Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Youreallycan/Off2riorob

At an AfD discussion, Youreallycan has made the following personal attacks on myself:

• [1] - accuses me of "repeated NPOV contributions"; without any evidence to support it
  • [2] - I respond to this baseless accusation
• [3] - reiterates the same accusation, and includes another editor as well. Calls me a disruptive troll.
  • [4] - Greyhood notes that personal attacks are not on.
• [5] - I make a comment to another editor in response to their accusation that I am here to push an agenda.
  • [6] - Youreallycan posts: Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?

He was asked to redact the comments, and he has struck them. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and a redaction is not enough in this instance.

I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks. But most importantly, I have never really edited "queer" subjects, so how exactly am I pushing a "queer agenda" anywhere on this project? The only agenda I have been involved in is speaking out against homophobic attacks on GLBT editors, and urging the community to protect editors.

Numerous editors have in the past expressed serious concerns relating to what has been construed as homophobic comments made by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards other editors. A recent example was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. In previous instances, when this has been brought to the community's attention, he has gotten out of jail by using the BLP card.

Unfortunately for youreallycan/off2riorob, this time there is no BLP to hide behind.

He made outright an outright homophobic attack on another editor, and I am asking that he be given:

1. a lengthy block for his inexcusable attack

# A DIGWUREN warning given the topic area. - as per fluffernutter, this was already done. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The community finally needs to do the right thing by its GLBT editors here. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Queer", in the context he used it, is not a homophobic slur. In this context, he is likely calling your "agenda" out as being questionable or odd. It does not look like the two of you had a good interaction there, but you asked him to redact and he did. Unless you want an administrator to look at the interaction between the both of you, I'm not sure anything further is necessary here. Resolute 02:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the 1940s. I don't think "queer agenda" can be reasonably taken not to have a homophobic connotation here. FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What FormerIP said. I really don't see "queer agenda" meaning anything other than homosexual agenda. LadyofShalott 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, for UK editors of a certain vintage the use of the term Queer for Gay wasn't in use in the early 70's when I was growing up and it was a word that would have meant odd or strange. Wiktionary agrees too. The only person who can explain what YRC meant is YRC and unless they do so anything else us just supposition. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise my comment. It isn't the 1970s. FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the word queer has that meaning, no argument. However, combined with the word agenda, and given the concerns people have already had with certain comments from O2RR/YRC concerning the subject matter of BGLT people, it seems to reduce the liklihood that any meaning other than that of homosexual agenda is viable. LadyofShalott 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, knowing nothing of Youreallycan's history in this regard, I took the positive context (such as it is) by default. It seems that assumption was poor on my part in this case. Resolute 04:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of all the Wikipedia editors I have ever encountered, Youreallycan has impressed me as the most homophobic. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29 I spoke in favor of an LGBT topic ban for the guy. I continue to hold this opinion, now more strongly than ever. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Insulting a person as "most homophobic" since July 2007: That seems to be an extreme, vicious personal attack on a person who used the word "queer" in this reported incident. Just counting all the editors whom you "have ever encountered" since first editing as "User:Binksternet" (since 28 July 2007: contribs), how many editors do you count who were not the "most homophobic" in Wikipedia? -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my words; they exactly reflect the impression I have gathered over four years. I have not met a more homophobic editor. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed but entirely unsurprised that YRC/O2RR has continued this pattern of attacks on other editors. I hope that since it's not about any "favorite" politicians this time, his defenders will finally be forced to drop the lame BLP excuse for not banning him. This has gone on for way too long. (See evidence linked here and his list of past blocks for personal attacks.) Given the number of times he's been asked to stop and/or brought to a noticeboard over such comments, his failure to change his behavior indicates that a block or ban would clearly be preventative rather than punitive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Though Russavia and I have clashed nastily on several occasions, I agree with him 100% on O2RR. I have watched his disgusting hate speech flare up numerous times on the boards, only for him to slither away from sanctions by masking his revolting remarks with policy. This time, he has nothing to hide behind. He's already been warned under DIGWUREN, but I think that is really a secondary concern here. I firmly support a lengthy block for O2RR. This has gone on far too long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I logged my warning today to YRC (diff above in russavia's original post) as a DIGWUREN (now known as ARBEE) warning, since I informed him that he was operating in that topic area and needed to be wary. It was an informally-phrased warning, however, and I suppose there's no reason that he can't be given a more explicit templated version of the discretionary sanctions warning if someone feels it's necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Fluffernutter, thanks for your intervention there. I really do appreciate it mate. I don't know if you got my message on IRC, but I just stated that after discussing this with some other editors, and because of the history of shocking comments towards other editors, that something more substantial needs to be done in regards to him. Thanks again for your assistance with that. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• [Non-admin observation] I do not in any way endorse the language above (though I'm wondering what prompted Russavia to introduce the big and clever 'F' word to talk about his contributions to en.WP on getting Fucking, Austria onto DYK) but while we're here, can a grown up admin please curtail Russavia's 7-day RM process on Zhirinovsky's ass and get it off centre-stage in DYK queue please? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse. If we were dealing with a persistent racist who started calling another editor the n-word, there would be no hesitation in taking appropriate action here. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, actually I agree, homophobic comments shouldn't be tolerated, ever. FYI I suppose my WP:AGF has been tested a little by the gaming to get Zhirinovsky's ass on DYK, I already noted concern at BLP Noticeboard yesterday. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very little hesitation, anyone who thinks that somehow it's not a slur is dreaming and living in a Mickey Spillane novel. That was then this is now. RxS (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was homophobic? John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was as homophobic as Huckleberry Finn was racist. Got it now, John? Blake Burba (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to stereotypes we have a number of one dimensional characters on stage in this thread. John lilburne (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Russavia himself has pointed out in this thread that he is not known to be gay and has not edited LGBT-related topics to any extent, so there is reason to question whether or not YRC intended the comment to be an attack. The comment itself is ambiguous, but given the previous concerns expressed here, it was an unwise choice of words at best. I think it would be wise to wait for YRC to explain himself before deciding if a block is in order. In any case, an LGBT topic ban is probably overdue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your first sentence: "I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks." This context makes it much more likely that it was intended as an attack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A minor point, but YRC's comments about a 'fucking agenda' need to be looked at in the context of Russavia's previous post: [7]. It seems to me that Russavia set Rob up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That may explain the repeated use of "fucking" but would not justify making a homophobic comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me Andy, but my post was not attentioned towards Rob, nor was it in response to anything that Rob said. It was in response to the editor directly above me who stated that I was pushing an agenda. I simply pointed out an article that I (unbelievably) managed to 5x expand -- the only agenda being because I could. To say that I set Rob up is an inexcusable assessment to make at this point. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't think why any instance of homophobic abuse - let alone a persistent pattern of it - should receive greater indulgence than, say, racist or anti-Semitic abuse. Oh why anyone would try to justify it by blaming the victim. Writegeist (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Abuse is abuse, period, regardless of the target, end of line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It has only been a month or two since the last ANI discussion of YRC and homophobic attacks. Perhaps we should automate the initiation of threads like these -- or keep a permanent discussion going here, since there appears to be a lack of will to do anything about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how someone so concerned with BLP issues can do something like this. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As am I. A topic ban here is the least we can do, but were this any group besides LGBT, I can't help but feel like a long time out would be issued post haste. AniMate 07:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Queer - is not a homophobic descriptor in any way, its a totally acceptable word these days - User:Russavia uses it extremely often. It is his (at least on wiki) preferred word for homosexuality. He use the self descriptor with great regularity. - Using a word that the complaint uses himself regularly can hardly be an attack. Youreallycan 07:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. Spoken like a heterosexual willfully ignorant of the current usage of the word "queer" or someone desperately trying to make himself appear so. The re-appropriation of "queer" as a self-descriptor by the gay community is not license to fling it about in a pejorative manner while simultaneously claiming it is an innocuous or "acceptable" term. Blake Burba (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer eyes for the straight guy, Queer as Folks Queer is not some phrase from the ghetto but in mainstream usage. John lilburne (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blake Burba, context is important here. Many black rappers liberally use the n-word in their lyrics and Dan Savage, a well known gay activist, has a history of addressing his readership using Hey Faggot!. This is not an excuse for any Wikipedian to start addressing other contributors using these highly offensive words without permission or without expecting them to be immediately treated as defamation and a blatant personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Context is the very nub of this discussion. Way back in January 2009 I found a red-link somewhere or other, and started the Crittenden Report article. Lets say I got this response on my talk-page: "Hey girlfriend! Thanks for queering up Wikipedia!" How I would have reacted to the very same message is all in the context.

• If it was the first edit from an IP user, I would have welcomed them and asked them if they were interested in WP:MILHIST
• If it was from a registered user who was active in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a compliment
• If it was from a registered user that had a history of intolerance in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a slur against me and LGBT editors.

Context is what is important here. That disingenuousness about context is very much not to the credit of those editors who would appear to have overlooked it. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As there's pretty much no doubt now what YRC meant, and as he still thinks that there's nothing wrong with it, I've blocked for a week. It's longer than usual due to his history of NPA blocks. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TC. Long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about the use of the word "queer" here is a complete sidetrack, and frankly a non issue. What is abundantly clear is that there was a definite breach of civility in that discussion. I don't think the accusation that Russavia has a pro-homosexuality agenda is in itself anything to be concerned with - it may or not be true but editors are accused of bias all over Wikipedia and the fact that this alleged bias regards homosexuality doesn't make that any worse or any better. What is a concern is the rest of that sentence. That's a clear personal attack and is inexcusable.

But the important thing is that User:Youreallycan did redact the comment when asked to. Since blocks are preventative not punitive it seems clear to me that User:Youreallycan is aware his actions were incorrect and is not about to repeat them, so a block is not appropriate here.

A topic ban, however, is worth considering. I recommend that User:Youreallycan is warned that any similar behaviour in future will result in such a ban. Beyond that I don't think any further action needs to be taken at this stage. waggers (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think he's aware that his actions were incorrect at all. As I said on his talk page, I wouldn't have blocked him, since he redacted the comments when requested. However, in his current unblock request, he seems to think it's fine to make comments of that nature. When/if he acknowledges that it isn't, I'd support an unblock. 28bytes (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being manipulated by the application of false dramah for the lulz. Back in the 70s Queer was a preferred term used by members of the LGBT communnity, this was replaced by Gay from about teh late 70s, but never went away as Queer tended to be used to used as a shortened form of LGBT without resorting to acronyms. John lilburne (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment a reply to me? It's indented as though it is. And yet it has nothing to do with my comment. My point, in case I wasn't clear, was that I'd support an unblock if YRC agrees not to make any more comments like "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" That would not be an OK comment to make even if "queer" were replaced by a synonym. 28bytes (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean 'synonym', is it not the case that you are really complaining about accusations of 'agendas' regardless as to whether they are 'queer', 'fucking', or 'WASPish'. John lilburne (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redacted usernames from insulting thread title: As an uninvolved editor, I have changed the title of this ANI thread to replace usernames "Youreallycan/off2ri..." as "Yrc/o2r" and link-anchored the prior title. Of course everyone realizes that calling someone's actions "homophobic" is an extreme personal attack of the most vicious and hateful sort. It is one thing to claim a remark was a GLBT-slur, but to generalize, universally, as being "homophobic" is just begging the question as if stating "wife-beater attacks". As a formal debate judge for years, I will try to reduce all this rampant use of word "homophobic" as unneeded hate-mongering with ad hominem attacks on accused editors. Please remember, the use of the word "homophobic" is completely, totally, and utterly unacceptable in this manner, especially in the title of a thread. Comment on the actions, not the contributor. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nah. If an editor has a long and ongoing history of making homophobic attacks, describing that person as homophobic is right on target. A person who makes racist comments is a racist person. For the present case, it's becoming clear that it's the person that needs dealing with, not just a distinct set of remarks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  YRC/O2RR's personal beliefs are frankly entirely irrelevant. He could really be a homophobic person or he could be on a sustained campaign to troll us all. Either way, the attacks on LGBT editors need to end, and since he shows no sign of stopping of his own accord, preventative measures are the solution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• To me this looks like one final round of gaming from Russavia, who is currently looking at a likely 6-month ban at WP:AE for ... gaming. Yes, Youreallycan's statements were uncivil. On the other hand, he redacted them immediately when called upon, and they also reflected exactly what went through this editor's mind. If I had been asked to say what I thought of Russavia, honestly, in light of shenanigans like these, and his involvement in stuff like Zhirinovsky's ass and Polandball here and on German Wikipedia, all of them real embarrassments to this project, I would have said exactly the same. Why are we putting up with Russavia? Lastly, the term "queer agenda" is in mainstream media and scholarly use. That agenda is as unwelcome in Wikipedia as any other type of agenda-based editing. --JN466 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, you have not been asked here to say what you think about Russavia. Having just replied to you at User_talk:Youreallycan#unblock_request, could you tell me exactly how many forums are you intending to use to canvass against Russavia with the same text? When there is an ANI thread about Russavia we can discuss Russavia. This discussion is not an excuse to repeat offensive claims about Russavia or to promote your personal views that there is a "queer agenda" that Wikipedians you think might be gay and don't like must be following. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This attempt to justify YRC's homophobic remarks reflects poorly on those contributing to it. "Queer" is one thing, but the term "queer agenda" is usually used by those seeking to denigrate it, and in fact JN466 is wrong to say it's "in mainstream media ... use" -- in all of Google News archives, there are 68 hits, very few of them "positive" in any sense. In any event it's painfully obvious how YRC intended to use the term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The thing is, the best response to those carping about the "agenda" remark is to demonstrate that Fae actually pursues such an agenda. i.e. those who create and support the retention of articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars. Creating articles wit the specific intent of agenda-promoting needs to be called out. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tarc, your claim about me is a bad faith personal attack attempting to devalue my opinions in a consensus process (other admins here, please take note). As for "List of gay bathhouse regulars" that is way off-topic for this discussion about Youreallycan and a reply to Jayen466's wife sweeping aside this attempt at smearing my character is already on Jimbo's talk page. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is not a personal attacks to point out things you have done under prior user accounts, I'm afraid. There is no good-faith reason to support that article's existence, there fore we're left with the bad-faith reason. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Er, no, "homosexual agenda" and any of its variants are not in common mainstream-media or scholarly use. What a ridiculous claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • See NYT [8], [9], and a multitude of NYT uses of "homosexual agenda." "Queer agenda" used as a self descriptor at [10], Village Voice at [11] etc. You may dislike it, but is absolutely in mainstream use now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

An extraordinarily bad accusation here after the baiting of YRC which has been repeatedly done and is fully as objectionable - and the use of "homophobe" as an "attack word" is getting too dang commonplace on Wikipedia. Time to retire the attacks and get down to actually editing the dang encyclopedia. I also note this was placed at UT:Jimbo to get the maximum effect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Too dang commonplace? Can you link to some instances of it being used where the editor in question has not attacked LGBT fellow-editors with homophobic language? Or is it your belief that the word "homophobe" is so incredibly hurtful (more so than the homophobic slurs users like YRC/O2RR fling around, too) that we should avoid using it even when an editor clearly demonstrates that it applies? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's not homophobic but opposes agenda-pushers, of all varieties, who persistently skew Wikipedia content off NPOV. However, sexuality and oppression of minorities are highly emotive and important topics, and there is no room in discussions for flippant use of ambiguous terms like "queer". Obvious personal attacks, like "fuck off", are almost never appropriate. (I can think of a couple of instances where such language was spot on, but this certainly wasn't one of them.) So, I think the block is appropriate for the obvious personal attack, but this was not a homophobic attack, that's a smoke screen frequently thrown up by gaming tendentious editors to undermine YRC's quite often legitimate concerns. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of YRC/O2RR's very long history of homophobic comments about other users? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Fae is now forum-shopping...or foundation-member-shopping...this around as he is not getting the answers he wants here or at Talk:Jimbo. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You obviously believe there is such a thing as a "queer agenda", logically that means there is an "anti-queer agenda". Do you think some of the editors expressing rather inflammatory opinions here might subscribe to that second agenda? I thought this ANI thread was about Youreallycan. If you are making it all about me and pointlessly repeating old and tired allegations about me, could you please follow the guidelines and leave a note on my user talk page before having a personal crack at me here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I understand you're not addressing me but, if I may, It's highly likely there are bigots of all flavours on this site. Given his obvious capacity for empathy, demonstrated by his frequently-expressed (and acted-upon) concern for human rights and the feelings of other editors, our subjects and our readers, and the absence of any convincing evidence that he is homophobic, I can't condone lumping YRC into that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is this meant to be sarcasm? It's hard to tell over the internet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking over the evidence of YRC's past behavior under his two accounts, I think we're seeing two issues here. First, blatant incivility yesterday, which he quickly redacted at my request. Tim's block was valid at the time, since there was no commitment from YRC to avoid such personal attacks in the future, but I note that YRC has now apologized for his outburst and stated that "I will keep a tighter lid on my emotions and can accept a heightened level of civility restriction for the rest of the original block length, a one strike and blocked def con level". At this point, I think an unblock should be on the table, as long as YRC understands that civility is required, not something one does for a week as a sort of probation.

  The second issue is that homosexuality is clearly a reactive issue for him. It matters little whether this is because he's homophobic, because he dislikes (what he perceives as) POV pushers, or because a witch once turned him into a newt (he got better!) - no matter what the cause, his presence in LGBT-relates areas of the 'pedia ends up being disruptive because of his reactiveness to the topic. I would support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors in any way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think he's any more reactive in this topic than others. I've seen YRC in action on several different topic areas where he perceives tendentious editing, and he is prone to emotional responses in all of them. I'd like to see a commitment from him to reign in his thymos on all areas of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Numerous such commitments have been offered in the past. Offering them appears to be easy; sticking to them not so much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, what Anthony says is my impression too. I don't think he's more reactive in this topic than others. --JN466 22:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hm. If that's the case, this is a more difficult matter. We can topic-ban someone from an issue that pushes their buttons in the wrong way, but if any and every issue pushes or could push their buttons, little other than a draconian civility parole or an indef block seems likely to remedy the matter if the person can't control themselves. And civility paroles, well, they never seem to work. It's possible we could offer some sort of "official last chance" to YRC, with the warning that the next time he flies off the handle, he'll have exhausted his chances and be indeffed, but...none of these options really feel entirely comfortable to me, and I'm open to other ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've not looked closely (nor will I for a while) but it does look like a good block. Given the relatively long history of similar issues, I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unlike the editor who provoked him into making this outburst, Youreallycan actually contributes something of value to this project on a daily basis, rather than schoolboy humour. --JN466 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Russavia did not force YRC to make homophobic remarks. Neither did any of the other users whom YRC has attacked in a homophobic manner. YRC had the choice not to make those remarks, but he made them anyway. If Russavia's behavior is sanctionable on its own, then deal with it elsewhere. He is not responsible for YRC's own decision to attack other users based on their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to block talk page access for Youreallycan

Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is manipulating discussion of their repeated unblock requests by deleting all negative comments and leaving in anything that appears positive, even where comments were in response to each other. This is in contravention of Refactoring talk pages as it gives a deliberately misleading impression of the opinions of others. This is making it difficult for any independent administrator to assess or discuss a possible unblock. I propose that the block is extended to a user talk page block and Youreallycan can email the blocking admin if they wish to have further unblock requests created on their behalf. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of those messages are nothing but gravedancing and, by the by, I assume any admin worth his salt knows how to use the history tab. And you should really stop agitating against other editors. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Salvio, do you perceive support/consensus in this ANI thread for your proposal to unblock YRC? You don't appear to have support from the blocking admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This ANI thread, honestly, is nothing but a disjointed train wreck. There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself. The few who do emphasise that Youreallycan had struck his attacks as soon as he was asked to and before this thread was started, has apologised, has admitted he acted inappropriately and has promised he'll avoid such behaviour in future. Admins are allowed to use their best judgement, that's why we were made admins by the community. And my best judgement tells me this block doesn't serve any purpose any longer except to punish Youreallycan. And, therefore, should be lifted. And I don't have to have the support of the blocking admin to reverse his block; it's considered courteous to contact a blocking admin before reversing his actions, but that has never been a requirement. Especially when one is evaluating an unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Update. I have just unblocked Youreallycan. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (ec)I might agree, if this weren't part of a pattern. YRC/OTRR has a history of getting emotionally invested in editing disputes and reacting poorly. If it's not personal attacks it's edit warring. He's made promises before, as noted in his block log. They don't seem to stick. A truly bad unblock. AniMate 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Indeed -- a total of 15 blocks, including 3 on the new account, roughly one a month. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. --JN466 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a sad day for our community when a long term disruptive editor makes a blatant homophobic attack and gets unblocked after only a few hours, while wikilawyers quibble over whether demeaning other editors by telling them to fuck off with their "queer agenda" might not be quite blatantly homophobic enough. Poor show, bad unblock. I'm disgusted at how ineffective ANI is as a means to deal with harassment in these cases. --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that YRC has been unblocked doesn't mean this thread can't continue to discuss the issue of if he needs any sort of further topic ban or blocking regarding his behavior in LGBT issues. I would encourage everyone to move ahead with discussing that matter, especially since now YRC is able to participate directly in that conversation on his own behalf. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointingly, the rationale for the unblock seems to be that the comment "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" was in no way homophobic, so apologising for the swearing and refusing to apologise for the homophobia is good enough. Maybe we should preach what we practice and take "homophobic" out of the text of WP:NPA#WHATIS. FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio could you please explain the meaning of your wink and bum related joke immediately after your unblock for Youreallycan?[12] In the context of homophobic allegations it seems to deliberately make light of these serious issues and not what I would expect of an unblocking admin who has taken time to consider the nature of the serious allegations, the disruption this has caused or how LGBT Wikimedians will judge your comment as trivializing such attacks as a joke. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of everything I have read in this debacle; this is the most disturbing and worrying thing. Fæ, when you start to see homophobia in such small detail then it starts to become disruptive. When you shop in multiple fora for a response it begins to get worring. It's bad enough that the word "queer" is now being bandied as a heinous crime, and multiple editors are being accused (even if subtly) of homophobia. I have a growing concern here that there really is some sort of agenda here - exactly what, and from whom, is eluding me at the present moment but something odd is emerging. In the light of day this comment was unfair of me, and rude, sorry Fæ. In mitigation it was 1am :) --Errant ^(chat!) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was taken aback to see your comment and its implications about my motivations, and I very much appreciate your withdrawing it in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you realise how offensive and paranoid this question is? I'm employing a commonly used colloquial expression to tell Youreallycan that I hope my actions will not boomerang on me and that I hope he'll not let me down. Have I become an homophobe too, now? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In the recently-closed and aptly-named Civility Enforcement case (which you yourself clerked), arbcom held that in a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. Since you nowhere discussed this unblock with me, care to explain how there is a clear consensus to unblock or that this is an emergency? T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have explained my actions earlier. It is only courteous to discuss with the blocking admin before reversing his actions; it has never been a requirement and that statement by ArbCom does not make it one. In this thread, there is no consensus that Youreallycan should remain blocked and various admins have stated that they would consider an unblock, if Youreallycan promised to refrain from making personal attacks. Since he did and since the block was no longer preventative, I unblocked. I consider my actions fully justified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I am glad you are so comfortable Salvio. Are there any more bum jokes and winks for Youreallycan you would like to add at this point, so all LGBT Wikimedians reading this are completely clear how sensitively these sorts of homophobic attacks will be treated by administrators in the future? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Fae I think you're over reacting to the wink and bum joke, although the real joke might be Salvio saying this is a risk to himself. What's the worst that could happen? Is he going to be desysopped over an unblock some disagree with? Will he be taken before Arbcom? Will he himself be blocked? The answer to all of those is of course no, so the risk to Salvio seems minimal, while the risk of more unpleasantness being dealt with by those he edits with seems much more realistic. Perhaps instead of focusing on the unblock, we should attempt to craft some community sanction to keep YRC from this disruptive behavior. AniMate 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fæ, let's not turn this into something that it isn't. Salvio's meaning with the "bum joke" was perfectly plain and in no way homophobic. This is how to react to a bum joke: by first assuming the person making it meant no offense. Let's not toss AGF out of the window here. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) AniMate, Those are not the only risks I worry about. I have taken a chance and if it turns out I was wrong, that would of course reflect on me too. That's the risk I was referring to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • By all means try and get something a bit more meaningful out of this. At the moment I see only reasons to be disgusted at how homophobic abuse is repeatedly "tolerated" while anyone who might be accused of having a "queer agenda" appears to be a target of malicious harassment and canvassing on and off-wiki. I'm travelling, so it's a good time for me to take a break from looking at the issue of blatant patterns of homophobia on Wikipedia that should have been left behind in the 1970s, and focus on less disheartening matters. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Fae, for what it's worth, I agree with you completely. Salvio, this is a bad time for bad jokes: unblocking a blocked editor is already a delicate matter, and unblocking someone who got blocked for anti-gay remarks with a bum joke: I expected better from you. To the rest of you: what? It's obvious that a joke was being made here, wink and all, and if you don't see how it is a bad joke, then maybe empathy workshop, required by HR, might not be a crazy idea. Fo shizzle. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't want to add on but I disagree very much with what has happened here. Much as I agree this was a user reacting out of anger, how in the world is this [13] not a blockable offense? The comments were in no means relevant to the AfD in question (baited by another user or not) and are offensive to other users (LGBT or not) as evidenced by this thread. I would argue that the block is preventative over its duration in a user with the block history described above. I think an unblock was a very bad idea and sets a poor precedent that vitriol with accusatory overtones is acceptable on this project when an editor is baited or if they promise not to do it again after the fact. It is not, regardless of circumstance. -- Samir 23:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is beyond credibility that you are persisting in this discussion about the term "queer". We all know TODAY, right here and now, what that word means. It's homophobic in this context. Also I take into account the proof given of the editor's horrific incivility in general. Something must be done. You cannot continue to strain to give that editor's ugly words any kind of innocent construction.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The workings of Wikipedia "civility enforcement" seem most mysterious to me. One editor calls some people "control freaks"^[14] or says "u r dumb"^[15] and gets banned for life, another drops the F-bomb in the process of telling a fellow editor to get lost from the project and after a few hours all is forgiven. It all seems very peculiar. I think that it is time for people to seriously consider repealing or at least reducing the scope and penalties for WP:CIVILITY violations, because the policy won't and can't be enforced in any coherent way. Wnt (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This (insert whatever words you wish) business is now getting far out of hand. A block was made - and anything more sounds like "Torch his castle". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment re: Collect's remark: You dismiss this too lightly, as do too many here. Look at the threads this has generated. And you're saying the decision is to 'torch his castle'? I am personally in favour of torching any castle that houses a anti-Semitic, homophobic abuser. I'm a Jew and I'm gay. I don't need anyone telling me who is playing at being my enemy. Point is, he should be stopped.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are accusing YRK of antisemitism now? What next... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Andy the Grump decided to make things more personal[16], I will strike the anti-Semitism comment. Andy, as I told you at my talk: do not come to my talk page like that and stay clear of it henceforth. In fact as I redact and retract my anti-Semitism suggestion, I also officially take umbrage with Andy - or anyone - threatening me on my talk page about this thread. Stay off my talk henceforth, Andy. You know, you give this place a really bad name.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that Djathinkimacowboy has still not redacted this obnoxious personal attack on me, and has only made a half-hearted retraction of his outrageous accusations regarding YRK. Can I suggest that we ignore all his postings on this thread, on the basis that he clearly thinks that he is immune from being held to the same standards that he demands of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And I see that you will continue to derail this discussion. Well you've gotten all you're going to get. I have said my piece here.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Since Salvio thought it most essential to unblock while ignoring an ongoing discussion, what do people think about topic banning YRC from LGBT related material for 3 months? AniMate 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for an indefinite topic ban on all LGBT-related articles and pages, very broadly construed, and a ban on mentioning anything even slightly LGBT-related anywhere in the project, with an non-negotiable indefinite community ban for any violation. Three months is too short, considering his history. He has insurmountable problems in this area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think a topic ban can only help here, even if it doesn't fix everything. As I said up above, I'd support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors or article subjects in any way. I'd prefer an indef duration rather than a three-month one, since time isn't a reliable fixer of, well, much of anything behavioral, but I can support 3 months as a minimum. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would be fine with the unblock, if the community is able to implement an interaction ban on Youreallycan/Off2riorob from interacting with me, anywhere on WP, for any reason. The attack of myself, was absolutely below the pale, and I do not accept (along with the majority of uninvolved, level-headed and open-minded editors) Youreallycan's statement that it was not a personal attack. With an interaction ban on myself, at least I will be protected from such degrading, personal attacks in the future, and particularly because Youreallycan often engages in outright harassment of editors. (He's been warned against harassment of myself some months ago as Off2riorob). I also support an indefinite topic ban as per Dominus Vobisdu. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Context: I have had no recent interactions, and never any prolonged open discord, with Youreallycan/Off2riorob. As I recall, we interacted a few times, usually disagreeing, several years ago. I really hate saying this about a fellow Wikipedian who clearly is capable of contributing constructively, but Off2riorob's repeated incivility when discussing LGBT-related topics and relating to editors he perceives as having an "agenda" has created a toxic atmosphere in various parts of the project. When I encounter his username on a talk page, I generally just close the tab and go elsewhere even if I have something worth adding to the discussion because reading his combative, sometimes blatantly offensive remarks is just too stressful. Adding to that stress is the knowledge that no matter how many times the pattern repeats itself, Off2riorob walks away scot-free—sometimes with a slap on the wrist, not infrequently with heartfelt kudos, but the point is: he walks away, free to do it again. I believe in second chances, sometimes even third or fourth, but not an infinite number. How many times must this behavior come to ANI before it's taken seriously? A topic ban per Dominus Vobisdu's suggestion is entirely warranted. Failing that, a final warning—with teeth in it—is the only other acceptable outcome of this thread. Anything less would make a mockery of WP:CIVIL in general and send a clear message that Wikipedia tolerates a hostile editing environment when it comes to LGBT-related civility specifically. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see claims of homophobic behavior, but the only instance I see reported is the outburst concerning "Was it your queer agenda?". The claims that "queer agenda" is a homophobic attack are nonsense: click the news, books, and scholar links in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I have no idea whether YRC's claim (that someone has an agenda to unduly promote LGBT issues) has any basis, and of course the redacted remark breaches CIVIL. However, it is not evidence that a topic ban is warranted. If evidence exists, please present a summary before making a proposal about a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  Accusing people of having a gay agenda for being supportive of gay people and issues can certainly be homophobic, depending on circumstances and irrespective of the words used to say it. It accuses a person based on assumptions about their group identity. There's a crowd of bigots out there who are convinced that society is falling apart, losing its moral fiber, children are in danger, the suffering majority is afraid, etc., due to the concerted efforts of gays (or Jews, blacks, women, foreigners, whatever) with an agenda to control things. Like I said, it depends on context, but seeing those words used in anger is a red flag. Even if said without anti-gay malice, that kind of talk is at best divisive and unconstructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  While various attempts to reclaim "queer" from the epithet gutter have met with considerable success, the word tossed around casually and carelessly is still deeply offensive to many. (See 1 2 3 4.) In conjunction with the word "agenda", it's not even so much the word itself as the phrase and its connotations (see Homosexual agenda). In any event, this instance was part of a larger pattern. I don't log these kinds of things (in fact, I try to forget about them if at all possible) and I lack the patience to spend hours meticulously combing through thousands of user contribs only to find this thread has been prematurely closed in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Adding: These two threads are a starting point, however. This was also sort of weird; not sure what it meant, but it seemed a bit less than civil. Rivertorch (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  John, I suggest you look at the discussion on my talk page with AGK, where I have chewed his arse out because of the Arbcom doing nothing about acting upon what many editors saw as homophobic harassment of Fae at the RFC/U. Given that these statements were made within a short time after this on my talk page, one can safely assume that my "queer agenda" is protecting other editors from what many deemed to be homophobic harassment. It is disgusting behaviour from Youreallycan, and he needs to be removed from this entire area. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  John, you should also look at the most recent thread linked at the top of this section, in which users linked to YRC calling LGBT people (as a class, not specific users) immature/backwards, saying that any mention of a person's non-straight sexual orientation would make Wikipedia just like a gay newspaper, vandalizing a BLP because he believed it would make LGBT users (again as a class, not specific ones) angry, etc. Since a lot of past evidence was brought up in that thread, I think people have largely refrained from linking to each instance individually, but please do read it before saying that it was just this one time. And no, "homosexual agenda" and any of its variants are, again, not used in the MSM/scholarly work. Please do not propagate this ridiculous claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- in part on the basis of clicking on the links offered by Johnuniq, which demonstrate the opposite of that editor's claims (the scholar links are irrelevant in this context as YRC has almost certainly not consulted scholarly sources). The main point is that this sort of kerfuffle with YRC recurs on a regular basis -- there has been ample evidence in this and previous threads that a topic ban is warranted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support a well demonstrated history of disruptive editing and aggressive behaviour to other editors shows that an indefinite topic ban on LGBT related topics is required, this includes an interaction ban for any contributor that Youreallycan / Off2riorob has made "queer agenda" or similar anti-gay and unprovable claims about. Claiming a Wikipedian has a gay agenda is the declaration of a witch-hunt - such a claim can be made about any of us who have ever edited gay related articles and is a malicious act to foster a hostile environment to ensure that LGBT editors leave the project or cease improving these topics for fear of outing and malicious harassment. Sadly, there is an established pattern that such branding of editors is an open invitation for stalkers to canvass against Wikipedians using off-wiki badsites to sadistically out, harass and bully such an editor; Youreallycan is fully aware of the damaging consequences of his actions. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And noting that many BLPs have had substantial problems with people violating WP:BLP by asserting a sexual identity on a person without WP:BLP required sourcing, saying a person can not work on such abuses is absurd. Use of a topic ban in order to allow violations to go unchecked is a violation of common sense. And using a !vote in order to silence an editor whose article edits are of great value is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC opposes mentioning anyone's (non-straight, of course - we can talk about people's heterosexuality all we like and it's fine with him) sexual orientation even when it is well-sourced, as demonstrated in the evidence at the last discussion, linked at the top of this section. He believes that we must only talk about heterosexual people's sexual orientation because otherwise Wikipedia would be the "gay times." I'm really rather tired of people bringing up irrelevant BLP comments. BLP does not mean "remove sourced information you don't like if the article subject is a living person" and it certainly does not mean "if you edit enough BLP articles you are exempt from all rules." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is a civility/NPA problem, address that, but banning someone from enforcing BLP policy related to LGBT seems like the wrong way to go about this. The problem here is a very bad interaction with other editors, not LGBT-related abuse in articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The problems here are actually multiple, but this is an attempt to deal with very bad interaction with other editors that frequently manifests itself on LGBT-related discussions. And let's be clear: it's not a question of "enforcing BLP policy"; it's more like "edit warring to enforce his narrow interpretation of BLP policy on LGBT-related articles, questioning the motives and affronting the dignity of editors who disagree with him, getting blocked or admonished (but defended by the same select few administrators), announcing a break or retirement, and then returning in a few weeks or months and doing the exact same thing all over again". Does this happen only with regard to LGBT-related discussions? No. But it happens often with such discussions, and the continual lack of resolve at ANI thus far to do something about it is perpetuating an environment especially hostile to editors who identify as LGBT or are active in editing LGBT-related topics. It is my hope that a topic ban would have the effect of directing Youreallycan to other areas of the project where his tenacity would be less disruptive. Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support for "broadly construed" topic ban given YRC's repeatedly demonstrated inability to edit with neutrality on subjects related to LGBT issues. Ban should also encompass any reference to another user's sexual orientation in any namespace. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insufficient grounds shown. Admittedly this is a touchy area, but I think a topic ban to be excessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: My view, humbly proffered here, is that the editor be permanently blocked. No suffering should pass from hand to hand. This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering. That is an aspect of this you should all consider. I do not view this as 'burning down his castle'. He burned it down himself. Practice what you seem to preach, and get off Salvio's back - that is what I think you should also do. Unless you wish to bring further actions against Salvio, what has he really got to do with this?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

" This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering". Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you are funny. How about I cite this entire thread and the previous one. Or are you willing to cite all the examples he should be coddled and allowed to keep doing what he's been doing?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If I were convinced he was making homophobic comments, I would absolutely support the ban. I just don't see sufficient evidence here. Yea, his comment was inappropriate and juvenile, but it doesn't warrant a ban.JoelWhy (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per others. Taken in context and with knowledge of past behaviour, YRC/O2RR's remark crossed the final line. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Above I said that we may as well take homophobia out of the NPA guidance, which was meant as a throwaway comment. But if the consensus on this is denialism and an unaccountable desire to indulge the culprit, I think we really should forgo the hypocrisy and stop pretending. Because YRC refuses to acknowledge the problem, he should not have been unblocked. A topic ban is the next rung down the ladder and should be imposed instead. FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's more than just a touchy area, YRC has been genuinely offensive here. He shouldn't be editing in the LGBT area if he's going to offend LGBT people - surely that's obvious. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Youreallycan has done very good work, including cases where the question at issue was sexuality-related categorisation in accordance with BLPCAT. In one case it took multiple admins and an OTRS ticket, in addition to Youreallycan's efforts, to stop the nonsense. Youreallycan has been a tower of strength in such situations. (And I am sure he earned the wrath of those he thwarted.) --JN466 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In the instances where I've encountered YRC working on a sexual orientation categorization topic, he wanted to suppress sourced information (exactly compliant with the standards of WP:BLPCAT) because "Wikipedia is not the gay times - get over yourself." (To be more specific, but without getting into too much detail, he wanted to decategorize as LGBT an actor who had very prominently come out as gay because there were tabloid rumors of his dating a woman. We wouldn't allow non-primary tabloid rumors as a source for the individual being gay, but because YRC's agenda is to pretend everyone is heterosexual rather than to enforce BLP, YRC claimed that it was sufficient to make him straight.) What is this mythical "good work" he's done in the BLP area? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, that was one of those cases I recall. The actor, once proudly out, either attempted to get back into the closet, or decided he was (at the very least) bisexual. All the queer media, like queerty and hunkandgayguys, gave him a roasting for it, and there were editors here who wanted to roast him too, and make sure he would remain categorised as gay. I find it absolutely distasteful how anonymous editors, sometimes described as the "tag-a-gay brigade", seek to claim ownership over notable people's sexuality. This has nothing to do with what someone's sexual identification is, and everything to do with not respecting the personal boundaries of BLP subjects. Sexuality is private, unless there are good reasons for it not to be, and BLPCAT says we go with public self-identification, whatever that is. Their sexuality is one thing that BLP subjects have the final say on, and rightly so. JN466 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We didn't have a source for him saying he was bisexual, and we had copious sourcing of him saying he was gay. Precisely because BLPCAT works off of public self-identification, we don't use tabloid rumors of him dating a woman to say anything about his sexual orientation. But YRC wanted to use these rumors - with no comment from the subject about the girlfriend and certainly not about self-identification - not even to say that he may be bisexual, but to say that he was heterosexual. Again, the sourcing was completely inadequate for comments on someone's sexual orientation, per the very rules you cite, but YRC doesn't care about those rules; they're just a convenient smokescreen when he wants to put someone back in the closet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
        • That's my recollection of it, too, assuming we're thinking of the same discussion. (There have been a number of very similar ones.) I left that discussion in its early stages when it became clear that special standards were being applied by some editors purely because of the subject's gay self-identification, which was impeccably sourced. If the shoe had been on the other foot, and someone had been using tabloid reports to identify as gay an actor reliably reported to be straight, I don't suppose the BLP warriors would have been eager to accept the tabloid stories; in fact, there would have been a huge outcry (and rightly so). It was a classic illustration of a double standard that has become disturbingly common at Wikipedia wherein any number of reliable sources apparently aren't enough when it comes to non-heterosexual people. This has even spilled over into articles on deceased people. It has occurred to me that a sworn affadavit accompanied by a videotaped statement carried live on the BBC from a notable person proclaiming "I'm definitely gay and it's very relevant to my life and my career" would somehow still not satisfy some of the editors around here. So, speaking of double standards, I'd like to ask those opposing the topic ban to consider the remark that spawned this ANI report: "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" Now substitute for "queer" a word referring to racial or religious identity—the "n word" is a good example, but there are lots of them—and ask yourself: would we all be so deeply divided or would there be a blizzard of support for the ban? Rivertorch (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
          • • Rivertorch, the way to handle sexual and religious categorisation is very simple: if in doubt, leave it out. In other words, if there is reasonable doubt as to current self-identification, and it's tangential to the person's notability, don't put any categorisation in place. Let's make it easy: this was the discussion I was thinking of. (Rivertorch wasn't involved in this one.) People can read it and form their own judgment as to whether Off2riorob was trying to protect the subject's privacy, or whether he was trying to bash gays. --JN466 05:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Oh, yes, that one. A separate discussion ran concurrently here in which Off2riorob claimed The Advocate is not a "quality publication" and confused sexual orientation with behavior, citing "no recent reports of any homosexual activity" as a reason not to categorize. The subject's privacy vis-à-vis his sexual orientation was not at issue, except perhaps in terms of protecting the article from unreliably sourced claims of heterosexuality. Rivertorch (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                • His agent put out a statement that he regretted earlier statements he had made, and now considered his sexuality private. That can be taken in good faith as a withdrawal of public self-identification, even without the story that he was now in a relationship with a woman. And it really doesn't matter whether he discovered a different side to his sexuality or had the statement put out for PR reasons. Under BLPCAT, it is arguable grounds to withdraw categorisation. Basically, Wikipedia needs to keep its hands off BLP subjects' sexual identity. If there is a clear and current public self-identifcation, categorise. If there is any doubt, don't. We owe BLP subjects that much respect. --JN466 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • This is getting too far off-topic. I'll respond at your talk page presently. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - High maintenance editor who is said to do good work. As his block log moves into well into doubt digits, its time for Rob to understand that it's time to cut the crap. Topic banning him out of one subject where he clearly "has issues" is a start. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - No merit to the proposal. The LGBT topic area has become increasingly problematic over the years, and if some toes are getting stepped on in cleaning it up, that's a price worth paying. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Translation: the queers are getting uppity, better bring in a homophobic blunt instrument to put them in their place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Please spare me the Victim Card ploy. I oppose wiki-activism regardles of the ideology. I have been quite active in keeping the Tea Party and birther talking points out of the Obama articles over the years, for starters. It just happens at the moment that there is a lot of very bad-faith pro-LGBT activism going on in this project. From Ash's "gay bathhouse regulars" to the small-s santorum crusade to my torpedoing of the Marcus Bachmann hit piece, there's been a lot of bad articles to take care of lately. "Queer agenda" may have been an impolitic turn of a phrase, but the general gist behind it is clear and present. This stuff isn't being opposed and fought against because editors are gay; it is being fought because it is wrong for this project. Tarc (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • My comment was intended seriously. Why do you believe that the only way to deal with the problems you believe exist in the topic area is by making LGBT users feel unwelcome, and why do you believe that rampant and obvious policy violations on the one hand are the right tool to deal with what you believe to be policy violations on the other? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't want to make "LGBT users" feel unwelcome, I want to make "bad users" feel unwelcome, if one of the latter is also one of the former, that doesn't mean "Tarc doesn't want LGBT editors around". As for your last question, I don't see them as equal; WP:BLP trumps civility twaddle. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
          • The repeated homophobic attacks from YRC don't single out bad users, though; they single out LGBT users. There are many, many ways to call out bad editing without saying that LGBT people, as a class, are retarded, without invoking the far-right "homosexual agenda" meme, etc. Why is an entire class of productive users acceptable collateral damage for what you personally believe to be editing problems, while one user is not acceptable "collateral damage" (and I use the scare quotes because he's not a victim by the wayside, but the one causing the problem) in enforcing a productive editing environment for people of all sexual orientations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
            • I would like to see a diff where YRC says "LGBT people, as a class, are retarded". And if you don't have one, Roscelese, you can look forward to a thread being started on you here, below. --JN466 05:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Paraphrase of "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world," which it will honestly take forever to find the exact diff for but which is easily found in BLPN archive in a discussion already linked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                • That's good enough for me not to start a thread on you, but looking over that [old discussion, you will see that you complained about this then, and Johnuniq told you, Why do you think that observation is an attack? As I read it, the assertion is that the LGBT sector at Wikipedia should adopt the attitude that LGBT is part of normal society and human activity, and there should be no need to label everyone who may have had an LGBT experience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Now cross-reference that with [Jay Brannan's view quoted below, who was sick to death of being gay-tagged here. Does that make Brannan a homophobe? Surely not. Can you at least entertain the view that one may see gay tagging as deplorable for other reasons than homophobia? And if YRC were such a homophobe, shouldn't he have taken pleasure in Brannan's anguish, or at least washed his hands of that one? Instead, it was the tag-a-gay brigade who were driving Brannan crazy, while YRC treated that case like every other case he's handled at BLPN over the past three years or so: with respect and concern for the BLP subject, and little time for POV pushers. Some homophobe. --JN466 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • • Johnuniq was also wrong, as Trystan explains, so I'm not sure why his reply should be meaningful to me or prevent me from pointing out that YRC has been making these sorts of homophobic comments for months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • There is a fairly clear line between opposing specific editors who are not editing constructively or within guidelines, and making blanket statements about an entire class of people. Both in the present instance, and the one Roscelese refers to, YRC was way over that line. Telling the "LGBT sector" it needs to mature[17] is disparaging and condescending to all LGBT editors, rather than objecting to the actions of the specific editors involved. If we allow individual negative interactions to be an excuse for prejudicial statements against entire groups, we may as well abandon any attempt to enforce rules against homophobia, racism, sexism and the like, because editors will always be able to point to individuals from the disparaged group that did something to trigger the statement against the entire class of people. The same goes for telling an editor to take their "queer agenda" and "fuck off", tying a profane insult to the target's sexual orientation. Particularly using a reappropriated word in an indisputably hostile and insulting context; does anyone really buy the completely unrepentant excuse that telling a queer to fuck off isn't homophobic because LGBT people use the word queer in a positive way? To see such an attack brushed aside by the deciding admin, relegating everyone concerned about such language into either a lynch mob or a group quibbling about semantics, is very disheartening.--Trystan (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose overly broad for one instance of being an insensitive dick. Also open to gaming, we'd be back here in no time arguing the scope. Kevin (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please check out the noticeboard discussion linked near the top of the thread. It's not "one instance of being an insensitive dick" - these comments go back months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: If a single homophobic or uncivil crack (and "queer agenda" is nothing short) was sufficient to elicit topic sanctions, I can think of some editors who should have been slapped with sanctions a hundred times over. Obviously Youreallycan has been offensive and uncivil generally, but there are remedies for that. Ravenswing 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said to Kevin, this isn't a "single" comment - this is months upon months of sustained attacks on editors whose sexual orientation differs from YRC's. I refer you to the last noticeboard report on the subject. I'm also not sure why the other cases are supposed to be relevant here: if you don't believe homophobic attacks on other users should be prevented, why is it a problem that other users haven't been restricted? And if you do believe such behavior should be prevented, why does YRC deserve special treatment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think YRC deserves special treatment. I think the same avenues of conflict resolution should be employed as with those other editors: RfC/RfA, complete with the expected display of diffs, as opposed to an airy reference to another thread. (That being said, do you fancy you're doing your side any good by attempting to rebut almost every Oppose proponent, sometimes uncivilly?) Ravenswing 08:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We're long past the point where an RFC/U is all that's needed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support While Off2riorob/YRC has done good work, Wikipedia should make a firm stand against homophobia. I'd be in favour of a fixed term ban on LGBT topics and issues relating to gender and sexuality on BLPs. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all LGBT related pages, broadly construed. I don't know or care if YRC is or isn't a bigot but I don't think it matters considering the consequences of his edits, which make it seem as though he is trying to marginalize homosexuals. No wikipedian, or person in general, should be subject to that kind of treatment. I also don't care if some here attempt to hammer the "queer agenda" comment out as though it's ok because gay people use the term. There is an obvious difference between naming a show "Queer eye for the straight guy" and telling someone to pack up their queer agenda. Ultimately, WP will be a more harmonious place with this topic ban and that's what matters. SÆdon^talk 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a reasonable start. As others have noted the problems aren't simply linked to LGBT issues, but if that's where the very worst cases are then we can begin there and widen any ban later if needed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I remember YRC doing good work—as Off2riorob—in the article and BLP noticeboard discussion on Jay Brannan, a gay singer/songwriter who did not want to see his life and work reduced to his sexuality, and who had asked several times to have his WP biography deleted. YRC a raging homophobe? More like the opposite. He stood up for a gay man when other wikipedians chose to torment him. Draco^E 07:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If one instance of "standing up for" a gay person is enough to make character judgments off, why isn't a sustained pattern for months and months of homophobic attacks enough? Either the evidence presented is enough or it is not enough, but you can't argue that the evidence presented is meaningless and then turn around and say "he did a good thing for one gay person this one time, let's give him a prize." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • M'kay ... I see a pattern of you badgering every contributor who opposes your views, and no willingness to give YRC the benefit of the doubt. Would you mind providing diffs for your fabled "sustained pattern … of homophobic attacks"? If you're referring to YRC’s acerbic comments during the santorum mess, maybe you should try and get friendly with the definition of sarcasm? YRC has done a world of good for BLP subjects, and you have yet to provide us with one example where he has taken out his so-called anti-queer agenda on the subject of a biography.
    • Why not look at the people you're defending? Russavia's latest bits of trolling and drama mongering include writing an article that pokes fun at Polish people and looks very much like something he wrote to provoke the Polish editors of WP whom he's banned from interacting with. He didn't go for an all-encompassing article on the countryball meme, oh no, it had to be Polandball. His article on Zhirinovsky's ass is a veiled attack piece on Russian presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov. As for Russavia's bosom buddy Fæ: this shining example of admin excellence is by now quite infamous for accusing people of homophobia whenever they rightfully question his past and present actions. But did you know that under his previous account name of Ash, he was quite the misogynist, what with making light of a BLP subject's experience of rape? I cannot recall a single instance where YRC has acted in manner that compares to what the two WP users you're defending choose to spend their time on. Congratulations. You’ve been had. Draco^E 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Russavia's qualities as an editor are irrelevant to the question of whether it is acceptable to subject Russavia to homophobic abuse. Fae's qualities as an editor are even more irrelevant. FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said. There are many and varied ways to criticize or even insult someone else's editing without insulting an entire class of people based on their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said? Guess why I'm taking umbrage with Fæ/Ash questioning an out and proud straight black woman's account of having been raped as a teenager while trying to insert a link to an adult streaming video website into her biography? Please allow me to remind you that out and proud straight black women are also an 'entire class of people'. As are Polish people. Now when exactly are you gonna stop your bad-faith meddling and deliver on those 'homophobic' BLP violations by YRC? Draco^E 02:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If by irrelevant you mean forgettable I couldn't agree with you more with regard to the actual content contributions of these two disruptive, divisive characters. Though I would never go so far as to refer to them as editors. Draco^E 02:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Person made a remark that someone else found offensive...yet at the same time, people from the LGBT community use it all the time. Yet in "outrage" to this comment, they begin labeling his responses as "homophobic". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let a free discussion reign. Buffs (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is why it's acceptable for editors to use the n-word, of course. No one's ever been blocked for that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Its a civility issue not a content one, and people need to be a little more robust in dealing with comments like that. Using obscene language generally undermines an editor's position ----Snowded ^TALK 02:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support If we are going to allow this editor to continue to participate here despite their homophobic comments, then a topic ban from LGBT is necessary. ϢereSpielChequers 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Support To an outside observer (me), this seems like a moderate and pragmatic course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoulikan (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regular oppose (not weak, not strong) by an outside observer (I don't edit LGBT articles, I don't read them - far outside of my areas of interest, along with most other social sciences - but I looked at the diffs and accusations here and did a little due diligence) on insufficient grounds. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: BLP and policy enforcement ban

Youreallycan has, unfortunately, a long-running behavioral issue. I previously discussed this in some detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan#Behavioral, not topic-based, problem. I recommend that readers of this thread should take a look. As I said on that occasion, I don't think a ban on a particular topic is going to be effective. We have seen this problem arising with a number of topics - this time it's LGBT, previously it's been British Jews, tomorrow it will be something else. Banning him from LGBT topics will do nothing to address the underlying problem.

The constant thread connecting all of these issues is that YRC has set himself up as a policy enforcer. The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan centred on his disruptive editing of a BLP under the aegis of "enforcing" BLP. A later discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob) involved his "enforcement" actions on articles related to Rick Santorum. On this occasion he has got himself into trouble over his comments in relation to an attempt to "enforce" NPOV via an AfD discussion. An LGBT topic ban would miss the point: it is not specifically the topic that is the problem, it's the pattern of behaviour related to his cack-handed attempts to enforce policy.

His contributions show that he focuses primarily on BLP and policy enforcement, areas which are notoriously prone to interpersonal conflict between editors. The bottom line is that his judgement and approach are both too flawed for him to be effective in this self-appointed role. There are many other editors who can and do manage to do this effectively. He is not one of them. For his own good as much as anyone else's, I think it would be appropriate to make him go and do something else - write new articles, contribute to DYK, help to rescue articles, whatever, but not participate in areas that are likely to lead to conflict. He should not participate further in noticeboard discussions concerning policy enforcement (including on AN, AN/I, BLPN, AfD etc) but should focus on building the encyclopedia.

I therefore propose that Youreallycan should be prohibited from (i) editing biographies of living people broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to the enforcement of Wikipedia policies anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. The Arbitration Committee should be authorised to review this prohibition after a year, taking regard of his contributions to article space during this period. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support changing of account name may have given the impression that Youreallycan intended to leave the massive long term disruption he caused to the project behind and turn over a new leaf. Unfortunately not so, anyone concerned about his recent actions which have turned Wikipedia into a battleground, should review the long history of complaints on ANI about his edits as Off2riorob (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not a playpen for Jew baiting and gay bashing; it is a pity that Arbcom and Oversight are so short of time that they seem unable to be of much practical help with these problems and some of their members appear more interested in spending their time writing replies and even creating discussions with banned users on badsites, rather than resolving their personal concerns on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As the other case of harassment against myself occurred on Boris Berezovsky article, in which I was using scholarly sources, Off2riorob took to stalking, accusing me of sockpuppetry, and generally harassing me. For context, there was an editor on the article who declared they had a close relationship with Berezovsky, and they were actively whitewashing the article in the lead up to a major court case in the UK between Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich. Here is the warning to him (in which he noted WP:DIGWUREN) and here is the trolling and harassment on my talk page. He tends to WP:OWN BLP pages, and thinks of himself as judge, jury and executioner on subjects he knows nothing about, thereby stopping knowledgeable editors who are mindful to NPOV and the like from editing articles. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. YRC/O2RR may have done some things wrong related to BLP articles (and he has certainly been too belligerent in support of his own position at times), but he has also done an awful lot of very good BLP work, and a complete BLP ban would be overkill. If there is to be any action or sanction, make it related to civility and NPA, not to the very important BLP work area. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that he's done good work, but at the same time he is racking up block after block for the same kind of thing, over and over again. At some point it has to be resolved. A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic. There are really only three workable options going forward. 1) An indefinite block, which really would be overkill. 2) Letting him continue what he's doing now but giving him some kind of civility/NPA parole. This would only partly address the problem, as the issue goes wider than that - note the edit-warring and disruption raised in previous discussions. Frankly I don't believe he has the self-control to abide by a civility/NPA parole (God knows he's had enough warnings.) 3) Requiring him to temporarily exit the fields in which he repeatedly comes into conflict with other editors, viz. BLPs and community noticeboards. I think the latter is the most proportionate and best-suited approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic" - that'll mean no BLP topic ban then? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Talk about "back-asswards logic' - Wikipedia needs more who will make sure that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are fully followed. Saying that WP:BLP should not have anyone who will seek to enforce it is absurd. And I need not point out that some who egregiously violated WP:BLP in the past per ArbCom decisions were not given this sort of overarching ban. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was a little shocked to see this outburst from Rob (I'd seen outbursts before, but not with this terminology in this area). Accusing someone of a "queer agenda" it really not kosher (Johnuniq, this may be the first time I disagree with you) and in this context I think it is homophobic. Then again, I probably also have a queer agenda, and I think Mrs. Drmies does as well; you don't need to be queer to have a queer agenda. Anyway, Rob is a valuable BLPitbull and I oppose a topic ban. I don't know what measures would be appropriate. Rob, will you PLEASE take the commentary here to heart? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  It looks like I am out of step. In real life I have inadvertently offended people with plain talk that I thought was just asserting an opinion, and I have sometimes completely missed comments made by others that were apparently an insult of some kind, so perhaps my opinion is not the best here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I keep hearing all this praise for what YRC/O2RR does in the BLP area, but the only instances of it I've actually seen have been his campaign to delete or vandalize articles related to santorum (neologism) and his attempts to delete sourced information on non-heterosexual orientations. What is this so lauded BLP enforcement, other than a convenient excuse for people who think homophobic abuse on Wikipedia is perfectly all right and/or necessary? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen it because you haven't looked. [18]. Do you want a list of all the non-sexual-orientation-related BLP issues that YRC has worked on? Frankly, that comment is unworthy of you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that outweighs the destructive edits he's made in the BLP area (but I do see POV-pushing under the banner of BLP, what else is new). Perhaps he was a good BLP contributor in the past but he has ceased to be one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insufficient grounds shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though YRC/Rob has made mistakes (who hasn't?), the evidence suggests that, in the difficult BLP area, he does much useful work - and frankly, it is desperately needed at times. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Enough protecting the real damaging elements to WP. I've had it with this "Oh, he's made mistakes, who hasn't?" He has made no mistakes. He knows exactly what he wishes to express.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are a mind reader now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose In general there needs to be more support for those who enforce policy, not enforcement against. The behavioral/civility issues can and should be dealt with, but not at the expense of disallowing enforcement. aprock (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy, Wehwalt, Drmies. BLPN had tumbleweeds blowing across it before Youreallycan showed up. If it's a functioning board today, it is to no small degree due to the effort and application he put into it. --JN466 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reply to Andy:' Andy, I am a post-reader, and came here to comment. I have already capitulated in good faith because I myself was out of order with the comment I made that I have since redacted. I suggest you do also begin to assume good faith. Now, I am outta here. Please do not place ANI notices on my page, or anything on my talk page, which I have specifically asked of you already.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See the top of this page: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so". I'll AGF when you withdraw the comments you've made about me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely not. I'm conflicted about the LBGT Topic Ban, and feel that weighing in there would require a lot more research than I want to do, but, for me, BLP-enforcement is nearly synonymous with Youreallycan (and former names). That "position", if you will, requires bluster and aggression, because I see YRC all the time have to put up with dozens of editors who simply don't understand that BLP is policy, that it is equal in policy to NPOV, V, etc, and that, no, they cannot site a gossip show to talk about an alleged scandal from 5 years ago that never actually turned into an established fact. This is extreme and unwarranted by anything I see above. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  "Requires bluster and aggression"? From the dictionary closest at hand: Bluster: "loud, aggressive, or indignant talk with little effect." Aggression: "1. hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another. 2. The act of attacking without provocation. 3. Forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests." With the possible exception of the third definition of "aggression", are these really attributes to value in an editor? Are civility and patience unwelcome in certain areas of Wikipedia? Come on. Just over a month ago on this noticeboard, Youreallycan (after losing his cool, being reported, and immediately announcing a wikibreak) claimed to have "no topic focus at all". If that's actually true, then it shouldn't be too difficult for him to avoid either LGBT-related topics or BLPs across the board. Rivertorch (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Any ban proposal made by those who have had past altercations/disagreements with the subject is D.O.A. as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the "queer agenda" comment was completely out-of-line, and I'm considering supporting the LGBT topic ban, but this proposal is completely wrong-headed. This is not the solution. LadyofShalott 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is too blunt a solution. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I wouldn't object to the discussion of an LGBT topic band if any further comments are made in the future, but this issue has spiraled into this from something much more specific than BLP issues writ large. Though the history is admittedly checkered, the user has done enough positive for BLPs, which is probably "backlogged" more than any other problem on WP, that I simply can't support such an action as this point in time. Kansan (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm sorely tempted to support this in recollection of some comments like at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Fleming Facebook post, but I don't want to set a precedent of suppressing WikiPolitical opinions, and I think it's overthinking the problem. We already have enough policies; we don't need new theories for action. When somebody violates a civility policy and a block under it is reversed as an error, it gives the impression that he's above the law, so why try to make new ones? Wnt (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I really do wish Rob would step away from the keyboard when his emotions are running high. But, if you watchlist WP:BLPN for any length of time, it is apparent how much gruntwork Rob performs in this area. Many, many violations of BLP policy would still be up on WP pages if not for his decisive (unfortunately sometimes divisive) edits. BLP issues are often intersections of the world's most contentious and insoluble ideological differences, and it's not surprising that they divide editors here, too. But, Rob, please, pretty please, stop dropping F-bombs on other editors, and try to be more sensitive in regards to sexual orientation. The Interior (Talk) 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the users that have remarked on Rob's presence over at BLPN and have had interaction with him, a lot of people try to twist WP to their advantage and one of the most shocking areas is BLP vandalism or just plain defamation, POV pushing or fanlike obsesssion with trivia, Rob is an enforcer, sometimes gruff, apparently over the top in some cases, but does good work. Quite honestly, I walked away from WP after some serious BLP wrangling on the Dominique Strauss Kahn article, personal attacks and plain nastiness, and at the time advocated a BLP dedicated patrol because of all the shit that you have to put up with, some people just don't get it policy-wise and need to be firmly told to fuck off with their POV pushing, albeit in a more civil manner. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, this proposal had suggested sanctioning him for acting as a patroller - rejecting it does not suggest confirming such a role for him. His positions in pursuit of BLP policy are extreme, and I disagree with him almost always; I just don't think his opinions about policy should be the issue here. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per what a bunch have already stated. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Under his previous account, this editor has frequently made offensive remarks, insisting that it is not possible for a person to be both British and Jewish. This is an extremely offensive and racist assertion. For some reason, he has escaped sanction over this, and now seems to be expanding his horizons by attacking LCBT people as well. There should be no place for Jew-baiting or gay=-baiting on Wikipedia, and a failure to take any steps would send entirely the wrong signal about what we want Wikipedia to be, and who is welcome here. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) figured in the departure of Blnguyen/YellowMonkey in late 2010. Since then, his persistent attempts to skew Wikipedia's coverage of South Asian history in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories has repeatedly sapped the time and morale of knowledgeable and/or expert contributors. As seen in the latest episode (and again in a previous iteration), YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial. Time and again in YK's career, this problematic editing programme is backed with non-pertinent and non-specialist sources in intense bursts of repeat reverts and talk-page spamming of questionable sources. He backs off for a time before returning, often to the same article and the same issue. This sporadicity has perhaps allowed him to dodge the blocks and other injunctions that befall other disruptively tendentious or revisionist editors not savvy enough to strategically time or space their spurious content challenges.

Nevertheless, the damage is done: again and again, as exemplified most recently at Talk:India#Aryan_Invasion_theory_oops_read_migration, experienced editors must tediously refute each of YK's formulaic challenges: fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic rewrites and removals backed by marginal or non-specialist sources. This would perhaps be OK if the editor in question were newer or less familiar with core content policies, but the episodic recidivism of YK is a different matter: a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite but otherwise of duration not less than six months, renewable upon occurrence of further disruption, would be a solution that would save time and foster more policy-compliant content contribution on both sides. Saravask 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some additional points:

• I recommend that the closing admin interpret "a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite ..." as taking the form of the first restriction placed on Zuggernaut (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log): "topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia." Presumably, as with Zuggernaut, a mentoring admin would step forward to guide/police YK with respect to the topic ban.
• Below, editors suggested that the proposed editing restriction should have been stronger, for example stating that YK's source misrepresentations and undue referencing and tendentious editing not be merely decanted from one topic (South Asian history) to another (British literature). Some seemed to hint that an indefinite site ban is required: "It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go."; "... but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke." In light of the further evidence of YK's persistent pattern of disruption (more detailed and disturbing than mine) presented below, short of a unequivocal promise to reform tendered by YK, I'd support a site ban, whether now or in future YK-related damage-control discussions.
• For now, the spirit of the proposed topic ban should ideally inform uninvolved admins dealing with YK-style disruption, whether the strict letter of this proposed ban cover the affected pages (say, on Pakistani or Indian history) or not (Dickens). If YK returns to disruptive editing (which, given his on-and-off history, is likely), the consensus that emerges here should help enact stronger future restrictions earlier rather than later in YK's next disruptive cycle.
• Several editors with greater sourcing expertise than I or more experience dealing with YK have corrected/clarified/expanded the observations above. Johnuniq, Truthkeeper88, and others point to the harm YK has done to the Charles Dickens articles by giving undue weight to sources or positions, driving away responsible editors, etc. Had I known, I'd have recommended a more wide-ranging editing restriction, perhaps by proposing enactment of point four of the Zuggernaut restrictions with respect to the Dickens articles as well as point three, allowing uninvolved admins to spot ban YK from talk pages/articles where he has been or is being disruptive.

Saravask 05:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have been watching this latest sequence and did on a couple of occasions try to explain to those who were getting drawn in by YK's fringe theories, but my experience of YK's methodology, which Saravask explains well, goes back for quite some while. Nothing is changing, nothing is being learned and the time-sink aspect is phenomenal. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This gives an idea of just how many times Yogesh Khandke's POV-pushing/undue weight theories etc have been referred to this noticeboard. There are plenty of other instances that did not make it thus far and he was, of course, involved in the politically-oriented protest at the India Wikiconference last year when he tried to obtain a legal resolution to an issue relating to WP's depiction of maps of India. He disappeared when that failed and has only recently returned to editing. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources never say that they are 'fringe' theories by 'cranks'. These are assertions from editors on Wikipedia. I am little puzzled how Sitush is silent on this facet, even if that goes against his vote.

Also Sitush and other editors are well experienced to let know if content disputes can be taken to ANI or not. My understanding says that content dispute has to be dealt with first before concluding that these are 'fringe theories'. Considering your expertise on sources, could you present sources please that state clearly that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories'. Unless it is proven that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories', such assumptions can be made against views presented by YK.

I don't think that much of what User:Saravask states such as "in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories" etc holds unless any content disputes, if any, are resolved.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Saravask describes it well. I've seen editors spending huge amounts of time trying to explain to Yogesh Khandke how we use reliable sources, how we evaluate sources, how we can't add improperly sourced fringe ideas, can't add nationalist POV, etc, but it's just not getting through and a lot of time is being wasted repeatedly going over the same kinds of things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that there are no sources presented by the involved admin himself that state the sources presented by YK are exclusively fringe theories. Per me, this is in contradiction to his statement above about his own idea of reliable sources and loses much weight especially in absence of any discussion as such on 'fringe throries' which could not be discussed on this noticeboard.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the original content disputes and this discussion of YK's behaviour. Saravask has provided links showing evidence of YK's behaviour, and the sources/fringe/POV issues are covered at those links. In order to evaluate YK's behaviour and Saravask's recommendation, I do not need to restart the content arguments here and now or provide any content sources of my own (as the sources used were presented and discussed at the time), I simply need to evaluate the evidence of YK's behaviour in those content discussions. (And by the way, I really don't think your badgering everyone who supports this recommendation is doing you any favours, you know). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify as per Johnuniq's request below, I am supporting an indefinite topic ban on editing in any topic areas related to South Asian history, in any Wikipedia space. I note other editors' opinions that there is a wider problem, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with any other areas of contention to offer my judgment on that, so I have to remain neutral on any proposals for wider sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - My understanding here is that the views per YogeshKhandke are not 'Hindu nationalist theories' or 'fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic' etc. I can say this by words present in the discussion itself such as 'contemporary scholarly debates', 'some Indian scholars', 'Some historians and Indian nationalists', 'The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists', etc. Words like scholarly debates, Indian scholars, Some historians, archaeologists etc. can hardly be described as 'fringe' groups etc - I think all the participants here in this debate need to understand this well. In any case, this is about history long ago which no one can directly prove much at all directly with certainty; much less if there is indeed a debate on such topic ongoing - more so hotly debated topics such as this. Also, western sources per my understanding do not represent exhaustive views, and quoting someone of higher repute is considered sufficient for substance, without actually going into details of all sides. For me therefore this does not merit such action, especially when sources can have diverse views and are not bound to present all views (- this needs to be better discussed per me). As far as other edits are concerned, undoing an edit is no big deal especially compared to edits put in especially with sources mentioned. I would also suggest people here, learned and experienced too, to avoid name calling on personal perceptions. An example would be 'crank' which is per individual editor's (here Fowler) choice of words to describe what he calls nationalist historians/archeologists. While being experienced and reputed on Wikipedia, this wouldn't affect the seniormost editors but it would definitely affect any not-so-senior ones in case views from one side is made to look worthless, leading to bans etc. If senior editors do it, others will learn to repeat the same behavior. I am reminded of one instance when I was involved in an ugly exchange with some senior editor who suggested something like I have sympathy for 'saffron terror' or 'saffron terrorism' or whatever, while reopening a closed vote in my absence; and got away without even a warning and that lead to a ban on me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Where were you banned or even blocked? I don't see anything in your block log. Would you mind supplying a diff? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• JanetteDoe, Thisthat2011 was topic banned per this. It has expired now. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I didn't see that. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about this topic ban [| link], the one mentioned by Sitush is incorrect. It is where I was accused one the lines of saffron terror as a reason reopening a vote which I think is not a correct way to reopen a closed vote. No one corrected either the editor not the reopening of voting.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban link to which you refer appears to be the same ban to which I referred. Am I mistaken? The fact that you more or less sat out that ban and then returned to similar topic areas and, in a fairly short space of time, end up here ... well, it does not look great. I would not have raised the issue if you had not volunteered it. My suggestion would be that in future you do not refer back to that topic ban: it had consensus and it is over and done with. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check again, these are two messages with same header for some reason! Also, my ban is over. Per instructions of the person who banned me, I am discussing this on talk pages, I have not indulged in any edit war which you may imply. I have presented my views on talk:India page too. If you have anything against it, please reply there because I have neither edited anything on that page currently, nor edited even if sources requested by me are not presented, even here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made my position clear here. I will not make any further comments other than saying that I think this discussion has turned rather fragmented, with little smaller discussions on sourcing when it is not being discussed at reliable sources board even for dispute, and more. I could have said a lot more with sources on various topics on each topic but but I think that won't be possible here with an open mind for all sides so I won't regardless as also that this looks too confusing to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I dont see anything wrong being done by Yogesh, first you may argue that he had edited the article before discussing but that action alone would not merit a ban. He did not push aside the sources presented by other editors all he displayed was that there are other theories so the sentence needs to be changed. Editors like fowler are considering few historians a cranck case and thus not considering those historians work, now this is something that can be debated. Coming to the point of Yoges pushing few Indian nationalist theory; Yogesh did provide few other sources and none of them were Indians, if he is wrong you can discard the sources but not initiate a discussion to ban him.--sarvajna (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is going no where and its getting murkier with every reply from either side. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Its high time he is topic banned. His POV pushing is wasting everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what can be added here and what cannot. This is not the first time he is doing it. He knows well that the POV he pushes cannot get consensus through discussions, so his method is to first add unilaterally, then edit war without breaking 3RR. When thwarted he will try to argue it in the talk page. He usually doesnt get his way and comes back a few months later repeating the same point or similar points. He is a colossal drain on the community's time and resources.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Yogesh Khandke replies:(1)Some of those voting here Soda, Sitush, and admin Zebeedee, a long history of conflict with me regarding content, Sitush has been hounding me for many months but I have ignored him, not to create conflict. (2)ANI isn't the forum to bring content disputes so I will not justify my edits unless asked to do so. (3)Regarding gaming the system: I don't have computer access at work, so my editing is subject to the time I have leisure, that cannot be held against me. (3)Since it is year-end, (financial year), I have limited time, so that should be considered, I mean I will not be able to watch this page, I could know about this discussion only because I received an email alert because of the message left on my talk page. (4)This ANI is used as a tool in content disputes, which is unfair. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holocaust denial: Saravask writes: "YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial.", which is nothing but a lie, all I wanted in the article was the mention that the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is disputed for which I have presented evidence, I repeat my position which is that the India article which mentions the Aryan Migration theory should also mention that the theory is disputed by academics - historians, archaeologists, experts on genetics, cultural and language scholars, I am not disputing the mention of Aryan Migration in the article, my position is that this theory is diputed by numerous NON-FRINGE, RELIABLE SOURCES, for which I have presented evidence which I have collected on a sandbox and so the India article should take cognizance of the dispute as it is NOTABLE. (sorry about bringing up the content dispute but the fatuous reference to Holocaust denial needed to be scotched.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Fowler I should add his name in the list of content disputers and one who has been frequently abusive and uncivil, however since I don't believe in formal action against fellow editors I dropped the issue after he tendered an unconditional apology - twice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The language that Fowler uses: "Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars" ", "Indian cranks" in the latest discussion.[19], when administrator Regentspark was requested to reign in the abusive Fowler (for an abuse a short while before the edit presented by the diff), admin Regentspark excused himself as an involved editor,[20] here he has no qualms in rushing to support a topic ban, he was an opposite party made by me in the historic YellowMonkey case and was admonished for batting for YellowMonkey. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Khandke is cornered he has suddenly turned saintly and is accusing me of being abusive. He conveniently forgets his own transgressions. Long before I entered this latest fray, when user:AshLin asked for my input on the current state of knowledge on the Indo-Aryan migration theory, Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested. Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Perhaps someone else who knows Marathi could translate it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Marathi, but found the proverb here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure what to make of it, but YK has a history of using vernacular expressions (which I don't understand) in exchanges with me. See, for example, user:Sodabottle's post at the bottom of this ANI thread titled Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Fowler even before you entered the discussion YK had suggested that you would ardently oppose the inclusion of the other theory(that is what the proverb mean but indirectly) which proved to be right. Yes there are incidents were your language can be very objectionable for example [[21]] where you say that it is the last time that you would consider ppl bringing other sources, I guess if I had pursued it may be there would have a been a discussion about banning me as well, calling historians whom you don't consider worthy as crank case is also objectionable anyhow the discussion here is not about Fowler's language but about YK. I feel that this whole discussion is biased against YK--sarvajna (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is more likely to be the case that the comments here reflect an emerging consensus, but time will tell. However, even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully. For example, compare this new article by him with its current state. I am still trying to fix the gross slant that he put on the thing, using for now just the sources that he has identified. It is the usual subtle "all the fault of the Brits" stuff in which he seems to specialise. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that everyone is being vindictive of YK and everything that was edited by him is being dug out, this discussion was started after he had given some evidences of sources on the India talk page. Few admins/editors have declared that nothing would change as long as they are the administrators and I feel the point of banning YK has come up because he annoys few admins POV(This is what I think after seeing the talk page of India and few other AN/I involving YK, I also know that this would not matter a lot) --sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From Sitush "even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully", does this mean that opinion of User:Sitush is more likely that the editor YK is not indulging fringe theorists in this case? just for clarity. In that case, the entire discussion may be seen in another light - perhaps a content dispute, and not what this looks like.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You ask for clarity. If I could understand the rest of your message then perhaps I could provide it. Can anyone assist? Perhaps I am a bit more than my usual dumb self today. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that YK has failed to observe WP:SPEAKENGLISH with me more than has any other editor I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. His command of English is not that poor that the vernacular (Marathi) is his only option, that he can't provide a translation, when he knows perfectly well that I do not understand a word of the language. How come he is not using Marathi (with offhanded remarks about translation) in the frenetic edits he is making on the Charles Dickens page? How come there are no "frog in the well," or "wrestling with a pig" expressions there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Further from Yogesh Khandke:(1) "On the Ganga move": www.fastcompany.com quotes Sue Gardner Wikipedia's CEO thus

She likes to tell the story of the Ganges/Ganga argument playing out now on English Wikipedia. In India, the official name for the country's second-largest river is the Ganga. The British have long called it the Ganges, a term that bears the stench of colonization for many Indians. Since 2007, there has been a spirited back-and-forth between editors about whether a search for the river should redirect to Ganga or Ganges. "There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And it's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side."

I am one of the two she mentioned. (2) The Charles Dickens' article is refered here - the result of my edits on that page was that we have a wonderfully sourced new article, whose major contributor has been user:WickerGuy, so much for non-collaborative editing accusation made by user:Spanglej, considering the sensitivity of the subject. One of my recent edit's[22] has been called

It's an excellent and worthy addition to the article. Thanks for keeping us a bit less Anglo-centric.

(3) Those who are after me with knives (metaphorically used) have company at Metapedia where I am called a "Dravidian troll", for bringing the numerous non-fringe, scholarly, notable, sources mentioning Dickens' racism to the table. (4) Closing admin Please look at this carefully (a typical example of the flimsy and false accusations): In his opening statement Saravaska calls my edit Hindutva-sympathetic, (see the very racist term used Hindutva - Hinduness, do we use terms like Christian-ness sympathetic or Wicca-ness sympathetic on Wikipedia?). What is my edit?: I removed the internal link that led lower-caste communities to Shudra; I explained in my summary: Shudra is not a community it is a Varna, the bloke cannot distinguish between a community and a Varna. (The other change was deleting the wp:Weasel most and quoting the source as per wikipedia policy - state opinion like a fact) (5) Regarding Child marriages both child and marriage are wrong in the quote –as (a) Is 18 the threshold for defining the status as child? (b) I had given many sources that explained that marriage doesn't mean that the relationship is consummated, there is another ceremony called as Gauna, which follows "marriage", "marriage" is more like a betrothal. (c) I had mentioned the Gillick Fraser competence, that allows doctors to advice and supply contraception to 12 year olds, in the United Kingdom, and wondered whether "Child marriage" was a notable mention in what admin RegentsPark lately called a "summary article". (In my opinion the skewed male:female ratio is more alarming and notable.) (5) @ALL: Sitush is trying to connect alleged real world actions with Wikipedia editing, is that allowed on Wikipedia? Is my honesty in using my real name in editing here, and in other contributions on the Internet, to be held against me? What action could be taken against an editor who levels such charges? I use my real name because it acts as an implicit censor, I can only write what I can associate with as my own work, I don't spew vitriol hiding behind an assumed name. I like to "play with my cards on the table". 6) I am happy EyeSerene's blocking action has been mentioned here, that was a kangaroo court type of decision in which I wasn't even allowed to put my point across, I wasn't editing while it was enforced, I wrote to EyeSerene, but he went for a long vacation and when he returned I just didn't have the time and energy to pursue the matter, about user:Qwyrxian he in course of a discussion extrapolated his experience with Asians he encounters as a teacher, to all Asians, making comments to the effect "Indians don't have a culture of questioning scholarship and implicitly follow persons in authority". (also see post script) The "cabal" he "modestly" confesses (NPOV and RS warriors), is a load of nonsense, the persons mentioned by him, have been demonstrated to, that they simply lack competence, they have been called "google scholars", I don't say that you need to be a "rocket scientist", but you need to know a little about the subject, so as not to confuse "varna" for "community". I must add that their incompetence is not just related to the subject that they write on, but surprise of surprises for those like administrator Zeebeedee and Qwxryian? also extend to Wikipedia policies. (7) Similarly Johnuniq, Jaga and Seb 86556, were on the winning side of an article move debate, which won because at least in that instance wp:NOTDEMOCRACY failed. @John: Kindly spare us the original research on this page, please find RELIABLE, NON-FRINGE, NOTABLE sources and make the necessary changes to the page, instead of indulging in disruption. (8) I will explain my editing pattern - I am a self-employed person, I don't have fixed hours or days, I edit whenever I have time, I have a school going daughter who needs my help with her studies, there are other social responsibilities in my community, where we have lived for about 60 years, I volunteer for a Luxembourgian NGO, helping them in their campaign; a kharicha vata (squirrel's contribution) to enable the Roma people in Europe to be able to have the same rights that other humans living there have. (9) I could reply to more insinuations but I request the closing admin to hear my side in any other matter before closing (please a note on my talk page I get email alerts), and also see the 30 odd articles I have created, to ascertain for himself/herself whether they fail NPOV or are not supported by RS, or contain UNDUE or are FRINGE, I have been verbose enough, my prose has been called obscure before. I must hang up. (Post script: see point no (6) above) Considering here, the repeated harping about "experienced editors/experts..." to me expectation of "implicit subordination” seems to be the culture of some Wikipedians. I have been called "aggressive"; if you want a submissive, fawning Indian, you are at the wrong door. If you want me here, be prepared to accept me as an equal. I have clear understanding that editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and I am careful in not abusing it. Au revoir!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban for one of the most bizarrely tendentious editors I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. user:Saravask has eloquently and precisely summarized what many of us have felt about YK's edits (most of which are on talk pages) ever since he first arrived on Wikipedia. People have cut him more slack than any definition of slack allows. It is time to end this; otherwise, productive editors will feel disheartened and be rendered unproductive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Fowler&fowler needs to rethink his stance on various issues he considers as fringe. His views are consistent that many theories are projected by 'by Indian jingoists', 'cranks', etc. Examples: [| 1], [| 2]. He is not ready to consider that there are debates on it ongoing even though sources mention so. About this comment from "The minority is too small and, in many cases, unrecognized as scholarly, to gain mention in the summary history section of a Wikipedia FA. None of the people you have quoted including Edwin Bryant or Laurie Patton are historians. As scholars of India none are even remotely in the same league as Colin P. Masica, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Burton Stein], Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Patrick Olivelle or Stanley Wolpert, all of whom have lent their support to the notion Aryan migration." I am not sure if this is the place to reply to this comment as discussion is also going on talk:India page in parallel. The sources themselves mention 'scholarly debates' etc.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Tendentious doesn't begin to describe this user, from the looks of things. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  The alteration of quotes, misrepresenting citations by cherry picking comments, misidentifying sources, reframing the debate as something it is not, etc. demonstrated here by Fowler are classic examples of tendentious pov pushing behavior. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is hardly any discussion to support the assertion that the views presented by editor YK are 'fringe theories', etc. The discussion is still going on on talk:India page. If the user regentspark finds sources that say the theories are from 'cranks' & 'Hindu nationalists', please mention sources here or on talk:India. Such assertions from experienced users without sources, without going to reliable sources noticeboard, without concluding discussion on talk:India are hardly considered appropriate on a vote according to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as per all the reasoning above. Given Yogesh's lack of concern and non-constructive edits to the respective articles, he deserves a Topic ban. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about this user just adding one-sided comment here without being involved at all. Examples of his talk page are: [| 1], [| 2]. I would therefore have comments from this user ignored.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed the whole discussion is being conducted like "my way or the highway " as mentioned above by me few editors are hell bent to ban YK --sarvajna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, attack the editors taking part in the discussion - that's sure to get people on your side ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this right, people who haven't been involved with the dispute can't add their opinions; while those who have been involved with their dispute but are in support of a topic ban are "hell bent" on getting their way. Riiiight. If anything I think its the defence that is going overboard... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1st Boing! said Zebedee if you think you are being funny you are not 2nd. I did not say that people who are not involved should not add their opinion all I meant was "they should not form an opinion just on the basis of what it is being discussed here but rather check out the matter properly" (apologies if I was not clear) --sarvajna (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This part, started from the user User:Abhijay nowhere involved in this and apparently not too well versed with Wikipedia, is going nowhere. Look just two topics above this topic [| here on the same page], which perhaps has led to the other user User:Strange Passerby here. As an admin User:Boing! said Zebedee who is on one side of discussion here could have avoided passing comments on someone on the other side like this, when it is clear which side which editor belongs to.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment here had nothing to do with Abhijay so you'd do well not to assume. I've watched this from afar for a long time, having previously had pleasant interactions with Sitush and Boing. Wait, I suppose in your eyes that makes me involved. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about User:Abhijay, see where this is going? Editors on one side writing about editors on the other side and then more!!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. You're not making coherent sense. You suggested that I was "led here" because Abhijay posted about me to the board. I'm saying my taking part in this discussion has nothing to do with that. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected then. I suggested that perhaps you were checking on his edits and then saw this discussion and then added your opinion. In any case, it does not affect your view. Though still I am not sure how much weight is carried by the opinion of User:Abhijay. Perhaps your could clarify about it, even if his comment does not support your view.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys c'mon. Abhijay is a good faith, but new, editor. He has obviously not long found this board and has tried to comment and contribute. Any competent closing administrator will be able to see that train of events and weight his contribution accordingly. Piling on each other, based on his comment, is not going ot help either him - or you. In fact it's probably pretty off putting all round. Lets chalk this up and move on. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as I have seen the POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period—it will never end voluntarily. However, I am concerned that a topic ban from South Asian history would leave YK more free time to cherry pick negative commentary to inflate stuff like Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism—the central problem is not so much South Asian history as a misunderstanding of what is DUE. When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place, and an article highlighting alleged racism and anti-Semitism of Dickens completely misses the point, and should not be tolerated at a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The editor himself says that "When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place", but does mention the topic here, without commenting on whether the editor disputes any sources and how the sources 'inflate' stuff etc.. The topic in that era, 'inflate stuff', etc. do not matter in any case; and so would be the editor's perception of POV based on Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The central problem is that for any major topic like India or Charles Dickens there will be literally thousands of sources that could be argued to satisfy WP:RS (and similar sources might be adequate for unsurprising text in other topics). However, when a thousand sources have written about Dickens, it is inevitable that some of them will have chosen to interpret Dickens' writings as racist or whatever. It is not satisfactory for an editor to find such sources and create articles based on them (that is undue cherry picking, aka WP:SYNTH). For major topics like these, there are hundreds of high-quality scholarly sources written by acknowledged subject experts, and it those sources that should be used for a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that YK has stopped anyone from editing the page. If you think it is biased, then use the talk page of that article. Have you added any content or made any efforts at it to dispute sources etc. before claiming that he is cherry picking, even without any discussion.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is this discussion heading to? Some dispute that needs to be settled on the talk page is being brought up here in support of a topic ban --sarvajna (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to "POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period" and explaining that it is easy to cherry pick POV commentary from sources for major topics—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Really? You imply here that 36,031 bytes page size with 39 references used in it is a baised point of view? Forget the page size. I can stretch articles to huge lengths (just like Dicken's writings). But 39 valid independant references does not seem like something that can be ignored and not included in an article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If the Johnuniq has consistently made, for which he has not provided any sources, the similar/same assertions about all users with views on the side of YK on the topic Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism, his opinion would have weight per me. Otherwise his views are not consistent w.r.t. editors.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Two points i want to say....
  1. As i see, most of the comments by editors here are complaints based on content dispute on various articles. I have observed a few threads here at ANI which keep on saying that content dispute should be addressed on a seperate forum assigned just for resolving those and ANI shall not be used to deal with it. So... if all the complaints are based on content dispute, this is a wrong place! Furthermore, I do not understand why the editors against YK's edits are actually against YK. Most of his edits which are called as "Undue" here actually are well referenced. 50:1 ratio will be called as undue. But i dont see such a huge ratio here. He clearly cites more than one references about various points he includes. I dont call it undue. All editors here should understand that Wikipedian editors should be neutral about the subject, but at the same time keep in mind that Wikipedia's aim is to be information bank which can be used for research. If contradictory views of reliable sources present on the topic are not mentioned in the article, i will call that as undue. Also, wikipedia articles are never complete. One must hence always assume good faith in other editors and not disregard the chance that something more of same sort might exist in other places which is yet not covered and brough to wikipedia. Building of articles might take long time and as wikipedians are not bound to do anything for wikipedia, it is unfair to assume that facts mentioned are Undue.
  Come on! Isnt it really good to have all views about a topic mentioned?
  2. As few ediotrs have pointed out above, other few editors who have not been involved in these topics should not vote here as Support or Oppose. I request them to change their views from Support or Oppose to "Comments". Although i do trust that admins who go through this would "read" carefully, i also trust in errors that humans can do. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 1) No, this is not itself a content dispute, it is about YK's chronic tendentious *behaviour* in content disputes and his repeated attempts to push his own POV against policy and against consensus. As a behavioural issue, this is a perfectly valid venue for it.

• Meant to add - A Wikipedia article is not a repository for every opinion ever aired on a subject or a place to publish all views, with each given equal weighting - that's not what balance is all about. A Wikipedia article is supposed to balance various views in accordance with the weighting given to them in the real world, by academics and experts as published in reliable sources. Fringe theories and minority views should only be included in proportion to the support they get in the real world, as support by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 2) Anyone is allowed to support or oppose the suggestion as they please, even if they have not been involved in these topics. In fact, previously uninvolved people examining the presented evidence with fresh eyes can be of great benefit - if YK is innocent of the charges, surely that's what they'll decide when they review the evidence, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We live in an age when even the craziest assertions can be traced to someone who has already made them in a public forum. It doesn't make the assertion sourced, especially not to a reliable source. I have written most of the history section of the long-standing FA India. It is sourced to impeccable sources. I have tried to use textbooks on the history of India that are used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the best universities around the world and published by well-known academic publishers. The reason for this is that such textbooks have been vetted for balance. Many editors try to insert one-sided points of view into the India article, sourced to poor unreliable sources. They are usually dealt with on the article talk page. However, when an editor does this relentlessly, dozens, indeed scores of dozens, of times, it becomes a behavioral problem. When an editor does this with full knowledge of what he is doing, it becomes a behavioral problem. I don't appear at ANI that often. Perhaps one or twice a year. Let me state very definitively: Yogesh Khandke is likely the worst (and certainly one of the worst) of the tendentious editors I have had the sad privilege of encountering in my six years on Wikipedia. If editors here seem against him, he has only himself to blame. He has wasted an enormous amount of time of law-abiding, content creating, editors. It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that these days we can find source for assertion made but who is to decide what is crazy and what is not? call it crazy if it not in match with your POV? --sarvajna (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not exist if this sort of solipsism were the norm here. Figuring out what to include and what to exclude is not a question of "matching with your POV" (unless a POV is the only thing an editor brings to the encyclopedia). Rather, it is a question of incorporating whatever is the consensus view amongst scholars. "Most historians" captures that adequately. However, the larger issue here is Khandke's tendentious behavior rather than what is "right" or "wrong". I'm perfectly happy to discuss insertion of new material but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's decided by consensus in discussion (see WP:Consensus), and once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

you are right Boing! said Zebedee, but a consensus was never reached, all the sources provided were discarded by few editors neither there was any third opinion on the matter --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a unanimous decision with everybody agreeing, it means an evaluation of the arguments made in accordance with policy. Having re-read a number of previous disputes, I see YK repeatedly trying to misrepresent sources, and pushing minor sources against arguments made in full compliance with Wikipedia's Reliable sources policy. And I see far more than three opinions offered in those disputes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was extremely dramatic of HumorThisThat to over-react about my comment about Yogesh. Do not assume things the way you think them to be HumorThisThat. So stop being such a dick. Ab hijay  ☎

sarvajna, The history section of the India page was rewritten during a few months in Spring (April through June) 2011 during a lengthy FAR of the page where dozens of experienced FA and FAR hands were watching, and finally supporting. If that is not consensus, what is? Where were you guys then? It has been a year since. All the Hindu nationalist fringe theorists whose opinions you are impaling us with had already had their various epiphanies about the topic by then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fowler you are talking about a discussion that had taken place almost a year ago, are you suggesting that nothing should change after the edits that were made? Consensus was never reached during the last discussion, I am not referring to something that happened over a year ago. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Boing! and Fowler: "Once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again" is wrong. Consensus can not be necessarily permanant. New experienced/inexperienced editors keep on coming to newer topics. Newer sources can be found. Thus consensus can very well change. (Its written somewhere in some policy. You all probably know where.) I dont understand how re-raising an old point again is a problem. You all very-well give references to age-old fights when you want someone blocked! You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you? An editor who believes in something and wants in it the article has every right to discuss it to introduce the content he wants. He ofcourse needs consensus. When YK (or anyone) re-raises the discussion, the editors who said no to it last time jump in again and again say no. The intention of re-raising the subject is to partly see whether old editors' views have changed and partly see if new editors have arrived who agree with him. If old editors' views are still same, they need to say that. But that does not mean they close the discussion and not allow newer editors to ponder. Hence i find you all also faulty here. It takes two to fight.
As to my 2nd point above.... Editors are surely welcome to post their views here. But the main topic here is discussion on "topic" ban. Its not a montly meet of I-Hate-YK Club. User:Abhijay is supporting ban for some reason. I havent understood what the reason is. (& why is he now poking in my space?) User:Johnuniq is also supporting ban for some Dicken's article. How is that related? Its like, "Yesterday he bumped me and my icecream fell. Let me say that this has nothing to do with the topic. But i say Block him!" -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point about consensus not being unchangeable - and yes, past consensus decisions can be revisited. But when it's the same points, with the same old arguments, and the same old sources, brought up again and again and again, it really starts to move away from the fair re-examination of past consensus and towards tendentious disruption. As for "You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you?", if they really were bygones I'd be delighted to let them go. But the whole reason for this proposal is that it is YK who won't get them go, and instead keeps starting up the same old POV-pushing and refusal to follow sourcing and NPOV policy over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And PS: As for why User:Abhijay has offered an opinion, I can't answer for him, but how about the possibility that he clicked on the links provided, read what they linked to, and formed his opinion based on that? You know, try a bit of WP:AGF? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• What the hell is the matter if I just support a ban. It's my account (yes, i just renamed) , I have the right to edit, so what on earth is the big deal. I've had a view of Yogesh's contributions, and you have to admit that they are extremely disruptive in nature. Now let's stop creating such a huge battleground situation here. It is purely unethical. Arguing all over and moving all over the place isn't helping anyone, nor it is helping yourself. Oh god, this stuff just turned a lot more all-over. First a discussion about a ban about Yogesh, then some guy over-reacts about my comment and then moves on to a blocking of another editor. Good grief guys. Well done for screwing up this whole thing. I will contact an admin about your behavior if this condescends into a more stupid matter. Soviet King (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (Moved this comment up to the appropriate section so it's clear what it's replying to - hope you don't mind, Soviet King -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! and also others: Lets take this example.
User:Spanglej on 22 February 2012 says at Talk:Charles Dickens "Yogesh, you have banging this drum for more than two years. It seems you are advancing a personally held political position. The article is not a soapbox nor a vehicle for political promotion."
What we have after YK's so called "drum banging", "advancing personally held political positions", "persistent and tendentious modus operandi", etc. is Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism with numerous reliable sources and a completely valid self-standing article. Various editors opposed him when the Dicken's discussion started. But looking at the present condition of the article we see how YK's editings were right and other editors were just not ready to accept that. I know that they still disagree with points of undue weightage and POV. But numerous independant references on that article give different image than what these other editors hold. The conculsion here is, all the so-called YK's views on Dickens are not really his views. Had other editors been considerate enough to view this material properly at the start, YK wouldnt have needed to be tendentious. Again, it takes two to fight! And after proving himself right at Dickens one should seriously think that others, and not YK, can also be wrong. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not about "right" and "wrong". It is about consensus, reliable sources, correct quotations, balance, cherry-picking, pov-forking and numerous other issues. I'd wager a bet that there is much that is dubious in the article to which you have linked, simply because that is YK's modus operandi (and it can be seen in umpteen comments he appears to have made a various blogs, news websites etc). However, any review of the article by me will have to wait until Sunday. Suffice for now to say that his recently created articles concerning Indian news media/people have been pretty woeful and, yes, non-neutral. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, it is about being right & wrong. Other editors repeatedly said he was wrong and these were his own opinions on Dickens. When given time, he proved his points were not his own but of other reputed writers backing with sources. And to his modus operandi of being tendentious and sometimes aggressive and annoying one should blame opponent stubborn editors. Frankly speaking, if YK is able to fight all these obstinate editors he is doing a brilliant job. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, you're generally a reasonable editor. But, classifying misquoting and cherry picking sources as a "brilliant job" does not become you. I don't see any problem with reasonable discourse but, when an editor cannot be trusted to correctly quote sources, then we're better off without that editor. It is this 'no holds barred in getting my POV across' attitude that is detrimental to this encyclopedia. And, when that 'no holds barred' editor also calls the theory he does not like a fairy tale or attempts to recast it as an obviously discredited theory, then there is little doubt of that editors intentions (and little doubt that the net result is going to be not good for wikipedia). I should also add that Khandke's tendency to frame debates as an 'us Indians' vs 'them colonialists/westerners/whatever' is also extremely bad for the encyclopedia. Not only does it make otherwise well meaning editors think that 'India' is under attack, it also leads to a tendency to discount scholarly sources and research. And, scholarly sources are the only independent yardstick by which the quality of this encyclopedia is measurable. --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Firstly sorry that i did not reply to your upper post. I did not notice it. Usually when debatable discussions get this long and non-followable i quit them and say do whatever you want. That is a reason for me calling his work as brilliant. Cherry-picking and misquoting is obviously wrong. But thats what other editors can check and correct. That doesnt mean indefinite ban. I dont see "We have to rework on whatever he does" as a reason for ban. As to tendentious behaviour towards a group of editors i have already said before that those editors are to be blamed for it. It seems to be natural that he has to be aggressive while fighting alone against many others. That is not a reason for indefinite ban. But that can very well be a reason for controlling/monitoring discussions on these topics between YK & those editors. Does it mean over work? Yes! But over work is not reason to ban. These matters are all content disputes which can be handled without ban. Considering the fact that all of his edits are well sourced, we know that he is usually not writing something wrong but is surely bringing a contrasting view than the one that dominates the whole article. I see that as a good thing as it makes article unbiased. If he is banned, how do you propose to handle these points when he is not supposed to talk about them? Wont that be a lose?
When i read Wiki articles i mostly consider them to be full. Even after becoming an editor here i mostly find it difficult to add something to an article which seems full. If YK is being able to add something new to a long standing FA (which one can call as stagnant and something that the then-editors thought of), it is a good thing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Now merely translating my views for clarity as "Oppose" from "Comment". -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support solely on the basis of behavior. User's modus operandi is persistent and tendentious; had experience with YK on the Ganges-move odyssey. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I have just reverted the latest personal jibe from Humour Thisthat2011 against User:Soviet King (formerly Abhijay), which raised events that were nothing to do with this discussion. I would caution Humour Thisthat2011 to remember his previous bans for aggressive behaviour, and stop the unwarranted personal criticism of a good faith editor who has every right to offer his opinion in this discussion. Humour Thisthat2011, you need to calm down and stop throwing mud at people, stick to discussing the issue at hand, and try assuming good faith occasionally. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I would like to disagree, Humour Thisthat2011 had to support his previous argument about Soviet King's unwarranted display of support for the ban without really looking into the matter properly and it was also very much required in view of Soviet King's indirect threat(as written above by Soviet King) and its very much required now--sarvajna (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And you are guilty of exactly the same kind of Bad Faith behaviour - there are no justifications to the accusations that other contributors have not "looked into it" properly, and nobody has to satisfy you or him that they have. If your only tactics here are to throw dirt at those with whom you disagree, then you really are only damaging your own case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Humour Thisthat2011 provided proper justification but you reverted it --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know? Because that's all that's happening here with the attacks on Abhijay. How about discussing the actual arguments people present here rather than trying to throw dirt at them personally? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had already given my closing comment under my vote but I felt I have to reply, what do you mean by "Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know?" please refrain from using such language. I was referring to the evidence(the page history) that was given by ThisThat2011 which atleast shows that Soviet King made a decision in a hurry. I will not drag it further, I feel I have made my point. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"You people" is a second-person plural phrase, referring in this case to you and ThisThat2011. What on earth is wrong with that? And no, the "evidence" given by ThisThat2011 showed no such thing - no number of diffs can possibly show anything about when somebody read something or whether they were previously aware of an issue. But having said that, I've spoken to ThisThat2011 on his Talk page, and I will accept that he did not mean it as an attack. However, if you wish to carry on criticizing someone else's ability to form their own decisions, then I'll leave it to the closing admin to judge. The closing admin will be someone uninvolved, and will judge consensus based on the policy-based arguments presented on the subject of YK's behaviour, and I would strongly recommend that that's what you should stick to if you wish to influence the outcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, stop using such language against Boing. He's clearly trying to help mediate, and I did not use a indirect threat. If I gave you a threat, I would end up getting blocked by Boing! right now. I've wasted enough time here. Good luck to the next person reviewing this.

Arbitrary break

• Comment - can't comment on the topic ban, but something needs to be done, and I think a RfC/U might the direction to take. Yogesh's edition style is clearly tendentious and off-putting. Charles Dickens is a page with between 8000 to 10,000 views per day, yet his edit warring there and the pattern of his contributions to the article and talk - page has driven away editors who would have pitched in for a rewrite of the page [23]. This goes far beyond a content dispute, it's a pattern that drives away editors who are willing to make useful contributions. That's a problem in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times YK has been here, I don't think an RfC/U is needed. Specifically, I call attention to the comments of the last person who blocked YK:

I've blocked Yogesh Khandke for one week, both for the utterly unacceptable comment he made regarding MatthewVanitas's edits and for the other evidence presented above of his ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I had considered an indefblock because I strongly believe that users who make the editing atmosphere unpleasant for others are a net negative, no matter what content edits they've made, and we're better off without them. Editor recruiting and retention is a growing issue and combative attitudes are actively destructive. However, I decided to to err on the side of caution... although I consider any return to editing after the week is up in the light of WP:ROPE. Review welcome as always, EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

An RfC/U would ultimately just waste time, since they can't result in any formal sanctions, and the ANI history alone should be sufficient for a full topic ban. And if that's not enough, then I strongly recommend reading the discussions on Talk:Charles Dickens. I'll admit I've only read part of them, because it's extensive.

Disclaimer, just to save YK and his defenders time: I'm one of those involved editors who is unfairly prejudiced against YK from the past, who has been engaged in a long-standing witch-hunt against him and others, and who is a part-time member of the Sitush-Boing-Fowler-MatthewVanitas cabal (you know, that cabal that wants Wikipedia to follow devilish rules like WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Do an RfC/U, if need be. JN466 13:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• As Qwyrxian says, a RfC/U is not likely to achieve much. We've gone past the point where it would be useful. Yogesh knows exactly where he stands with regard to his Wikipedia life and has known this for some considerable time now, but nonetheless chooses to continue with more of the same. Classic battleground stuff, in fact. As with Zuggernaut and MangoWong (both of whom seem to have decided to retire), he holds some very firm anti-colonial etc views and they massively affect his ability to understand that there are other viewpoints, let alone that his own are fringe-y. His cherry-picking and misquoting is also not a new thing and does rather suggest that it is a deliberate attempt to subvert our policies. RfC/U will merely result in another visit to this noticeboard at some point in the near future. If we're lucky, it may not be until July but past history suggests that he is likely to be around in April and then absent May/June, so I wouldn't bank on it being so long before we are back here. This might be interesting, although I am deaf & cannot hear it. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting there is something wrong with having firm anticolonial views, or that such views are "fringe-y"? Last time I looked, colonialism had decidedly gone out of fashion. I will not stand by and watch people who have their own NPOV problems take out an opposing editor through summary justice at AN/I, just because we have more Western than Indian editors here, and each group comes to the topic with their own favourite literature and perspective. --JN466 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that's not it. I understand Sitush's mention of "very firm anti-colonial etc views" to be a coded way of saying that certain editors are overcompensating for past oppressions, and they look for ways to poke the former colonialists. That would be excellent if it were confined to giving a WP:DUE summary from typical scholarly works. However, as noted above, with enormous topics like India or Charles Dickens there are literally thousands of marginally reliable sources that have written from just about every conceivable angle, and cherry picking from those marginal sources allows an editor to insert almost any desired slant. For example, it is extremely undue to pick Dickens out from all the people alive worldwide in 1850 and assert that Dickens was racist—the truth is that the world is a very different place since then, and while an article on how views have changed in the last 150 years would be good, using cherry-picked dubious or primary sources (rather than comprehensive scholarly works written by acknowledged experts) is not satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, here's my take on this. I consider myself pretty strongly anti-colonialist, and I am of the firm opinion that the British in India committed massive abuses and atrocities. The British Empire was not glorious and heroic, it was a shameful episode of history - as were the colonial conquests of the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. But the answer to that is not to re-write the history of India from a Hindu Nationalist POV - that would be no more acceptable than having, say, the history of the UK written by a British Nationalist group. We need to write our Wikipedia articles on India in as neutral and well-documented a way as possible. And to do that, we should weight them based on the best academic sources we have available. We should not allow cherry-picking from all manner of minor and fringe sources to try to right past wrongs or change unfavourable history, and we should have no room for anyone who repeatedly edit-wars to adopt such a tendentious approach. That's what I think is meant here, and it really is the only way an encyclopedia should be written. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Frankly, I get worried if the first diff given in evidence of an editor's malfeasance sees him citing Cambridge University Press and the Times of India, the second cites the University of Michigan Press, and I then see him accused of citing fringe sources. Fringe sources? If you want to make a case that he cites fringe sources, don't come with University Press sources that actually happen to bear out what he says. --JN466 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Nobody here is claiming that *all* the sources he has ever cited are fringe sources - but much of the criticism here is that, amongst other things, he has frequently misrepresented reliable sources (and again, nobody is saying that *every* citation he has given is misrepresented). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Yeah! No one is saying he is *everytime* wrong. But they are just saying, lets block him so that he can never be wrong neither right! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq: Why do you call "picking" Dickens by YK as undue? Because Dickens is non-Indian and YK is Indian? Is that the reason? Is there some rule that editors cannot edit articles related to other projects? And whats wrong in writing about Dickens' racism if it existed? Being 150 years old doesnt make it go away. Its like saying after 100 years we should edit Hitler and remove all material related to Holocaust because the world is a very different place since then. As you are free to edit any article here, so is he. Wikipedia is not compulsary. If he edits about Dickens' racism he is not bound to write about how racism has reduced in 150 years. Nor is he bound to right about everyone's or anyone else's racism to prove he hasnt unduely picked Dickens. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't care where editors come from. In a 100 years there will still be lots of scholarly sources that accurately describe Hitler and the Holocaust. It's getting off-topic so this will be my final explanation here regarding my attitude towards Dickens. What would be very interesting (if suitable sources are available) would be an article on how different are the attitudes between typical people from 1850 and today. If a time machine transported a typical person from just about any country in 1850 and got them to live in society today, it is highly likely we would be shocked by their toilet habits, table ettiquette, views on gender and race equality, and opinions regarding a wide range of human activities. However, to pick one person from 1850 and declare that their attitudes were unacceptable is UNDUE as it fails to mention that something similar could be said for most people from that period. It would be fine to state that Dickens was racist if that is the conclusion from scholarly sources written by acknowledged experts in the topic of Dickens and the history of the period. This is very similar to the Shakespeare authorship question where hundreds of arguably reliable sources have written just about every conceivable conclusion about Shakespeare, and one editor could easily "prove" that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works, while another could do the same for Oxford (people claiming to be expert have supported seventy different candidates as being the author). The only way for progress to occur at Wikipedia is for major topics (where hundreds of marginally reliable sources are available), is for articles to be based on the major scholarly works written by acknowledged experts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Oooooh dear! You are at the wrong address. You should post your request for new article Difference of attitude between typical people from 1850 and today at Wikipedia:Requested articles. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

To Jayen466, Please don't flatter the sources that YK pushes by calling them anti-colonial. The Hindu nationalist cranks that are pushing the "Out of India" theories on various Hindu nationalist website have no history of anti colonial views. They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him. They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim. (This also goes for the Hindu nationalists' confused western sympathizers such as Konraad Elst and David Frawley.) The problem with YK other references (Cambridge, University of Michican) is that he quotes them deceitfully. Gavin Flood, for example, that he quotes in support of his views, says clearly at the outset that the most widely-believed theory to date is that of Indo-Aryan migration. He then says that lately there have been some other views, but then goes on to himself support a revised Indo-Aryan migration based on the work of Asko Parpola. What does YK do? He deliberately says nothing about Floods opening paragraph, saying nothing about his revised views; he only mentions the one sentence about their being other views! I'm afraid Yogesh Khandke is about the worst of deceitful POV pushers I've seen on Wikipedia. The earlier he is topic banned from South Asian history, the better it will be for Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, this would not be a place to showcase your political opinion about "Hindu Nationalist" and you know that very well. Please keep your personal opinion out of this discussion and would not suit an admin editor to make statements like "They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim." also Hindu Nationalist were equally fighting for freedom and your statement "They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him." is insulting and false. --sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

would not suit an admin to make statements like "They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim." Who said Fowler&fowler was an admin? Has the camp defending YK gone to the lengths of making up positions of power for people to discredit them? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was meant to be a generic one. I have made the correction( I hope it had not created a lot of confusion, you are pointing out a small typo but have nothing to write about my comment??)--sarvajna (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi sarvajna. I do think your comment has merit, and I think the comment you replied to strayed too far into personal political opinion. But I also think it is important to distinguish between Hindu nationalism and anti-colonialism, because the two are not equivalent (although, of course, it is possible to be in both camps). We are talking here about the pushing of a Hindu nationalist agenda, and are not suggesting sanctioning someone for being anti-colonialist (if we did the latter, I think we'd have to ban just about everyone here). And I think that's something that needs to be made clear to whoever takes on the daunting task of evaluating the consensus here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee if I was not clear let me restate it, comments like "They made their first notable appearance....are all virulently anti-Muslim." and ""They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle..." may be Fowlers own opinion and they need not be discussed here, that is all I wanted to convey in my reply. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you on that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I agree that fowler's opinions should not be discussed here, to be fair to him he was responding to JN466's comments about western editors and Indian editors. Fowler's point was that the material pushed by the Indian editor in this case, YK, is neither representative of what is accepted by academic historians nor is it representative of the view of Indians in general but that it arises from a group that is particularly good at pushing its own agenda. We should focus more on what reliable sources say and less on where a particular editor happens to come from, especially when someone is misquoting and misrepresenting scholarly work (all to easy in this age of google) to push their pov across. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Ganges move debacle was a long time ago. If Yogesh hasn't learned how to contribute constructively by now, he must have decided not to change. Tendentious editors like Yogesh are a poison to the community, as Saravask's evidence shows. --JaGa^talk 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Request Please make it a bit clearer what is being supported/opposed. Obviously those opposing want no sanction, while those supporting are wanting a topic ban per the original request, namely South Asian history. However, subsequent comments have claimed a wider problem, and some of the more recent supports are worded in a way that suggests that something more is being supported. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Fowler&fowler comments above; the danger of the disruption moving elsewhere is also noted and it might be best to add probation on disruptive editing to the ban proposed here. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. He doesn't seem to want to work collaboratively. I would suggest general ban. Span (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment - just to note that nothing is changing even while this thread continues. This revert of a YK edit is a direct consequence of the subtle "colonial" POV pushing - the press agency in question was effectively shut down by the government of the newly-independent government of India, as per statements in sources that YK seemed to choose to ignore. The article was poor when created by YK and still needs some work but there really is no need to phrase things as they were prior to my revert. As a consequence of my expansion the lead section needs a rewrite, but the gratuitous insertion of "colonial" is not the way to do it. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I dont see any harm in using some adjective for India in that sentence. But if you object using "colonial India" do you prefer "pre-Independence India" instead? -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [24], [25] and [26] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[27] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [28], [29], [30] and [31].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [32].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[33] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [34]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[35] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [36]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[37], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[38] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[39], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[40], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[41], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[42], and falsely attributing comments to me[43]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[44][45], after indicating something was only his opinion[46][47], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[48][49], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[50].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [51],[52]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [53] and "windbaggery" [54]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[55]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

• It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
  
• It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).
  

For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [56],[57],[58],[59]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [60]
Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [61] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam makes various out-of-context claims above about my past edits he's selected, most of which he accused me of back in 2010 based on his fixated efforts of trawling through my edit history for various edits from years before that, to which I've previously responded here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.

AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.

Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".

AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that the reason he doesn't properly address editor disputes at User Talk is because of a guideline stating, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do." However, AuthorityTam's constant belittling and attacking motives of editors with whom he does not get along absolutely constitutes interaction, and not in any way that can be seen as conciliatory. If AuthorityTam were to actually apply that guideline, he would stick to content, and rely on the merits of content-related arguments at article Talk pages, and he would follow correct avenues of dispute resolution if there are problems with editors. If he feels so unsure that his views can be supported on their own merits without making attacks on other editors' motives, then he should review the quality of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.

The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AuthorityTam is now also canvassing for support at an article Talk page. I see this has already been linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumption?? There's nothing to assume (or presume). AuthorityTam linked to this ANI from an article Talk page, with a false claim that other editors are trying to have him banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Fazilfazil, AuthorityTam has extremely weak defences to my accusations. He has provided a very lame and unconvincing excuse for repeatedly using the "aka LTSally" phrase; he does escalate arguments by constantly referring back to events from years earlier (often twisting comments and misrepresenting editors to inflame the situation); his level of invective, bile and taunting are proof that he makes little effort to collaborate harmoniously with other editors. I do not expect other editors to always agree with me, and I have disagreed with you in the past. Yet we remain civil and respectful. AuthorityTam treats editing here as a sport and craves conflict. That is the conduct I want him to stop. BlackCab (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading through all this again, it's obvious that AuthorityTam sees nothing wrong with his antagonistic and hostile behaviour, is completely unrepentant and very clearly intends to continue in the same vein. He refuses to put the past behind him and views historic offences as justification for more combative and inflammatory conduct. All this in a community that demands cooperation and collaboration to work properly. His ongoing comments and his responses in this thread strongly suggest personality and behavioral issues: where others try to identify issues and resolve them, he flails out with "you did it too!" accusations, refuses to engage with other editors and simply escalates problems. The initial trigger for this ANI notice was his strange "aka LTSally" tactic and despite the observations of others that it serves no purpose -- and my direct appeal to him to cease -- he has decided to continue to do it. The lack of admin involvement in this complaint is disappointing and AuthorityTam will almost certainly read this as a green light for more of his ugly and infantile behaviour. Where to from here? BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Though I am somewhat uninvolved in this discussion and haven't read the particular comment thatBlackCab has found to be offensive, I did run across the ANI and after reading most of it, I thought I would interject a comment as a personal observation. I apologize in advance, as at least two editors will likely find my comments to be somewhat offensive and objectionable, but in consideration of the setting, I will make them here only. I would have to completely agree 100% with AuthorityTam's observation that " For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia" as looking back at the edit history and actions of editors Jeffro77 and BlackCab they have demonstrated a Pattern of working as a tandem force in not only attempting to add negative POV spin to Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, but also in being disruptive towards other editors good faith, well sourced edits, which they seem to consider not negative enough to suit their personal tastes. Examining their edit histories, I have noted a pattern of both editors bringing ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses, accusing them of numerous offenses [62][63][[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. I could go on and on but it would be tiresome to look for all the instances where these two editors have worked in tandem to discredit and harass editors who they deemed pro Jehovah's Witness, either with reports to ANI or through reverting good faith edits with nonsensical excuses such as "too much detail" or "belongs on a different article page and not this one"(paraphrase) These two editors have shown a "historical pattern" of being both disruptive and also uncivil. Personally I think they are more than just a tandem working in conjunction(WP:Meatpuppet), I personally have a suspicion they may be the same editor(WP:Sock), but have no solid evidence to demonstrate this. I also have a suspicion they may be using several other user id's to give a false impression of consensus and to aid in the harassment of others on a continuous basis, but again an lacking in evidence to truly present such as an accusation, thus I have only my own suspicion to rely upon. As a very new editor I was even reported by these two editors, falsely I might add, for sockpuppetry the very day I established an account[75], because a friend of mine signed up for an account and used my computer to complete an AFD nomination I had started as a IP address. I explained to them the situation[76], but they reported me as a sockpuppet regardless, because their intent is to be insidious to editors they perceive to have a pro Jehovah's Witness stance. Personally I think these two editors should be at a minimum barred from editing the same page, talk or article, within a 31 day time frame. I further, think that consideration should be given to barring them from editing Jehovah's Witness related pages altogether, and quite possibly barring them from editing pages associated with religion in general is not out of the realm of being reasonable as they have demonstrated a historical pattern of uncivil behavior, as well as disruptive edit warring and WP:tendentious editing on these particular type of pages. Willietell (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If Willietell would like to examine each of the ANI complaints listed (of which I think I have only ever made one) he will find the complaints were about clear cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry and generally strongly supported by other editors. The JW pages have certainly attracted a range of very oddball editors over the years. His comments are ignorant in the extreme. He is very welcome to examine any edit of mine in the past year and report me for either uncivil or disruptive behaviour if he sees it. He is also very welcome to request an investigation into his allegation against me of sockpuppetry. His suggestion that Jeffro and I are the same person is fanciful. It's disappointing to see him offering unquestioning support to an editor who is so clearly working in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of collaboration. Evidently whether one is "for" or "against" the JWs determines whether one is a cooperative and productive editor or not, and whether one's appeal for improved behavior has any validity. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell is not "somewhat uninvolved" at all. It is unsurprising that Willietell has also come to attack my motives, and he is really not a stellar witness in support of AuthorityTam. It is also entirely unsurprising that Willietell would support a pro-JW editor and oppose editors who do not support every positive statement about the religion. He began editing in December 2011 under anonymous IPs, making claims that the entire Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article is "POV spin" and that it should be deleted, and later made false claims that it is "an attack page", and then made a false allegation of a copyright violation, showing he's not above lying to suit his ends. He claims that any statement about JWs he doesn't like to be "POV spin" (he uses this stock phrase incessantly, particularly when he has no real other argument against something) though the many responses at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted to his initial barrage of claims were shown to be completely unsupportable by a wide range of editors. Willietell claims above that I have reported editors on the basis of them being in favour of JWs (though this is particularly irrelevant, as I didn't report AuthorityTam). This claim is entirely false, and examination of each of those cases will show that user conduct was the problem in every instance. Willietell also conveniently ignores cases I have raised against editors making negative false claims about JWs and other issues. I don't have time to trawl for an exhaustive list as does Willietell, but for example see [77].

I had to stop to laugh out loud when I read that Willietell is actually claiming BlackCab and I are the same person. I really don't know how I would manage edit conflicts with myself while logged on as a different user (let alone change residence). I can type pretty quickly, but not that quickly. Please, please do a CheckUser, then Willietell can publicly apologise. It's quite clear that Willietell's many strange (and conveniently vague) suspicions that I (and/or BlackCab) am a sockpuppet of "several other user id's" is a fairly desperate attempt to discredit me—this allegation really sounds like "tin foil hat" stuff, and I look forward to hearing from the other editors whom Willietell believes to be me. If/when Willietell proposes any actual username(s) or any actual evidence, again, do a CheckUser, and then Willietell can apologise. Willietell's own case of being reported for sockpuppetry was entirely reasonable—after he could not complete an AfD of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as an IP editor he 'threatened', "Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?", and then shortly after, Spudpicker_01 was created to complete the AfD, in support of the new editor, Willietell. A sockpuppetry case was lodged, and confirmed. It was entirely reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry. Religious subjects often become heated, and I acknowledge that I have at times been as uncivil as other editors involved in such disputes. However, this is not a "historical pattern", and Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors.

Willietell's (false) attacks on BlackCab and myself do not in any way nullify AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour, about which Willietell has decided to remain silent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the many links Willietell provides what he claims are "ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses", only two were raised by me (of the remainder, seven were raised by neither me nor BlackCab; three of the four matters raised by BlackCab were sockpuppet queries upheld by admins, and the fourth was to report unambiguous vandalism). The first was uncontroversially given admin support[78]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[79] Notably, Willietell's further inattention to facts is shown by his inclusion of an arbitration case against User:Alastair Haines (which I did not initiate), against whom I had argued at length in favour of JWs in regard to their definition as a Christian group (see from about halfway through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_49, Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_50, and about one third through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_51).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier when I stated that the links were to show the tandem relationship between the two editors in question and not to show whether the other party was in the right or wrong, I will repost my statement that Jeffro77 pretends to have missed:

"The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 8:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Willietell (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First, lets clear up one thing, you filed the sockpuppet claim after I told everyone on the talk page what had happened, so you knew in advance of filing the sockpuppet claim what had happened, got me blocked for about 2 or 3 days and complained during that time that I wasn't detailing my objections to the beliefs page, even while you knew I was blocked for a false sockpuppetry claim. Still you repeatedly bring this subject up when addressing any disagreement with me to attempt to taint the perception with which I am held by anyone considering the argument at hand. Secondly, I don't really care how many user ID's you use, you can have a dozen for all I care, and pretend that each and every one is another Sybil. You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student...I simply really don't care. What I object to is the constant goading and smear tactics employed to create a hostile environment for fellow editors, this I find objectionable, the other stuff is simply childishly funny. I have finally read the long diatribe on the talk page, and there is no way in an unbiased persons eyes that the two of you, namelyJeffro77 AND BlackCab CAN BE VIEWED AS FAULTLESS IN THE EXCHANGE THAT BROUGHT US ALL TO THIS PAGE. As you stated, I have only been active on Wikipedia since some time in late November or early December, I can't remember the exact date, yet I personally have endured sustained and repeated attempts by both editors to drive me away from Wikipedia as is shown here[80] inBlackCab's insistence that maybe it would be better if I just leave Wikipedia altogether and also here[81] with more insistence that I just don't work well within Wikipedia, even as I am continuously hounded from page to page having edit after edit reverted by one of the two editors based upon one flimsy excuse after another. I have personally experienced the points that AuthorityTam describes. I am therefore not just "taking his side" without knowing what is going on, I am speaking because I have observed firsthand what he has had to endure for an even longer period than I. Willietell (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite baffled by your bizarre suggestions about editing from other accounts. Your ranting claim that "You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student" suggests you imagine specific user accounts (though I have no idea who), and if so, it's unclear why you seem reluctant to name them so a CheckUser can be performed and summarily show you to be dishonest. Your continued dishonesty about the supposed ANI links above, your paranoid claims about me (and/or BlackCab) acting as other editors, your false claims of copyright violation in attempt to have an article you don't like deleted do not tend toward veracity, and are directly counter to claims of honesty made in your unblock request. I was alerted to the likely sockpuppetry by another editor (not BlackCab)[82] regarding User:Spudpicker_01, and the sockpuppetry case against Spudpicker_01 was lodged 12 December 2011[83] (before the Williewell account had been created on 13 December). After I subsequently explained at the SPI that "The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet). The anonymous editor has now created an account as Willietell"[84], the closing admin decided to block you. It's also amusing that you've gone from being "somewhat uninvolved" to "have personally experienced".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Somewhat uninvolved" because I had no involvement in the issue that brought us to this ANI, namely the diatribe on the main Jehovah's Witnesses talk page, my having a personal experience with the complaining editors is a separate issue, but I'm sure you already know that. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, you're claiming that two editors, who you believe to be one person, are operating in 'tandem', while also claiming to be several other editors, each with different fictitious strengths and weaknesses. Since I've been on Wikipedia longer than BlackCab, you are actually accusing me of this. So, I don't care if you care. If you are making these allegations, you are expected to prove it or retract your lies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, experienced editors can sometimes become frustrated by new editors who spring up and attempt to make drastic changes, as you've done. You tried repeatedly to have an exhaustively sourced article deleted, ignored repeated and earnest requests from a range of editors to explain your specific objections to the page and now regard as harassment the reversion of your often poorly conceived edits. I have tried to be patient with you, and I'm sorry if sometimes my patience wears thin. Jeffro has also been courteous towards you, but you test everyone's patience with these quite bizarre suggestions of dishonesty and deviousness, particularly when you refuse to back them up with any evidence. You are also driving me nuts with this empty "POV spin" phrase every time you don't get your way. I again implore you to report me for any incivility or disruption. Report me if you seriously think I am a sockpuppet of Jeffro, whom I have never met, and with whom I once had one brief email exchange. If you do not, then stop this stupid behaviour. We are here to discuss the belligerent and inflammatory behavior of AuthorityTam, though apparently it's not something of any great interest to the admins. My suspicion is that this thread will soon go stale, be removed and we'll be back at square one. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing up that I tried to have the page [Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] deleted, which I did initially as a very new IP editor to Wikipedia because I felt that the page was so full of biased material that it would be nearly impossible to fix[85]. I changed my mind after several editors demanded that I present a breakdown of what I thought was biased, I did present several points that I thought, and still think need improvement and was in discussions with editors to make such improvements[86], when an editor posted a link to a page that I concluded was the source material for almost all the content on the page[87]. Due to this conclusion, I posted a tag stating that I thought the page was a copyright violation, only to have several editors assure me that it wasn't. I was skeptical, but nonetheless, relented and decided that with effort the page could be corrected in such a way as to make this irrelevant in the long term and began working to fix the page in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies, which I am currently attempting to do. I have not attempted to have the page deleted recently nor do I intend to attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. To continue to bring these issues up along with the false sockpuppet claim is simply a form of character assassination and needs to end. Additionally, since Jeffro77 went to the trouble of requesting a sockpuppet investigation (which was declined on the reason that check user is not used to prove innocence)[88], I will assume good faith and take the two editors word for it that they are not the same editor and no longer speculate on this page or any other whether they are the same editor. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was you who raised the sockpuppet case against you at this discussion, and you who accused me of sockpuppetry here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A cursory look through Willitel's talk page shows that s/he is far from uninvolved with JW issues. It appears as though that which disagrees with their POV is "POV spin," and it may be the case that they have confused WP for a No Spin Zone as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed to be uninvolved in JW issues. I only stated that I was uninvolved in the current issue of the long diatribe and back and forth argument that happened in the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page that was the straw for bring us to this ANI. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be repeated, I'd like something to come out of it. I would like to propose:

• A topic ban for JW articles to AuthorityTam,
• An interaction ban between AuthorityTam and BlackCab (and maybe topic ban for him too, depending on responses from people more knowledgeable),
• Possible sanctions of some sort against Willietell (which, while he engages in some tendentious editing and such (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), I have not seen him break any rules egregiously yet in my personal interaction. I will not propose these personally, as I do not feel what would fit (the WP:IDHT behavior continues across a selection of articles, from Genesis creation narrative to the topic of this discussion).

I'm going to run a few options up the flagpole and see who salutes. Feel free to propose modified sanctions or comment to dismiss or oppose all sanctions. I apologize in advance if these are draconian, but I oft get aggravated with the same old shit being brought to AN/I over and over again with no end in sight, but just turning in to a bitch-fest or vent with no proposed solutions to the problems. I have not interacted with BlackCab enough to know if he should get a topic ban too, but I have no doubt that interaction between the two editors is poisonous from comments here alone. (AuthorityTam has seemed fair when I've dealt with him, but from the diffs and a perusal of edit history, there is a problem.)

(AuthorityTam's contempt has consistently been directed at editors whom he believes to be former members of JWs.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam: Topic Ban

Please suggest alternate sanctions if these are unacceptable - something to keep this from coming back to AN/I over and over.
We propose AuthorityTam be blocked from editing JW-related articles for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing to date has impressed upon AuthorityTam that he can't continue this type of interaction with other users. I support comments from other users that he often includes valuable information to JW articles and provides pro-JW balance. Despite his allegation at the talk page, I have not asked for him to be banned. (Another editor has falsely suggested I am trying to knock off pro-JW editors one by one, which is also utter rubbish). But I think a temporary block may be useful to help modify his conduct. BlackCab (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Authority/Tam is an important editor to the project and his use or continued use of the reference to TSally does not in any way harm editor BlackCab, even if it seems distasteful to him. Additionally, to bring up an editors previous edit history seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia, and AuthorityTam is certainly not alone in doing so. I personally think this ANI resulted from an overreaction by a couple of editors who seem to judge their own action through rose colored glasses and filed the ANI without first considering WP:boomerang. It seems to me that AuthorityTam has reacted as many people would after having spent many years being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI. I think that sanctions enacted against him would be tantamount to a punish the victim mentality. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the "aka LTSally" phrase "distasteful"; it is a pejorative term that implies deviousness or subterfuge on my part. He has used it now for two years without letup. I have asked him to stop, and three other editors have agreed it is unnecessary. His continued use of it, even in this very ANI complaint,[89] is further evidence of his determination to goad, and his lack of willingness to cooperate. We all over-react sometimes. But AuthorityTam has a deeply embedded pattern of taunting. He is disruptive. He refuses to put the past behind him. He is unrepentant. He doesn't know when to stop. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are separate problems with Willietell's behaviour, as have already been commented on above, and his claim about "being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI" is dishonest, because only one editor filed the ANI. I learned of the ANI because AuthorityTam's Talk page is on my Watch List (all pages I edit are automatically added to my Watch List).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional Support - It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise. If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam/BlackCab: Interaction Block

We propose an indefinite interaction ban between AuthorityTam/BlackCab. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not so sure that would work. There are times when we do need to discuss edits. And given the lengthy (and potentially infinitely-lasting) tit-for-tat discussion here I think any such interaction ban should also include at least one other editor. Quarantining me, alone, from any discussions with AuthorityTam would not be helpful or fair. But someone may like to explain the practicalities of such a proposal. Bottom line is the need for a change in AuthorityTam's behaviour, just as I have learned to do. BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest that the three editors Jeffro77, BlackCab and AuthorityTam be restricted from reverting one another's recent edits(30 days) without first taking the matter to discussion in talk in a civil attempt to reach consensus before making any change. This would allow for cooler heads to prevail and keep tempers from flaring so much. This could be put in place for a time period that will allow the editors to learn to "play nice". Willietell (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am "nice". I do discuss. I am civil. I do seek external comment when discussions reach a deadlock,[90][91] and I accept the consensus at those noticeboards. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There have not really been frequent recent issues of edit warring. Most of the problems related to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages. I am not claiming that this is all AuthorityTam's fault. I have previously advised BlackCab about some things that 'trigger' AuthorityTam's tirades, and also acknowledged that I've also been uncivil at times when things get heated. The main problem is that AuthorityTam just doesn't stop, particularly with comments about editors that have absolutely nothing to do with article Talk, and frequently rehashes past irrelevant disputes. (There is the 'two to tango' aspect, however, although I don't like having to rebut AuthorityTam's misleading claims about me at article Talk pages, nor will I allow him to malign me undefended.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: Willietell: Topic Ban

We propose that Willietell be blocked from editing articles related to Christianity for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I may live to regret this, but at this stage there are probably better ways to deal with Willietell. There are significant issues involved with his editing. He finds it very difficult to accept consensus, and does not listen to other editors. The thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted and the resulting thread immediately below it strongly demonstrate the difficulties of dealing with him. That thread produced a good range of uninvolved editors who all tried to help Willietell, without great result. See User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1#Your recent edits. He has responded to these effort, and outside intervention, by threatening admins[92] or complaining of COI[93]. He has seen agreement among other editors as evidence of sockpuppetry[94] and hostility[95] and constantly describes any statement that differs from his unique view of the world as "POV spin".[96] Willietell is a deeply irritating editor and borderline disruptive because of his recycling of previously settled debates (because they didn't produce the result he wanted). He accuses me and others of hostility, despite earnest efforts to walk him through the issues involved. There are issues of maturity here, but hopefully he is on a learning curve. I think a block here may be counter-productive because it may fuel his paranoia. Hopefully at some stage the weight of opposition to his views may persuade him there are alternative viewpoints that sometimes have greater validity than his. BlackCab (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• oppose As you yourself point out, my edits on the page Genesis creation narrative were no more egregious than any other editor on that page, including yourself[97]]. While, at first I had little understanding of how things worked on Wikipedia, I have made attempts to learn how to do things properly and have not repeated the early missteps I made as a new editor. My opinion that material which does not fall within the guidelines of WP:NPOV represents POV spin is "my opinion" and as such can be expressed in a civil manner and should not be cause for character assassination, whether you personally like the term or not. I have performed no action nor exhibited any behavior which would in any way justify such a proposed "Topic Ban". I would like to thank BlackCab for notifying me of the existence of this proposed topic ban, since the proposing editor failed to do so. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally here[98] is the diff on that page, showing the edit in question was not only a minor one, but justified, as the current page content shows[99] . Willietell (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support Willietell has asserted some quite bizarre suspicions about the motives and actions of other editors without any evidence, and has also asserted a fairly narrow world view in various articles related to religion. However, he does claim to have learned from his problematic behaviour. My main concerns largely relate to matters discussed at the essay, Wikipedia:Competency is required, and I would like to think that Willietell can continue to develop skills that may make him a better contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am running out of daylight, I will have to continue with this ANI tomorrow, and I have some sanctions of myself to propose. Willietell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that proposal of proposed sanctions (if any) be left to admins

[non admin comment] In the words of the Bard of Ayrshire “Oh what some power the gift he give us, to see ourselves as others see us!” ... I admit to being totally uninformed here, I've only had my eye caught by one relatively well conducted and resolved edit fuffle in JW-article space about the church's excommunication practices, plus there was a cooperative attitude shown by participants (AuthTam and Jeffro) from both sides in getting Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion pulled back into generic WP:Christianity space. Seeing as that can be acheived, why not just drop this before something like the "vile nutcase" comment WP:BOOMERANGs into all 4 being invited to spend a month contributing to the non-JW bits of Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've already stated above, AuthorityTam is capable of collaboration. The problems largely arise when he verges off into irrelevant attacks on the motives of other editors (mostly of BlackCab) at the mildest of perceived provocation, and often with no provocation at all.

I should note that although I expressed agreement with some of his suggestions at Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, he did not actually acknowledge any contribution by or agreement with me, and the only time he mentioned me was earlier at that page when he felt the need to state that "the AfD proposal [opposed by AuthorityTam] by User:Jeffro77 was closed with Keep", which seemed to have been stated that way to highlight the supposed 'failure' of my proposal, despite the fact that a) the closure was self-evident from the removal of the AfD template, b) all the editors involved at the Talk page were also involved in the AfD, and c) I had accepted the result of the AfD—in isolation, the comment might seem innocuous, but in a broader context is part of AuthorityTam's dismissive comments about editors he doesn't like. If this is not the case, AuthorityTam should be able to provide evidence where he's made special mention of AfD closures that were a) not closed the way he wanted or b) not proposed by me, BlackCab, or other editors he considers to be former JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How many personal attacks do I need to tolerate from a user?

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

---

Is there a policy-based limit on how many WP:Personal attacks I need to tolerate from another user? A few days ago I notified user:Lung salad to avoid vulgar language and personal attacks in the context of this uncalled for personal attack which he had performed. He called my warning "spam". This personal attack was made when other users reverted his changes. And yet other users have since condemned his actions thereafter.

As a background point, I should state that User:Lung salad is on a final block warning issued by User:Bwilkins due to his general disruptive behavior, and he was characterized as "one of the most obtuse and disruptive editors I've come across in my 7 years and 10 months contributing to Wikipedia" by another editor during that ANI discussion. So this issue has been ongoing and he has been blocked before, etc.

My day today started with personal attacks here and here. He had been told to "address the issues related to content" yet continued to attack at a personal level. Why should I tolerate these? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that I should just tolerate these continued personal attacks, just because a user feels like making them?

But then the personal attacks continued today. User:Lung salad then "followed my edits" to make a similar attack on an Afd page I had started fixing a few days ago based on an Afd. My fixes there were in the context of that Afd, as clearly indicated on the Afd page. I was adding references to that page because users such as user:DGG had suggested that the page needed to survive and user:Bearian directly requested that references be added, so I started adding sources. Yet I received this personal attack again as I was adding references to the page, per the Afd discussion. I did not even express any opinions on that page whatsoever, all I was doing was adding sources. That was all. Yet I received a personal attack again.

I think this user needs to be blocked. He can not just attack other users "at will" then follow them around and attack them again for adding references which have been requested on an Afd page.

I have notified the user about this ANI thread. But my frank question here is: how many of these personal attacks do I need to continue to tolerate? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states I have to continue to tolerate personal attacks? History2007 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, 37? Mr. Salad is going a bit over-the-top with the anti-Catholic tirades, though. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus Christ and this information is given in books written by conservative christian scholars - yet this information cannot be given in a Wikipedia article without a fight. Wikipedia articles should be free from Religious Fundamentalist agendas. Lung salad (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

None of that matters; you need to stop this shit. Plain and simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this notoce board is not the place to "discuss content". Content should and can be discussed on article talk pages per policy. This discussion is about the ongoing personal attacks which have continued across pages. This thread is about inappropriate user behavior, no content. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of not understanding logical argument - that's an ad-hominem attack, yes? Lung salad (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are either too dumb to understand what the problem is or you're playing dumb and thus will continue to launch your personal rants. In that case, we can discuss your topic-ban right away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone is a religious fundamentalist that's going to be reflected in the editing, as it transparently clear in this case. The deletion of cited content from verifiable sources that fits in with Wikipedia guidelines is one example. The verifiable source in question being The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies Lung salad (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I will just point out that I added the criticism section yesterday, when user:DougWeller asked for it. But that is enough now and I let other users comment now. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I came across this when "patrolling" recent changes. The previous characterizations of Lung salad are spot-on from what I've seen. He reminds me of the "Time Lord" who was fighting the great "Time War" against WP:ERA, except with a religious ax to grind instead. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I should note that Lung salad was blocked for 60 hours for personal attacks. But I would suggest that the topic ban discussion below should continue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, you edit conflicted with me coming to say I've blocked Lung Salad for 60hrs for this, which I consider an outrageous attack on one section of the community. Sorry if that impedes your discussion on a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's so terrible about that particular diff, which seems like a (marginally) acceptable statement of opinion about biases that may affect our articles. I disagree with what ArbCom ruled about Will Beback, and here this editor wasn't even pointing the finger at a specific individual. Other diffs cited by the original complainant above seem much more objectionable, as they specifically dismiss and disparage his point of view. Wikipedia is not here to decide whether God exists or not; all properly sourced points of view are welcome and should be documented impartially, side by side. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your attention. But I think the topic ban discussion can continue anyway, so we do not have to do this again. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, the number of personal attacks one must tolerate is widely variable. Three are three factors that influence this limit: the editor making the personal attack, the editor at whom the attack is directed, and the nature of the attack. To take the last of these first, if the personal attack is of a nature that is in opposition to the strongly-held personal political/ideological views of certain admins, the attacker will be blocked as soon as their comments are noticed. On the other hand, admins may dismiss the attack if it corresponds to their own strongly-held views and berate the complainant instead. If the person doing the attacking is out of favour with the community, they will be blocked (and this is often used as leverage for further sanctions such as topic bans or full bans). If the positions are reversed, and the person being attacked is in the bad books, the personal attack guidelines are ignored and any complaints made by the target editor are taken as more evidence that the attacks must be deserved. For example, feel free to call me a homophobe. I am not, but editors can suggest I am (or even make things about about what I have said or done) with absolutely no fear of admin action. In my case, the only limit on the number of personal attacks I must tolerate is the amount of time I choose to remain active here. I hope your experience is better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I find personal attacks very counterproductive. The time spent in this discussion could have been used for more productive purposes. If personal attacks can be somehow stopped the whole operation of the online encyclopedia will become more effective. Personal attacks also make editors unhappy at a personal level, and less productive. So I really do not like them, needless to say. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Post script comment: Congratulations on gaining an outcome, History2007. It's depressing when editors descend to this sort of behaviour. Delicious Carbuncle's assessment seems 100 per cent accurate: admins take an arbitrary approach to taking action against editors who insult and inflame. After two ANIs against User:AuthorityTam (the last is immediately above this thread) there is still zero interest in dealing with someone who has serious behavioral and personality issues. He continues to exhibit the same behavior and of course will do so in the future because admins won't address it. From my perspective the diffs you provided of Lung Salad's attacks are no more serious, and arguably less disruptive, then this vile nutcase who haunts Jehovah's Witness-related pages, where he taunts and derides opposing editors and provides endless, endless historic diffs in an attempt to justify his moronic, time-wasting conduct. Sadly, my complaint against him has turned into a "pro-JW vs anti-JW" sideshow that misses the point entirely and blinds the outlook of certain editors who are more intent on seeing articles devoid of critical content on the JWs. Your opening question (how long do I have to put up with this?) is exactly the question I asked. So .... good work on securing a result. Maybe my turn will come one day. Alternatively, I could take the absence of admin action as en endorsement of this guy's tactics and descend into a tit-for-tat war. BlackCab (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

---

As seen above, user doesn't even understand why these personal attacks are unacceptable and will likely continue. Propose topic ban concerning anything related to Jesus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the definition of personal attacks. Lung salad (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OH, so you understand the definition, but vow to continue? Or you know what personal attacks are but haven't understood that they are not acceptable here? Which one is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (add: widely construed). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, of course, or more. User has been on "final warning" anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User seems unable or unwilling to discuss articles relating to religion without resorting to ad hominem attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Apart from the user's personal attacks, his behavior during this ANI discussion alone shows that he is incapable of even discussing the problem constructively. Editors shouldn't have to put up with this sort of behavior while editing articles. Yes, a topic ban seems to be warranted. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Also, I'm rather surprised this topic isn't under permanent sanctions by ArbCom like Climate Change and the I/P areas are. This is at least as controversial as those are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's a shame that it's necessary, but these personal attacks can't continue, they poison the debate. I can't agree however that this topic has the heated battles that Climate Change and I/P. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: So let's not let this topic get to the heated level of some other areas. Whatever Lung salad might promise, now or subsequently, it's plain that he sees himself as a holy warrior carrying the anti-Catholic banner against the minions of evil, and zealots of that sort don't suddenly slap their foreheads one day and exclaim "My God, I've been so horribly wrong!" Ravenswing 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, to me it sounds like you're doing exactly the same thing he just did. As we're telling him to do now, please, focus on the edits, rather than demonizing the editor. Perhaps he'll have a Pauline conversion. :) Wnt (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the nature of edits and the patterns are discussed at length in this ANI complaint by user:Eusebeus. The point user:Loremaster made there was that user:Lung salad stops for a while, then comes back and it is Déjà vu time. In the past he has crossed the "11RR line" (yes, 11 reverts in one day) and as User:Bwilkins stated, he can suddenly "bombard" administrators with emails, etc. So the edit patterns do speak plenty. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's valid criticism; cite the problem and hope it will be fixed. It's the "holy warrior carrying the anti-Catholic banner" bit that sounded like an echo of the contested comments. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

But you know, the problem is all this wasted effort. This user's contested edits do not usually survive for very long because multiple editors will oppose them on different pages. But by the time all is said and done chaos has set in, life has been wasted, personal attacks have taken place, etc. and that is not the way to do cooperative editing. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of a topic ban is that an editor cannot be trusted to edit constructively in a particular area of Wikipedia, while there is no such perception in other areas. It makes very little sense to entertain that notion out of context; why, exactly, can an editor be trusted in some areas but not in others? Either an editor has demonstrated a particular bias or he has not, and the reasons we feel he does not only merit discussion, but they're the point of the discussion. Do you feel that my characterization of Lung salad's views is inaccurate? If so, I expect that you would oppose any topic ban. Ravenswing 07:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with respect to that editor, but one of them has been (and continues to remain) the position that 19th century (and at times 16th century!) scholarship is superior to 21st century scholarship. We do not seem to have succeeded in making the point that Wikipedia needs to use modern scholarship. I do not see how that issue is going to go away. We have repeated "Wikipedia needs to use modern scholarship" too many times now, to no avail. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, but that's a content dispute unsuitable for ANI, even if you buy into the Newer Is Automatically Better shibboleth. Ravenswing 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as user clearly does not understand how to use Wikipedia when strong feelings are involved. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Though Draconian solutions rrely work and I generally oppose them, this particular user appears to be one case where even a small chance of success is better than none. Collect (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Sadly, I can't see anything else working. Pesky (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Request for admin closure: There is a "10 to none" count on this now, which may well amount to consensus. I suggest that this issue should be resolved with a "topic ban agreed to" conclusion, so we can move on. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

IP 119.237.156.246 hasn't learned from previous blocks

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

---

119.237.156.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked twice for generally being disruptive, but also being a sockpuppet. He denies being a sock, which is neither here nor there considering the disruption. He came back yesterday evening and immediately began revert warring where it left off last time. This restored invalid move requests that involved ArbCom issues, restored invalid CFD headers to discussions that have never existed, and other general disruption that has generated 3RR warnings. I don't see a point in warning an IP that has already been blocked twice for this behavior. Based on talk pages, he knows ins and outs of policy and expected behavior (as you'd expect by an accused sock) and just doesn't care (as you'd expect by an accused sock). Based on disruption and stench of sock, can someone put a long block, like a month, on it please? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, the IP doesn't look to be dynamic from the behavioural patterns, I agree it needs a longer block. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is disrupting Wikipedia. He removed a the consul-general-designate from the British consulate-general article, and the names of two ordinances in the flag desecration article, and insist to add the same picture twice to the article on Tung Chee Hwa but with a wrong caption, to name a few. I was only acting to revert his disruptive edits. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP is either Instantnood or someone doing an incredibly good impersonation. As I'm the admin who blocked it twice, I won't do it myself, but someone block the IP again for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, fine, I'll do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, we need to apply WP:RBI when dealing with BANNED editors (such as Instantnood) when they start their nonsense again using anon IPs as their cover; they've wasted enough of our time here so we shouldn't waste more to handle such drama. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

National Autism Society

I request a block on the National Autism Society (NAS) IP address for a period of one week (as agreed with the society's computer manager). The address is 217.204.11.194.

The society's network is open to both staff and to patients. Recently there have been a significant amount of "reordering" of junction numbers on various British motorways (see contributions page at here. I telephoned to the society's computer manager and both he and I are of the opinion that these changes are being carried out by a patient who is suffering from autism (and who therefore will not respond to normal reasoning). The manager quite reasonably challenged me to "prove" my assertion that the NAS network was the "guilty" party and after I led him through the Wikipedia audit trail, he proved very cooperativce. He is quite happy that there be a one week block on the IP address so that the patient concerned will get bored trying to make any changes. A study of the changes associated with that address suggest that few changes, if any, are appropriate to Wikipedia's aims and therefore neither Wikipedia nor the society will be harmed. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What might work better is if the Society's IP address(es) are indefinitely soft-blocked, thus allowing those with accounts to continue to edit while avoiding vandalism from unregistered users. IIRC, this has been done before for other institutions, particularly schools. However, the technical officer/manager/whoever you're talking to should probably email such a request to info-enwikimedia.org or functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org from an official email address, so if any questions arise from the IP we can be confident in saying "ask your manager, they're the ones who requested the block." Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, you called them? Whoa there Nelly, let's back the truck up a little bit here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Hersfold's suggestion of an indef soft block. That way genuine editors can continue editing from that IP, and anyone minded to engage in vandalism can be dealt with individually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding this somewhat disquieting. As far as I can tell, the National Autistic (sic) Society doesn't have "patients" and would not use such terms as "suffering from autism". It does provide community and residential services for people with autism. There may well be a range of constructive and respected Wikipedia editors among its service users. I can't see that it's constructive to deter any future such editors by confronting them with an indefinite soft-block placed because of a batch of edits of motorway junction numbers made in late March 2012. NebY (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If a soft block comes with an automatic notice something along the lines of "You must create an account to edit from this address" if someone tries to edit, then I can't see it being a problem. (And yes, I'm an Autie, too!) Pesky (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's certain, I'm sure, that there must be Wikipedia veterans amongst the membership of the National Autistic Society. After all, to paraphrase Mel Brooks, without aspies, trannies and queers, there is no Wikipedia. :) --Tristessa (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

After examining some edits, I'd oppose any action until Martinvl can demonstrate that this editing is actually vandalism. This fundamental prerequisite step has been overlooked. 217.204.11.194 stands accused of editing wikipedia. Penyulap ☏ 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC events—Battleground disruption

Hi, folks. 2012 in UFC events and related articles seem to have evolved into virtual battlegrounds regarding some new change to a relevant guideline. Thinking it's best to let the lot of you know before things get out of hand. There seems to be a small coordinated attack on these pages by multiple users engaged in multiple facets of disruption—vandalism, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, etc. I believe there is also a discussion in progress on the main article's talk page. Good luck. NTox · talk 00:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not involved in the current dispute. This wasn't a change of guideline as much as it was simply enforcing the existing ones, started by User:DGG, the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149. For the record, I agree with his assessment that this will reduce all the AFDs because of questionable notability on each event, still allows for separate articles for events that are clearly notable. What I have seen in these discussions is a total lack of concern regarding the policies by a large number of users. What they WANT Wikipedia to be isn't the same thing that Wikipedia is. The problem is that there are great numbers of editors with this philosophy participating, and a look at any of the previous MMA related AFDs (meatpuppeting and sockpuppeting included) bears this out. [100] [101] [102] [103]. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and I'm not so sure it belongs here at ANI right now. It will likely end up here, but I don't see any actual diffs or claims against specific users. Not sure what action can be taken without more info. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)There is also further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability#Omnibus articles started by User:Beeblebrox following the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination). Mtking ^(edits) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, good, I've piped in my agreement on the progress happening there. I'm still not sure that anything in this ANI is actionable at this time, however. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there hasn't been a change in policies, but an actual enforcement of the existing policies (most of the discussions are linked above). I think what may be important for the ANI board are issues such as the repeated vandalism of 2012 in UFC events which is current waiting for page protection and the comments at Talk:2012 in UFC events which has already had to be amended to remove personal attacks. (I honestly don't mind being called a "motherfucker", but I don't think it fits the bill of being constructive discussion about the article.) There may also be a surge of reverts of redirection of the UFC articles to the 2012 article, which Mtking and I can fix only so many times before being in violation of 3RR. I'm currently in the process of writing 2012 in mixed martial arts events which could lead to redirect of more individual event articles which will draw the ire of more forum fans. So, it may be good for admins and other Wikipedians to know what's going on in our corner of Wikipedia and that some of us may be under the virtual gun at the moment. If there is a possible need for page protection across the board, at least currently for 2012 UFC articles, (temporary/semi or permanent/full or somewhere in between) that may be something that needs discussing. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

there is also an ongoing discussion at afd2 for that article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination). Whatever the merits of expanding our coverage of individual sports events as greatly as some people want, there would need to be a general consensus for it, which I think from what has been said that it certainly isn't present. This is one Wikipedia, & the enthusiastic fans of a particular thing do not get to dictate what they want unless the community accepts it. I would have closed afd1 as a redirect to TreyGeek's article had it existed at the time. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• That is exactly what I felt you would say DGG, TreyGeek's & Mtking's efforts are 100% in line with your close, the consensus in other AFDs, and I believe, the guidelines here. And I wouldn't worry about getting into 3RR territory if you are reverting obvious vandalism or disruptive edits that are clearly outside of the concensus, that isn't what 3RR covers. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the context. In any case, I think some level of page protection is pressing. NTox · talk 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I added a note at Request for Protection, but no action and perhaps a backlog. If any admin here feels bold, 30 days of semi-protection would be helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We're still waiting on page protection for 2012 in UFC events but I personally want to thank those who have helped keep it in shape. When UFC event articles were redirected to it today I knew a shitstorm was going to happen. (I love that Wikipedia has a link for that.) I think it will increase as the weekend continues and I'm mostly welcome to let the IPs and non-established editors vent at the article's talk page. (Though it may need to be archived as the din dies down.) I'm going to wager that a week from now people will start to rely on MMA news media for the latest and greatest updates on UFC events and not Wikipedia as they have been accustom to. As the writer of the 2012 in UFC events article (through the vandalism I don't see any many changes from what I originally wrote) and the soon to be created 2012 in mixed martial arts events article, I welcome suggestions and feedback on how to improve the articles themselves. I'm going by the seat of my pants as to trying to make them conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as best as possible. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to calm things down on the talk page, not much progress yet though. As one of the persons pushing this idea it would probably not be appropriate for me to protect the page, but I agree it needs doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, 2012 in UFC events has been put up at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events). --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

It has now been made clear that there is offsite canvassing going on, and one user is threatening to do more of the same in order to cause a "shitstorm of epic proportions." It's getting late and my wife just opened a bottle of wine, so I am going to be absent for a while here, but more admin eyes are needed as this situation is going from bad to worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Or wikipedia could just listen to the outcry of the people and go back to the old individual pages, just a thought! Glock17gen4 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So members of the Sherdog forum get to ride ruff-shod over established WP polices that we are not a news service ? Mtking ^(edits) 07:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point, everyone loved the individual articles, there was no problem with them. If it aint broke dont fix it! This new article does not cut it. Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Who's 'everyone'? It seems quite clear that's it wasn't everyone who preferred the old format or we wouldn't be where we are now. Clearly some people did feel there was a problem, did think it was 'broke' and felt it better to fix it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I and everyone I know prefer the old format MUCH more so than the unhelpful changes. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that mean's your not an active editor in the subject matter then Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Glock, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is not determined by voting. "The outcry of the people" is not, and should not, be used in any way, shape, or form to determine Wikipedia content - policy should be, and the format you've so vehemently opposed to has been determined by consensus and policy. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Two observations come to mind about the tidal-wave of SPAs coming from these couple of MMA forums. First off, that I'm quite bemused a bunch of alleged sports enthusiasts have such a problem with policies and guidelines; sports, in my long experience, are pretty rigid when it comes to doing things according to the rules. Secondly, for all their disruption, I wonder if they've yet noticed that they haven't accomplished anything, other than to perhaps provoke some experienced editors to join the scrutiny of these unqualifying articles? Ravenswing 16:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists not for the sake of a few editors, but for humanity. And far more members ofhumanity find this content worthwhile as individual articles than a couple anti-MMA accounts trying to merge or delete it. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Side note. Spyder Grove (talk · contribs) indeffed, basically, per WP:NOTHERE. He has already started socking to evade his block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I should have known you had something do to with this Bushranger, please explain how that meaningless wall of text was determined by consensus and policy? Maybe your policy... The old format was perfect, and did not violate any policy! Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, you aren't a news service? So what's that on the right side of the mainpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.131.3 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• A section with some current events and a link to http://en.wikinews.org, which is a bit of a news service. Wikipedia is not the same as Wikinews. The key to being a successful smart-ass it to first be correct. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from MMA articles of Mtking

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

Not going to happen. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

User:Mtking has certainly and unquestionably violated WP:TROLL, WP:DICK, WP:EDITWAR, WP:TEND, WP:BULLY, WP:DISRUPTION, etc. with regards to MMA related articles. I therefore call for an immediate block of Mtking and a topic ban of this account from MMA related articles to stop the disruption and dishonesty. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Shut up, Spyder Grove, or you will be blocked from editing here. It is unacceptable to create a new account and on your third edit start calling people names and demanding blocks. Go be productive, or go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

attack section header redacted

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point in time I am inclined to agree with Glock that sanctions made need to be put in place against at least one user. However, we'll disagree on who deserves the sanctions. In the last 24 hours, Glock has been combative, disruptive and has not made any constructive comments. I'd individually link to the examples but it'd be the same as looking at their recent edit history. In fact, he's current taken to spamming the two policies above everywhere he can (here, on user talk pages, at AfDs, and on article talk pages). I know blocks shouldn't be used for allowing people to "cool off", but allowing to someone whine all the time isn't productive to Wikipedia. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind.... it's been taken care of already. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"(edit conflict) Side note 2, I blocked Glock for 31 hours for disruption. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Support block — clearly becoming extremely disruptive. I see this as preventative and not 'cool off'. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see the whole band is here. I would support the short block to let him cool down. I've tried to be a voice of reason (I don't edit content on these articles) but there are many, many users involved who are confusing what they think Wikipedia should be, and what it actually is. Glock is one of those, cherry picking sentences from guidelines to cobble together a rationale that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and being disruptive in expressing it. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Does look like textbook wikilawyering. His unblock request says as much. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Side Note More disruption, with the nomination of the article for deletion without a valid rationale: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events. I only mention it as I'm sure we will be back at ANI with this jewel. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Based on his block log, I would say Glock got off pretty light. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm trying to communicate with him, and get him on the right side of events. He doesn't know it, but he already agrees with much of the changes, he is just fighting "change", but I think he is coming around. He does have a tendency to over-react to events, but I'm trying to work with him on that. As to the effectiveness, who knows, but I think I should at least try. Not sure that traditional mentoring would be effective. We are always better off if we can convert disruptive but good faith editors rather than losing them. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down a bit now that the most disruptive users are blocked and the page is semiprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It has only calmed down because User:Anna Frodesiak and others have revered the redirects, so the members of the Sherdog forum have got "their" stats pages back, the debate over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability is not offering any poilicy or guideline reason to keep the articles other than we don't like it or WP:IAR. Mtking ^(edits) 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The question remains, are the individual articles notable? If not, then AFD is the solution. Keep me in the loop if they go that way, I would be happy to look at them. Some of them did get enough WP:RS coverage (sport illustrated, etc.) but those are rare. The point of the new system isn't to eliminate all individual articles anyway, just most of them, ie: the not notable ones, while still maintaining much of the content. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The point in creating the omnibus articles was to not have to AfD articles. At least that was what User:Beeblebrox suggested when he opened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability#Omnibus articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• And User:DGG independently came to the exact same conclusion when he closed the first AFD, 149. Likely, this will need to be dealt with, one article at a time, by selecting the weakest articles (lowest hanging fruit) and working toward all the weak article becoming redirects. But there will be a few more AFDs, I would bet. Not really what AFD is for, but it is the hammer that is often needed to get a merge. It may take a few weeks to first week out the redirect, which is ok, and maybe some of the editors will warm up to the idea as you go along. It isn't a race, just a destination. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann

For the record, I've brought up the fact that User:Udar55 has violated WP:3RR by reverting edits by myself and others four times in 17 hours, on the redirect UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann, and suggested he take it to WP:DR, which he did at [[104]], in case any admin wants to look into the violation. This is another of those articles with weak sourcing that was redirected, and the editor is now claiming ownership of, to the point of being disruptive. This is all part of the 2012 in UFC events controversy being fought in a different forum now, it appears. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you said "This is unnecessary reverting. The sources don't support a stand alone. You are welcome to take this to dispute resolution if you like." I took it to WP:DR and then you brought up the WP:3RR. A bit different then how you claim it went down. I am not (and have not) claiming ownership of the article. Also, you did not notify me about me being the subject of this discussion per Wikipeida rules. Udar55 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a new ANI, it is part of a long and ongoing one. I had thought you had already participated here and was watching it, and I didn't say anything here that I had not already said at the DR discussion anyway. But yes, you are correct and I should have dropped you a note. It was an honest oversight, and I apologize for that. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please have a chat with User:Luciferwildcat about Wikipedia guidelines?

This user is having difficulty with maintaining NPOV in the article pink slime, specifically recent edits [[105]] [[106]] have been so blatantly inappropriate that I call it vandalism. As it seems this user has been involved in edit wars with other users in the past, I do not believe I can reason with this user. He also made up the term "salvage meat" in Wiktionary for use in the article. Rip-Saw (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I listed some of their redirects at RfD, and prodded the salvage meat page, as they are clearly on some kind of anti-pink slime crusade. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Prod removed, so I listed his dictionary article at this AfD. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, his behaviour has been previously been the subject of an earlier discussion at ANI. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 09:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is highly suggested we check user all hardcore opponents of adding any negative material about pink slime and I have suspicions BPI PR people are afoot here, some have tacitly admitted it already or have Iowa IP address and single purpose accounts. The users here have repeatedly attempted to whitewash sourced material (from independent third party news sources) that pink slime was originally only a pet food product. In an encyclopedia that covers the entire history of a product I thought it was important to note. I also added a quote from the pink slime microbiologist whistleblower to balance the quotes from BPI but those were removed as well. This article needs to reflect the truth about pink slime, not just the official BPI company version and without sanitizing or whitewashing or sugarcoating. I am not on any crusade, I have been a long time editor and usually work to improve and expand articles related to the San Francisco Bay Area or languages in addition to making major contributions to wiktionary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I just came across some of LWC's recent edits on the talk page and I support the OP's take on the matter. LWC seems emotionally involved in the issue and doesn't seem to be editing neutrally. He has answered valid sourcing problems with logical fallacies (sources calling it "scrap" doesn't mean that it's not "waste" and since "waste" is better than "pulverized cow anus" we should use "waste"), has insinuated that those who disagree with his position must have some sort of industry motive, and all around has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I mentioned on the talk page that he should keep WP:COOL and I hope others here will reiterate this advice. For the record, I am generally in agreement with LWC that this stuff is gross and have said as much on the talk page, but that's not an excuse to lose neutrality. SÆdon^talk 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@LWC: Please note that our article is not supposed to reflect the WP:TRUTH, it's supposed to be verifiable. SÆdon^talk 10:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand, it's just that when I first arrived at the article it was mimiced some of the company's talking points and structure and framed everything bad as some sort of witch hunt or lie so I just did some complete copyediting. But you are right and I will make sure I can verify the truth as much as possible if not keep looking for not inserting. I think at this point the article is free of any corpcomm and I am more than ready to collaborate with any other editors that think things should be reworded. Some editors have a "no no no" mentality even to verifiable additions instead of "but" "well" "no" "ok" "maybe" which honestly is what I endeavor. I have asked some other editors that I am familiar with and have more experience to come take a look as well they have a history of collaborating with me and chastising me and sometimes praising me as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you understand, and please don't take my comment here to mean that your work at the article is not appreciated - it is and I generally agree on your take that the article was too biased before. Stick to sources and follow the guidelines, comment on content and not contributors and the page will look great - just don't make the mistake of tipping the bias in the other direction. SÆdon^talk 00:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes of course that would also be bad, but since the pro content was already there I focused on the cons, but have since diversified once finishing that and called over some other editors to help neutralize the topic with the goal of creating a featured article. Also the more attention than can be brought to this article, the better the quality will be, and the fewer biases in general. But yes a sources based approach is what is needed and my plan, I find it unfortunate that the nominator of this thread continues to remove content repeatedly and then post a threat on the talk page about it that only they comment on and claim to have consensus on the matter, it really troubles me and IMHO is a disingenuous form of editing from a contributor that does not add new content in which I think would be best.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I too am quite concerned about LuciferWildCat's edits on the topic, both in tenor and in frequency. There is no semblance of neutrality on the primary article page at this point, and the 59 edits in the last 12 hours is a bit extreme. I have deleted one of his redirects, and note that another is up for deletion (I would have summarily nuked it too if it wasn't being RFD'd). As for the assertions of bad faith streaming from him towards anyone who wants to maintain NPOV, I think that needs to be curtailed as well. I don't think a topic ban would be out of line at this point. Horologium (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely disinterested and impartial observer chiming in here. I just took a cursory look at the discussion and do not see the blatant battleground issues that are being depicted, rather a series of content disputes is underway. Neither of the parties, and I see it as mainly two editors that are primarily involved, are willing to moderate their positions, however, the interplay remains courteous and tends to remain on topic. Bringing an issue like this to ANI is a concern, can't editors work out personal differences through discourse on their talk pages? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

I agree. I'm seeing rational discussion on the article talk page as well. Editors seem to be too quick to bring trivialities to the Dramah boards. Someone should just close this before it wastes any more editors time looking into this issue. Mojoworker (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, me too. I think Luciferwildcat has been somewhat unjustly demonized here. Pesky (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments like "Only a bias minority with a stake in profits is disputing that and the use of pink slime has already been voted on and approved" are inappropriate because they attempt to categorize editors who disagree with him as corporate shills. It's an insinuated personal attack plain and simple and it's what I was referring to when I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND. SÆdon^talk 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

comment A look at the talk page will show that in a community discussion the consensus was a landslide in favor of using the term pink slime. That is no personal attack. It was directed at editors with single purpose accounts or IPs that clearly were only making pro meat industry edits and others that were routinely whitewashing sourced content that could be seen as embarrassing for the company and its stockholders. That is not what wikipedia is about and I am not about to hold my tongue when I see this behavior going on. People trust wikipedia to get to the bottom of things. We don't rely on any advertisers and that keeps us independent.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I started off supporting the title but after having done some research I am now opposed to the title. Am I corporate shill or can you acknowledge that people can hold a different opinion than you without nefarious intent? Furthermore, what does it add to WP when you get personal with other editors? When you accuse other editors of such things do you think they'll be better editors because of it? or do you think it will simply lead to more emotionally charged discussion (and a trip to ANI)? What ever the case is, I'm sorry but what you are doing is, in fact, making personal attacks. Speculating upon the motives of other editors is heavily frowned upon, which I'm guessing you already know. If it's true that the editors in question are influenced by the meat industry and are giving WP:UNDUE weight to promotional sources then you can invoke WP:FRINGE and WP:COI to deal with it, but there is absolutely no excuse to make the accusations that you have unless you have solid proof. So yes, please "hold your tongue" and comment on content, not contributors. SÆdon^talk 08:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are not. I have focused on the content as much as possible but this article is the subject of repeated vandalism that is nefarious and obviously straight from corporate shrills. All legitimate disagreements have led to engagement on the talk page and compromise edits and have been largely uncontroversial. I did not start this ANI thread and I find it completely unfounded, a request for comment would have been a much better option. I think it should be noted that the user that started this thread has only removed content and only inserted pro-pink slime content. This user has not added any neutral nor positive content. Furthermore this user has not even dotted an i nor crossed a t. This user has made a few edits about once a year for a few years and then suddenly began editing pink slime and only pink slime with what appears to me as an agenda from a largely single purpose account while using rather aggressive rhetoric. I refuse to get into ad hominem arguments with this user and I sought out the help of other editors. Colleagues that often disagree with me or agree with me or neutrally help me reach consensus with others and I believe this article has done very well by this. I will hold my tongue but since there is such rampant vandalism and to me it doesn't look good, can we do a check user on the nominator?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, there is also a discussion of the article at WP:AN#Pink slime. There have been several accounts blocked for socking at the article, and more Single Purpose Accounts showing up today that caused the article to be semi-protected. I'm assuming that LCW was directing his comments toward those types of editors – the ones that are completely ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mojoworker (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - To reiterate what LCW says above, he's a content creator that keys on Bay Area, California content and is not a single purpose editor on a vegan crusade or anything like that. I haven't looked at the specific pink slime edits and have no opinion on those. I did vote for deletion of salvage meat at AfD on the grounds that in my opinion it's a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiSceptic's disruption

Earlier in the month, while observing the recent changes, I discovered some articles authored by WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs), and I nominated them for deletion because they were bereft of any sources and they did not appear to be notable. He naturally opposed these changes, and repeatedly asserted that because he was on Wikipedia in its early stages (a common claim is that he is the original author of Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or he is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the content on the site based on mathematics of how much he has written, and the level of traffic the most visited articles receive), it is not necessary for him to adhere to the current guidelines and policies when it comes to sourcing and other issues.

His reaction to this is to either unnecessarily disparage the preferred subject areas of editors he finds himself in conflict with, or to directly attack them. He has in the past used his user page to host these comments. My latest AFD on a series of articles on books he wrote was met with disparaging what he assumes is my topic area, while also insulting my intelligence (part deux). He was blocked in 2008 for these later reasons, but there's something more pressing than personal attacks or ignoring WP:V that may be more damaging than just to inter-user relationships.

In the latest edit to his user page, he claims that he has violated the core policy of WP:No original research, and his statement was published in a textbook and then used to cite his own original statement. This damages the very reputation of this project and the summation of human knowledge and this should not be allowed at all to continue. It is clear that WikiSkeptic cannot keep up with the times or play well with others anymore, and in order to protect the website from his possibly false information, we need to find out what he put on Wikipedia that has since become a falsely cited fact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The bit about ArbCom and how many articles he wrote is very bad. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Cat was created in 2001, and his account was created in 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/WikiSkeptic See the log). ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear case of childish disruption that needs addressing, and there's no sense in just letting him carry on this sort of behaviour. I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 week; if he persists, I'd suggest an indefinite ban, since I can't see any substantative project contributions that would be lost. --Tristessa (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While the block certainly helps, it does not solve the ultimate problem here, which is the fact that WikiSkeptic claims he has possibly negatively affected a published work because he added his own personal opinions into an article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that that claim is weapons grade bullshit, no more credible then his claim to have pwn3d arbcom. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While that may be true, his account has less than 300 article edits, so it cannot be that hard to ferret out the content if he is telling the truth.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree the claim is probably bullshit, judging from the user's editing history. Even if it wasn't, though, Wikipedia cannot control external information sources and there's really nothing to be done. What matters is he's being incivil and trolling, and we're giving him way too much limelight by giving his bait a single iota more of our attention than it deserves. He's blocked and, if the block doesn't make him stop, I'll indef him as a trolling account. Whilst at that stage he could then appeal the block, I find it unlikely an AN/I discussion would think the cost-benefit ratio worth having. --Tristessa (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong: If the block doesn't resolve the thread, what can I do to resolve it for you? --Tristessa (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd say indef and WP:DENY immediately. Nothing of value will be lost. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The block is fine, Tristessa. It's just that this disruption of his has been ongoing, and I don't think 7 days in the timeout corner is going to solve anything in the long run. If he's lying, fine. This BS of his needs to stop. This is not his first time in trouble, and the only thing we lose by getting rid of him completely is an unsourced stub factory.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. However, his contribs show at least some nominal effort towards good faith mainspace work, even if it is unproductive and counterbalanced by all this silliness elsewhere. Since he hasn't yet been blocked for longer than 48 hours, and that was years ago, I think indef would be an excessive escalation step. Should he continue to ignore standards of behaviour after his block expires, however, then that's another matter. --Tristessa (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An indef would be excessive, yes, but it is clear that his years of unbecoming behavior may be an issue we will have to deal with at th end of the week. He needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and dismissing others merely because they did not learn two dead languages and the cultures that surrounded them needs to stop.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

End of RfC to issue 10

On 23 August 2011 I rised, among others, issue 10 in War of the Pacific's talk page and after fruitless discussions I rised the RfC issue 10 and, at the end of the day, the editors were (see current part of the discussion in Issue 10 Grau's gallantry)

For inclusion of the gallantry text

• MarshalN20
• DonaldRichardSands
• Ian Cloudac

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.131.3 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 

For exclusion of the gallantry text

• Alex [107]
• Keysanger (believe me, I am against)
• Noleander [108]
• Ludwigs2 [109]
• John Carter [110]
• Chiton Magnificus [111]

I deleted the verbose peacock [112] according to the majority of the editors. We know that Wikipedia isn't a democracy but, it is the only way we have until now to resolve such impasses.

Now, editor MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverts the consensus change and wants to discuss the issue further.

I don't know what to do. I will not begin a edit war, the pros and cons have been explained in a RfC and a consensus reached.

I ask to an admin to take measures to end the discussion and to impose the consensus.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No consensus has ever been reached. This user has already been warned (by another editor in this board) not to bring content disputes in here, but Keysanger is not listening.

His deletion of material includes content which describes the Huascar's actions in the war, a matter which has nothing to do with the discussion on Grau's gallantry. This is not only noted by me, but also by user Chiton ("what is at stake is not all of Huascars actions").

Here I diminish the disputed content into half a sentence ([113]). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll point out that, in the current article, the controversial text has been moved to a more appropriate location (per the recommendation of user Chiton). See [114]. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana

Would there be any sysop that would like to deal with the hoax repeatedly added to the article on Cat Creek, Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the user Catcreekcitycouncil (aka Catcreek, Timothyjohnson12 etc.)? He also constantly deletes the hoax tag and has added an obviously fraudulent source to support his claims, which even if had existed would likely not pass the RS criteria since, as the user claims, "there are only a handful of copies still floating around in the rural Montana area", thus the information given is merely unverifiable. --glossologist (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• First, you need to notify them; I've done so. As for the editing...oi vey. I've reverted the hoax and sent things to SPI to deal with the ducks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've also sent to WP:UAA. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone sure it is a hoax? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

• 100% certain. Unless Peterson, Audubon, and Kaufman are all wrong... (It might not be a "lol let's fool some people" hoax, but it's a "local legend" hoax at least, and a hoax is a hoax.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and disruptive editing on Philadelphia Water Department, Seamus (dog), hydraulic fracturing, and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Could an administrator please view?

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

I am reposting this because it was archived before it was resolved. There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W. 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel is continuing to make disruptive edits on the Philadelphia Water Department page and is leaving messages at my talk page rather than discussing the article on its own talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and disinterested party checking in. The issue appears to be content driven and may require either an expert to intervene or having a RFC devoted to individual articles. This entire spat brings to mind the directive found at the bottom of the page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

The editor SMM201'0 seems to think that the removal of sourced Original Research and Synthesis of material is disruptive. I have asked the editor what the "Haliburton Rule" regarding Hydraulic Fracking has to do with the Philidelphia Water Department, but the editor has yet to respond how it is related. None of the sources he is using mention the PWD. There is some concern that HF may be responsible for some issues of water quality in Philadelphia, but that is no reason to proceed to lay out a lengthy argument against HF within the PWD article. It follows a clear WP:COAT and WP:SYNTH pattern. Present the arguement and then go off on an unrelated tangent that has no sourced connection to the PWD. The editor seems to have a strong feeling regarding HF and has been editing from what appears to be an activist approach in order to present HF in as negative of a light as possible violating several WP policies. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel deleted large sections of text and references again today. I would welcome administrator input. Arzel has wanted to discuss the article on my talk page rather than the article's talk page. I have answered on the article's talk page. Arzel is also being disruptive on the HF pages, see their talk pages as well.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Massive move of articles to diacriticless versions by Cerrot

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

---

User Cerrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally moved a host of articles from diacriticized versions to their diacriticless versions – see user's contributions – in contradiction to guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". S/he has then edited each redirect, effectively blocking any attempt to revert the changes.

Such behaviour has previously resulted in blocks. Can anyone with rollbacks rights wave his/her wand?

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• No edits in many months, then returns today and all their edits have been doing this. Is it safe to call for a block as a possible compromised account? Especially with no prior such contributions. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User has only 127 edits before this move spree (even with the replication lag taken into account). HandsomeFella (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that he has 4 pre-move edits today 1 2 3 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked him indefinitely. I cannot use rollback - he has edited all the redirect pages (the way Dolovis did) which prevents his edits being rolled back. see here. This is another reason for blocking him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And I agree, it does look likely that it is a compromised account. Did someone have a tool that undid all of Dolovis's page moves? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A thought: anyone trying to hack a user account is likely to have to try a couple of times with regard to the password. Is there any mechanism in place to log the ip address for failed attempts to logon? Or maybe that would not be appropriate? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed from his contributions that, outside from the page moves and talk page creations for previously created articles, he has zero non-article space contribs. There's an outside chance that he is unaware of the controversy surrounding diacritics and this is just an innocent but extremely bold group of edits. I talked about a situation like this recently at Wikipedia talk:Don't be a bull in a china shop.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Prior to this spree of moves, Cerrot never moved any pages. In June 2011, there was, however, a curious bout of prods of Czech sportsmen BLPs, most of which sported diacritics and were soon after undiacritically moved by Dolovis.  --Lambiam 19:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• This is almost certainly a ban-evading sock of Dolovis (talk · contribs) (the two topic bans on diacritics are logged at WP:RESTRICT). There has been a strange interest in Dolovis's stubs by new or almost new accounts:

• Daer55 (talk · contribs) (first redirects...)
• Bloodpoint (talk · contribs) (...and then categories to prevent non-admin moves)
• Upan atom (talk · contribs) (older account, but probably related)

Counting Cerrot, that's four inexperienced users doing an obscure task on obscure pages. All the accounts have somehow managed to contribute to Dolovis's cause to keep "his" articles diacritic-free. Prolog (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, and SPI with CU is warranted. - J Greb (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And an SPI submitted - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• You know, it would be nice if we could actually discuss this topic and come to some decisions without pulling out the knives. Getting opponents blocked and/or topic banned is hardly a satisfactory form of arriving at a consensus, and the harassment and name-calling directed at anyone who dares to open a move request over the issue is no fun to deal with at all. And then, of course, there's the issue of certain Wikiprojects coordinating "patrols" in order to ensure that article titles (and content) retain the use of diacritics.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be. But since both sides are engaging in snark, snipe, and ignore, all we can do is play fire brigade. - J Greb (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not about the diacritics issue, it's about 1 user dropping out of the sky and making a series of BOLD page moves. Is the account compromised, is it a partisan sock, or is he just an exopedian with little or no experience outside of article space doing what to him makes sense? (though I think the last possibility is now unlikely) Whatever the case I would love to hear what Cerrot has to say. He's definitely got some splainin to do. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

      But the diacritics issue is still the root cause (and I'd characterize the behavior here as "pointy" rather than "bold"). I agree with J Greb too though, in that both sides are (still) at the point where all of the comments are "snark, snipe, and ignore", which is what's rather frustrating to me. I believe that the problem is that the largest cross section of articles that this issue impacts are sports related personality articles. Sports topics especially (and other pop culture topics to a lesser extent) seem to be prone to overwrought emotional confrontations, and so my hope that this will ever be settled to most people's satisfaction is remote.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

      Complicating matters is real world problems. I was writing an article on a Swedish hockey player today (with a diacritic in his name), and came across articles on the International Ice Hockey Federation's own website that both used and disused them. I have publications from this year that use them, whereas last year they did not. And in the case of a player like Sven Bärtschi, his junior team spells his last name one way, and his pro team another. Asking Wikipedians to form a consensus on the matter is impossible when the real world itself lacks one. The best we can do is compromise, but that'll never work so long as people insist on ignoring compromise to enforce personal viewpoint. Resolute 04:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

      Honestly... and, I'd be perfectly accepting if anyone wants to call me crazy about my conjecture here, but... I really wonder if a handful of people are taking some of the diacritics arguments here out into other parts of the world. It only requires a handful of well placed people (at most) to affect something like this. If that is what's happening then I suppose that the issue will settle itself eventually, but... sheesh! Regardless, my personal opinion is that the use of diacritics should follow the same patterns that English loan words have historically, in that they slowly adapt to become... more English, over time. I'm fairly confident that will happen actually, for various reasons, and so... why get into a knife fight over it all? It's not as though the article titles are being permanently embedded into the SQL tables or anything silly like that. Some reasonable discussions over some titles (in both directions, at this point) would sure be nice is all.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran a CU on the basis that it was a compromised account, but nothing came up. I don't think it's Dolovis - although the edits are identical, they are constrained by the interface so could not be different and achieve the same result. Let's see what he comes up with anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Missed this... sorry Elen... - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was wrong. They are all Dolovis, on his annual holiday from the look of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I would think all of the relevant edits from the 4 socks be reverted and all of the redirects created with them for the past week or so be deleted. These were done in breach of a ban and should not stand. - J Greb (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are right, but I'll wait until morning before trying my luck with Special:Nuke. All those redirects are going to have to be deleted, and the articles moved back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it; I've been waiting for an excuse to use the Nuke button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaww... Why can't us lowly non-admins at least get to see what the Nuke button looks like? All I get if I click the link is a page entitled 'Unable to proceed', and a rude message rubbing my nose in it. Is it big, red, and shiny? Does it set off sirens? Should I duck and cover now that I know it is being pressed... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot already. Shiny, yes. Red. no.

Sometime I'll get a screenshot for you; it has Username, IP address or blank, Pattern for the page name, and Maximum number of pages: 500 (that's the limit). You enter a username, and it gives you the list of recently created pages and a button appears that says "Delete". Remarkably simple. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncle Joe would be envious, George Orwell wouldn't be surprised. Don't let the power go to your head. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted a bunch of the moves, but a lot still remain. Time for me to go to bed, so if anyone else wants to finish up the cleanup, have at it. —SW— ^speak 06:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have reverted the rest. Prolog (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• A thought: couldn't the move tool be updated, so that when one moves a page from a diacriticized article to a diacriticless name, it would include the {{R from diacritics}} from the beginning? It seems to be a valid template/category, and would be helpful whether an editor is acting in good faith or not. It would save edits, and it would not block reversions, so we wouldn't have to use Nuke. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I hate to spoil the fun here, but you don't need the nuke function at all. Just check the box that says "Leave a redirect behind" when moving the page. I don't have time to work on this right now though. Graham87 06:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • You may not have the whole background. Cerrot has been leaving a redirect behind. The problem is that s/he has then edited it, adding the R from diacritics template. A move cannot be reverted if the redirect has been edited, unless you're an admin. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm fully aware of that. As you know, admins can move pages even if there are other revisions in the way; while doing so, they can uncheck a box that says "Leave a redirect behind" (yikes: I meant "uncheck" in my previous post!) :-) Seems like it's all been dealt with, anyhow. Graham87 09:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Atleast Dolovis' page moves were accurate & correct. Afterall this is supposed to be the English language Wikipedia, not the multiple language (my home country/ancestry country) Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't start that again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Re-open case?

I fear that there may be a miscarriage of justice here.

First, as Ron Ritzman said above, this might be the case of an editor acting in good faith, albeit being extremely bold. If you think that redirects to titles that have diacritics should have the template R from diacritics, then there's no way of obtaining that without editing the redirect after the move. (This is why I suggested that the move tool might need an update.) So there's no way of knowing if Cerrot was acting in good faith or not. On the other hand, the pattern is disturbing. Why did Cerrot suddenly return from his long time passiveness of almost 10 months, just to carry out these moves and redirect edits? The same thing goes for Bloodpoint.

Second, I find some of the reasoning connecting Dolovis to the other editors unconvincing, such as "editing while Dolovis wasn't editing". That proves absolutely nothing to me. Cerrot was probably editing while several thousands of editors were not editing. Also, I think I saw some reasoning somewhere – I can't find it now – saying that "Dolovis was on his annual vacation" since the edits (of Cerrot, I assume) were not carried out from Dolovis' usual location. That is also unconvincing to me. Another interpretation is that it isn't Dolovis socking as Cerrot.

Given Dolovis' obvious desire to contribute to wikipedia – whether it's for his own pleasure, or for the good cause (just as with the rest of us) – it seems rather unlikely to me that he would do such a thing. I mean, he has played some tricks and has been testing the limits, but such an all-out attack, if it really were him, he would know that it would only result in a total block, preventing him from doing what he obviously very much wants to do. Kind of like a wikisuicide-by-admin – but for what reason, given his desire to edit wikipedia?

I don't know which tools the admins have, and I'm not an admin, so I cannot perform much research myself. The contribs of Daer55 seem to be deleted, so even that is not available to me. Can we be absolutely certain that these editors are socks for Dolovis? Given the pattern of these editors, isn't it possible that they could be socks of each other, but not of Dolovis?

So, is the evidence against Dolovis convincing, or is it just circumstantial? (I admit I should have aired my concerns earlier. But, blocks can be lifted.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He has been caught twice before for sockpuppeting and let off when single admins believed his story. It is quite possible and quite likely that he thought he was untouchable as far as sockpuppeting went because he had gotten off it twice when CU had pretty much confirmed it was him both of the previous times. I think this is definitely a case of 3 strikes you are out. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For now I'll say this. I'm not too crazy about the "X must be on vacation argument" because it's an unfalsifiable charge that can be made against anyone where checkuser evidence is inconclusive or even unrelated. Aside from outing himself and providing ironclad alibis for the time in question, there's no way for a "usual suspect" to prove that he wasn't on vacation and using socks at hotels. As far as this case goes, I haven't had time to dig through the diacritics controversy but Dolovis can't be the only person on the planet who thinks they shouldn't be used on the English Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegation of hounding by an administrator

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

---

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Administrators should behave in an exemplary manner and assist us mere mortal editors, and the goal of WP. Sadly this is not always the case. I am being hounded by The Rambling Man for some inexplicable reason. Here are some of his recent caustic edits:

• [115][116][117][118]

I want to him to stop this pathetic, unconstructive behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a garden-variety conflict, and does not involve the use of administrator tools. What you are going to have to do is use WP:DR. In cases like this, I highly recommend WP:MEDCOM to mediate interpersonal conflicts like this. Otherwise, however, there is no intervention by admins that needs to be done here. --Jayron32 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DR and WP:MEDCOM is part of it but I am mainly concerned with his behaviour towards me. It is WP:UNCIVIL. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I can vouch for that at least one action of The Rambling man was entirely helpful, Alan, removed categories, he should have replaced and not removed. For someone like me, who is a little thick as far as categories go, gross categories come handy, if Alan does not like them, he should replace them and not remove them, leaving article uncategorised. I support The Rambling Man in this edit of his[119]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree that incorrect categories should be removed and where possible replaced but there is method to my madness. In the case you mention I removed Category:India from maybe three articles. The Rambling Man reverted at least one and maybe three of my edits by putting the articles inappropriately back into Category:India. My rationale for removal rather than replacement was because I did not know where to re-categorise them and by leaving them uncategorised it brings them to the attention of other editors who will know how to categorise the, Also, as far as I recall the articles needed other work so leaving them uncategorised is a sort of alert to have them fixed up. This technique seems to be effective and since categories are not a major means of navigation for readers there is no harm in leaving them uncategorised. It tends to be for the short term anyway. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad rationale, really. Better categorized to some degree than uncategorized. Again, there was no use of admin tools, and something tells me you didn't even approach him about it first, especially as per WP:BRD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of data it is only an opinion from you and I. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't know whether it is right to do so or not? Nobody likes tags on "their" articles is all I can say. Which bugged me. I think you have put pressure on me to be a little less lazy with categories. Perhaps a template which says that the category selected is too vague, that will solve the problem. Someone would have to make such a template if it isn't there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I also don't like the tags but use them if a make a judgement that they will be effective. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See you can use this template it will solve your problem and won't leave the article uncategorised. Win-win? {{cat improve}} Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• No admin action needed. Not a WP:CIVIL violation. (Is it Apr 1st yet?). This needs to be taken to the appropriate board (WP:DR).--v/r - TP 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

New Statesman

This article has seen repeated deletion of fully sourced circulation figures from New Statesman article by IPs User:2.25.67.29 and User:82.132.239.90.[120][121][122] Semi protection was put in place and as expected User:Tottingham123 appeared within 3 hours making exactly the same type of edits, something he previously[123]. IPs failed to engage in discussions or give reasons for the edits despite a discussion being opened on the talk page, the user's only comment is that having the circulation figures is "malicious" and has now even started removing mentions of circulation in the 1960s.[124] User:Robbyyy also looks to be a previous account though not presently active. There may also be COI issues.[125]--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this please. Also would appreciate it if a few people could keep the page on their watchlists. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I probably should have gotten to this earlier. Firstly, I've notified Tottingham123 about this ANI discussion. I've reverted Tottingham123 and left him a user talk page message telling him to use the talk page at Talk:New Statesman. If he persists in reverting or removing content without using the talk page, further admin action can be taken. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user

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

---

Inception anyone?

This user and I have been engaged in a minor edit war at an article I recently created. Any help would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No names and no links other than your own sign. The diff[126]. April 1st?--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, much cleverer than that. Mouse over "article" and watch the cursor spin (hence Inception). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK that explains that explains the tie to Inception. I liked that movie!--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a 24 hour boomerang block for confusing everyone. And the mouse doesn't spin on Chrome/Win7, just an hourglass. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another reason to use Firefox. →Στc. 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pssst...it doesn't spin on Firefox either (at least 5.0). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Then someone needs to update his Fox. We're on v11.0 now) Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would, except I'm a technophilic Luddite (yes, I know that's an oxymoron) and since 5.0 ain't broke for me, I'm refusing to fix it! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't spin on 10.whateverI'vegot which was about a couple of days old when they started pestering me about 11. Peridon (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ummm ... perhaps it has to do with the icons you have configured for various windows "states"? — Ched :  ?  16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I still refuse to move beyond 3.6.x before support is dropped, as the interface is horrendous on later versions. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible misuse of Wikipedia

I don't really know if this violates any policies or what the right place to discuss it is if it does, or, indeed, whether it's been discussed or not, but I figured I'd just drop a note and a link here to see what others think of it. Possible WP:NOTHERE?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-sbu-awards-contribute-higher-wikipedia.html

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You think Barnstars violate WP:NOTHERE? Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Or moreso, someone did a study which may show a way to increase participation in Wikipedia! NO, stomp this out. We cannot have better editor retention at any cost! We need to work harder at driving away new editors, not being welcoming! Fuck them! --Jayron32 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

But what if they like being fucked? It wouldn't work! Pesky (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

But there are so many people actively involved in driving away new new editors. Do we have to notify them all of this discussion?--Shirt58 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We should rejig ClueBot to issue them a standard notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fascinating! 60% more productivity? Wow! Pesky (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there was necessarily anything wrong with it, just thought maybe there should be a few eyes on it. Sheeeeesh. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It could work on an "opt-in" system like SuggestBot. Established users could elect to receive notifications of new accounts creations, and then go and hassle them. If we are really serious about alienating new editors, I am sure there could be a WP:BOT written to do just this. From what I can see, there are a number of acceptable scripting languages that... erm... --Shirt58 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromised account?

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

---

I have reason to believe that the cats have hacked into the boa constrictor's account. The dog told me. Pesky (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs? Have you notified them of this discussion? Have you considered nominating any them for adminship?--Shirt58 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to find the diffs, as the dog can't spell the boa's username, and the boa won't tell me. I told them all, but none of them answered, apart from giggling. And the boa reckons she pwns ArbCom. Pesky (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The boa should be blocked immediately. That user has been nothing but abusive to me and my brethren, making jokes about "eating me" and stalking my edits with a hungry expression. I demand that something be done about this; to ignore it is a vile miscarriage of justice! ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 05:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

She'd just wriggle out of a block; she's been really defensive since someone told her she looked like a sockpuppet. Pesky (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the boa has eaten the rabbit, this becomes a content dispute. Take it to WP:DRN. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just wait for things to come out all right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Now listen to me very carefully. WP:BOAs and WP:DOGs have been a WP:PROBLEM from WP:DAYONE. My advice is simple: just l.b. on the m.sL. and wait.—Djathinkimacowboy

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

I'm blocked

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

---

Why is my account blocked? I can't edit from it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? How did you post here? You were unblocked in November, and the only other block you've gotten was overturned immediately because it was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The joys of April Fools.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's because you have one of those fake 'you have new messages' banners on the top of your user and talk pages. I'm sure that if you remove that silliness, you'll find that you can edit without any further difficulties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Awww.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At least he was kind enough to put all of the blue text in the wrong font. Calabe1992 04:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See here:

"Per decree by Jimbo Wales, effective 06-01-2010 the editing history of each editor will include the carbon footprint of the editor. If the ratio of the carbon footprint to productive edits is too large, the editing privileges of the editor will be suspended until the editor has donated enough carbon credits to the Wikimedia Foundation as compensation."

Count Iblis (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooh. Having just wrapped up my time zone's Earth Hour slactivist nonsense a couple hours ago, I like that joke! Resolute 04:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And unless it's just a joke for today, you need to get rid of those "You have new messages" banners on your user pages. See WP:NEWMESSAGE. —SW— ^comment 06:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's only for April Fools. It activates and deactivates automatically.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, not only are you too lazy to come up with an original gag, you're too lazy to flip the switch on it every year? Damn, that's lazy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do anything about laziness. I may be abscent when it comes time to flip the switch. I haven't been able to come up with a good gag this year so look out for me next year. Perhaps you might be the one to get fooled. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Aprils Fools jokes....

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

---

Don´t change anything that affects articles or their printed versions.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that may be your opinion, but... how is this an AN/I issue? Calabe1992 06:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Doing so may lead to a block? It might be indistinguishable from vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes..... and this is a very bad idea.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you know ... that Herbert Grossman was horny as a youth, but learned to conduct himself after serving in World War II? ( Too late for main page ( sniff! ) so I brought it to the party here. Is there a buffet, or a hosted bar? )  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not for April Fools, but I like the editnotice at Gadsby (novel). For April Fools, I like my version of this editnotice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edit notice is spot on, Blade. But couldn't we have an audio edit notice, too, in article space? Just to discourage new editors? That'd be pretty cool, too. I nominate Molly Lewis' Wikipedia Breakup Song.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As a sock of Jimmy Wales, I may have proof that he is a puppetmazter 174.252.59.113 (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockie, forget it. You are the old guard, and oblivion just tweeted that your presence is required. You should probably try to be more like me.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC) ( lol; jk; :P - plagiarized from Drmies, Journeyman Clever Chap, International Brotherhood of Irony Workers. see context. )

I see editors adding hoax AfD templates to mainspace articles, I hope no one gets blocked for removing them. Is adding these templates really funny? Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll invited Dennisthe2 (talk · contribs) here. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I see another person adding a joke AFD template to mainspace, they will be taking a forced break until this silliness is over. T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Invoking "double secret probation" in times of wiki emergency will win you few fans today! "No more fun of any kind!" Doc talk 10:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a block, these templates, etc in article space are meant to amuse other editors, but are confusing to our general readership and are thus disruptive. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone in this town is trying to burn the playhouse down.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've previously been asked not to put the AFD templates in the main articles. Near as I can tell, it pretty much means not relying on Twinkle. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true. And article space is not a playhouse, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tim is speedy deleting joke MfDs and inappropriately citing G6. Obviously he needs to be beaten within an inch of his life by a pack of Scottish dwarves. I also propose that he be forced to wear a funny hat every April 1st. Should he fail to comply with that then he will be immediately subject to the aforementioned punishment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why must they by Scottish? I much prefer Canadian dwarves. ^{[natit citsejam] [klat]} dE 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally recommend he be hanged by the neck until he cheers up. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ok, me have no good honest bones. been all 'acting like eNglish' but no have noledge of a thing (single). do not ban me. many childrens, must to feed all.—Djathinkimacowboy

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

Goodbye Wikipedia

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

---

All those months of working here...and now I'm banned. See my user page. :( Bmusician 08:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Block Log says nothing. (April Fools?) ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...wat. User declared that they were "banned" on 26 January, then requested their page be full-protected. There is zero evidence of this "ban" having ever occurred. If this was an April Fools' joke, it sure happened really, really early. DOES NOT COMPUTE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Banned 7 September 2011 also. Doc talk 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew this wouldn't work. Bmusician 09:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Timing is everything.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The annual "wacky day" here on WP. All day long. Joy! Doc talk 09:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Shshshsh

The user is violating all norms of wikipedia.

Firstly on Screen Award for Best Female Playback the official site of Screen clearly states that Alka Yagnik has won 4 Screen awards whereas the user is adamant that she has won only 2 Screen awards.

Secondly on Alka Yagnik page user is refusing to accept the fact that Alka Yagnik has sung in over 20000 songs & 1000 films depsite newspaper report as well as live award video as sources. The source Award has the most distinguished panel who nobody can call unreliable. Further the user on Sunidhi Chauhan page is adamant on stating that Sunidhi has sung over 2000 songs without any reference. He clearly has double standards.

This user is constantly harassing me on wikipedia & something needs to be done about him. ANKMALI (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sang 20,000 songs in 1000 films? The article says she first started at 10, so that is 556 songs in 27.8 films per year? IMDB shows 609 movies, which is a feat by itself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the WP:BURDEN to provide that proof is on you, not the other editors. The current talk page discussion is both civil and productive, and has only been going on for one day. As for Screen Award for Best Female Playback, you just now added a comment on the talk page and haven't allowed enough time for anyone to respond, thus you are being unreasonably impatient. There isn't anything for an administrator to do here as no one has done anything that warrants action. Dennis Brown (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Ankmali is probably at risk of WP:BOOMERANG here - he was reported during the week by Shshshsh, and although we chose to not take any action against Ankmali at the time, they're continuing to use non-RS sources, and apparently remove valid ones. I smell short term topic ban ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? I'm using the reliable sources. Further its this User:Shshshsh who's not using any reliable sources !! Please examine the matter carefully before arriving at any decision !!! ANKMALI (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you are talking about this source, that you put on the talk page, [127], then Bwilkins is correct in assessing that it doesn't pass WP:RS. I suggest you read the essay he linked, WP:BOOMERANG, because the more you demand action here, the more likely that action will be taken. And you might not like the result. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • [128]. Doc talk 10:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Am I the only one smelling a sock of Dr.Mukesh111? This wouldn't be the first time he did exactly this; do a search for User:Wings spread. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The diff Doc provides above is actually okay, re Ankmali's behavior. The content he removed was cited to a ref that lands on a "page not found" error at The Hindustan Times, or at least it does currently. That's no doubt what he meant by his too brief "not sourced" edit summary. It would have been better if he'd just done a quick search for an alternate edition of the article, of course: It took me about 30 seconds to find one myself at the Times of India. But it's possible, too, that this content isn't freely available within India.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Turns out the Times of India article had the same title, but very different content than the one in The Hindustan Times, so I struck through that link, in my preceding. As I've just noted on the Sunidhi Chauhan article's talk page, however, I did find a link that currently works for me, to reach the intended target of the broken link, ie to reach the 8 May 2007 article in The Hindustan Times. Here it is, but it appears not to support any of the content it's currently used as a cite for in the article. If the working link is swapped for the broken one, that content will need a {{Failed verification}} tag, in other words. Might be better to just delete all reference to the Hindustan Times article altogether, though, if it's not being used elsewhere in our own Sunidhi Chauhan article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@Blade: I did look at User:Wings spread, and I do see similar behavior, of course. But lots of genuine new users act this way, too, out of legitimate confusion about our policies plus a strong dash of ego-involvement in response to feeling thwarted. Can I suggest that you ask a friendly checkuser to have a look? No one, myself included, wants to waste time on a sock, but this user shouldn't have to "live under a cloud" of admin-initiated suspicion that way if he's legit, either, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Screen Award for Best Female Playback. The official site of Screen has said that Alka Yagnik won 4 awards . ANKMALI (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Another important issue is Screen Award for Best Female Playback. The official site of Screen has said that Alka Yagnik won 4 Screen awards whereas page is only showing her with two wins . ANKMALI (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

( Please note timestamp of the above. Ankmali's preceding 13:14, 1 April 2012 UTC comment moved here from current end of thread, alongside his second nearly identical 11:48, 1 April 2012 UTC statement, to avoid disruption to continuity of threaded discussion. Please see WP:INDENT, Ankmali, about preserving thread flow, and WP:DEADHORSE re this assertion, which you've now made three times here. - Ohiostandard 13:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

• @Dennis Brown: I don't edit in the topic area, Dennis, but I'm confused by your statements. While Hindilyrics.net clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, I can't find anywhere Bwilkins said IBN Live fails those standards. He didn't say so in the previous AN/I thread about this dispute, at least.

Further, I strongly doubt BWilkins would say that, either, since IBN Live is a CNN and Time-Warner media property, in collaboration with what appears to be a very large Indian television group, Global Broadcast News. In other words, contrary to your assertion, the cite to IBN Live that ANKMALI presented on the talk page for our article on Alka Yagnik certainly appears to be a reliable source, a very reliable source, actually, even an "exceptional" one, for this kind of information.

About your arithmetic: It's my impression that most Bollywood movies shoot and "wrap" very quickly, so 30 or so films a year isn't out of the question for a top star in India. And we all know they're very musical, so the 20 songs per film that your math implies, at, say, one to three minutes per film isn't out of the question, either. At 2.5 minutes per song, she'd be singing for 50 minutes, on average, out of a 2 hour film, yes?

But that's just for plausibility: Neither my "original research" or yours on this is really relevant. A reliable source says 20,000 songs in 1,000 films, and no other reliable source disputes it. That means it belongs in the article. Likewise with the awards thing, which I didn't look into as thoroughly. IMDB has been ruled out as a reliable source at our reliable sources noticeboard repeatedly, btw, since it's crowdsourced content, as I understand.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the link Bwilkins provided, above, of ANKMALI's removal of another editor's talk page comment documents behavior that has to stop, immediately. If he won't agree to stop doing that, right now, then I'd certainly support a block. I likewise agree that he'd do well to study up on what constitutes a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia editing. He also needs to work harder to remain calm when he's in discussions with other editors. Unless an SPI or checkuser says he's a sock, of course, as Blade posited. If that turns out to be so, then please block him until 2079, at least.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC) ( Re strikethrough: My bad; see my next comment, which I'll add in a moment. - Ohiostandard 12:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

( I provided the wrong diff, above. It's here that ANKMALI removes one of user Shshshsh's talk page comments. It's remotely possible that was done accidentally, I suppose, although I doubt it. In any case, I'll reiterate that he absolutely must never do that again. I'd strongly support a substantial block if he does, absent a really good reason like a clear cut BLP violation or unequivocal vandalism. I'd also like to hear his explanation as to why did it in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

Yes , OhioStandard that was done accidently/unknowingly & will not be repeated. But I want you all to once & for all settle dispute on Alka Yagnik & Screen Award for Best Female Playback.

1) Alka Yagnik sang 2-3 songs daily throughout 80's, 90's & 2000's in various Indian languages hence 20000 songs & 1000 films isn't a tall claim for her. Further testimony of CNN-IBN as well as esteemed Screen Awards live video are not unreliable sources.

2)Screen Award for Best Female Playback official site of the award clearly states that Alka Yagnik won the award 4 times while page only shows 2 awards for her. There's a serious error which needs to be settled by you all. ANKMALI (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Shshshsh removed my IBN source from the Alka Yagnik page. ANKMALI (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankmali, you're asking for something that's outside the purpose of this board. I suggest you read about your options for dispute resolution concerning content issues. All that this board can deal with, in practical terms, is very clear cut and egregious violations of policies. You'll find you'll get better results in the future, btw, if you avoid making over-the-top statements like "The user is violating all norms of wikipedia", and "This user is constantly harassing me". Neither statement is true - all that's going on here is a good-faith content dispute. Making inflamatory remarks like that just prejudices other volunteers against whatever legitimate complaints you might actually have, if any.

Extended content, posted in collapsed form

That said, I'll also just mention that I've tried to follow the content issue, but it's been more difficult because you've kept referring to "the official source" without specifying what you mean by the phrase, anywhere that I've seen, anyway. It seems clear to me, in any case, that the official source for an award is the institution that confers it. You're not referring to awardsandsandshows.com are you? If so, it's my impression that all they do is enter data into their own site that they've copied from other places, presumably the offical sites themselves, or perhaps even from us, ie from Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm wrong about that; you might want to ask for opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. It's my opinion, however, that the CNN/Time-Warner site you've used, IBN Live, is a reliable source overall, although please remember that even very reliable sources make occasional mistakes - see wp:otto - And since discussion is ongoing on the relevant talk pages, and has barely begun on some points of dispute, the issue should be worked out there. Btw, I just now ( note timestamp of this message, relative to my earlier comments below ) realized that we're not discussing actresses, but singers who sing songs for the actresses who actually appear on screen. Sheesh. Anyway, singer Sunidhi Chauhan says in one 2008 interview "There are more than ten projects that I’m singing for.. ", so if they're singing for that many films at a time, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Alka Yagnik could get to 20,000. Re the whole dispute over who won what award when, btw, there does seem to be some confusion among sources. That is, some appear to report that so-and-so won a particular award for a given year, while others seem to report that the same person won the award in a given year; the award in dispute among editors is awarded in January of one year, for work in the previous year, I gather.

Again, please work these issues out by WP:CONSENSUS with other editors on the relevant talk pages, and give that process a week or two to work. The discussion on talk pages looks productive so far, and you need to give the process there a fair chance. If you feel you absolutely must, after no progress for a few weeks that way, you can initiate steps in the content dispute resolution process. But this really isn't the place for content disputes.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) IMDB is isn't reliable enough to establish notability, but that isn't the issue here. It can be used for sourcing of some facts. If the sentence was "at least 609 films" and IMDB showed 609 films, then that would be acceptable in every venue I've participated in here. It isn't for biographical info, but it is for technical info, ie: who directed, who starred in, release dates, etc. As to IBN, looking at it certainly doesn't make it clear that it is reliable, but I will admit I'm not 100% confident on that point. That they have an article here doesn't mean they are reliable, only notable. For example, Slashdot.org has an article and has been around over a decade, but they can't be used for any type of sourcing, as they are notable, but not reliable in the least. And even in Bollywood, 20k songs in 1k films is an exceptional amount of work for a 46 year old, thus requires exceptional sources, which this falls short of. Regardless, that is a matter for the talk page or WP:DR, not WP:ANI, as the discussion are new and ongoing with no show of bad faith by the other editors. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The only issues I see here, at present, are whether Ankmali's behavior merits any boomerang sanction and, since admin Blade of the Northern Lights suggested the possibility, whether he might be someone's sock. He certainly can't be blocked for citing a CNN/Time-Warner media property like IBN Live, which I think we're just going to have to disagree about as to its reliability; I think it's perfectly fine for the purpose he cited it.

Ditto re IMDB, a lot of people at RSN don't like it, but that's not a question for this venue either. I've never actually seen a Bollywood film, so I'm no authority, but I noticed that two people on "Yahoo Answers" said that many such films take 2 - 3 days to shoot. And they're essentially musicals, of course. But don't let's argue, Dennis: We penguinheads need to stick together! ;-)

We probably need to recognize that, assuming he's not a sock, Ankmali has only been around three months now. It's clear he doesn't quite understand how we all work together here, yet, but that's not unusual for someone with his experience. He does need to slow down a bit, and try to deal with others more calmly and respectfully, of course, but I haven't seen a very great deal so far that would make me want to bite him just yet.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• We can have different opinions, or slightly different interpretations without it being arguing :) My primary point was that it shouldn't have been brought here to begin with, it wasn't abuse by other editors, it was a content dispute. They put themselves at risk once other piped in with their experiences, and was just taking BWilkins at his word regarding boomerang on the other problems, not sourcing. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no! No one must ever have any different opinions or interpretations from mine! Mine! Mine always! Mine alone! :P Well, it took me a while to figure it out, wading through an unfamiliar topic area, but I've finally come around to your same conclusion: This is nothing but a content dispute, and it shouldn't have been brought here. But Shshshsh and Ankmali have bigger problems, I've discovered through this process. Almost all of our current article on Alka Yagnik is plagiarism. It's lifted from the IBN Live 19 March 2012 news article! I have no idea what to do about that. I think it'd be appropriate penance, though, if we all asked Ankmali to deal with it. ;-)  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's only a couple of paragraphs (early life and the first para of career) that is a straight copy. I've just deleted the material. Someone needs to rewrite from scratch. It's been in the article a while, haven't managed to trace who added it yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC) On closer inspection, it is IBN Live that is copying Wikipedia. Their article is dated 19 March 2012, but the content was in the Wikipedia article with exactly that wording well before that date. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me to look for ... what do you call that? "Reverse appropriation" (?) coming from a CNN/Time-Warner company. Thanks for catching that. "Naughty, naughty, IBN Live", as you say. That finding smokes that IBN Live article as a reliable source, then. I wonder where they got the 1,000 films and 20,000 songs number? Anway, we obviously can't use it. Solves that part of the content dispute, anyway, so there's a silver lining.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

IMDB source cited by User:Shshshsh on Alka Yagnik is incomplete & unreliable. Several of her popular scores like Slumdog Millionaire, Raaz, Saawariya, Imtihaan, etc are missing on the IMDB page. Hence if noone has any valid proof of the correct nos. better not to put any numbers on the page at all. Further page Screen Award for Best Female Playback matter is yet to be settled. ANKMALI (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Improper use of full protection?

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

---

Death of Sian O'Callaghan has been fully protected by User:Fred Bauder after he deleted most of the content -- on the basis that this is necessary to conform with WP:BLPCRIME. While it's arguably reasonable to insist on omitting material about the suspect, Fred has deleted a great deal of content that is *not* about the suspect (it's possible to see the earlier version via google cache). This is all being argued out at the AfD, and there's a more general issue of whether Wikipedia should show such deference to one country's legal system. In any event, excessive deletion followed by full protection seems inappropriate here -- it's the full protection issue that I think needs review. I haven't discussed it with Fred first because others have already done so at the AfD and it's clear that he doesn't intend to change his position. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty improper to me (WP:INVOLVED and all...), but he'll simply cite BLP and say that no other consideration is more important.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I never looked at the article or even knew about the matter previously to the request received from law enforcement in the UK. I'm open to changing protection provided a consensus is reached regarding Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators issues. I'm not inclined to invite edit warring. Nearly all sources, if not all, involve details regarding the investigation of the case which is why I deleted edits which contain links to them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The UK police are trying to avoid the libel/contempt of court fiasco that followed the Murder of Joanna Yeates. This led to calls for a change in the law on how the media could report the arrest of suspects, but this was rejected.[129] The same man (CH) is charged with two murders, and this is available in UK reliable sources. The UK police appear to have exceeded their powers with this request.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

They have the right to make a courteous request to us to act responsibly. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the UK police have exceeded their powers, this is a normal part of how censorship in Britain works. A large part of the sources used in the article have also been forced off-line. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to focus on the question of whether full protection is appropriate here (I think it isn't). thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another example of an involved editor using admin tools to push a POV, despite the overwhelming majority wanting otherwise. JOJ ^Hutton 17:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I never looked at the article or even knew about the matter previously to the request received from law enforcement in the UK. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What POV? That accused persons are entitled to a fair trial? Gotta guard against that one, it threatens our status as a collection of the latest garbage and innuendo slapped up somewhere else on the web. Franamax (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The law? I can't see that the need for an article on a nn crime victim is worth a miscarriage of justice. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is another WP:NOTNEWS. We should have a policy that we do not have articles on unfolding criminal cases, because until the case concludes or the trail goes cold, 95% of what is published in the media is speculation anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That may be, but it still doesn't justify full protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Nor does it justify the editor/admin who opens and AfD on an article (13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC) by the stamp and log) to continued to edit (18:40 through 18:41, 2 edits, 31 March 2012), delete (18:44 same day) and restore a single instance of their last edit (18:45 same day), and then fully lock that version (18:46 same day). Fred Bauder was involved the minute he took the page to AfD. At that point he should have left the AfD to run it course, not edit the article. And definitely not take administrative action on the article. If he felt the AfD was a mistake, too slow, going wrong, being hijacked, or whatever, he should have brought it to here or the BLP board and let a different admin who hadn't participated in editing the article or commenting on the AfD deal with it. - J Greb (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just from looking at it, this seems to be an attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD by the person who opened the AfD. No matter how much anyone argues it, we all know that AfD opinions are influenced by the state of the article at that moment in time, even if references exist elsewhere and all of that. By shaving the article down to this bare bones content that doesn't properly exhibit the claimed notability of the subject, it is attempting to influence more people to vote delete based on how the article looks. And Fred is clearly involved, per J Greb above. Silverseren^C 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• As I already stated here, the hat note on the article now improperly states that it is locked and censored as a result of a community decision, or at least based on community guidelines. This is NOT the case as we can see from the discussion that preceded the action. I request that if the article is to remain locked the hat note should state: "This article has been redacted to comply with the Sub judice requirements of British law." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When he started the AfD and put his support on it, he acquired an interest in being upheld sufficient to involve him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The OTRS request should have been passed to WMF, because administrators don't have authorisation to act as censors. Couldn't somebody just close the AfD and unlock the page? FormerIP (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• FormerIP has just given the right answer. As this was (apparently) a request from UK law enforcement agencies (and not a private individual asking for information to be removed from their article), it should have been handed to the WMF. The WMF have access to legal counsel, who can advise whether or not the request should be complied with. If it should be, the article should be deleted as an office action. I am going to close the AfD - as "the UK police asked us to delete it" is not a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to propose deletion of an article. I am going to refer it to the WMF. I am not going to unlock the article, but I will take over the protection from Fred. The reason I am not unlocking it is that I want to see what the legal advice from the WMF counsel is, and I do not think the world will end if the article remains a stub for the next 24 hours. I apologise for not picking up on this sooner, would probably have saved some hard words. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unlock article in full version. Wikipedia should not start to censoring its own articles. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a 24h lock is going to hurt, so long as it doesn't creep. My guess is that the chances of there being anything illegal/unadvisable in the article are slim at best, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

We could do worse than losing the makeshift hatnote, though. FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: there was a parallel discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Death of Sian O'Callaghan vs WP:NOTCENSORED -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:72.255.224.3

User:72.255.224.3 just went on a retaliation/revert campaign against some of my most recent edits[130]. I suspect its connected with this incident although it could connected with this incident. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Cornwall

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

---

• MJC59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MJC59 has returned after several months to resume his insistence that Cornwall should be described as a Duchy and not as a county of England. He has refused to engage in any discussion on this in recent days, but is simply repeating the behaviour of last year, when he did make a couple of comments on his talk page. Apart from catching him under 3RR, I'm not sure what the best way forward is. He clearly has strongly held (but very very fringe) views on this, "as an elected representative serving in Cornwall" who is "not prepared to be spoken to by someone who apparently lives in Somerset....", etc.(!) Incidentally, I'm aware that I erred in using rollback last time, so apologies for that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem to grasp the fact that the "County of England" part purely relates to how Cornwall is administrated as a County of England, which is disputed by a very small as you said, fringe group(s). --Τασουλα (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

MJC59's contribution history looks like a broken record regarding his fringe view about Cornwall. Here he is calling another editor a Fucking English idiot. If this case were submitted at WP:AN3 it is very likely that a block for long-term warring would be issued. I'd recommend an indefinite block. If the editor would make assurances about his future behavior, the block could be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've knocked him on the head for two weeks. He's only ever been blocked 24hrs so an immediate indef seemed OTT. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Where was this talk on AN about fringe theories noticeboard?

I removed an RfC request tag this morning from WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action? which I had proposed originally but wasn't going anywhere, provoked a lot of aggro, and the contributions had tailed off. I had been hoping to get some uninvolved person to close it with a quick summary but an editor there User:86.**_IP archived it practically immediately. Is that archiving right? I'm not too worried about that but that user also put a note there last night that I just noticed

No. First of all, this RfC is malformed. It's on the wrong page. Secondly, an AN thread on the same topic was just closed, with a finding of no action being required against the noticeboard. Thirdly, it's been two weeks since you began this, and have only served to stifle any productive discussion by randomly attacking people. Any productive discussion will need to happen after some time, begun by someone who's not throwing random false accusations of fake wrongdoing everywhere. 86.** IP (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

but I can't ask them about the discussion on AN as they have banned me from their talk page and archived the RfC. Could someone here perhaps point me at this discussion they're talking about? Thanks Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think he meant Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Noticeboard participants in AfD and other debates ([131]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So it was yet another person complaining about the fringe noticeboard but the complainant was a sockpuppet so that was why it was dismissed. Par for the course I guess. Thanks. I hadn't realized there was a noticeboard at WP:AN I thought it would be some policy or something with the noticeboards below, I should have looked. Dmcq (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Brain–computer interface

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

---

We have an IP editor edit-warring to insert paranoid nonsense into the article, sourced to a Daily Mail article. Options are a 3RR block or semi-protection -- I bring this here because I'm not sure which is preferable. I will notify the IP address. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote is from a verifiable source. Two editors do not like what is being said, but that does not change the fact that it has been said and by a reputable source. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For an alternative view regarding the reliability of the Daily Mail, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Prepare to be horrified. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP is editing the wrong article. They are looking for electromagnetic weapon. Viriditas (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The link in relation to the Daily Mail does not relate to the Daily Mail in any way. Whilst there can be a case made for addition to electromagnetic weapon, the basic principle requires a BCI first. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 19:11, 1 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I think a link to the Daily Mail really does relate quite strongly to the Daily Mail. I'm really not sure what your second point is here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't linking properly, ended up at the bottom of the page. There is nothing notable here, just a few comments that may or may not be accurate. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have repeatedly suggested to the IP that this be brought up at WP:RSN, as would be appropriate - but the IP has not done this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN concerns itself with verifiability. The source is verifiable and WP:RSN would be redundant. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a clear indication at this point that the IP is utterly clueless, or a troll. Can someone please show them the door? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor has stated that a source is unreliable, but cannot explain why. The same source is references in tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we have yet another indication that the IP is utterly clueless, or a troll. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not agreeing with the source, does not make it unreliable. Unless you have evidence of the unreliability of the source, drop it. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Where the reliability of a source is disputed, it is discussed at WP:RSN - take it there, or take a hike... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You have offered nothing that constitutes as a dispute to reliability. 92.23.46.108 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Whereas you have offered ... The Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've given him a 60hr time out for edit warring. Let me know if he starts up again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not evidence of general unreliability. Show that the source is unreliable. If it is, it shouldn't be too difficult to prove. 89.242.102.22 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This could get tedious. I've blocked the obvious sock, and semi protected the article for two weeks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Problems of a user

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

---

Hi, hopefully I am here at the right place. A user from de:wp asked me for help on my german talk. If I understand him right, user:Taxi Berlin created his userpage (like in de:wp) and it got deleted and he seems to be blocked. He wanted to reveal his professional background and then translate an entry of de:wp in English. Could someone tell me what went wrong? Thanks for your help! Catfisheye (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He used his userpage as a spam article and had a promotional username. We routinely block people for having promotional usernames and delete userpage promo articles. His talk page explains why he is blocked - User_talk:Taxi_Berlin Secretlondon (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, in de:wp it is not considered a promotional name and with SUL it would be nice, if he could have just one account. In de:wp he has not made promotion, so could you copy me here the text of his userpage? (btw i had the understanding listening to a presentation at wikimania last year, that people should make clear when they might have a CoI; he states, he tried to make "full disclosure" here.) so is there a chance that his username is accepted here? (The text at his userpage is really unreadable for a non-native speaker.) thanks for your help btw. Catfisheye (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Our username policy is different from de. We do not allow you to have an account which is the name of an organisation. We considered his en userpage to be an advert, but we wouldn't allow his de userpage either as that links to his business. His deleted userpage had: Taxi Berlin is a taxicab dispatching company in Berlin. German user page: Taxi Berlin (de) Secretlondon (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will tell him. Thanks. Catfisheye (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

again: he cannot create an account with another name, because of the autoblock and a static IP. As said in de:wp AFAICT he does not make promotional edits and if he would do so here, you could still block him. So would you be so nice and remove the autoblock? Thanks again. Catfisheye (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

He should now be able to request a new username. Will that do? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Or make a new account as the autoblock is gone. I suspect our name change unblocking process maybe too hard for a non-native speaker. Secretlondon (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I will tell him and think also, that it will be easier to create a new account. Thanks a lot for your help! :) Greetings from Germany Catfisheye (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as he picks something other than Taxi B, I'll unblock him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Now unblocked. I do think this is all just a misunderstanding, so I hope he has no further problems with editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like de wikipedia have different ways of handling COI issues. We nuke any promotional usernames which does disguise the issue. I have wondered whether we should go for full disclosure instead. Secretlondon (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Gamezero05

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

---

User:Gamezero05 appears to need a community imposed wikibreak. At the MMA discussion [132], he has taken a fancy to calling me a liar repeatedly. [133], [134]. TreyGeek has approached them on their talk page and took the time to explain why they can't do this, but they don't get it and replied back with a warning template on TG's page [135]. As I told him, I have no problem with someone attacking my logic, but attacking my character in a discussion is very disruptive and interferring with the discussion, in what is already a heated topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to be so quick on the trigger, but we have had enough verbal abuse in the MMA articles, and blocks seem to be the only things that work when someone is this far over the line. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, you said something which was untrue, so I said you were lying about it. I did not repeatedly call you a liar, so stop over-dramatizing it. Secondly, you, TreyGeek, and MTking have an agenda and are trying your damnedest to silence those who oppose you.

The reason I replied back with a warning template is because it was done to me first. I was simply returning the favor.

And it is extremely petty of you to waste your time with this because I said you were lying. If you take that as an attack on your personal character, then you are being very, very petty. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you just said "blocks seem to be the only things that work when someone is THIS FAR OVER THE LINE". Really? Because I said you were lying? (Which you clearly were). How can something so petty be "so far over the line"?

I know your game. You are acting like you were verbally assaulted really bad and you are a victim. Now you are trying to seem like the civil one in order to get me blocked because I oppose your view on the MMA articles. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There are far more WP:CIVIL ways to call someone out on an untruth (not saying that what was said here is one way or the other, just to be sure) than by using the L-word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe Denis was only giving a couple examples, a couple of examples of incivility and over the line activities can include refering to people as slimy and decitful, threating to canvass people from outside Wikipedia to participate in the discussion, and calling people Nazis calling people motherfucker.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any Nazis in that last diff, but I do see somebody who uses a word that's not appropriate (since he's not talkin' bout' Shaft). That is particularly egrerious and should be struck immediately, or else the user blocked for making such a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I did say that, I admit. I wasn't completely aware of the rules at the time and it wasn't meant to be a put-down. I meant it as "this guy". And about calling somebody slimy and deceitful, that I did not do. I said certain actions taken were slimy and deceitful. What these guys were doing was putting articles up for deletion and then discussing that they wanted to merge several articles because people were putting them up for deletion... except they were the ones who put them up for deletion in the first place. That was slimy and deceitful. Gamezero05 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that you still call Mtking slimy and deceitful, and don't see why we are upset that you called TreyGeek a "motherfucker" only reinforces the reasons I requested you be blocked to prevent further disruption. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Must have linked the wrong one, it's there, I'll find it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just now saw where he called Trey an "MF". Wow. It will take about another month to work the rest of the details on the project. I don't expect it, but it would be swell if it could be done without his disruption. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Appologies, it was an IP who invoked Godwin's Law, with Gamezero05 with suggesting it was nothing to be offended by. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Even if you give him a complete pass on the Nazi comment, it is clear that his actions are highly disruptive, and he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to prevent change by bullying and attacking others. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You sound really desperate to get my opinions out of your way. And you cannot say that I am not here to improve the encyclopedia. Who was the one who suggested keeping a similar format as the individual articles when you merge it into one big article? Me.

Who added all of the fight results / upcoming fights and event poster table to the right side of the page? Me.

I've done just as much on that article, if not more, than everybody except for TreyGeek. So there you go again... another "untruth". Gamezero05 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Even the best of contributions do not mitigate a uncivil battleground mentality; if you cannot contribute in a fashion that is a constructive part of the community as determined by the community you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how much you've contributed, if you cannot do so as a civil part of the community, Wikipedia does not need you. You need to stop dismissing everyone's comments just because you "know" you're right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Udar55

I think it would also be appropriate to look at the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of Udar55 as evidenced by his posts to Sherdog here and here , and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability‎‎ it is clear that he sees this as a battle. Mtking ^(edits) 00:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I previously mentioned he reverted 4 times in 17 hours at UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann, but I haven't seen anyone even mention it to him. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did post to his talk page, and to his credit has reverted his last edit. Mtking ^(edits) 00:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thats good that he reverted himself, that shows good faith, but the edits on external sites are troubling, but not really actionable here. It does show there is a grass root effort to disrupt here, and "get their way", guidelines be damned. If not for the disruptions, the design work might already be done. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate for some one uninvolved to post to his talk with some words of advice, it is better to avoid the situation of this escalating to a point where a block might be needed, prevention better than cure and all that. Mtking ^(edits) 01:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. His methods need work, but he doesn't seem to be totally unreasonable. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore. Udar55 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown

Dennis Brown is going around and threatening anybody who disagrees with him with blocks. Look how petty he is being right above. He wants to block me because I said he was lying about something.

That isn't the real reason. The real reason is that I have been vocal about how much I disagree with what he and a few others are doing in the MMA section. Gamezero05 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for your claims. And in the future, if you file an ANI, you should post the proper template on the talk page. I didn't see this until BWilkins joined them. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting for the diff's where I am going around and threatening anyone. Otherwise, this would look like a bad faith effort to smear my name at ANI, or should be struck. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

IP vandal resumed after block

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

---

IP vandal resumed after fifth block. Last one was 6 months, we should use something longer now...

95.180.18.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just check IPs history for more. --WhiteWriter^speaks 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

98.125.119.62

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

---

User is trying to make a point but refuses to participate in consensus building and is conducting an edit war with several other editors. Several of the edits made by the IP were quite aggressive in tone, were OR or not NPOV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.125.119.62

The edits by the anonymous editor, 98.125.119.62 (talk · contribs), are relatively innocuous. They have indeed been repeatedly adding their criticism that doesn't match the given source to the article, and wording the text they reinsert in a non-neutral way; but the actual edits are not too bad. I'd say it appears to be a good faith effort however to contribute to the article, even though the user's position is obviously slightly slanted. As such, I've left a standard warning on their talk page. I don't see any evidence of anything requiring admin attention at the present, however. --Tristessa (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User: Dave1185

I think that the things are became too hot ultimatively, but this user is exaggerating. In the Swiss Hawker Hunter page, he defined me as 'nothing but a troll'. He repeated the same concept also in in the face of utter hostility/stupidity... I don't think I can ever be like you when dealing with such trolls, even with a barnstar dedicated.

Now i could be a lot of things, a warm head or whetever, but surely i am not a troll. When i edited for the first time the Hawker Hunter page i wanted just to improve it in some parts and correct some evidently herrors, such the Mk.6 version ('50s) being armed with Mavericks ('70s tech) and so on. Dave reverted [136] without mercy anything i wrote and refused basically to discuss about the removed stuff, atleast in order to improve it. So i started the Swiss Hunter page in order to post the info available on them.

Dave swiftly asked the deletion of the page, and not happy enough he put the page in deletion, with a discussion in which he failed to show why that page should be deleted, so the decision was to keep it.

I have quit to post in wikipedia for several days, after there were further discussions with another user that disagreed with some sources used. I thinked it was necessary, in order to cool down the situation, and i came back only because i recently discovered new sources (Google books) about the stuff that i'd like to add. But, as i have stopped to edit, those gratuitus insults made by Dave are, IMO, not accettables: what's the point to insult someone 5 days later he stopped to edit?Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think Dave is generally a good-faith editor who can get easily frustrated sometimes and this boils over. I have not looked at the specifics here, but I want to generally vouch for Dave and make it known that if the community decides it's a good idea, I'm willing to work with Dave on his Wiki-temper. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That would be a good idea. He certainly does good work, but judging from an old incident involving myself and some other messages he wrote that I have come across, I think everyone would benefit if he could be talked into slowing down before accusing others of malice and error, and being less aggressive toward perceived malice. wctaiwan (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the previous post: as prescrived in wikipedia policy, i had noticed the discussion opened here in his talk page. Just seven minutes later, Dave reverted also this post, calling the WP:Boomerang as reason to do it. I think there is something wrong in his attitude, or is normal deleting any message you don't like, even if it just an ufficial comunication? It is done under the wikipedia rules, after all.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:USER, users have a right to remove or rollback messages left for them on their user talk page. He can remove what he wants from his page. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically true, but that action was not necessary, and the edit comment quite irritating/provocatory. Once he call me troll and then refuse to discuss anything. Bah!Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it "was not necessary". If he felt he had to remove his message, he's quite welcome to do so. I agree the edit summary was unfortunate, but the edit itself is perfectly fine. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm, a few seconds perusal of Talk:Hawker Hunter in service with Swiss Air Force and a couple of things are immediately apparent:
1. User:Stefanomencarelli has a lot of latent hostility towards User:Dave1185, this report smacks of retaliation. Hence, I propose a WP:TROUT for both of them.
2. User:Stefanomencarelli has been quite hostile to User:Kyteto (who btw thoroughly deserves that barnstar) and I would suggest someone looks at that a little closer. At least a warning of WP:NPA is warranted and if it continues a block should follow.
3. There also appears to be a lot of WP:OWN, WP:TEND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from the OP. Watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

1_: then you should take more time and see when and where that latent hostility was born (not surely in Swiss Hunter talk). Anyway, i have just said that Dave's experiences were OR by a wikipedia POW, not that they were non interesting or false; therefore, there was not the need to insult me calling troll.

2_: the hostility vs Kyteto is related with his convinction that some sources cannot been used in that article, while the 'consensuns' that he claims to be about them is far to be real, as i explained with the quoting of other contributors that, instead, rate them as 'reliable' or atleast, 'acceptable'. Atleast until we found new sources there is not much point to delete the older sources and filling each line of CN. This has nothing to do with OWN; if the article was based on totally unreliable sources, then it was deleted with the (Dave) request, but it was not so, it was considered valid neverthless and we talk about just 10 days ago. OTOH, that i do not want the ownership of that article is indirectly shown as i said nothing (not talk about reverting) about the Kyteto text modifics, about those i have nothing against other's editing. Just my 2 cents.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock needed for a broken expired block.

User:Glock17gen4 was blocked two days ago for 31 hours[137], which should have expired but he currently is still blocked and asked me to get an admin to look and see what the glitch is. If an admin would look at this, that would be swell. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be editing normally now. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible automated talk page spam

• 188.165.246.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just came across the contributions of 188.165.246.91, who has created three new talk/archive pages only containing semi-random strings of words. I have left them a note about editing tests, which may be the only action needed if this is an isolated incident. I am concerned that this may be automated, though, and I am posting here to see if anyone else has noticed any edits like this. If this is part of a larger pattern, we might need to consider blocks or maybe a new edit filter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Update - the pages have since been deleted, so now people should check the "deleted contribs" link above (admins only). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is probably more than one quite active spambot at the moment. They're being tracked by edit filter 271 (admins only). This one looks a bit different, but possibly related. I've given it a block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

IP sock of BANNED editor is back at it again...

• Patrolling Admin please take note, see User talk:119.237.156.246 (evidence here), a very obivous IP sock of the BANNED editor Instantnood is back at it again despite being BLOCKED. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Continued accusations of sock/meatpuppetry by User:PANONIAN

Continued accusations by User:PANONIAN that I am a sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet of User:DIREKTOR. Incivility, personal attacks and aggressive behavior, clear cut failure to apply WP:AGF (ie assumption of bad faith), and WP:BITE. During a discussion between myself and User:DIREKTOR on my talkpage regarding an issue that User:DIREKTOR raised with me regarding Serbia under German occupation, and before either of us had made any edits on the subject article, User:PANONIAN inserted him/herself into the discussion, closely followed by User:WhiteWriter and made an accusation that I was User:DIREKTORs sock [[138]]. He canvassed an editor that had previously accused me of being a sock [[139]], then after trying User:HelloAnnyong (a SPI clerk) [[140]], lodged an SPI [[141]]. He was rebuffed, despite my plea to the clerk (User:User:Salvio giuliano) to do the CHECKUSER to resolve this once and for all, yet User:PANONIAN and User:WhiteWriter continue to imply [[142]] and outright accuse me of being a sock or meatpuppet of User:DIREKTOR [[143]], where User:PANONIAN stated "I can be 100% sure that User:Peacemaker67 is his sockpuppet (it would be impossible that he is not)". I asked User:WhiteWriter to withdraw his/her accusation of meatpuppetry, but it was not forthcoming [[144]]. The accusations continue to today [[145]].

I feel that there is a severe case of WP:OWN on this article from User:PANONIAN. In response to a request for my opinion (from User:DIREKTOR) I conducted research to discover the official name of the territory this article relates to, but User:PANONIAN attempted to circumvent even any discussion of an alternative by creating the SPI case. User:PANONIAN appears interested only in the first word in the article title being 'Serbia', and appears willing to use unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry to bully me into backing off from editing this article. This appears to me to be an attempt to retain what is a misleading and POV article title (the sources clearly show there was no country called 'Serbia' only a military territory under the direct authority of the Wehrmacht) in order to achieve some historical revisionist aim I can only guess at. User:WhiteWriter has also acted badly in this matter, but I feel this is at the instigation of User:PANONIAN.

In an attempt to diffuse the aggression from User:PANONIAN (the SPI had already occurred at this time), I removed part of a comment I made on Talk:Serbia under German occupation that had a personal tone. I have defended myself on the SPI, WP:AN and on the talkpage regarding my lack of connections to User:DIREKTOR as well as asking User:WhiteWriter to withdraw his accusation. I have asked for evidence, but they persist in insubstantiated allegations in an attempt to discredit me as having a Croatian or Ustasha POV, as well as being a sock or meatpuppet.

I would just like this behaviour to stop, but I'm not sure what you can do. I feel some sort of block or sanction might be necessary, but I haven't been here long enough to understand what would be appropriate. Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)