imagine that he would be very helpful dealing with the issues that he has created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 85 % not pristine ? Could you give some examples ? What I see: the 1800 categories I created in 2005-2010 still expanded and completed with subcategories - Only four of them put on CfRenaming in 2011-2012, despite the incredible crowd intelligence of the wikipedians. Anyway, it's true, Mike: I'm eager to do the reparation-work myself. Stefanomione (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • A first step might be ones with the word "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books, etc.) in the name. That's all a huge mess. And more than a few violate MoS guidelines for naming. British word usage on television season vs series vs. show for example has a longtime consensus. I look at just how much there is and just haven't dealt with it yet just due to the tagging alone. - jc37 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What Jc37 said. My name appears more than 100 times on your talk page due to automatic notifications of discussions, almost all of which have resulted in changes. I'm trying to get you to change your behavior before it appears 100 more times.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • (ec) As Mike knows, we've already spent quite a bit of time at CfD delineating the media/creative works confusion, generally with unanimous support. I thought we had the 'use of the "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books"' problem cleared up. It sounds to me like Jc37 is also criticizing what the categories have become, post-Stefanomione, rather than what he created? Jc, is that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • What Mike S. said, exactly. It's not about what they've become after. See what we have in the category system is (as noted on my talk page) a "commonality of consistency based upon prior consensus". And a category's name, even more than how it is subcatted into an existing tree of cats, is of profound importance when trying to figure out what we're looking at. Categories are all about navigation. and the names should be clear so that any editor (tm) should feel confident placing the category on a specific page. And to further that navigation, we have multifaceted sets of category trees, of varying kinds. Limited only by the software itself, and previous consensus on style and choice. So what I'm getting at is at the start, these cats are named badly, and trees designed into a mess. And at CfD the sections of these huge trees are having separate discussions, so we have ended up with varying results. It is art? visual art? fine art? Should we use media? media by type? medium? works? Should we have X based on Y categories? T (sorted) by Z? And how specific should they be? An author and his works? or just the author or just his works? how vague or specific? Which terminology should we use? How should we disambiguate the names? Are they too broad or too narrow in inclusion criteria (the name itself being the criteria)? Is any of this described in an article somewhere explaining and sourcing this? And finally, how much of this is flatly WP:OR, and has nothing to do with scholarly interest? And I've only barely scratched the surface of this mess. This isn't the only mess in categories, but it's becoming more and more a big one. And Stefanomione's lack of discussion beforehand tied with automated tool usage, makes this very quickly into a king sized mess that continues to grow very fast daily. As I said above, I think that if this was a bot, the bot would have been blocked by now, and the bot owner asked to explain the edits, and to proactively seek community consensus before such future edits. Else their bot privileges may be indefinitely suspended and the bot indefinitely blocked. And yes, there are many examples in this page's archives supporting this assertion. - jc37 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing!

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

    Original section header: "Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing. Don't like an edit? Call them a sock! I don't like Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, they must be socks of each other! Hitler then would be leader of the USSR!"

    I usually just read Wikipedia. Every time I edit a little, incivility causes me to leave. I have decided to edit but again I see that it is hopeless. As administrators, you should try to put an end to this Wikipedia nonsense.

    Problems include: 1. If people don't like an editor, just call them a sock. Some sez guy, who is a sock of GrouchoPython, called me a sock just because I made some useful suggestions that he didn't like.

    2. I made some very good suggestions to the Obama article but there is a knee jerk reaction to revert them, not even discuss them. Then the discussion is hidden in a collapsable box. What kind of hospitality is that? It borders on incivility.

    2a. These suggestions include not jumping back and forth from year to year in the intro. For example, the last version talked about Obama in college and law school, jumps to Senate then jumps back to law school and jumps back to a House run (in between law school and his senate run). If this were a school paper, that section would get an F yet this is called a Featured Article. Get real and at least consider my good suggestions and discuss them.

    2b. Obamacare is not mentioned at all. Even if you hate the word, thousands of articles have it, not the formal name. So a brief mention of the word "obamacare" should be mentioned. In that section, there is detailed accounts on the date it was passed by the House and Senate. Well, that has nothing to do with the biography of Obama. Yet some important changes are omitted. (FYI, the 1099 requirement, the Medicaid co-pay proposal, the free birth control requirement recently enacted).

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Let's have administrators reading this try to solve the incivility problem, the false sock accusation problem, and possible ways to have good suggestions, like mine, considered and discussed not just reverted and responded with sock accusations. After all, we are trying to write a good encyclopedia, not a bad amateur blog!

    On the other hand, I've read WP enough that I know that people like to be cruel and do bad things. Therefore, you can edit Wikipedia yourself. I will just read it and not fight an uphill battle to do good. Midemer (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a specific issue that requires an administrator? That's what this board is for. If you have an issue with the content of an article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If there is a content dispute that cannot get resolved on the article's talk page, take it to WP:DRN for content dispute resolution. If you have a broad policy concern, raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But this appears to be wrong noticeboard for your issue - it does not make policy, and it is not for solving content disputes. Singularity42 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's up to the community to decide whether your suggestions are good. Of course you think they are, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, invoking Godwin's Law instantly in the topic header? Tsk, tsk... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    READ GODWIN'S LAW. It says arguments will result in comparing one side's beliefs with the belief's of Hitler or Nazis. No, I did not say that other editors are Hitler or have similar beliefs. I am not Hitler and do not have Nazi beliefs. Midemer (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bushranger, I agree. The community should decide. However, it is incivility to squash discussion as has been done. Collapsing discussion into a box, essentially censoring and closing it is bad. Then falsely accusing sockpuppetry.

    Administrators should put a stop to this incivility, threatening blocking, if necessary.

    You see, the knee jerk reaction in WP is to say "Bushranger and Singularity42, you two sort of agree so you are socks of each other". How would you like to be accused of that?

    WP needs to think of a better way. As for me, I will let the bullies and the clowns have their way. I've made good suggestions and smart people would discuss this, even if it is not adopted. Best of luck to Amateur Wikipedia, I mean, English Wikipedia. Midemer (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One thing you can do to help is to avoid characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, as you did here [16]. Your edit summary was the opposite of AGF. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it was an accident, that this editor deleted a lot of other stuff. That editor's edit summary said he was concerned about one little word but deleted a lot of stuff, maybe because he used twinkle. Midemer (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a specific incident or specific complaint about a particular editor, you are simply making too broad a complaint here. It isn't that nobody cares, just that there are steps one takes and in the correct way and location. This sounds like it might well just be a content dispute which can be directed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can bring up this situation for the community to discuss. If you have a problem with a specifc editor or editors you should then bring it here. You must show good faith in others by not overreaching in your complaint and sounding like you are just mad because they are not letting your contributions stand. This happens often in the more controversial articles. I suggest cooling down and resetting you frame of mind and then deciding if you have a content dispute or a probelm with individual behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Comment I smell a troll. First, is this tasty edit summary. He then goes on to state that he thought it might have been a 'friendly joke'. For what it's worth. Ishdarian 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has 78 edits in almost 5 years. Only 26 of those 78 were to articles. See [17].--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I filed a SPI report here. The similarities are obvious. I have a bad internet connection right now(in and out), so please excuse the mistakes. Dave Dial (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DD2k has a history of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit. DD2K makes no attempt to discuss edits, which is the way WP is supposed to be. I looked at DD2K's talk page and he falsely accused User:Jack Paterno of being a sock. I say falsely accused because there is no CU data that shows he is a sock. DD2K just yells loud enough until someone thinks "if it is said many times, it must be true." If this is WP, I want no part of WP. Congratulations, you have just chased away a good editor with good ideas. Midemer (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     CheckUser is not magic pixie dust - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's try to assume good faith about the OP here. To me it looks like someone who wants to contribute, but chose a very bad place to start (articles are prominent political figures are very tricky) and then was greeted with contempt. Midemer, I encourage you stay around and help build Wikipedia. For your own sake, I encourage you to stay away from Obama, Romney, Santorum, etc. articles until you've gained experience. Dealing with these articles is a complete headache even for experienced editors, as they are constantly edited (both in good faith and otherwise) by people with a POV who may or may not be aware of their own bias. If you feel you must contribute to these articles, I suggest you use the talk page to discuss potential changes by expressing your opinions in the most straightforward way possible (i.e with zero reference to other people's perceived biases). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Two key things from my very own user page:
    1. Who are all these socks (essay)
    2. First rule of Sockpuppet Accusations: Put up or shut up. Either file your case, or STFU
    Yup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admit that my sympathy for people who complain about the Incivilities! Done! To! Them!, using uncivil terms to do so, is limited. As is often the case, the OP believes he writes with the voices of angels, and while there is no reason on the limited information supplied to presume he is anything other than a brilliant political commentator, the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you will wind up on the minority side, whereupon your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Unless the OP is alleging his attempts at discussion are being censored off the pertinent talk pages - which of course would be a serious violation - this isn't a matter for AN/I. If (as appears more likely to be the case) no one's paying attention to the OP's POV, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines requiring editors to do so in writing. Ravenswing 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly Congratulations! to the clue-full editor who re-factored the Header, thus contributing to a calmer discussion at this page. This ought to be done as a matter of course, if necessary.
    Secondly, Bad Wikipedia Habits do result in inferior articles. This editor has made a legitimate comment that editors who shoot from the hip with accusations of sock-puppetry are being un-civil, and doing a dis-service to en.Wikipedia. This sort of tactic employed to "win" content disputes is, um, despicable. And too prevalent, see above.
    Can we please work on, and concentrate in a focused way on improving articles, and only on improving articles, not on attacking strangers? NewbyG ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would, indeed, be nice, and if the OP has any specific complaints about the behavior of specific editors (backed up, hopefully, by specific diffs and/or the specific articles in question), as he has been repeated exhorted to do, no doubt any such allegations will receive the proper scrutiny. With only two dozen edits in articlespace over five years, though, you'll no doubt forgive people for skepticism that the OP has indeed met with a recurring pattern of hostility against his edits. Ravenswing 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interaction ban DarknessShines TopGun

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

    Recently the community decided that an interaction ban between Users DarknesShines and TopGun was an appropriate course of action. I hereby request that an uninvolved administrator review the following history of possible gaming the system.

    Users notified of interaction ban Top Gun at 11:54, 24 February 2012, Darkness Shines at 11:54, 24 February 2012.

    Both users are extensively and acrimoniously involved in an RFC. I request that both users be banned from the RFC.

    DBigXRay makes his/her first edit at this heated RFC.Revision as of 14:17, 24 February 2012.

    DBXR awards User:DS a barnstar at 04:37, 25 February 2012.

    User:TG nominates for deletion one of the few articles that User:DBXR has created.

    User:DS joins TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion (whether the article should be deleted or not) here.

    A Sock Puppet investigation on user [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray|DBigXray] seems to indicate there have been some more SPI's, so that can be looked into also, but additional requests for sock puppet investigations have been added.[18]

    I request that User:TopGun be blocked for a period of time for gaming the system for the deletion nomination, and I request both users, User:TopGun, and User:DarknessShines, be blocked for evading their interaction bans.

    I request that both users be banned from participating in the RFC. They are using it to continue their bad interactions with each other. If there really are underlying issues they will not be resolved with either one of them commenting.

    I request that both users be banned from nominations for deletion of any articles that either user or associates have worked on, maybe any AFDs at all. I request that both users be banned from interacting on an AFD that the other has nominated or participated in. Maybe any AFDs at all.

    I have no good faith left to assume with these users. This is a waste of everyone's time.

    Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've in no way violated the interaction ban. I saw a post about a school on the help desk [19] (where I reply regularly), and I nominated the school article for deletion as it did not have any reliable sources. There was no interaction with DS. I had some debate with another user DBigXray about the sources where I discussed with him the sources of the article in much detail without heating up the discussion on my side. Although DS joined in to that discussion, I made no replies to him and did not mention him. I did include the sources he provided in my analysis which did not lead to any interaction either. I'll also note that this is the only AfD I've nominated as of yet (and it was never edited by DS) and any reasonable editor will say that this nomination was not out of normal... this report is baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with TopGun that my report is entirely baseless. I should have included that in the initial wording. If this was the only AfD TopGun has ever made, and as the only AfD nominated, not out of order at all, then he should not have used his "only AfD nominated as of yet," for an article by someone interacting with DarknessShines. I stand by all my requests above. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    None of my replies in the Afd are heated or to DS, but to the creator DBigXray. And they are around the policies and sources. Fortunately for me, DbigXray himself specifies that I got to the article through his comment on the help desk. So this is not at all about DS. He is the one who entered there without any previous edits, and I could not have anticipated that. Still I did not interact. And my ban is with DS, not with any arbitrary person who interacts with him. About the RFC, I don't think DS made any comment there, only I did on the references posted there by some one else... are you even checking what you are posting? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support banning the wrongdoer
    (as my name has been taken above) i would give an explanation The above user Topgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the article for deletion at once. and then he opened 3 Sockpuppet cases against me the 3 IPS in question are
    1. 125.63.115.13 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
    2. 122.252.231.7 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
    3. 180.149.53.194 is my IP when i forgot to login , i noticed it and at the next moment logged in and signed[20]
    IopGun seems to be motivated against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past and had tried to get be blocked numerous times i can give all the evidence if needed be --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hounding is following your contributions, thanks for clarifying that I came to the article after replying you at the helpdesk. This is not hounding and the nomination was on its own merits. I've filed the SPI per the reasons given there. Any content disputes I had with this editor are long idle/resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes TopGun has been hounding me since my return to editing and following my comments on RFC on indians in afghanistan
    • another point to be noted is the editor TopGun had tried almost all possible ways of getting me blocked and falied miserably in each and every attempt. perhaps these Cases against me are to deface my comments on talk pages or mislead admins from his own wrong doings ,--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I started (requested) that RFC, for everyone's information. This can not be considered hounding by any approach. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While I was actually trying to help this user on how to find sources, this is the comment I get in reply [21]. And then wikireader appears out of nowhere (really suspicious now), who always makes a comment on me instead of content like the current one. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another wrong and misleading attempt . see the timestamp of wikireader's comment . it was earlier than my comment. exactly opposite to what you claim above --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in reference to the nomination, not your last comment. I specified when I referred to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm seriously loosing my patience with this. Are you all serious? Pseudofusulina - how is it a violation of a topic ban for TopGun to interact with a user he is not banned from interacting with? All of you get off ANI and find something better to do, you're wasting everyone's time. When there is a real interaction ban violation between the users that are banned from interacting with each other, than you can come back. The rest of this RFC nonsense isn't ANI's problem.--v/r - TP 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They are interacting on each others' AFDs. If you don't edit in their area, you don't get the delight of going to a page where both have edited, where they come up with an AFD for the others' article (currently DS), or they are trying to save an article the other has AFDed (TG). Since they cannot be kept away from each other even with a ban, I'll just leave their space (wikipedia) to them. An interaction ban that doesn't include blocking the interacting users from gaming the systems is a joke. Everywhere they do this, they are piling this nonsense on wikipedia, if it isn't dealt with now at AN/I, that's where it will go, all over the Pakistan articles, RFCs, AFDs, talk pages. However, I can solve that by giving up on editing. I don't edit that much anyhow, and retention of editors isn't an issue, more come along all the time. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an interaction ban with each other not a ban from editing or discussing content with any one at all... can't be more clearer than TP. You dragged us to ANI. Come back when you have a diff where I or DS reply to each other, mention each other or comment on each other. I can not simply leave any topic I was already editing just because DS entered the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They are under an interaction ban. That doesn't mean they get "First come first serve" privillages because the other is already involved. They are not to address each other directly or indirectly nor comment on each other's behavior or actions. This report is completely unfounded.--v/r - TP 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban violation

    • On a side note, I'll like to report a clear (one-sided) ban violation from DS to which I've made no response:
    This was an article to which I was hounded to leading to an interaction ban at ANI. DS has now nominated [22] this article (to which I was a major contributor) for deletion to further escalate as per the article talk page note he made before the ban to me and acknowledging it there now. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I cannot comment on Pseudof's speculations, but as far as the AfD nominated by DS on Pak Watan is concerned (an article which TopGun contributed to and of which there is evidence at Talk:Pak Watan that DS has gone there uninvited before), this is outrageous and inexcusable stuff from Darkness Shines. I think this one's a no-brainer where gaming the system may apply (nominating an article for a deletion discussion, while having knowledge that the article is of interest to another user with whom there is an interaction ban). I will again reiterate my suggestion that a topic ban on Darkness Shines on all Pakistan-related articles (or at the very least, Pakistan-related articles which are of interest to TopGun and where DS has barged in unwelcome) should be in order. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - DS said that the nomination would likely happen several days before the iban. Mar4d and TopGun have been emailing each other. Neither of these things are wrong, but in the interests of clarity ... - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment DoOnce the interaction ban was placed, both players needed to stop treating the entire wikipedia community as if we are morons and cannot see they are gaming the system to circumvent the ban and that neither one intends to leave the other alone, community ban or not. So, I missed this game play by DS, catching only TG's. I'm more interested in keeping TG in line because of his editing contributions in an area I see as needing work. OK, I didn't spend 5 hours getting correct every detail of their bad faith interactions to circumvent the ban. OK they were both guilty of gaming and violating the ban, rather than only one gaming. Don't nominate each others' articles for AfD, don't comment on each others' AfDs, don't participate in AfDs at all, don't interact with each other. Who isn't tired of this? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not violate the ban even remotely, you need to read WP:IBAN. Don't imply a cascading IBAN by yourself. Read TP's comment to your bad report above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would recommend Pseudofusulina read WP:IBAN. I gave notice 10 days before nominating that article that it would go to AFD if sources were not found[23] I believe this is ample time to prove the terms notability and whether or not it is what the article says it is. I hounded nobody to that article, I got there from the what links here on the article of the made up word Pakophilia as can be seen from my removal of the temrHere And I got to the made up term after following it from Here. There are no IBAN violations here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While DarknessShines did indicate an intent to AfD before the interaction ban, nominating it after the ban was placed is, in my opinion, a violation of the ban. However, perhaps a warning would be better at this point rather than a block. TopGun's deletion nomination is, at best, pointy. A warning there would do as well. But, I do support banning both editors from the RfC in question. Their views are clear and their further comments are only muddying the issue. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I formally supported my interaction ban with DS so that we don't interact any more (which means I don't want to), and I requested for that RFC to be initiated, so I'm a key participant. There have also been no interactions there or anywhere else... I think that is enough to get a good faith? As far the RFC itself is concerned, there are some serious referencing issues which I pointed out... purely content dispute. About this Afd with ban violation, I think it should be outright closed/reverted like any other edits of a ban violation and made sure this doesn't happen again. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    View by Xavexgoem and countless others on 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

    Whack!

    You've been whacked with a wet trout.

    Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    DD2K needs to be blocked for incivility and attacking

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

    Resolved
     – Nothing to see here. Accuser's own edit summary attacks are almost beyond the pale.  Frank  |  talk  04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at his edits. He is a POV-pusher.

    He falsely accused me of sockpuppetry of being editors I've never heard of. I have been reading WP for years.

    When you don't like an edit (even though mine are well thought through) and then you falsely accuse people of sockpuppetry, you are being incivil and should be banned. If DD2K were a grown-up, he would discuss things like saying "I disagree with your suggestions and think the edit should be like this....".

    Only an incivil person or juvenile would think "I don't like him.....he is bad....he is a sock." If everyone was this way, we'd look at President Assad of Syria and think "he is bad" and then make a complaint to WP saying "Assad is a sock, ban him".

    To disagree with an edit and, instead of discussing it, to say to the other person is a sock is bad behavior and should result in DD2K being blocked. As far as I know, this Gaydenver editor (whom DD2K falsely accuses me of being a sock) never edited about the Obama 1099 issue (which makes Obama look good...I admit I am an Obama fan) or made suggestions to make the introduction of the article (lede) chronological instead of jumping back and forth in time.

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DD2K disagrees with an edit, does not discuss it, but makes false sockpuppet accusations. For this incivility, he should be blocked. At least block him 72 hours pending SP investigations. Midemer (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see on the talk page of DD2K that he wrote a sarcastic edit summary of "For Pete's Sake", did not discuss things, then after the person tried to discuss things with him (user:Jack Paterno), successfully got that person blocked permanently. He falsely accused him of being a sock and there is no CU data to support this assertion. This shows that DD2K has a record of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit (and makes no attempt to discuss). This kind of behavior is very destructive and harmful to WP. DD2K should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind. If he is not, I predict DD2K will keep on doing this as he has done before. I see he did it in Nov 2011, is doing it in Feb 2012, and keeps on....This is disruption. Midemer (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The checkuser has responded. I am not a sock. This other sock person is, according to posts, an employee of the City of Denver. I am in Los Angeles. DD2K, in an archived CU request of Gaydenver, also accused User:UT Professor, an employee of the University of Texas (Austin?). This shows that DD2K is really grabbing at straws. He must be blocked for massive disruption extending over years. Midemer (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Midemer, the clerk (not checkuser) said nothing of the sort. He simply pointed out the technical impossibility of proving you are a sock at the moment. Regardless, there's no merit to your complaint. You came to the Barack Obama article and made some changes. When those changes were reverted, you went to the talk page and insisted your version was better in the complete absence of sources, in addition to insulting everyone who edits the article. If you find yourself incapable of assuming good faith, especially of those who disagree with you, you should avoid content disputes, or perhaps avoid Wikipedia entirely. I can't fault DD2K for assuming bad faith on someone who acts like a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is false. I made some suggestions. I did not constantly revert and insist on editing the same thing. DD2K is the one who should be blocked since he has falsely accused people on multiple occasions, whenever he doesn't like an edit. I looked at his talk page. He reverted someone's edit and instead of explaining it just wrote "For Pete's Sake" as an edit summary. He later became more sadistic and just falsely accused the person of being a sock. That kind of disruption should cause DD2K to be blocked.
    Someguy1221, you and I are discussing things now. This is the way it should be. I don't just start accusing you of being DD2K's sock and get you blocked. See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me, and a disruptive editor, like DD2K. Midemer (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) You didn't provide any links and it's not clear from your contrib history (or DD2K) but if a checkuser (and possibly a clerk) felt there was a legitimate case to consider and ran a checkuser request, then it's hard to imagine DD2K did anything blockable, unless they lied about evidence. Checkuser requests aren't used for fishing and by and large will only be run of the checkuser feels there is a valid reason to do so. The feeling of another user that there is valid reason does not significantly affect that decision. In other words, the fact that DD2K may have been wrong here doesn't indicate they are being disruptive. BTW, you have failed to notify Midemer of the discussion as the orange box clearly says you should, I have done so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm misreading it...but wasn't Midemer the editor that started this discussion? - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right I got confused and checked the wrong person. Apologies to Midemer for incorrect claim. Well the part about Midemer not notifying Midemer was technically correct, but there's no requirement to notify yourself that you initiated an ANI discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found the checkuser request now. Gaydenver apparently has a history of one sockpuppetry so saying someone is a sockpuppet of Gaydenver is itself hardly disruptive. Continously accusing people of being a sockpuppet (even if the person you connect them to is a sockpuppet) without evidence may be. The checkuser request was declined because the Gaydenver case is stale so that's not relevant here. (Note as I said above if the checkuser request is actually run, that likely means there was sufficient evidence.) I make no comment on the evidence presented, but you'd need more then one case for this to come close to being blockable. The headers of this page, other then telling you to notify people you discuss also discuss ways you can attempt to resolve problems with another party like a RFC or WQA. From what Someguy1221 has said who appears to have looked in to the case more, I suggest you be aware of WP:Boomerang before trying to pursue any problems with DD2K again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment). Hello, Midemer, this is Shirt "Mr always nice to everybody and never says anything in the slightest bit snarky" 58. You wrote:See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me... You are either delusional or a troll.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Shirt, if you were an admin, would you block indefinitely? (Just throwing this out there for the purpose of discussion--finding "a way forward".) Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, if I were an WP:ADMIN, I would immediately recuse myself from any sysop action as WP:INVOLVED, come back as an editor, strike the comment as a personal attack, apologise to the editor, and talk to them about how to improve the project.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    tpg on obama:talk

    Will someone please revert [24]? There's nothing in WP:FORUM or WP:TPG that supports an involved editor hatting or stuffing comments they don't like into an archive. Note: I did remove some comments that we totally off topic per TPG. Nobody Ent 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, somehow the Obama page slipped off my watchlist. Is Gaydenver back as yet another sock? Tarc (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See the above section, and the one two above. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) If somebody thinks that a) unsourced claims, b) offensive rants, and c) personal opinions do not violate WP:FORUM, go ahead and revert. Might become precedent though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it's not supported by a specific wording (although as you say, it does allow the complete removal of OT comments), I have seen in place archiving, quick archiving etc being used be in a particularly active talk page like that concerning a controversial recent event. Whether it was needed here I'm not going to comment but since I don't feel there's a good reason to keep the comments, I'm reluctant to revert. Incidentally why did you want an administrator to do the reverting? Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't have to be an admin; I'm 1rr and would rather have another editor make the revert in the spirit of consensus. Nobody Ent 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my point wasn't obvious. I meant since this is at ANI, it seems you must be requesting the help of an admin and if not, what is this doing at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The danger of archiving is that it can be abused very easily. Don't like an opinion, particularly if it is very good....remove it either by reverting or archiving. This is very evil. Obama is a liberal and is against book burning. I am against book burning. Fox News fans love book burning.

    EXECURTIVE SUMMARY Administrators should be aware that disruptive users will quickly revert talk page comments, put them in a hat (collapse them), or quickly archive them. If they do this, that is very disruptive and can start fights. Because it is disruptive, users who do these things should be blocked immediately. DD2K is a user that does this. He's not the only one. Midemer (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Midemer (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I also suggest Midemer stop bringing up DD2K in to every single discussion as it's starting to sound like harassment. Although DD2K may have done the initial archiving, the reversion NotEnt was asking us to remove was not done by them. And I note they really failed to notify DD2K having checked the right contrib history this time. I don't feel the previous notification of discussion is sufficient since this is a different topic. However I'm not going to bother with the notification since it seems unnecessary given that Midemer was quickly blocked and no one else is interested in discussion DD2K in yet another thread. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly after looking at his comments I'm thinking a longer block is going to be needed until Midemer is capable of comprehending that Wikipedia is a collegial, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Move of "Health" --> "Human Health"

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

    Resolved
     – Moved back by Barek. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The article formerly entitled Health has been moved to Human Health by Autoarbitaster. I can find no consensus for this move (it does not appear to have been discussed at all). I have no idea whether this is an advisable change. However, there appear to be a number of other problems with it. Chief among is that the new title does not follow the policy for Article title format in that it does not use lower case after the first word. There also appear to be (many) problems with redirects and disambiguation. I recommend that this change be reverted until there has been discussion of the intent of this move and general agreement that it is a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I stupidly (albeit trying to help) created a section to discuss on the article's talk page...but with a suggestion in my post to "change" the article to the way it already was (sheesh, been one of those nights). Anyway, I struck my comment, but the section is there if anyone really has some further suggestions for the changing the title/redirects etc. since that's where the discussion should take place if so. Quinn ░ RAIN 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know that this has been marked as "resolved" but I thought I would give some advice for any future such "incidents". When someone makes a move such as this "without discussion", it's called a bold edit and the best way to handle it, if there's an objection, is to simply move it back and invite the mover to discuss the move, no harm no foul. It only becomes an "incident" if the mover refuses to discuss the issue constantly repeating the action and/or blows a gasket. Only then should one consider "reporting" the action to one of the noticeboards such as WP:DRN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also fine to take it here if someone is deliberately redirect-scorching by moving pages and editing the subsequent redirect to prevent it being moved back, but otherwise what Ron Ritzman says. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Redirect scorching", eh? *files away term for later use* - The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jacob Bronowski

    Not an admin matter. Take it to the talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have deleted his name from the list of Senior Wranglers (Mathemtics Tripos, Cambridge University) as such rankings were abolished in 1910, when he would have been 2 years old. I have corrected the entry and don't know who did it. They won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.171.149 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has a long list of "Senior Wranglers since 1910", so a) you are wrong, and b) Why delete just this one name, rather than the whole section? And in any case, this is not a matter for AN?I, since no admin action is appropriate or requested. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive IP

    IP blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved

    31.47.9.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This anonymous user continues with exact the editing pattern he/she has been repeatedly warned of. He/she adds unsourced material (diff), even to BLPs (diff, diff), and disrupts by re-reverting when getting reverted (hist). The user's talk page is full of warnings and even a final warning. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 72 hours. Mfield (Oi!) 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can somebody take a look at this article? Assadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeadetly reverting good-faith edits and mislabeling them as vandalism, and keeps inserting apparent non-neutral material and original research. Also, Assadson might be a sockpuppet of DiltonDoiley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Klilidiplomus+Talk 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A newly registered editor, User:RexRoth1, has entered the fray, his only edit to being to revert my last rollback. I've posted a 3RR warning on Assadson's page, and to satisfy WP:ANEW, opened a topic on the Lichtman Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My assumption is RexRoth1 is now editing on behalf of Assaadson based on the timing of my 3RR warning. I don't normally accuse editors of sock puppetry without opening a report, but, in this case, both editors should be blocked, regardless of the sock puppetry issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked them both, irrelevantly of the SPI issue they are both in flagrant violation of 3RR. Mfield (Oi!) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a safe bet that they will continue to open new accounts as soon as they are blocked. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If they both come back as themselves after the 24-hour block, I will file an SPI report. As for any future new accounts, one possibility is an SPI report, and another is semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already semied the page for a fortnight. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Salvio, one less thing to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This user appears to have made a legal threat in this edit summary. It also looks like a possible impersonation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thought it best to report to you folks. NTox · talk 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that the user was making a broad reference to things like abuse response, and what happens to people who vandalize. I see "Thanks Jurisdiction Wikipedia" in the summary, but I don't think he was trying to imply that he was part of WMF at all in the summary. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help. I think you may be right. Nevertheless, I was troubled by the legal comment and thought it best that someone more experienced take a look. Looks like it's been taken care of. NTox · talk 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    YehudaMizrahi

    WP:NOTHERE editor is no longer here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    YehudaMizrahi is a persistent POV-pusher. He repeatedly makes the same changes at Palestinian people and Palestinian Christians, despite the fact that the sources cited in the article do not support his POV. He removes material from Ofra Haza without explanation. When confronted, he has insulted both RolandR and me (ben zonah means "son of a whore").

    When he has been warned about edit-warring, YehudaMizrahi often logs out and continues to edit anonymously. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/YehudaMedinaMizrahi/Archive for more information.

    Would somebody please review the relevant history and take appropriate action against YehudaMizrah? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The material this editor, using several IPs, frequently removes from Ofra Haza is the fact that she is of Yemeni origin, and plays Yemeni-influenced music. This editor has also removed the word "Yemeni" (or in some cases replaced it with the Hebrew version, "Teimani") from many food articles, including Malawach, Jachnun, Skhug and others; and has disruptively edited many dance articles, including Yemenite step, Hora (dance), Flamenco , Huayño and many more. These have been reverted by many different editors, few of whom have noticed the disruptive editing in other areas. I have reported him twice for sockpuppetry. Although my reports have been recognised as accurate and justified, no action has been taken because this editor's editing pattern involves spates of activity using a main account and several IPs (all registered in Hamilton, Ontario), followed by periods of inactivity. So, by the time reports are examined, the editor is not actually editing. But the overall pattern is both tendentious and disruptive, and the incivility towards both Malik and myself in itself deserves sanction. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just invoked WP:NOTHERE and indeffed YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing. If any admin thinks I was too heavy-handed, feel free to tweak the block settings. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So administrator Salvio giuliano blocked an editor participating in one of our most contentious topic areas who:
    (1) repeatedly uses non-English phrases to call other editors "son of a whore", "wanker",
    (2) uses non-English and English phrases to tell other editors "kiss my ass", and "go fuck yourself"
    (3) logs out to continue, under various IP's, a long-term campaign to remove the word "Yemeni" from multiple articles.
    WP:NOTHERE seems an accurate assessment: A good call on the block, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Malik Shabazz & User:RolandR - Biased users not allowing sourced information but allowing non-sourced information from others

    Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have contributed a lot of information on youtube articles that User:Malik Shabazz has even decided to keep. At first he allowed one of my source on but after 2 months he took it away, since I was concerned I put my source again and he responded by already threatening me that he is going to block me. He is very rude and pushy.

    As for User:RolandR, he leaves the Ofra Haza article without sources, he has allowed non-sourced sentences in Ofra Haza's article, but when I put a sentence on Ofra Haza's Teimanim background with sources, he took it off and right away he messaged me threatening me in a rude way that he was going to block me. All I'm doing is trying to contribute to wikipedia, he is also accusing me of other things which are not true. He has issues and his articles are clearly biased since he is allowing non-sourced information. For anyone who is concerned, please do check out the Ofra Haza article. I already reported these users. Please do report these people for a non-bias wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YehudaMizrahi (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This and this are unacceptable. His reactions were downright civil compared to your's. If gentile Christians were present as well (which the first source indicated), it's unbalanced to limit it to only Jewish Christians, so Malik is correct to have reverted you and asked you to stop.
    Calling someone Malaka (see Malakas, folks) is also totally unacceptable. As for this, is is indeed our business, because it is unacceptable to use different addresses for sockpuppetry here. As for claiming that he's allowing uncited material, the first source in the article says "Ms. Haza proudly asserted her background as a Yemenite Jew." Another also says "Ofra Haza was born on November 19, 1957 in the Hatikvah quarter of Tel Aviv to parents who had immigrated from Yemen". Your claim that the Yemeni bit is totally inaccurate. Furthermore, your attempted change reverted here cites a source which again says Haza was one of nine children born to parents who had emigrated from Yemen" and at no point does the word "Teimanim" appear anywhere in the source you cite.
    In short, not only were Malik and RolandR right to revert you and let you know that you will be blocked if you keep it up, you were wrong to misuse sources, make various personal attacks, and claim that they were the ones causing sourcing problems.
    I recommend backing off, or an admin would be completely justified in blocking you after one more screw up. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not only from Ofra Haza that this user and his many sockpuppets is removing the word "Yemeni", but also from many more, including Bo'az Ma'uda, Malawach, Israeli folk dancing, Achinoam Nini, Jachnun], Yemenite step and several others. This slow-moving tendentious editing is extremely disruptive, and is wasting the time of very many editors. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Strange socking and edit warring

    This strange edit warring discussed here a couple of weeks ago has reared its head again. Revertorium (talk · contribs) and several IPs in the 69.171.160 range are edit warring, with Revertorium claiming that the IPs are socks of the banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs). Anyone know anything about this? Should we block both? (see also WT:PLANTS#Orchid_wars) SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them both for 24 hours (IP 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)) as they were being disruptive. If anyone knows anything about this though, please unblock/lengthen blocks as necessary. SmartSE (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A knee-jerk block without any investigation? Bad move. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - it was preventative, not a punishment per WP:BLOCK. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The following are  Confirmed as each other:

    As such, I have made Revertorium's block indefinite. --MuZemike 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This accusation is blatantly false. Several admins know exactly which banned user loves to accuse me of socking, and I'd say that is who is behind the specific edits from the 69.171.160.0/24 range. My guess is that the named socks above are User:Vigilant. My guesses and 50 cents will buy you a coke. I keep this account as a sort-of doppelganger now (with very rare exceptions like this edit), and I edit regularly now under a new account; names have long-since been disclosed to the WP Functionaries. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Where the hell do you find a Coke for 50 cents these days? --NellieBly (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On one day in 2003 you could get it for a nickel. [25] - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to both of you for clarifying what was going on. I don't anyone any of us at WP:PLANTS would have suspected a banned user faking a revert war with himself. Circéus (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunatly, this exact thing happens surprisingly (disturbingly?) often... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two different banned users. One using the IP range noted above, the other using Vigilant, Revertorium, etc. Both edit-warring against each other. Over the past year, I have been accused, without any evidence, of socking from many different accounts (one of which was a poor attempt at impersonation) and IP address by one of those banned users, which is why I chose to step in and refute this time. It seems like everywhere he goes, he sees socks that absolutely must be me, but he is sadly mistaken. I will now go back to my regular (and long ago properly disclosed to the Functionaries) account now, and leave this one as a doppelganger again.
    As for 50 cents for Coke, well, it was 50 cents when I started using that saying back in the early 90's. I haven't made it keep up with inflation, because "that and a buck twenty-five will buy you a Coke" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Pfagerburg (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mindjuicer and false accusations of sockpuppetry

    Mindjuicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently topic banned from alt med articles per the thread towards the top of AN/I right now. He has taken to making false accusations of sockpuppetry against myself, User:SummerPhD and User:Famousdog on his talk page. I warned him here that this can be construed as harassment and explained that all three of us are established editors that edit many pages. He removed my message without responding and has left the accusations on his talk page. I'm not asking to have the user blocked, rather I would like these accusations to either be stricken or taken to WP:SPI and then stricken when it's confirmed that there is no socking. I will notify the user of this discussion momentarily. Noformation Talk 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user has been notified but removed the notification here. Noformation Talk 02:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I wasn't going to bother SPIing you as I'm leaving WP for good but it seems you don't know when to stop. --Mindjuicer (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're leaving then blank your talk page and go. As long as you're still here and there are false accusations about me and other editors then it's something that has to be dealt with, sorry. Noformation Talk 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that there are "suspicions of sock puppetry" and WP:SPI is "a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry", I'm not sure I can see any reason one of us (or should that be "one of me"?) cannot dispose of this by starting a thread there with MJ's accusation. Other than the complete waste of an investigator's time (which I'd imagine would be brief), I'd have no objection. Otherwise, whatever. MJ is, purportedly, gone. Problem, purportedly, solved. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for block review

    User Jehochman has blocked an IP editor for 48 hours, for a matter which was precipitated by user:jehochman, who is thus involved. 48 hours seems excessive. Indeed the block seems punitive, without further sensible explanation. NewbyG ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be extremely helpful if you could link to the blocker, the blockee, and diff the precipitating event(s). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, broadband is playing up. See talk page for IP editor 90.179.235.249 . Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Convenience links: Jehochman (talk · contribs), 90.179.235.249 (talk · contribs). I've also notified both editors, which you hadn't done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you complaining about? The IP was disruptive, as explained in my block message, and then posted two unblock requests that were both were declined. Jehochman Talk 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not pursue this particular thread, Newbyguesses. Nothing good will come of it, and I understand that there is justifiable frustration over this matter that is not being adequately addressed. I am also frustrated; but I'm not about to open a thread like this when I know that the thread is completely doomed. Things will work themselves out - it'll be okay. Cheers... Doc talk 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please visit my talk page and explain concerns, calmly, with context, and any relevant evidence. Best practice is to attempt a discussion rather that coming straight here. Jehochman Talk 04:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh - well, I guess it's all in how you read the first paragraph of this. Perhaps the vague language should be "hammered out"? I see more misunderstandings on "involved" than perhaps any other policy point - especially among administrators. Doc talk 04:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All too often "involvement" is invoked to attempt to de-legitimize even simple blocks. It seems pretty obvious to me that the IP was plenty disruptive. And what about Tiderolls' denying the unblock request? Or we going to review every block on ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's been my observation that the area between cries of "Involved!" and cries of "Drive-by adminning!" is disturbingly narrow. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're forgetting "admin abuse". Doc talk 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It does need review, and you are correct that I suggested closing it only because I felt that it had no chance to be taken seriously, and not because it had no merit. Doc talk 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    if the IP agrees to and acts to stop attacking other editors, and stops encouraging others to violate policy, I can shorten their block to time served. Jehochman Talk 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs, please, for the attacks and encouragements for others to violate policy? (I note how harsh we are to complainants who make claims such as that without evidence.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jehochman doesn't mind me finding the diffs for him, here they are: Clear PA on North8000 and S Marshall: "You and S Marshall are either trolling or incapable of clear judgement" [26] [27]. The encouragment to violate policy is sketchier, but I presume the comments here [28] [29] are what's being referred to, in relation to the discussion preceding them. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us not forget this one a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. User:Jehochman 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) NewbyG ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Newby, you are involved in the WP:V dispute on the same side as te IP, aren't you. How is your participation here not merely an extension of that same battle? (Same comment applies to anybody else who spilled over from that dispute to here.) Jehochman Talk 12:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    I have encouraged the user to discuss their differences with Jehochman, on the IP's talk page. I too had questions about this block here. I would note that the arguable PA, noted by Bushranger, took place in the context of dispute resolution, and it did not inflame that discussion, at all, nor was it even noted upon by the third party DR mediators - there should be some leeway for users in that context to layout their differences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP followed me to a totally unrelated page and told a user I had just unblocked to disregard my advice about how to remain unblock. That was disruptive and downright cruel to the other user, because it was goading him to get blocked again. When I checked the edit history and saw that the IP had made personal attacks against other editors; the balance of weight was that the IP needed to be blocked. My prior comment about the IP (which probably motivated the IP to hound me) did not factor into the equation at all because at the time I did not recognize that this IP and that IP were the same one. IP numbers aren't memorable like usernames. If the IP renounces personal attacks, hounding and disrupting, they can be unblocked early. Otherwise, the block expires after another day. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Were you talking to me? I am not on any "side" here user:Jehochman. And, it appears we do have the luxury of discussing this for another day, and then it's all over. Yet you rushed to unblock (with a manufactured consensus) another memorable user who had been fairly blocked.
    These inconsistencies are the reason I have braved the wrath of this page, not any "side", as if that is what you want to think. And I do not want "blood on the floor" , I know what a trial it must be especially here for admins to face accusations that are way unfair, and have to bear it. No, I don't want that at all, and for me, believe, it ain't about winning, just seeing some fairness done, and efficient process. NewbyG ( talk) 14:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I think I understand better. I hope J and the IP can work it out, as I have encouraged the IP to do. The IP should be reflective. I am sure J will listen to you with a sincere and generous purpose. Hopefully you will do the same. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, sorry if I'm not terribly informed on this yet, but is "disregard [Jehochman] advice" what was meant by "encouraging others to violate policy"? I'm a bit thick, so can I have an explicit answer on that? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The problem was the next diff, a nasty bit of antisemitic incitement to a user who already had problems with antisemitic POV pushing: [30] I even cited this diff in my block message [31] so that the user would understand why they had been blocked. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole of that diff is
    "And you are right, many articles have strong Jewish bias, especially those about the history of Israel. Most of them cite the old testament as a reliable source and describe elements of Jewish religion as if they were facts. That would not be acceptable anywhere else."
    I do not believe that that quote can be reasonably defined as promoting hatred toward Jews. I feel as though I'm asking the same question several times, but I'm not seeing how that is "encouraging others to violate policy"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe what's meant is that diff, in context with the rest of the discussion it was added as a response to, was considered incitement. (I haven't had the time to look through the discussion to opine if it actually is or not, but I think that's what's being said here.) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ding, ding, ding, you win the prize. Jehochman Talk 07:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noozgroop

    For a whole year, Noozgroop (talk · contribs) has been violating the Manual of Style of Wikipedia (MOS). The MOS says: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". The MOS rule s/he has been changing is the MOS:NUM (WP:ORDINAL), which states: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)". I know that many people prefer to write "16" rather than "sixteen", but the MOS accepts both uses, and unless there is a real reason to make a change, challenging the style of an article, with no valid reasons, is kinda disrupting ("The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style"). Considering that since February 2011 Noozgroop has been warned many times about the same—User talk:Noozgroop#February 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#Edit warring, User talk:Noozgroop#Regarding your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#July 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011 2, User talk:Noozgroop#Your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#November 2011 and User talk:Noozgroop#February 2012—and that he has very low (or no) interest to communicate with other people, I don't know what else can be done with this person. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouch! That toolserver is a killer. No talking to anyone? We do have bots, and they can be shut off when needed. Human editors must attempt to communicate at a basic level. Doc talk 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I've issued a 48-hour attention-getting block (hopefully it'll be long enough that they notice it). EyeSerenetalk 10:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious problem with an admin and POV pushing

    Hello: I am having serious problem with User:Sitush and his friends who are admins. Please see this diff:[32] specficially note the comments of James Frietag, Giles Tillotson, Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler. Sitush and his friends want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad" and any contrary opinion from Phd's and professors from top american schools are rejected by this bunch. They edit war and threaten to ban me. Please help. Ror Is King (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you've started a discussion at the article's talk page, that's good.. but it was only minutes ago.. perhaps you should give discussion a chance first before coming to AN/I so quickly with a content dispute? We have many other venues of dispute resolution you can take advantage of. -- Ϫ 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been having a problem with this bunch for weeks now. They all collude and want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad". On the other hand Phd Scholars Richard Saran, Norm Ziegler, Tillotson (ex director of Royal Asiatic Society) and Frietag's (faculty at ithaca college: http://faculty.ithaca.edu/jfreitag/) comments are deleted as if Sitush and his friends are the only authority. And admins Qwy and Boing support his POV pushing and have threatened to ban me multiple number of times. I fail to understand why I am not allowed to quote from above authors in the Criticism section of James Tod. Ror Is King (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I wasn't specific enough; I did tell Ror is King that xe should pursue dispute resolution if xe wanted to make those changes. As I mentioned on the talk page, that article was just promoted to Featured Article status last week. No less than 10 people participated in the FA discussion, and others commented on the article's talk page. No other editor found Ror's concerns to be compelling. We can certainly discuss the issue, though right now there appears (to me) to be a strong consensus against it. Also, it's relevant to note that many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India, so I don't think they qualify as "Sitush and his friends". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked you questions on what you find wrong with Saran and Ziegler here [33] and what you find wrong with Tillotson. You don't respond. Only thing you do is edit war and threaten to ban me. Since when has citing well refereed authors on wikipedia become a crime? Ror Is King (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If 9 editors have one view, and you have another, you need to consider that maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't them - it's you. And even if you are in the right, you need to calmly discuss things, especially with the proposal of major changes to a just-promoted Featured Article, on the talk page. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the 9 editors knew what has been written by Ziegler and Saran, Freitag and Tillotson on Tod. They were just towing Sitush's line. When I question Qwyrxian on his comments criticising me (see above) I see no response. So you see it is *just one* editor and his friends (some of who are admins) who are having a field day. If I add bonafide sources I am the one comitting the mistake since I am threatened to be banned. Ror Is King (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwyrxian: Thanks for noting "many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India". Should they really be reviewing the article then? I mean few editors who have no knowledge of the field but are good with wikipedia's quality standards are okay to have. But many of those types sounds odd. I dont have much experience and hence i dont know if its okay for many editors of film-articles to review FA nominations related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. I also found it odd that the article received FA status with all the discussions User:Ror Is King was having on its talk page and Sitush's talk page too. (Actually Sitush was also surprised with the FA status.) Most of the queries by Ror Is King (RIK) are replied by Sitush, sometimes you. Why did the evaluators not find it important to discuss these things with RIK? Was it because they found his statements not worthy to discuss, as you found them not worthy to include in the article? Or was it because they trusted that you two will sort it out; by some means? Now lets leave this particular case of inclusion in Tod's article aside. Is this the first time that you have been called as a "team"? Or do many editors have this opinion? Is this the first time that some editor has been threatened to be banned by "Sitush and his friends"? There is one editor currently saying the same things on India Noticeboard. I do see that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But why do have to threaten all editors? Would you please see this. Image:Qxz-ad15.gif. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a content dispute and the discussion started on the article talk page should continue there rather than being conducted in two places. I don't see any administrative action (blocks, page protection etc) necessary here, nor do I see any abuse of admin powers. Admins can edit, just like other editors and have no more or less powers when they use powers available to every editor. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked User:Ror Is King for 24 hours for edit-warring on James Tod blatantly against consensus. It's a new FA, and we cannot have this level of disruption on it. Also, I have played no part in the content disagreement, having only warned Ror Is King about his unacceptable refusal to follow WP:AGF (you can see on his Talk page), so his accusations against me are quite false. I consider myself still in line with WP:Uninvolved here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So he wont be able to respond here? Or are blocked editors able to edit this page? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If he wants, he can respond on his page and, using {{adminhelp}}, can ask that his replies be moved here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) He cannot respond here while blocked; he will be able to keep the discussion going on the article's talk page tomorrow, and this discussion may even still be open then (though possibly not). Regarding your question above about me, in all fairness, yes Sitush and I have been called a team before, and, depending on the time of year and specific article, other editors have been named as part of a team. In a certain sense, I freely admit to being a "team" in that we're part of a fairly large group of editors that believes that Wikipedia editors should follow policies, most especially WP:NPOV and WP:V...that everyone should do their best to only use reliable sources...and that people shouldn't cherry pick a few words or phrases out of a longer passage to misrepresent what a source says (this last, btw, is precisely the concern with Ror is King's request on the article currently in question). Sometimes, Sitush alone or Sitush as part of a "team" are criticized, because people want to include what they know is true, even though their knowledge isn't supported by reliable sources. This doesn't mean that they're necessarily "wrong", but it does mean that they can't include such opinions/positions in Wikipedia articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, just looked at the WT:INB topic you mentioned. I'm not part of that "team", but in that case, too, the actions were 100% correct: the article that one editor created was replete with copyright violations (in fact, other than references, it had nothing but copyright violations). Copying and pasting from other sources is not only against Wikipedia's rules, depending on how extensive it is, it may even be illegal. Any time you or anyone else ever sees copyright violations in articles, they should be removed immediately, with an explanation left in an edit summary or on the talk page. Since there was nothing left in the article after the copyvios were removed, it was rightly speedily deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be happy to copy any comments from Ror Is King to here from his Talk page - I will inform him so very shortly. And any admin is welcome to review my block, which was not a result of this ANI report, but was for disrupting a new FA by edit-warring against clear consensus. (On top of his general refusal to assume good faith, and his apparent misrepresentation of sources to push a non-consensus POV, he is really being quite disruptive) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While Rik was certainly edit warring, he was also trying to resolve matters using this process. I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked. The status as a new FA is a bit problematical, as we publicize new FAs through the Signpost to bring them to community attention and we shouldn't be surprised when community members duly edit in response. "Disruption" is a term I think we should avoid, as it is so amorphous it can easily be used for finger pointing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear--this isn't a new member coming to the process. Everything that RiK changed now was a change xe proposed while the FA process was ongoing. No editor watching the article at that time found merit in RiK's edits. Furthermore, at one point RiK quoted a source to support his words. However when Sitush got a full copy of that source, it turned out that RiK had (either through malice or simple failure to read enough of the source) that, when the rest of the paragraph was read, the source's meaning was exactly the opposite of the position RiK was trying to include in the article. Furthermore, the editor reverted 3 times today to xyr preferred version (being reverted twice by myself and once by Sitush, with a third editor saying on talk that xe would have reverted had I not gotten to it first), despite the fact that the issue had already been discussed and rejected by a number of other editors, over a week ago. As such, the block was warranted as RiK knew that the change was against consensus and had previously been warned against edit warring. That being said, Boing! said on RiK's talk page that the block could be reduced to time served if RiK promises to stop edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. I should have been more clear I was switching from a specific point to making a general one about FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked". I agree, and in fact said exactly that to him at the time of the block. I'm also happy for anyone else to unblock if they believe further edit warring is unlikely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwyrxian: I already said that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But the way disputes are handled is sometimes wrong. A edit war doesnt happen just because of one party. Its takes two to war. I once encountered a editor who wouldnt talk on talk pages, his or mine or article's. All he said was through Edit Summary when he reverted my edits. That was the only means he wanted to use. But in this case RIK was talking with you people. The material he had put on the article could have stayed there itself till you had your discussion. The material he added was not even legally contentious or defamatory. It, on the contrary, was speaking good about the subject. Dead Tod was not gonna rise and sue Wikipedia for keeping something good about him for few hours or even days. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Operative phrase here is "you people" (whatever that means--if it is an insult, they people should probably let it slide): it's not two who or going to war here. It's a whole bunch of editors, and RiK has been disrupting (yes) the article for quite some time now. At some point, enough is enough. Lending credibility to repeated claims of bias, against consensus, actually makes a mockery of the rigor of the FA process. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I won't argue with you about it, but FA's, as we both know, are not delivered on tablets of stone. Certainly, FAC is not dispute resolution. That being said, such might want to be considered in this matter ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, they're not stone tablets, but at the very least they suggest consensus at a given moment. RiK was a dissenter there on this point, but their objection didn't stand in the way of promotion--I can't see on this edit screen if this discussion on the talk page is linked here or not (it's mentioned by Sitush in the FA review), but it is insightful. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternate resolution

    • The way I see it, this is a content dispute which has escalated. I concur with User:OlEnglish's suggestion. May I suggest the case be moved to Content disputes noticeboard and the issue of the content taken up with both sides leaving out the behavioural allegations/aspects?
    • In case both parties agree to move the case there, I also request the blocking admin to release the block if the affected parties agree to behave during this process so that the atmosphere is not vitiated.
    • All parties to the dispute are also requested to NOT edit James Tod for whatever reason so as to maintain a peaceful atmosphere for resolving this. AshLin (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now I will weigh in here. This article has just gone through FAC, which is a pretty rigorous process. One person had a problem with alleged bias. Their concerns were examined, the full text of their relevant points was obtained ... and it seemed clear that they had misrepresented those texts. Subsequently, the article was promoted and then the alleging contributor returns and resumes their disruptive edits in exactly the same manner as prior to the promotion, and citing exactly the same misrepresented sources. Similar behaviour occurred when they reported me here last November. Which bit of WP:IDHT does not apply here? I am happy to continue discussion but unless something new is brought to the table it seems to be somewhat pointless, whether it is conducted at the article talk page, WP:DRN or at any other venue. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @AshLin I have already agreed to lift the block as soon RIK agrees to stop edit-warring against consensus (a consensus that has been rigorously arrived at during the FA discussion). There are no other parties whose agreements I would need, as in my judgment no other parties were in breach of any policies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have the brand spanking new "Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard" at WP:ECCN. I saw the word "caste" up above so I'm guessing this might be relevant. Noformation Talk 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Eschoir

    Resolved
     – Editor indef blocked, and has acknowledged such. More to come once the editor has taken the time to re-evaluate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Eschoir (talk · contribs · block log)'s general conduct has been commented on very negatively on grounds of WP:EW, WP:V and WP:Competence is required in edits by Edjohnston and by Bwilkins.

    Now that the recent complaint against him for edit-warring has been archived with no action taken, he has resumed the activity on which he eased up while the complaint was still open (cf. comment by Lionelt).

    I will now inform all the editors I have mentioned here. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    His return to disruptive editing is textbook gaming the system. – Lionel (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say "textbook", but I've seen enough. I have unfortunately indeffed, but provided a very in-depth, personalized block notice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Boris Malagurski

    I made the following edits:

    1. folded the excessive quote into prose, per WP:LONGQUOTE
    2. also merge small paragraphs talking about the same thing
    3. copyedit, losing some transient and peacock terms
    4. noted criticism, per Talk

    And then immediately bam:

    1. rv

    The explanation posted at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies is unconvincing at best, and at worst indicative of a string of sockpuppets operated by User:Bormalagurski - User:Cinéma C, User:UrbanVillager. Does anyone else think this is just a wee bit too much WP:OWN to be an accident? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Possibly. But the edits you point at are from November 2011. Bormalagurski hasn't edited since 2006, and Cinéma C not since 2010. It is entirely possible that you're correct (UrbanVillager is an SPA with no other interests, and came out of nowhere with some decent editing skills) but there's nothing that an SPI can do now, and Bormalagurski and Cinema C aren't blocked to begin with. Can't you edit or re-edit the article and see what happens? You have WP:NPOV backing you up, I suppose. Or, I don't see what admin intervention could be helpful here, besides an as-yet unwarranted block. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Understanding a REVDEL

    Just a housekeeping revdel after a history merge to avoid confusing out-of-sequence jumps in the history. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just curious: see the REVDEL between these two [34] edits in Template:Smallcaps all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Was there a site-threatening edit so that even the editor's name/IP had to be removed? And not a revdel note? It could be my edit! What went wrong? -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant log entry is here. The admin was hiding his own edit that he accidentally created during a history merge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleted edit was from 13:22, 25 February 2012, way before the history merge process (01:04, 27 February 2012‎). Also, is it essential to rm the editors id and not providing the revdel-reason is such case? -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont quite understand it either, my guess is that before RevDel was enabled that edit would have been simply deleted the old-fashioned way, as it doesnt seem to belong. But there's nothing "controversial" there, really. Definitely not site-threatening. ☮Soap☮ 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent self-promoter at Aquatic ape hypothesis

    For the past month, SPA User:Algis Kuliukas has been attempting to add mention of his e-book to the article (he self-identifies as one of the editors of the book). The e-book was published by Bentham Scientific Publishers, which has a dubious reputation as a "vanity press" for scientists who have failed to get their research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. There is no evidence that the book has undergone any sort of peer review. Per discussion on the article talk page Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, consensus is that the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, despite the protests of the author, who is currently crying "slander" and "censorship".

    The addition is clearly against consensus as it has been reverted by numerous editors, including User:DoriSmith, User:Johnuniq, User:WLU, User:Kwamikagami, User:IRWolfie- and yours truly.

    Furthermore, the source has been added by two other SPAs, User:Yloopx and User:Mvaneech. The quacking here is pretty loud.

    Could we have an administrator look into the situation and take any steps that are needed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Algis actually has two accounts, Algis Kuliukas (talk · contribs) and AlgisKuliukas (talk · contribs), but given the account names it is pretty obvious that this is an error rather than a deliberate effort to get around WP:SOCK.
    There is a pretty obvious history of promotion, of Algis' near-200 edits, they're essentially all related to the promotion of the AAH. All but one of the first account's contributions are to either AAH or its talk page; the other account has only edited the following pages:
    • Aquatic ape hypothesis and it's talk page
    • March 5 and it's talk page (to insert mention of the first publication regarding the AAH [35])
    • User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 [36])
    • Elaine Morgan (writer) (who popularized the AAH)
    • Bipedalism and it's talk page, to add a paper he authored on the AAH and his master's thesis (on the "wading hypothesis, a watered-down version of the AAH) [37]
    • One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper [38]
    • My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage [39]
    • His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
    • Only one edit [40] appears unrelated to the AAH.
    Given the analysis and the consistency to which Algis refuses to accept the AAH isn't a respected scientific theory, a topic ban might be in order. The most recent edits to the AAH page have been to add an essentially content-free promotion of a pay-to-publish book he co-edited [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. A RSN posting suggested the source was less than reliable, here, based on it's pubilsher Bentham Science Publishers.
    In addition to Algis, there are a variety of new accounts similarly promoting the book, despite considerable objections on the talk page and reverts to the main page. Yloopx has as of now 10 edits, three of which were simple reverts to replace the book [46], [47], [48]. Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. In addition, one of the book's editors is Mario Vaneechoutte, suggesting this is the same person and thus these additions are a conflict of interest. Cricetus has 63 edits, and his most recent edits have been to the AAH and it's talk page. Several edits to the main page consisted of making it "more neutral" which is to say less critical [55], [56], though not all are problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first obvious answer here is to file an SPI, I reckon. That might take care of the above-mentioned two accounts, and perhaps another one. That these are all SPAs seems unquestionable, but issuing blocks with some CU evidence in hand is more comfortable than without. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. On that talk page, I couldn't hear the arguments because of all the quack noises. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible topic ban violation

    It was pointed out to me on my talkpage that Cybermud (talk · contribs) may have violated the men's rights topic ban I placed on him here, which was confirmed in this AN/I discussion, by participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men and feminism (2nd nomination). I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could review this and see if action needs to be taken. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, the edits you mention border on violating Cybermud's topic ban but do not cross the line. He was banned from making edits related to the topic of men's rights not feminism. I believe, however, it might be wise for Cybermud to avoid that general topic area and concentrate on something completely different for a time... Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copying my commentary on this over from Sarek's talk page. I'm involved in a related AfD and am not comfortable taking admin action regarding other users involved in this round of men's rights salvos, but it appears to me to be a fairly clear violation of Cybermud's topic ban from "pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed)". Men's rights advocates consider feminism and masculinism to be heavily linked (or rather, to be diametrically opposed to one another, and in constant struggle), and an article about "men and feminism" fits quite neatly into a broadly-construed ban on men's rights topics. Cybermud's !vote in the AfD in question is actually quite reasonable, but the fact remains that he has been topic-banned from the area and has now violated that topic ban for the second time this month, after having been given a warning for the first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't wish to wikilawyer, considering that even I am suggesting Cybermud to concentrate on different topics; however, you should link to his restriction, not to the terms of the article probation. Cybermud was a one-month topic ban from Men's rights, including talk pages and related pages. I consider it a stretch to argue those words also include an article about men and feminism, no matter what men's rights advocates may think.

        Considering that you yourself think that his input to the discussion was rather reasonable and that it is, at least, disputed that his restriction prevented Cybermud from participating in that AfD, I believe Cybermud should not be sanctioned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Men and feminism is directly related to Men's rights because the article discusses Men's rights, see the entire section Men and feminism#Antifeminist response. Moreover, this isn't the first time that Cybermud has violated his topic ban, see this warning. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. With most other editors, I would be inclined to say we should let it slide, but this is cybermud's second violation of his topic ban, and shows his continued flagrant disregard for... well... pretty much everything about Wikipedia. Kevin (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How the heck can Men and feminism not be related to "Men's rights"? Men and feminism has a 5 paragraph section titled "Men's rights", and the entire "men's rights movement" arose as a response against feminism. The two topics are directly and closely related. This is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, IMO. Whether or not his edit was helpful or disruptive is immaterial. Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior of user Xelba.davi

    New user Xelba.davi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing the BLP Eliyahu Rips into a manifesto for the Bible codes (alleged messages about the future hidden in the Bible text). Rips is a proponent of these codes, but the new text violates almost every rule of Wikipedia. This diff shows the additions in question. It has severe violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, just look at it and you will find stuff like "The Torah was created prior to the creation of the world" and "The evolution of the Universe (and of the Earth) is derived from an infinite combination of the letters of the Torah" written in the neutral voice of Wikipedia. You will find citations to Facebook and self-published web sites. You will find gross distortions of the opinions of living people: "Robert Aumann: this is the greatest discovery of three hundred years of scientific research". Also a claim that critics are antisemites: "Eliyahu Rips is accused of being biased in his research, since he is an Orthodox Jew". Apart from claiming that his/her work is just fine [57], Xelba.davi reverts any changes without comment and barges ahead without answering objections [58] or engaging in discussion.(history) I do not see any way forward other than administrator assistance.

    User notified: [59]

    Disclosure: As the presence of my real name on the page indicates, I am involved in the "Bible codes" debate as a skeptic. Even though I have never inserted my own opinion into this page, I would really like someone totally uninvolved to take over the defense of it.

    Remedy sought: The page should be protected at a version which does not contain the offending material, such as this version. User Xelba.davi should be blocked from editing. McKay (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've reverted, and have left a warning for unverified edits, to which I will add a separate note. But McKay, do you really need to bring this to ANI? (No.) FWIW, you're both edit-warring a little bit here. Next time, the BLP noticeboard is probably a better venue, and if it gets worse, the edit warring board. Oh, no--Xelba will not yet be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I think that the best defense against such butchering is to make the article better; this one was in a pretty piss-poor state, not having a single reliable reference. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes, please

    Interesting edits on Joachim Gauck. An IP (217.23.69.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) keeps adding quotation marks around the word Gulag--Gauck's father was sent to one. There are multiple sources--this one speaks of "ein Straflager nach Sibirien" and this one spells out Gulag. IP claims the latter is incorrect and we're dealing with "a ministry". I want to call this vandalism, and I think many of the IP's other edits are questionable, but since I'm at 3R I can't revert anymore; it is a BLP, but the issue concerns the father. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Having recently unblocked this ip, I have now reblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And reverted? Drmies (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=479261294"