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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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)

• Oppose. This particular proposal is clearly obsolete since the editor has been unblocked, and should be closed off/capped. It was in any event non policy-compliant when it was made. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:47, 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)
• Oppose on insufficient grounds, and as per multitudinous previous oppose !votes. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose He has been playing the same game and finally crossed a line with nothing to hide behind. Assume GF and let this be his final warnning. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:40, 3 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)

Additional statement from Yogesh Khandke I am back as this has taken longer than I expected. Fowler&fowler has called me deceitful in this discussion, which is a strong allegation. If I would write Indlu yako injani,[23] would the reader say don’t talk Zulu with me? I doubt very much, unless he has a familiarity with the language, he would say stop that gibberish, we have Fowler&fowler saying on this page Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a (edit summary reads please translate) 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. [24] (1) I request the closing admin to muse over how (a) Fowler&fowler knew what I said was in Marathi language, (b) how Fowler&fowler had enough familiarity with the language to know that I had used a proverb and wasn’t say swearing at him in my native language. (c) With answers to (a) and (b) at hand I request the closing admin to think over why Fowler&fowler asks me to translate the non-English statement for him. (d) Assuming there is a good reason for Fowler&fowler to have written what he did, I request the closing admin to understand that the statement was for user:AshLin an editor whom I have met at a Wikipedia programme, and who I know is familiar with the language in which the statement is made. Please note that: I wasn’t talking to Fowler&fowler, I was talking to AshLin. (2) I have used non-English words when Fowler&fowler has been around, one must not forget that these were used in the context of editing in the Indian content environment (and not while editing say Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism), where editing is done in Indian English, so that words like bandh, dharna, gherao, loot, jungle, lakh, crore etc potentially could be used. Some of these words may be a part of UK or US English, others may not. Also, the only other non-English term (if my memory serves me right, apart from the German quotation I gave on 2012-03-31) has been kupamanduka, a Sanskrit philosophical term, one that The Times of India, the world’s largest circulating English newspaper has used too[25]. Another thing that puzzles me is the very old-fashioned word vernacular, that he used, one more popular with the British when referring to native languages in colonial India. How does he know that Marathi is my vernacular, if it is the vernacular which in his opinion is the lingua franca? (3) Fowler&fowler continues to create in his words "drama", he writes about how Elst and Frawley are anti-Muslim and belong to the camp that thinks that Aryan Migration/Invasion isn't the final word in ancient Indian history. Isn't that a classic Ad hominem argument? Fowler&fowler's argument is also classic strawman as I haven't quoted Elst and Frawley, those I have quoted are here[26] viz. Stephen Oppenheimer (who has been quoted by a rediff.com news-story), Gavin D. Flood (who acknowledges the disputes but who considers that Aryans arrived as a minority - not several waves as the India article describes it as), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, Edwin Bryant, Laurie L. Patton (who are editors of "The Indian-Aryan controversy..."), Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein whose article is included by Bryant et al, who quote Edmund Leach, Mikel Burley, Charles Michael Byrd, I stopped looking after that. There is also the Times of India article which quotes a study co-conducted by Harvard School of Public Health, Broad Institute of Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and I'm sorry there is an "Indian crank" here Dr. Lalji Singh of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Their study concludes that " the hitherto believed "fact" that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth." and " there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round."[27] There is too much mention of Fowler&fowler by me, let us not forget Saravask the bloke who brought this AN/I about has called these sources "marginal or non-specialist sources", and who accuses me of recidivism, is it common for him an admin,[28] to use such pointed language? Am I going to be hanged (used metaphorically) for using such sources. (4) Assuming for the moment that everyone related to the disputing camp (or sources that acknowledge the notability of the dispute by mentioning) such as Leach, Oppenheimer, Flood, Harvard, MIT, Broad, and the "Indian crank" Dr. Lalji Singh and his Centre) etc. are anti-Muslim, does Wikipedia censor NOTABLE, RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE, non-FRINGE, and non-UNDUE inclusions just because they are allegedly anti-"some"ism (5) Non-notability of child marriage: previous discussion, also see Fowler&fowler insulting Hindu god Hanuman [29] {6) I have been called tendentious, can an editor who has others who agree to his edits such as user talk:Zondrah89, user:Ratnakar.kulkarni, user:Thisthat2011 User:Raghu-holkar (the latest in the long line of editors who resort to socking when stonewalled, and then get banned, to the glee of those like Fowler&fowler, who calls them trolls-peddlers of garbage, who disappear or get banned.[30]) be called tendentious, just because I haven't disappeared or got banned (so far anyways) like a good garbage pushing troll should.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:30, 2 April 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)
• Support. Tendentious doesn't begin to describe this user, from the looks of things. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:39, 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 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 [31]. 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)

Sarvajna, Everything I say is based in sources. Here is Smith, David James (2003), Hinduism and Modernity, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 38–39, ISBN 978-0-631-20862-4, retrieved 2 April 2012 Quote (pages 38-39): "The counter-view, the 'indigenous Aryan' thesis, is upheld by a small group of enthusiastic Westerners, most notably Konrad Elst and David Frawley. The latter's Myth of the Aryan Invasion sold out in 18 days on its first publication in India. But these writers, like the Hindu fundamentalists whose cause they espouse, are vehemently anti-Muslim, and the two positions seem generally tied together the Aryan invasion has been refuted; and the Muslim invasion of several hundred years ago should he reversed." Next time, stop wasting people's time by making needless drama. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, stop making rude and personal comments.

I am not the only one who thought that you are pushing personal political opinion, if you have a source doesn't mean anything. If a source is all that you require than YK had several sources to his arguments. They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi??? all Hindu Nationalist are murderers?? also Hindu nationalist were present even during Gandhi and were noteable enough(do you need names?) many Hindu Nationalist were freedom fighters unlike mentioned by you They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him. --sarvajna (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I just aid above, everything I say is based in sources. Here is Hadiz, Vedi R. (2006), Empire and neoliberalism in Asia, Taylor & Francis, pp. 247–, ISBN 978-0-415-39080-4, retrieved 2 April 2012 Quote (p. 247): "Hindu fundamentalism derives its ideological orientation from a kind of Brahmanism that naturalizes a hierarchical structure of the world and, therefore, does not harbour serious ideological contradictions with many forms of political and cultural domination, which explains its various paradoxes. While committed to Hindu nationalism. it never came into serious conflict with British colonial rule and, rather, opposed anti-colonial struggle. While subscribing to the Gandhian vision of development, its adherents were responsible for Gandhi's death;" Are you sure you want to carry on this argument? I'm getting a headache reading your boldface lettering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 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)

Have you seen what YK has done now? Leads are supposed to summarise articles. I am crap at writing them, but nowhere in the body of that article is there any mention of this claptrap. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral comment from main author of Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism‎ aka User:WickerGuy

Over the past few weeks I have developed a low-key form of a Love–hate relationship with User:Yogesh Khandke whom I find alternately fascinating, frustrating, earnest, exasperating, clever, and obtuse. He both says things well worth considering and can be wildly over-the-top. I can never tell how much of the latter is due to poor command of English or not. Perhaps he is like a character in a Greek tragedy, a man with noble qualities but with a serious Hamartia (character flaw) that undermines his better qualities.

I have little expertise on matters Indian beyond having thoroughly enjoyed the Bhagavad-Gita, watched The Jewel in the Crown (TV series), A Passage to India (film), a couple of good Bollywood films, and worked through my brother's bad experience with a prominent Indian guru whom I shall not name, so I can't comment on YK's edits there but I can comment on his Charles Dickens work.

Very early in the Dickens' disputes, I had decided that while YK was disruptively ignoring consensus (to the point of driving away good editors from the article which is a very serious matter of concern) that as Polonius said of Hamlet Though this be madness there is method in it. Somehow, I felt YK had to be simultaneously given his proper due (allowing his legitimate points in) while also reining in his excessive POV. Both editor User:MistyMorn and I agreed that the main article on Dickens should not have excessive space taken up discussing is racist attitudes (as they were relatively uninfluential on the English public), but that a fork article would be a good idea as long as enough people were involved to prevent it from being a WP:POVFORK or as one editor (rather ungenerously) put it, YK's "hobby horse". (As there has been both one full-length book on Dickens' xenophobia and it is mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of English Literature there is certainly a basis for discussing it somewhere on WP.) (It was YK who created the article, but he was not the first to propose it. I wished he had waited a bit longer to get consensus on it, but I supported it.) I believe in this article I have been successful at accomplishing both aims. One of YK's very best contributions to the article was Charles_Dickens'_Racism_and_anti-Semitism#Reconciliation and I am grateful to YK for having added it to the article. (He quotes my complement above.) One of his very worst proposed contributions was trying to interpret writer Patrick Bratlinger as saying that "Dickens spawned a whole new genre of hate literature". This is a blatant misinterpretation of Mr. Bratlinger and clearly a "fringe" assertion.

I am a little concerned that editor User:Animeshkulkarni cites the excellence of the Dickens fork article in a manner that suggests the article is mostly Yogesh's work. It is largely my own rather free adaptation and revision of his work, which both involved some fertilizing (using YK's stuff & sources) and some pruning and weeding (rejecting other stuff of YK), and I respectfully disagree with User:Johnuniq that the article in its current form involves inappropriate synthesis and cherry-picking, though further discussion of that point should go on that article's talk page. Finally, I am disappointed that Yogesh is comparing anyone at Wikipedia with metapedia where he has also been maligned. Metapedia is a white supremacist Wikipedia, and (as I have already communicated privately to Yogesh) the fact that both editors here and there both have issues with Yogesh is more or less equivalent to noting both liberal columnnist Derrick Z. Jackson and also the Ku Klux Klan have both been highly critical of Al Sharpton. (The metaphor I used in private communication was that both Winston Churchill, Communist film-maker Sergei Eisenstein and Adolf Hitler were all fond of Disney's film of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) but IMO my new analogy drives the point home more effectively.) US politics is filled these days with surreptitious and specious comparisons with one person or another to Hitler, and we don't need such comparisons on Wikipedia, which indirectly borders on personal attack.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello WickerGuy! When i almost appreciated and gave all credit to YK for the new Dickens' article i did not want to demean any of the contributions by you and other editors too. But i wanted to stress out to other editors in this ANI fight of how YK was the reason for start of this article and how without his so-called hammering, tendentious, annoying behaviour this article would have had little chance of being what it is. Just like how YK's editings on Dickens were rejected at start by reasons of "drum beating", they are been done here on Indian articles too by giving little thought of how they could also be right. All the defects you mentioned in his editings like misinterpreting can be solved by other editors as you all did and as i mentioned somewhere above. I certainly dont see this flaw as some reason for any ban but i do appreciate how he rattles stable stagnant articles and brings a viewpoint which at times is overlooked for long. -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No apology necessary, but thanks (same re your gracious and kind notice on my page). If YK could develop a better style of interacting with other editors, the better parts of his overlooked viewpoint could be more easily incorporated into WP. The origins of the Dickens fork article are a bit "dodgy" as the Brits would say, but I think the results are good. It is quite true as you say that YK's persistence was largely the origin of the Dickens fork article which is now in (I think) fairly good shape, but I'm afraid it is also true that his behavior is the origin of the article being tagged with a POV template at the top (which YK has made inappropriate objections to) and at least one or two editors were contemplating nominating the article for deletion.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate WickerGuy taking the time to write down this long reflection on Yogesh Khandke's participation. I think we are getting closer to the nub of things. I am certain that without Yogesh Khandke, Wikipedia would be poorer. While his bloody-mindedness may not always be on target (whose is?), there are enough times when it is. --JN466 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what you're saying is that wikipedia is made richer by an editor who misrepresents sources, deliberately changes quotes from sources, continuously reframes debates (he is doing this in his latest post by conflating Aryan invasion and Aryan migration), all to push a pov that is, even in India, associated with right wing fringe groups. Baffles me, this sort of logic. --regentspark (comment) 00:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban we are discussing here is not about the Dickens page. YK's defenders can have him on that page until both time and times are done. But, in South Asian history, where I have some expertise and experience, he is easily among the worst of the deceitful, biased, and time-wasting editors I have dealt with in my six years on Wikipedia. Others before him have all been topic banned or indefinitely banned. When his South Asia topic ban is in place, he will be available, even more unreconstructed and many-splendored, on the Dickens page for the enrichment of your Wikipedia experience. This is really win-win. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Short version: as per WickerGuy. Long version: This is the first ANI I've participated in, and I feel in a strange position. My dealings with YK have been largely confined to the Dickens page, where my contribution was almost entirely restricted to the search for a pragmatic solution to unblock a longstanding and depressing virtual standoff between YK and just about everyone else, which was itself becoming quite Dickensian. Like WG, I felt that the sort of subject matter which YK was anxious to shine the floodlights on, so to speak, was indeed of genuine encyclopedic note, but that his presentation and communication strategies were deeply misguided. As a proponent of -- rather than contributor to -- the present subarticle I feel WickerGuy deserves a really big round of applause both for his editorial work and, especially, the patience and understanding he has shown in trying to communicate constructively with YK. I recognize in myself some of the mixed feelings WG describes. Leaving aside the politics of POV, my impression is that YK hurts himself and his own causes by using quite inappropriate firepower (I believe this is the first time I've ever been accused of 'denialism') blasted off at all and sundry in a sort of me versus the rest of the world scenario, with replies -- often at cross purposes -- to multiple points and editors grouped together in a single paragraph, in such a way that it's rather difficult for everyone else to engage in a meaningful dialogue. How much of this is deliberately disruptive, how much a good-faith attempt to get a hearing? I've sometimes felt quite exasperated... But now that the sort of information which YK so wanted to be made available is present in a well-written, reasonably stable (albeit controversial) subarticle carefully supervised and authored by WG based on material largely gathered by YK the signs of systematic disruption here appear to be a thing of the past. Wasn't there an easier way of getting where we are now? Continuing to assume good faith, my hope is that YK will, more generally, come to see that it can be in his interests to relax a bit and start assuming some good faith in others (he's explained to me that certain misunderstandings were quite genuine, and I have no reason to doubt that). I also have a lot of sympathy with editors who are currently exasperated by the YK all guns blazing approach. I feel that one possible solution, if YK were willing, might be for him to allow himself be adopted by an enterprising and experienced editor (of the calibre of WG) who has sympathies with some of the issues which concern him so much. Adoption might entail mutual agreement to focus for a while on topic areas where it's easier for him to find consensus (while temporarily resting other, more contentious areas where he's locally lost goodwill from other editors). I feel that, with the right sort of guidance regarding communication and impartial implementation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he could be surprised by how much he can achieve with a lot less hassle. Having said that, I think it's really important for him to acknowledge the need for a constructive change in good-faith outlook and style. My 2 cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

To clarify my view on the "POV fork" issue: I think the article can be a legitimate subarticle (as distinct from "fork"), broadly along the same lines as Wagner controversies, even though Dickens's rather shocking racist views are far less widely publicized or influential than Wagner's. I'm not especially enamoured of the current title though. I've argued that Dickens deserves several other thematic subarticles, including questions surrounding other aspects of his his social involvement and influence. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support ban in all areas. Extremely tendentious editor, a perfect example of WP:CRUSH with novel interpretations of policy. As one editor has stated, it's sometimes easy to attribute his misreadings and IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the fact that he's a non-native English speaker. I came to the conclusion that he encourages that perception as yet another tactic of his strategy of attrition, because in other interactions he's quick to grasp what is being discussed it it's to his advantage. I interacted with him on the Charles Dickens page (which BTW is a disgrace to Wikipedia the last I checked) to try to bring it up to at least good status, but his edit-warring behavior and tendentiousness caused me to retreat after only a few days. I have dealt with his like before, and I don't have another two years of my life to waste trying to impose WP policies on someone who's only interested in their POV-pushing. He doesn't care about any other part of the page except for his particular interest, which in the case of the Dickens page was to expose the colonialistic racism at the core of everything Dickens wrote. It is gaming editors such as him who cause others to walk away from Wikipedia in disgust. And IMO the new Dickens article is nothing but a POV fork and should be deleted. Any valid points should be neutrally handled in the main article and given due weight. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note I believe this proposal has been discussed to death. The discussion has gone off-topic, even off-off-topic. I believe we need input from a closing admin. For what it's worth, there are 13 support votes for a topic ban (of at least 6 months duration) for YK in South Asian history-related topics. There are 4 oppose votes. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC) PS I had not counted my own vote as it had become inconspicuous as a result of this edit by Yogesh Khandke. Now restored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine. When WP decides to block him indefinitely, let us know and we'll get to work on the Charles Dickens article. As one of the two greatest authors in English literature, his article should be an FA, but it's not even a good article, and is likely to remain that way as long as YK is allowed to edit it. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yogesh Khandke brings excellent, A grade content to Wikipedia that no one else is either capable of bringing, moslty because they are blinded by their POV. Dickens' racism towards Indians is an excellent example of this. Thanks to Yogesh Khandke, we now have a better article on Charles Dickens which a potential 1.3 billion Indians, most of whom have never ever heard of Dickens will find interesting to read. This cabal mentioned above almost has an orwellian zeal to maintain "NPOV" which makes it impossible for them to see the slightest criticism of their British heroes. Unfortunately, almost every British hero in colonial affairs (and sometimes outside of colonial affairs) between 1818 and 1947 is by definition a villan in Indian eyes. Incidentally Saravask, the person pushing for this ban, has pigeonholed people into a category of people who should be killed off. [[32]] He tells his buddies that these people should be hunted down by the FBI or the CIA or the MI5 and be killed. The Wikipedia system/ANI is setup in a way that some people will never get fair treatment. In many ways it is not too dissimilar from the British colonial government and their system of justice which let off General Dyer largely unpunished for the most heinous crime in Indian history. Here's that relevant video from one of the most historically accurate films - Gandhi. Video Bob1781 (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Bob1781 appears possibly to be an SPA. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As of 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) a single edit account: Bob1781 (talk · contribs) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you guys behave like this? If someone complaints against you on ANI you shout its "content dispute" and ask to close the discussion and take it somewhere else. Then one of you just blocks the editor who is complaining by giving some excuse of edit war so then he cant respond to the ANI thread. Example case. Someone (me) proposes that disambiguation pages related to Ganga should be changed and you rudely just try to throw away those comments. When still explained further you close the discussion saying its not the right place. Someone like YK says something and you ppl always ignore it because you have had fights with him before. Now some unknown Bob1781 comes and posts something what you have to say is he is a Sock, probably of YK. But what are all these ppl saying? Oh lets trash them! Either they are at wrong place or rude or single purpose accounts. Its like some professor dumbing someone's journal because the page margins are not right! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regretful Support Though none of the Dickens' editors seem innocent, alas. Wikipedia is ill-served by some of the related clearly unsourced or improperly sourced POV pushing zeal evinced. I also note this !vote is elicited by the post above implying that it is somehow improper to see NPOV as being a proper goal, when it is one of the "pilllars" of Wikipedia. I would suggest that he be topic banned from colonialism and racism articles broadly construed, per what I read above. I think he would benefit, moreover, from studying the racialism in the Indian literature to gain some historical perspective on the history of racism in that sub-continent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This user is incorrigible, tendentious, and still doesn't get it, after multiple trips to this board. In this very discussion, he is accusing others of 'hanging' him, attacking him 'with knives', and of wanting a 'submissive, fawning Indian', when even other Indian editors have blasted his inability to properly weigh views and to compromise. He has wasted the time of dozens of productive editors around Dickens and other hot-button Indian nationalist topics. His time here has long passed. Shrigley (talk) 16:58, 3 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 [33], [34] and [35] 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.[36] 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 [37], [38], [39] and [40].

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, [41].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[42] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [43]) 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,[44] 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. [45]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[46], 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",[47] (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[48], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[49], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[50], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[51], and falsely attributing comments to me[52]; 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[53][54], after indicating something was only his opinion[55][56], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[57][58], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[59].--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: [60],[61]. 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" [62] and "windbaggery" [63]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[64]). 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 [65],[66],[67],[68]). 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." [69]
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, [70] 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 [71][72][[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83]. 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[84], 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[85], 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 [86].

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[87]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[88] 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[89] inBlackCab's insistence that maybe it would be better if I just leave Wikipedia altogether and also here[90] 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)[91] regarding User:Spudpicker_01, and the sockpuppetry case against Spudpicker_01 was lodged 12 December 2011[92] (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"[93], 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[94]. 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[95], when an editor posted a link to a page that I concluded was the source material for almost all the content on the page[96]. 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)[97], 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 first discussed 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. AuthorityTam employs circumlocutory regarding his claims that he 'does not wish to self-identify at Wikipedia as a JW' and has never denied that he is a member. The manner of his edits not only in support of JWs but also unsupportive of other groups such as other Bible Student movement groups, along with various other edits, make it appear very likely that he is a member of the religion, which in itself is immaterial, but seems to be a contributing factor to his attitude of contempt toward other editors whom he believes to be former members of the religion.)--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,[98] 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)
• Oppose - I do not find anything disruptive from AuthorityTam. His pro-JW defensive edits and comments might be not fitting to the JW-defaming taste of user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77. However he have contributed a lot in removing ex-witness bias from the article and have played a leading historical role in raising JWs article to GA status. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that comment is inappropriate and out of line with Wikipedia policy as I read it: a "pro-JW bias" which doesn't fit the "JW-defaming bias" of everyone else are reasons for blocks all around if true. I have to pull a modification of a line of Avraham's: Thou hast been accused by editors four; go forth now and battle no more; for if on yon lame wars many doth proceed to yammer; ye great Adminnes will break out ye olde bannehammer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging out through the edit history of user:BlackCab and Jeffro77 I could'nt find anywhere they are helping to increase the fame of JW's. These two editors are from Australia, one of them explicitly written an essay regarding his reasons to renounce the JWs faith. Further in most cases I find these two are taking sides almost together and tend to be a watchdog for JW supportive edits as user:Willietell brought-out. On the other hand through the edit history of user:AuthorityTam I could'nt find anything that is trying to defame JWs and he is not as active as the other two editors. Further I personally know few-self claimed ex-witnesses and they always have a tendency to defame their former faith and not so happy as well. May be because they feel so pissed off that they were not able to do anything for years to collapse the growth of religion. So generalizing self advertising ex-witnesses I thought the phrases I used were appropriate. If it is inappropriate I apologize because I am very busy person with no much time to read all Wiki policies and guidelines. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I do not like the JW religion, but I do not come to Wikipedia to defame it. I simply present accurate information from reliable sources. Every WP article on a subject of controversy will attract editors who are supporters and opposers. Fazilfazil is welcome to his assessment of ex-JWs (which happens to mirror the statements of the religion), but he is wrong. I simply want people to have facts so they can make an informed choice. The fact that Jeffro77 and I agree on many things doesn't mean we are "taking sides." This discussion (as with many discussions at JW talk pages) sadly degenerates to team-like face-offs where the details of the complaint are forgotten in an effort to simply protect a team member. Let's stick with the specific complaint about AuthorityTam's specific conduct. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's irrelevant ad hominem regarding former JWs (and Australians??) has very little to do with AuthorityTam's persistent inappropriate conduct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - AuthoityTam has made significant contributions to JW-related articles, and is an important piece to keep the article balanced. I don't concider his behavior significant worse than some of the other users. The fact it appairs only two users have serious objections with his behavior, makes it easier to oppose for topic-ban, though I do think it could be justified to give him some kind of warning regarding the use of "aka LTSally". I think several users could need a topic break, the article won't disappair within a few weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose: Having observed and intermittently participated at the JW talkpgae for some five years now I must state that I believe that the article's current state is a result of a balanced stalemate between editors with complementary viewpoints. Furthermore I don't think that AuthorityTam's conduct is more egregious than that of BlackCab - I would perhaps support a topic ban for both, but not for either one of them alone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello Maunus! And what evidence would you cite in support of a topic ban on me? I have provided specific complaints about AuthorityTam's behaviour, including a refusal to acknowledge my direct request to him to cease this infantile "aka LTSally" tactic that suggests duplicity on my part, and his ongoing pattern of goading and taunting. I'd be interested in seeing what specific edits of mine from, say, the past year suggest a failure to collaborate or a tendency to disrupt that would warrant me being blocked from editing JW pages. I have always insisted on reliable, verifiable sources and I have always sought outside comment when discussions meet a stalemate. I have provided diffs for examples of that above. AuthorityTam has had the opportunity to defend himself against my grievances, so do me the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself against your accusations. BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Blackcab - I don't know why you'd be surprised to see me. I am not the one making any accusations here, and so am under no requirement to present evidence. I acknowledge that you are generally civil (if often curt and abrasive) and respect policy guiding content creation. In my experience so does AuthorityTam - he just doesn't consistently have someone to back him up in arguments, which I can only imagine leads to some measure of added frustration. The double topic ban I think would be to the benefit of both you (since it would let you both focus on less stressful stuff), and for the article (since topic banning only one of you would likely lead to gradual degradation of the article). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 3 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,[99][100] 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)
• Agree - This would help to cool down the issue. Because I believe if you cannot work along with a person just stop interacting would help for while --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has not acknowledged that any of his behaviour is inappropriate, but has actually described his current behaviour of frequently attacking other editors' motives as 'avoiding interaction'. Because of this distorted perception of what constitutes 'interaction', it's not clear that he would understand what an 'interaction block' would require.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 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[101] or complaining of COI[102]. He has seen agreement among other editors as evidence of sockpuppetry[103] and hostility[104] and constantly describes any statement that differs from his unique view of the world as "POV spin".[105] 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[106]]. 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[107] 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[108] . 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)

• Oppose - Each new editor have his own way of approaching discussions and they will adapt. Some may be vigorous and some may be calm. Nevertheless it contributes to the whole improvement and to reach consensus. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:46, 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)

I will bend to the editors suggestion and withhold requesting sanctions against Jeffro77 and BlackCab to allow time to see if the editor who filed the ANI (since I have been corrected and Jeffro77 didn't file it, but discovered it in some manner) heeds your advice and withdraws it. If he chooses to do so then this will be a moot point. However if he persists, then I will propose a Topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors based upon their hostile behavior towards editors who disagree with their POV as well as barring both editors from editing the same article or talk page within a 31 day period the lessen the tagteam effect of their overly co-operative tandem edits, which a perusal of each editors contributions will demonstrate without much investigation. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia tomorrow, this will allow about a 36 hour period for the editor to make up his mind as to what he chooses to do. Willietell (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's quite an ultimatum, Willietell. Numerous editors have advised you to stop screaming "POV spin!" every time you see wording you disagree with. The latest example is Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Lede in which Willitell keeps complaining of a "factual inaccuracy" about who establishes doctrines for the religion, and yet is apparently unable to see that the article simply does not contradict his claim. The long thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns is a window into the thinking of an editor who throughout the entire exchange gained no support for any change from a wide variety of editors. I don't think an editor whose biggest response is a thunderous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in much a position to be sitting on the judge's bench. We all agree that this subject is something that divides editors. I will happily work with editors with whom I disagree. I do not, however, accept that editors who continually goad, taunt and ignore requests to engage on matters of conduct should be permitted to do so freely without a sanction of some kind. BlackCab (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly bizarre that Willietell insists on "topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors" unless some action is taken by BlackCab. And then he accuses me of being "overly co-operative"(?!), but conveniently ignores all the times I've also agreed with other editors, including AuthorityTam.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 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)

Good thing. I was never a JW, but my most vocal support at the Jesus Crucifixion page came from AuthorityTam - my personal interaction has been fine, but the diffs and a trawling of edit history (since I had nothing better to do than keep refreshing this page and work on some Wikidramatics) reveal problems. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI process: a final thought

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I see a view coalescing that my complaint that AuthorityTam’s actions in (a) repeatedly goading me with his mischievous “aka LTSally” line despite my asking him several times to stop, (b) maintaining generally antagonistic and combative comments towards me, (c) recycling years-old exchanges and (d) repeatedly quoting a line I deleted from my user page two years ago .... was not worth raising. Apparently I should stop bullying the poor soul, because he’s just reacting to the fact that sometimes there are two editors in a discussion who disagree with him.

Maunus has previously warned AuthorityTam to minimise his personal attacks[109] and has also advised editors to treat others as they would like to be treated.[110]. He has also suggested (without supporting evidence) that Jeffro77 and I have bullied AuthorityTam.[111].

In the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint, despite his best efforts to pour gasoline on the fire. It’s worth noting that in the dreadful Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Can we wrap this RfC up? thread, which is probably one of the low points of all JW discussions, the thread began on February 6 and was still going at March 30. I withdrew from the thread on March 3. My earlier condemnation of AuthorityTam’s behaviour was all turned around as evidence of my “attacks” on him. If you can stomach it, read the thread in its entirety.

Or try this one for a prime example of his tactics of misrepresentation and escalation. Follow this trail of breadcrumbs: (1) AT's "Keep" vote of Feb 27 that concludes with a sneering dig at "the nominator's decision" (that's Jeffro) that clearly misconstrues Jeffro's initial comment. (2) History2007's comment of Feb 28 seizing on ATam's "evidence" that Jeffro is being devious. (3) My comment immediately afterwards with the fairly innocuous observation that "I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion". Then ... (4) AuthorityTam's over-the-top spray of March 1 employing his "aka LTSally" device, links to comments of mine from 2009 and April 2010, before he (yet again) parades my userpage comments before I deleted them in January 2010. My chiding his unnecessary denigration of anothereditor as "mischevous" prompts his rants of "hyperventilatingly caterwauls" and "outrageous namecalling". His links are all ancient history. They're three years old! Again, I have learned a lot about civility and respect since mid-2009. AuthorityTam has learned nothing.

Put simply, I can’t win. I can’t make him stop this shit, and when I try, I’m accused of bullying or being thin-skinned. Really, this whole ANI complaint was a complete waste of time. AuthorityTam doesn’t admit any fault, few others see anything wrong with his conduct and now editors are discussing possible sanctions against me for doing nothing more than asking him to stop. Really, I’d rather just drop the whole thing. I have zero faith in Wikipedia processes for dealing with inflammatory behaviour ... but then I would, wouldn't I? BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly some frustration here. Thing is, even the editors supporting AuthorityTam, despite some fairly evident bias, have acknowledged above that at least some of his conduct has been improper. Maybe the admins are just busy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

I'd also like to see Martinvl establish that "a patient who is suffering from autism ... therefore will not respond to normal reasoning", a presumption which might explain why after warning the user twice Martinvl called the NAS to discuss how the user could be blocked. NebY (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we not have any guidelines discouraging users from sleuthing/contacting people on their own? I would be surprised if this has not been discussed within the context of schools.. I also strongly object to the sweeping characterization of all people on the autistic spectrum as suffering people who cannot behave nor respond to anything. Kansan (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cat Creek, Montana

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

---

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)

FYI — unlike the lions thing, the article itself is not a hoax, so the hoax should be reverted rather than being tagged with {{db-hoax}} or sent to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Which has been done long ago. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on several articles

( 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)

I have put in a request for comment regarding the PWD page. There is a larger pattern, however.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on other articles, but regarding Philadelphia Water Department, Smm201, your homework assignment is to read and understand Wikipedia:Coatrack. Hydraulic fracturing has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article; even the mention of a minor water quality issue is of questionable notability, but I have left it in for now as a compromise. A mild scolding to both sides for edit warring, and if you don't like what I've done, take it up with me here. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article on the Philadelphia Water Department. The water quality issue regarding iodine-131 is a big deal in Philadelphia. A lot of people are affected by the water quality. Because of the politics involved, the PADEP and EPA's reports are not always consistent. EPA recently took over the investigation. WP is one place people can read info from the EPA, PADEP, and other sources and come to their own conclusion. The problem now is that the article is now inaccurate. Even if you and Arzel didn't like what the page said, every fact was well documented. The EPA reported levels above the acceptable level several times from 2007 to 2011, and said that Philadelphia's levels were among the highest in the US. The Water Department report actually talks about the Safe Drinking Water Act and says the iodine-131 is coming from effluent from treatment plants. Thyroid cancer patient urine has been suggested as an explanation, but they are still trying to pin the source down. The article does not accurately state the uses of iodine-131. I can understand wanting to punish me for edit warring and asking for intervention...but you are also making the article inaccurate. But I asked for that I suppose. Again, thanks for taking the trouble. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about the article as it stands now. It is properly sourced, and all statements (in the water quality section, I have not vetted other sections) are verifiable. I can not say the same for the previous version of the page, which was in gross violation of WP:SYNTH.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability was not an issue on this page. All statements had RS. The page seems to have gone from alleged synthesis to censorship. Not sure that's an improvement.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You obviously have not completed your homework assignment. Do you actually understand what we mean when we say you are using improper synthesis of sources and using the article as a coatrack? Because you are undeniably violating these policies/guidelines. An article should cover a subject, not serve as a soapbox for independent conclusions critical of something only (extremely) tangentially related.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Honest...I did my required reading. Really. A very early draft might have toed the line, but at this point it was statements and refs. I had cut down on the verbiage too to balance the focus. The PWD itself had posted information about these issues and discussed them on their web site, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the limits of what it did and didn't know about the origin of the iodine-131, and a warning about iodine-131 levels because they were periodically over the EPA limit. The PWD has been holding public meetings about it, and it is getting news coverage (see deleted refs). The Delaware River Commission has gotten involved. But...thanks again for taking the time to comment, even if we disagree.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"We," eh? You two know each other? I was wondering why a neutral party would take such drastic action as deleting most of the content of a page, and call it a compromise. It didn't make sense.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I'm going to revert the deletion to allow others to more easily read what's there and comment. I'll also check again to make sure each statement is well sourced. Let's allow a consensus to emerge.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Runningonbrains, so I am not sure where you are comming to that assumption. However, it is clear that other agree with my view that you are violating Synth and continue to do so on that article. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your actions are unacceptable, and I have reverted your unilateral re-addition of material. I have never had prior interaction with Arzel of which I am immediately aware, and I called it a compromise because in my honest opinion the minor water quality issue does not deserve mention at all in this article.

The problem is not that your text is not sourced, as I have stated clearly above. Since you are not capable of seeing the flaws in your own writing on your own, allow me to point-by-point go through your material to point out all the flaws:

• In April 2011, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water.[6][7] Nothing wrong here; a statement of fact about the subject of the article.
• In response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings, the Philadelphia Water Department posted a notice that Iodine-131 had been found in the water supply.[8] Repetitive, probably unnecessary to the article.
• Iodine-131 is associated with the treatment of thyroid cancer,[9][10] nuclear energy, and is a popular radioactive tracer used to determine the location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing,[11][12] [13][14] [15] We have already hit a serious problem. Here you have taken a sourced statement of fact ("Iodine was found in the drinking water") and modified it with another sourced fact ("Iodine is used in hydraulic fracturing") to reach an implied conclusion ("The iodine found in the water was a result of hydraulic fracturing"), a statement which is not supported by any source. This is the definition, to the letter, of improper synthesis of sources.
• The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer. [16] Another blatant violation of WP:SYNTH; you have now attempted to imply that the iodine in the water in this specific circumstance may be dangerous, a fact which is not supported by any source.
• Initially the Philadelphia Water department attributed the presence of Iodine-131 to nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident (Fukushima Nuclear Incident). Iodine-131 was later found in the Wissahickon Creek, and at several sewage treatment plants along the creek near Philadelphia in late July 2011, after the fallout from the Japanese incident would have decayed.[9][10] Iodine-131 had been found in several Philadelphia drinking water samples before. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records showed that Philadelphia's iodine-131 levels were the highest in the last decade in the set of those measured at 59 locations across the United States.[10] All of this can be succinctly summed up in the way I have in the article: "Originally this was suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, but it was later determined to be due to patients undergoing iodine therapy for thyroid cancer.[8]"
• EPA records show readings above the acceptable limit of 3 pCi were recorded at Queens Lane Water Treatment Plant on three occasions and Belmont Water Treatment Plant on four occasions since October 2007. This is specifically contradicted by this source: "The EPA's drinking water standard is three picocuries per liter - but only over a long-term average [emphasis mine]. A single sample that was higher would not constitute an excess."
• Readings at Baxter Water Treatment Plant were lower.[4] Nothing specifically wrong with this sentence, but it becomes unnecessary with other offending material cut out.
• The EPA also found elevated levels of Iodine-131 in the water discharged from water treatment plants in nearby Ambler and Abington in April 2011.[17] These places are not Philadelphia, so I don't see how this is relevant.
• The EPA is concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water. In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants which are not designed to remove the natural or man-made radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. I suppose that the EPA is "concerned with radionuclide levels in drinking water" could be inferred from the letter cited below, and I suppose we could infer that they were concerned about Philadelphia's water specifically, but on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume.
• Some are concerned that this provides the opportunity for radioactive waste to enter public water supplies.[18] "Some" is a weasel word, and the source has nothing to do with Philadelphia; another example of a WP:SYNTH violation.
• In March 2011 the EPA asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) to require "community water systems (CWSs) near publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and centralized wastewater treatment (CWT) facilities receiving Marcellus Shale wastewater to conduct sampling immediately for radionuclides." They note that "in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels," but that "the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations." The EPA letter adds that "Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially."[19] Sourced, but why is this relevant? This is all from a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, not addressed to the Philadelphia Water Department, and certainly not in relation to the above-mentioned levels of iodine. WP:SYNTH rears its ugly head again.
• In 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Philadelphia Water Department were working together to test surface water (rivers and streams) and discharge from water treatment plants. By June 2011, the EPA had ruled out hospital sources and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as causes and were still trying to identify the source.[17] In July 2011 and March 2012 the Philadelphia Water Department attributed the elevated levels to thyroid cancer patients' urine because it was found in wastewater plant effluent.[10] Again, neatly summed up by the sentence I left in the article, avoiding unnecessarily verbose step-by-step language.
• The Philadelphia Water Department reports that Philadelphia's drinking water meets the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is unsourced, but true and verifiable, as it is covered in the source I mentioned above. You have neatly used this sentence to build up the false premise that you are still talking about the Philadelphia Water Department, as is immediately apparent in the next sentence...
• The EPA and the state authorities generally have the authority "to regulate discharge of produced waters from hydraulic operations" (EPA, 2011) under the Clean Water Act, which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.[20][21][22] Instantly back to facts unrelated to Philadelphia. You are attempting to synthesize the statement that the iodine found in Philadelphia's drinking water had anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, which, I reiterate, is not found in any reliable source.
• Although this waste is regulated, oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes are exempt from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing contains toxins such as total dissolved solids (TDS), metals, and radionuclides.[23][24] Straying even further from the topic at hand...
• Companies are not required to provide the names of chemicals in "proprietary" formulas, so the chemical lists provided on company web sites are incomplete and the substances are not monitored by EPA. [25][26] Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption ("Halliburton Loophole") under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by supporting The FRAC Act, but has so far refused.[27] The oil and gas industry contributes heavily to campaign funds.[28]5 The FRAC Act would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[29] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[30]As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[31][32] We are now in the complete opposite direction of an article describing Philadelphia Water Department. This is the most blatant violation of WP:COATRACK I have ever seen an author try to defend. There are exactly zero sources that relate any of this to Philadelphia, its water, or the specific incident this whole section started off with.
• On March 28, 2012, the Philadelphia Water Department reported that during the period between April 2011 and February 2012, iodine-131 levels were lower in the Queen's Lane (from graph, average about .5 pCi; highest about 1.5 pCi) and Belmont facilities (average about .4 pCi; maximum about 1.4 pCi). No iodine-131 was detected at the Baxter facility. You clearly do not understand what a box and whisker plot is, and so you have introduced statements that are not supported by the linked source.
• The report notes that wastewater plant effluent has been confirmed as one source of the iodine-131; other potential pathways have not been confirmed. The article on Philadelphia Water Department should not be detailing minute details of a single minor water contamination incident, likely one of many that have occurred over the years.
• The report also said that there have been periodic elevations of iodine-131 in the Wissahickon Creek that decrease over time and do not affect drinking water. "Do not affect drinking water", so again, why is this in the article?
• Iodine-131 has was also detected in the Schuylkill River during this period, especially when the river is low. The amounts found in the river and creek were not specified.[33] You have now included almost the entire text of the linked slide show, without good reason.
• No contaminant levels have been posted on the EPA web site since April 2011.[8] Okay, and neither have they been posted to the Harlem Globetrotters web site. Sorry if I seem a bit snarky, but at this point...I mean, come on. How can you not see how ridiculous it is to include these minute details, and pretend that they are in the article for any reason other than to prejudice the reader towards your point of view that there is something in the water from hydraulic fracturing.
• The Philadelphia Water Department plans to upgrade its water treatment facilities and water management systems to better deal with the waste water. The water department plans to raise funds for the project by increasing Philadelphia residents' water and sewer rates over the next four years.[6] Finally, the very last sentence actually has something relevant, but I don't see that a statement that water treatment is undergoing upgrades is notable enough for the Wikipedia article. No doubt every water department in every American city has upgraded their facilities at one time or another; you are using this sourced statement to stealthily imply that it is being done because of your above assertions of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing.

Your entire textual rant, sourced or not, synth or not, was hung on the coatrack of the article under the false premise of describing the subject of the article (which, I remind you, is Philadelphia Water Department). This is different from a "criticism" or "controversy" section of an article; you are not criticizing the subject, you are criticizing hydraulic fracturing, and doing so without any sources that directly relate to the subject of the article.

Your assertion that the material needs to be on the page to develop consensus is absurd. All previous versions of every page are visible in the page history.

In conclusion, the material does not belong on the page, and you will be blocked for edit warring if you re-add it again.

Sincerely,

Summer Glau - RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur - those are egrerious and, frankly, ridiculous violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Smm201`0, do not re-add these to the article, as they are in utter violation of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and values - as noted, you will be blocked if you do so. It's up you to make the case to have these included (of which there is no case, but you're welcome to discuss why you think there is), not for others to argue against them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 4 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 [[112]]. He canvassed an editor that had previously accused me of being a sock [[113]], then after trying User:HelloAnnyong (a SPI clerk) [[114]], lodged an SPI [[115]]. 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 [[116]] and outright accuse me of being a sock or meatpuppet of User:DIREKTOR [[117]], 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 [[118]]. The accusations continue to today [[119]].

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)

Well, after examining the time periods in which edits of these two accounts (DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67) are appearing I am not sure that they are sockpuppets, so I would rather accuse these two accounts for "coordinated edits in order of achieving certain goal". Both accounts reverting to each others version and both ignoring sources that I presented on talk page and trying to change common name of the article. I also see no evidence for accusation that my behavior is example of "Incivility, personal attacks and aggressive behavior" - I did not insulted personally these users in any way and I think that I have right to have suspicions about identity of users, especially in the case if suspicious revert warring and similar pattern of behavior between two accounts in involved. While claiming to be "a retired Australian Army officer", the very first edit of user Peacemaker67 was involvement in Serbia-related subject, and from that point, there is a progressive interest for subjects related to WW2 events in Serbia and former Yugoslavia (which are the main interest of user:DIREKTOR as well). And not only that user Peacemaker67 expressed interest for Serbia-related WW2 subjects, but he very soon started to revert edits of Serbian users in these articles (see example: [120]). So, I am sorry, but I would be extremely stupid if I would think that an "retired Australian Army officer" have main interest in reverting Serbian users in Wikipedia, while he did not showed any interest for Australia-related subjects (for example, I live in Serbia and most of my edits in Wikipedia are related to Serbia - opposite behavior would simply not be a normal and logical one). Furthermore, user Peacemaker67 actually personally attacked me and accused me that I am "editor with Serbian POV". I find this insulting because I have the only goal to make Serbia-related articles NPOV and accurate and therefore accusation that I want to push "Serbian POV" (without evidences that could support such accusation) is indeed example of personal attack. Furthermore, claim of user Peacemaker67 that my sockpuppet investigation request was "the second time that an editor with a Serbian POV has accused him of being a sock" means that this user indeed came to Wikipedia with a goal of "fighting the Serbian POV", which further undermine his claim that he is an Australian and which gave me full right to be suspicious about his identity. I was also accused for original research by user DIREKTOR without any presented evidences (please see: [121]) - note that I presented numerous sources that mentioning this territory as "Serbia" (please see: [122]), while user DIREKTOR who accused me for OR just ignoring these sources. Regarding WP:OWN accusation, how exactly my efforts to make article NPOV and sourced could be seen as a case of WP:OWN? Note that both users that accusing me for WP:OWN (DIREKTOR done exactly same thing: [123]) are aiming to rename the article contrary to numerous sources that I presented to them, while they either are not presenting sources that can support their claims either they misinterpret sources that they examine (I can provide further evidence for this if required). PANONIAN 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN is an extremely disruptive participant on that talkpage, and has, to all intents and purposes, taken a Wikipedia article hostage.

• The user has been caught misquoting sources, and falsely claiming support from them.
• The user does blatant WP:OR, and then often simply refuses to acknowledge its OR. For example, he's capable of deriving precise conclusions from map captions and contents entries.
• The user disregards sources that oppose his position, or, when faced with blatant contradiction, the user simply raises the bar. He may completely ignore previously quoted sources.
• The user's English skills, and I say this without an intention to offend, are borderline inadequate. The user will, for example, misunderstand a sentence and then, due to his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, he will refuse out of suspicion to accept the possibility of any misunderstanding on his part. He might, for example, demand "evidence" he has misconstrued a complex English-language sentence (when the mistake is painfully obvious).
• The user writes massive, badly-written blocks of text (in the aforementioned faulty English).
• To top all this off, he continuously refers to Peacemaker67 and myself as the same person - when its incredibly obvious that we're not socks. Continuously. In spite of his report having been rejected outright.

I would provide diffs for all of this, but I'm not at home at the moment, and these are more behavioral trends than actual individual infractions. The veracity of all these statements can be reviewed on Talk:Serbia under German occupation.

I, and now Peacemaker as well, have been trying for quite a while now to do some real discussion, and actual work, to arrive at a consensus and finally fix that poor tortured article. However, even before Peacemaker could post a thread on the actual article talkpage, he was being attacked on his own personal talkpage and reported as "my sock". An extreme example of WP:OWN issues. Every edit has to be "approved" by PANONIAN, who, in addition to all of the above, quite frankly has little to no actual understanding of the subject matter. The article has a nonsense, misleading title, a nonsense lede, and a silly infobox. And its impossible to get at them.

P.s. I think this should have gone straight to WP:AE. But Peacemaker is but new around these parts - and even if he weren't - I think I don't mind the fact that he doesn't give a damn about that sort of thing. He researches thoroughly and edits frequently, and that's what we call a good Wikipedian. -- Director (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AE is probably the best place for this; I agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, this sockpuppet nonsense again? Come on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PANONIAN still considers us the same person until proven otherwise. Frankly, I couldn't care less about his personal perceptions, but this is turning into borderline harassment. That, however, is the least of the disruption. -- Director (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

But really, i cannot care less at the end about this matter. Instead of this meaningless report here, you should try to gain consensus with PANONIAN, as i tried on talk page. After we gained some reasonable arguments, we will see whats going on. We have found the main problem in there! and you can see it here all other questions are derived from this unsolved point. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@WhiteWriter, obviously you have not read the talkpage to any significant extent. Had you done so you would have noticed that catering to PANONIAN's nonsense demands and unsupported personal views is practically all that's been going on down there. The fact that users have to "appease" the WP:OWNER of the article to repair his damage, is the primary issue here. I dare say, as article owners go, PANONIAN is a bad one to boot. Agreement must be based on real sources research, and must not be influenced in the slightest by User:PANONIAN's profoundly misguided personal historical perceptions (that he thinks should be supported on his googled OR).

I must also note that, in addition to being unfamiliar with the dispute in general, you are also PANONIAN's Wikipedia friend and compatriot. And I do not think Peacemaker's report is "meaningless". If folks on ANI are (understandably) discouraged by the aforementioned massive blocks of text, I'll bring up Peacemaker's concerns on WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am "disruptive participant on talkpage"? How So, DIREKTOR? Am I disruptive because I quoted source and you replied that my presentation of source is a joke? Also, I absolutely reject all accusations of user DIREKTOR as false: 1. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I "was been caught misquoting sources, and falsely claimed support from them" (I quoted sources that I presented correctly), 2. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I am "conducting blatant WP:OR" (and according to DIREKTOR, I also should acknowledge that his false OR accusation against me is correct?). 3. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I am "disregarding sources that oppose my position" (I accepted the sources that were introduced by other users on the page and my position is exactly respect of the sources), 4. DIREKTOR did not provided evidence that I have a "BATTLEGROUND attitude" (and reference to my language skills is really insulting - perhaps I should quit editing Wikipedia because my knowledge of English is not perfect?). As for sockpuppetry issue, I already stated that I changed my position about that after examining time periods in which edits of these two accounts are appearing, but I still have suspicions that these two accounts are coordinating their edits in Wikipedia. I will not raise another sockpuppetry investigation thread because of that, but I have right to have these suspicions due to the reasons stated in my previous post on this page. Of course, if DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are insulted by that, I will not express my suspicions on public talk pages any more, but I am requesting that these accounts stop with false accusations against me (I speak about accusations for WP:OR, WP:OWN, sources misquoting, etc) since both accounts failed to provide any evidence that would support these accusations against me. PANONIAN 16:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion for the past few days, but have been reluctant to enter. In addition to having committed what Direktor stated above Panonian has continued to throw unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, believe that a "conspiracy" is being carried out against him, and use personal attacks such as "warmaker67". For the record Panonian, Peacemaker has every right to edit articles related to Serbia, Croatia, Zimbabwe, etc. and may revert editors regardless of which country they may happen to be from. Serb editors are not "entitled" to these articles nor will they "own" them as you're trying to do. Your attempts to ostracize Peacemaker from editing these articles because he isn't from Serbia are incredibly close minded and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Let it also be clear that no amount of forumshopping will replace the reliable sources that are at hand [124][125][126][127].-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, for the record, PRODUCER is an Croatian account as well and I noticed some cooperation between him and DIREKTOR in the past, so it is not surprise that this account appeared here to trash me. There is practically nothing new in his post: while he is concerned about my accusations for sockpuppetry (for which I said that I will not raise them any more), PRODUCER is not worried at all about far worse false accusations that were raised here against me (WP:OR, WP:OWN, sources misquoting, BATTLEGROUND attitude, etc). As for my usage of description "warmaker67" it was just a joke (I love good humor). Also, I do not see that I ever stated that someone who is not from former Yugoslavia has no right to edit articles related to former Yugoslavia. I only stated that it is strange that interest of someone who claim to be an Australian would be related almost entirely to former Yugoslavia. PANONIAN 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, PRODUCER is not a Croatian account. The man is far too reasonable... -- Director (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He is not? Then how you explain this edit? Not quite Serb-friendly? PANONIAN 20:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Emporers-clothes was not a reliable source and the editor who inserted the info later found proper sources. Perhaps try to scratch deeper than the surface next time? This is another telling incident of Panonian failing to assume good faith. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, you expect assumption of good faith just after you posted your anti-PANONIAN comment on this page? Assumption of good faith works for users whose name is clean when we speak about this issue. PANONIAN 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your battleground behaviour in this matter demonstrates that you really don't deserve the benefit of the doubt by anyone, PANONIAN. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly you mean by that? I only defend myself against accusations. Or to put it this way: I am attacked by the users who want to oppose my efforts to make Serbia-related articles NPOV, accurate and sourced. Is that a problem? I know behavior of these users well and they just want to see me removed from their field of interest. Also, I said that I will not say any more that they are sockpuppets. Please tell me what else I should do if you think that my behavior should be improved? PANONIAN 22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How many pages are you guys fighting on? Perhaps if you calmly and concisely gave your positions and then let others comment, you might get some results. Instead its this constant TLDR back and forth in an area most users don't want to get involved with. AniMate 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Um.. just one, AniMate :). Or two if you include this one. But I see your point. Its hard to keep this brief and structured in an ANI thread, where everyone has to respond to everyone as extensively as possible... Should it be moved to WP:AE? -- Director (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably. The regulars at WP:AE know some of the background here and the way its sectioned there you guys won't overwhelm admins discussing possible sanctions. AniMate 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution

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

---

Resolved

Hi! Apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum for this. While looking at the articles I've created, I noticed the inclusion of Til_da_Sun_Come_Up, an article I did not create. Researching the issue further, I'm pretty sure it resulted from a copy and paste from a redirect created from a move I did, rather than a proper move that preserves attribution. Basically something to do with this article and this one. I have no idea how to fix this (or if an admin is actually necessary to do so), so any help would be appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the cutpaste move by history-merging both to Til da Sun Come Up. Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Need review of page history block

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

---

Re: E Ink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

About half of the page history of this article has been blocked and there is little to explain why. There are a couple of edits near the last blocked edit[128] which indicate that there may have been a copyright violation and there is a link to an OTRS page at wikimedia[129], however, the linked page says that the ticket was accidentally deleted. There is nothing on the talk page about it.

The article was recommended for merger around the time of removal/block, and the edit comments indicate that a large amount of material was removed. I'd like an admin to: 1)review what happened; 2)if the page history still needs a block, please add a note to the talk page about the reason for the block and if it was a copyvio, include the source of the copyvio material so that editors can use that source to help expand the article. Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the very earliest blocked revisions (indeed, the first edits to the article after it was merged to E Ink Corporation) and it did read suspiciously like a corporate product description, but I could find no exact text match. I can't view OTRS tickets, so I messaged User:Moonriddengirl who performed the revision-hiding action. Hopefully she can answer your concerns. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the article's listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 May 26, the copyvio was from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/electronic-paper-display--epd-.html The complaint was from the site owners. Apparently there have been multiple articles (dozens) with plagiarized material copied from that site into Wikipedia, all of which are listed on that page. Just a few examples: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]. I suspect there's a lot more copy-paste from this website all over Wikipedia. Those were just the ones that made it to the article talk pages and/or have been discovered. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. :) I've added {{cclean}} to the article's talk page; looks like that step was omitted when the content was removed, although I've spot-checked some of the others from that day and find the tag there (1, 2, 3). I assume this one was an oversight. FWIW, not all of the material the IP pasted was from whatis; some of it was from the official site, which we also can't use. The link is on the talk page now along with the official complainant's. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks MRG for placing the tag. That article was part of one busy day.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As the handler of the OTRS ticket in question I will just note here that Voceditenore is correct in the interpretation of the situation. – Adrignola talk 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sparkie82 (t•c) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User name query

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

---

Resolved

Just wondering about the appropriateness of this user name: redacted

I've notified the users redacted and User talk:Nyttend --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Shy Boy Title page

Hello

I hope someone can help, and please forgive me if I have posted this on the wrong noticeboard, there are so many options it gets confusing sometimes.

I wish to raise an issue regarding the article name Shy Boy which is the title of several pop songs. For many years, this title has directed to the song by English girl group Bananarama. On 22nd March 2012 user Mazic altered this to direct the title to a song by Korean pop band Secret. The reason given was "Changed Shy Boy page with a more popular article(Secret's Shy Boy)". The Bananarama song was moved to title Shy Boy (Bananarama song) whilst the Secret song was given the title Shy Boy. There is also an article for Shy Boy by Katie Melua and confusingly, another article for Shy Boy by Secret, this time titled Shy Boy (EP).

I'm not completely sure what the convention is, however I think that changing the title to the Secret song because a single editor believed it was "a more popular article" is non-NPOV and should not be allowed. Secondly, I would think that the Bananarama song has "preference" over the Secret song for several reasons: it was released some 30 years before the Secret song, being an English song it should have preference on the English Wikipedia over a Korean song, and it was a bigger global hit than the Secret version whose success was confined to South Korea.

I tried to move the articles back to how they were, but I received an error message saying there were conflicting edits.

Can anyone help with this, whether I am correct in believing the change on 22nd March should be reverted, and if so can someone with more experience than me change it?

Many thanks Paul75 (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also add that the user Mazic who made the change lists on their user page that they are a fan of the band Secret, I'm not sure if this brings into question their neutrality?? Paul75 (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess. Looks like a bunch of copy paste moves. Will see what I can do to restore it back to what it was. A discussion can then be started on the talk page about whether to move the titles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Shy Boy should be a dab page... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, I agree it is a mess. It may be best to just have a disambiguation page for Shy Boy Paul75 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban request

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

---

I propose that Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) both be indefinitely topic banned from the Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) page, its talk page also from discussing JH's date of birth or place of residence anywhere of Wikipedia.

See comments made by Jimbo at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2#Jim Hawkins (radio presenter). As I've been involved with both these editors over the article, the 3rd AfD, discussion at AN and elsewhere, I feel that my unilateral stepping in and topic banning these editors would possibly breach WP:INVOLVED. Thus I'm throwing this open for discussion. I will notify the editors in question of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already being discussed here and here. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1exec1 and Template:Use dmy dates

• 1exec1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

1exec1 is systematically adding the templat {{Use dmy dates}} to articles with the edit comment of "date formats per WP:MOSNUM". WP:MOSNUM covers a multitude of points among which are:

• MOS:DATEUNIFY
• WP:STRONGNAT

As can be seen on archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, British dates can either be in the format of "dmy" or "md, y" it depends on the sources used (EG The Daily Telegraph uses "dmy" while the The Times uses "md, y").

While there is a good argument for adding {{Use dmy dates}} to cope with British articles with dates that already have the dates formatted as "mdy", as there is no agreement in sources or guidelines for British dates to be exclusively formatted that way, {{Use dmy dates}} should not be imposed on articles that have no day month information or are already formatted a different way.

My concerns were raised by edits made by user:1exec1 because of the number of British articles that I watch which 1exec1 has been editing in the last few days.

On looking further I left a comment on user talk:1exec1:

Take for example this change to the article John Du Cameron there are no dates in article in the format of either dmy or md,y so it can not be justified on dates already in the article.[135]

1exec1 has not replied to this comment although 1exec1 has since replied to another user's comment placed on the talk page after mine, indicating that my posts have been read.

After the reply to the last posting on user talk:1exec1 in which 1exec1 says "The script doesn't run on its own, I would need a bot account for that. All edits are rechecked by me, so there should be few such errors, since I've manually fixed most of them, this one must have slipped below my radar"[136] which on the face of it would seem to indicate due diligence, (a similar comment was posted before "I agree that sometimes I could make an error judging which format is used more, or just changed to DMY because there were few accessdates at all. I'll try to recheck some of my past edits and fix them if there are problems."[137]), so I decided to look at the User contributions of 1exec1.

I only had to look back eight edits from the most recent to see that 1exec1 made 15 edits in the minute 01:33, 3 April 2012. On examining the first of those edits it is clear that more than simple tagging is talking place as the article Roy Campbell (poet) has had all its dates changed from mdy to dmy and like the other 15 edits it was marked as a minor edit although it made many changes to the text.

So it seems clear that 1exec1 can not be observing due diligence if 15 edits are being made in a minute and that 1exec1 is imposing a format on British articles that is not justified by article content.

I suggest that 1exec1 desists from changing dates in articles unless there is consensus to do so (or split usage), and does not add the template to {{Use dmy dates}} unless before 1exec1 starts to edit the dates in an article an article they are already all formatted as dmy or there is a consensus on the talk page of the article to use dmy in the article and to place the template {{Use dmy dates}} in article space. Also these automated edits should not be marked as a minor change.

Until a consensus emerges here on what is acceptable, 1exec1 should desists from running the script that is being used. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I did these changes was that these pages were already in a hidden category Use DMY dates. ALL articles are about a British subject and should have DMY dates anyway per WP:STRONGNAT. Only articles about an American subject can be in MDY, and even then there are exceptions, such as the military. Since I was editing pages related to military, specifically from Category:British Army officers, I'm almost sure that all articles would use DMY per WP:STRONGNAT, since even if an article is mistagged, almost all Commonwealth countries use DMY (Date format by country) and even then, the US military uses DMY also. Finally, my edits are not disruptive and can always be reverted if I'm wrong, so I see little misconduct here. But I'll stop until consensus is reached here. 1exec1 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As for very high edit speed, I do all my edits in batches. I.e. open e.g. 300 articles in edit mode in tabs, do all changes, preview all changes and then commit all changes. This results in a lot of pages edited in short time, however this doesn't represent the time I spend on the articles. 1exec1 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1's edits are consistent with WP:MOSDATE. If anybody wishes to change policy to have articles on British subjects use dates in US format, they should raise it on the talk page there and gain consensus for change. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reread the relevant policy (WP:STRONGNAT) and it seems to be pretty clear: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. (emphasis mine). Because my edits are not disruptive (i.e. are very minor, often with no visible changes and can be easily reverted), I'm continuing to edit. If there are any other issues with my edits, please contact me on the talk page. Thank you. 1exec1 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What 1exec1 said has been my understanding all along. Our conventions tend to ignore the mix of date formats used in the "real world" in US and the UK. I'm sure that if he cares to delve into the archives, PBS should find the above wording of MOSNUM reflects the consensus position. WP articles on British, Irish, Australian, NZ, SA, India, Pakistan subjects almost universally use dmy format, and American articles almost always use mdy. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in which case adding the template to those pages where the format is already consistent is in my opinion a minor edit. But altering the dates in a page is not a minor edit and there should be consultation on the talk page before the format is changed. Also placing a template on an article that will automate date formats on a page which does not yet have such a format under the argument of WP:STRONGNAT flies in the face of the spirit of WP:TIES "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article". --PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what national ownership means. The spirit of WP:OWN is that being the author of a piece of content doesn't make your opinion more important when that piece is edited. In this case national ownership means that being a national of some country shouldn't make your opinion more important. Thus this doesn't apply here. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1 I think you are ignoring the word "generally" in that quote from the guideline. Also there is no explicit mention of what is the most common format in Britain (see above both are used when the date is expressed with month in letters so neither is wrong) therefor I do not think it appropriate to make mass changes as you did to Roy Campbell (poet) (particularly as a minor edits), or to add the templates to articles where the format has not yet been decided by a first major contributor, needs discussion on the talk page for a consensus to emerge if one is using semi-automated methods to impose dates on an article different from that which already exists, or on articles that do not already have a predetermined date format.

1exec1 what is the name of the tool you are using to make automate these changes? I ask because the changes do not look as if they are hand made as they change similar strings in all of the pages I have looked at, and it is also implied from the comments you have made on your talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a multitude of views what a minor edit is. But here on wikipedia it has a very specific meaning. As WP:MINOR states, a minor edit is any edit which changes only the presentation of the content, such as typographical or spelling fixes, formatting changes or rearrangement of text. My edits never change the content, only formatting, and even then, only in minor way. Thus I think my edits qualify for being marked as minor.

As for the generality, there is consensus that articles about British subject should have DMY format. Whether the article already uses DMY or MDY shouldn't matter. WP:DATERET even has a separate exception for that: The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic (emphasis mine). If we combine this with WP:STRONGNAT, it becomes clear, that consensus is needed for using other format than DMY, not the other way round. Thus, it's the opposite, my edits are generally good. One could argue only about specific articles, but then one should have strong arguments. As for Roy Campbell (poet), I see nothing problematic, he's British and article almost doesn't talk about things related to countries that have MDY style. Pretty good candidate for format conversion on the grounds of WP:STRONGNAT.

Finally, ask for consensus first isn't a policy endorsed by Wikipedia. Even WP:CONSENSUS itself says that an edit should be made first (also, look at the flowchart in the right). WP:BRD and WP:BOLD also advocate for edit first, ask later style. The sheer number of edits I make, while irritating, shouldn't make a difference, since the error rate is so low. I use a modified script made by User:Ohconfucius, you can find it on his user page. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support what 1exec1 is doing to improve and harmonise date formats. Not sure why it has been brought here; wouldn't WT:MOSNUM be a better venue for this discussion? --John (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Report for New IP of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nipponese Dog Calvero

114.42.150.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was confirmed to be the puppet of Nipponese Dog Calvero in zhwp. After his block, he came to en to abuse me in my Userpage [138] and talkpage [139].--Zhxy 519 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Abusive and Persistent IP Stalker

81.156.191.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.156.191.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.154.7.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly posting abuse [140],[141] and[142]. Going through my contribution history and just reverting all my edits [143]. Its stopped being funny, could I request a range block please as he appears to be IP hopping. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest, the data set is a little small for a rangeblock at the moment, but if they keep coming from the 81.156.191.x range, it would be eminently feasible. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

81.156.191.208/28 would be a better range block should there be more problems from this range (81.156.191.208-81.156.191.223). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one, very similar style: 86.154.7.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kahastok talk 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, there is no effective rangeblock possible with these ranges. The actual range is actually /10 or /8 and spans multiple /10 or /8 ranges. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article

See [144] with the edit summary "Adding real content about actions which troll who govern this page would prefer not to allow. Removing ongoing POV vandalism". The editor User:Reinventor098, who's only contributions have been in relation to TZM, or related articles, has been repeatedly [145][146] told (see also Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and of course Special:Contributions/Reinventor098 - particularly the edit summaries) that such false accusations of 'vandalism' [147] are uncalled for, and must stop. The fundamental problem is that TZM supporters are trying to spin the article their way, and adding questionable material sourced solely to their own organisation. Given the fairly obvious sock/meatpuppetry that has been going on in relation to the article, I doubt that a simple block or topic ban is going to solve the problem. Administrator action is clearly necessary regarding Reinventor098's actions, but I think we will also have to consider wider measures concerning the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking anyone would help as I expect socks to appear in fairly short order. From their actions, I don't think they really care too much about our policies, just getting their POV in the article. Semi protection won't help as several of the SPA's are confirmed. Maybe a month of full protection to force the use of the talk page? If they get used to using the talk page, maybe they'd continue after the protection. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, they seem to consider the talk page as an ideal place to make accusations of 'vandalism' - so I'm not sure that would help much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup, but I'd rather there than deal with the continual reverts. Full protection + some polite but direct warnings from someone totally uninvolved might get the point across to them and if not, short blocks for civility as needed. More than anything, it's the reverting of their POV and minutia that's tiring to me. As long as they don't get too personal on their comments, calling anything they don't like vandalism is something I consider annoying but expected. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I must be one of those "trolls who govern this page". There is certainly a problem with single-purpose POV editing here. Users Reinventor098 (talk · contribs) and Voiceofreason467 (talk · contribs) have concrtrated almost exclusively on this topic and have very similar styles and points of view, although VOR has disclaimed any connection [148] . Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out here Cusop that I have not in large actually claimed false forms of accusations whenever their would be edits that are not what I would like to be done. [For example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Joseph#Is_this_a_worthy_source_to_say_he_is_P.J._Merola.3F]. Accusations of vandalism and trolling are obvious that I tend to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#WP:Manual_of_Style.2FBiographies.23First_mention [my comment is at bottom]. For those wondering about my bias in editing, you should see my comment I made here:

" * Weak Keep - Considering that another article titled The Zeitgeist Movement has been suggested to be merged with this one I would imagine that it would be best to keep it. Especially considering that this might even be a method of trying to get both articles removed. I myself am not opposed to the issue of merging that article with this one, but if we are to do so... it might be a good idea to keep this one. To be honest though, the notability is a bit lacking at any rate about the person in question (even though I would disagree, but my disagreement is based on personal opinion, and thus has no place for dispute).Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Joseph_%282nd_nomination%29

So my bias and my accusations are not baseless and I do have good reasons for them being such. I just did not realize that Wikipedia had such an internal method to use and I will use that from now on. It was pointed out to me so as such I was simply in mistake. Oh and for the record, my contributions have been relied upon since 2008 for those wondering.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article was just reverted with the only explanation provided being: Removing Anti-TZM Troll reversion. Editor still reluctant to engage the troll hordes on the talk page
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with you Ankh, calling what was edited as a troll edit is completely uncalled for. I mean I think the edit of inserting the word cult into the article would be trollish, but that is obvious, the edit that AndyTheGrump did was not trollish and I have no course other than to say the person is engaging in a false accusation, probably based on a personal grudge.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the edit-warring is continuing, with both Reinventor098 and an IP making yet further massive reverts: [149][150]. As for my comment about cults, that was made on the talk page, in response to a personal attack - I have at no time suggested that the article should describe TZM as a cult (we'd need a third-party reliable source, for a start). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - it's getting worse with IP's and new SPA's coming out. At this point, I think protecting the article in a non-POV version and going from there is about the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's protected now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Permablock for disruptive IP?

After returning from a 4 month block, looks like 58.147.235.216 is at it again with the same disruptive anti-semitic edits[151],[152]. Note that 125.193.106.3 appears to be a sock. Is a perma-block for both IPs now in order? --Nug (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Does a tool exist...

I recently closed this CFD where there was clear consensus to mark the categories as hidden, as well as rename them. I was about to start doing this, but I wondered, is there a bot that could take care of this so I don't have to spend a couple hours manually hiding and moving several hundred categories? Thanks. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:CFDW, where Cydebot (talk · contribs) would create the new categories, populating them while emptying out the old ones, and delete them once emptied. — ξ^xplicit 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that does make it a little easier...I still have to go in and add each category manually to the bot page, then manually edit each category to include {{Wikipedia category}}. Oh well, I guess that's why we have humans here on Wikipedia! -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistent editor at University of Ottawa article

Resolved

User:24.114.252.234 is engaged in an edit war with many different editors at University of Ottawa. There is an outstanding 3RR report (although he or she is at 8 or 9RR by my count, just today!) and an SPI request. Those requests have been outstanding for several hours but the edit warring continues. Can someone please block this editor? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Up to 10RR, which is a record for anything I have ever seen..... Yeah hopefully this gets resolved soon. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article semied by Bwilkins. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposing indef ban of the Stephanie Adams sockpuppet...

I am proposing a community ban of Hershebar (talk · contribs), or, for that matter, whoever the person is that keeps reappearing, claiming that Stephanie Adams is notable enough for her own article, adding non-notable information about her, and abusively using sockpuppets. This IP's contributions are a pretty good sample of the articles that are being hit.

See this for at least some of the socks. The latest one was NEMESISGOTCHA (talk · contribs), who only left what was evidently an abusive message at User:Fasttimes68's talk page (edit has been hidden). Because of the returning flow of puppets and apparently lack of intent to discontinue disruption, I am proposing an indefinite community ban. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I have been concerned about the behaviour of Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · block user) for about a month now. He has been making comments that are consistently aggressive towards other editors. A sample of examples follow: [153], [154], [155] (edit summary), [156], [157], [158], [159] (edit summary), [160], [161], [162], [163], [164]. Other users have approached me as an admin with concerns about these and other comments. One of these comments in isolation would be easily forgivable. But the attacks and negative tone seem to be incessant.

I made an attempt to raise these concerns with the user here, and my edit was simply reverted with a put-down edit summary.

The user has twice been blocked in the past six months for disruptive editing, and it is starting to reach that stage again. Normally, I would have no hesitation to block the editor for the accumulated nature of the comments he has made, but since I have been the target of some of his attacks, I feel it is best dealt with here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have had a few run-ins with KW over the years, and I consistently found him to be disruptive, counter-productive, and often quite rude. He always seems to be the first one to accuse others of personally attacking him (often when they're not), while simultaneously dealing out personal attacks of his own. The diffs towards the end of the list in the above post are particularly concerning. Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that "Life is confusing when you have a brain." Any of those diffs on their own are not a blockable offense, but I agree that the demonstrated long-term pattern is problematic. At the very least, I would support issuing a final warning to KW, to let him know that future incivility will result in blocks of significant and increasing duration. —SW— ^chatter 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents For what it's worth, I brought this to Good OlFactory's attention and I have previously had run-ins with Kiefer before. I explicitly told him on two occasions that he needed to stop this belligerence or else I would have an admin intervene (if someone really needs diffs, I'm sure I can find them.) He then posted more positive notes on my and his talk pages--it's impossible to say if that was genuine good faith or just hoping that I would forget about him for awhile, but he has made it a point to be needlessly provocative and it really needs to stop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally registered

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

---

So I finally registered a username. I edited extensively as an IP and am wondering if there is any way to salvage my history. Old IPs were:

• 76.18.43.253
• 98.203.99.251

Thanks --Sinophobe (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You can view the edits made by those IPs via 76.18.43.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.203.99.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), however it is not possible to merge accounts and their editing histories. WilliamH (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Verification of a source

I'd like a neutral party to verify a Romanian source used in the article about Iosif Constantin Drăgan. I opened a discussion on the matter, thinking that I might remove the paragraph myself, but user:dahn--who suspects me of being a permabanned user (he didn't elaborate)--claimed that I was stalking him. I haven't touched the article, fearing it could lead to an edit war. Maybe you guys could ask a Romanian speaker to take a quick look on the article and see if the paragraph in question corresponds to its source. Thanks in advance! --Defetistul (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would personally recommend user:Biruitorul to review the source, since his judgment can be trusted. I don't know how he would feel about that, though. --Defetistul (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea of the history here. I had a look at the source article, it appears to correspond to the edit. However this new user's first edit summary was User:Defetistul ‎ (←Created page with 'In Dahn We Trust.') ... Draw your own conclusions.... In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that I like Dahn and I appreciate his work. As for the source, are you certain you have read the article? Do you speak Romanian? Where in that article does it state anything about protochronism? --Defetistul (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Defetistul as an obvious, more or less self-admitted ([165]) sock of somebody. I don't really know who the sockmaster is, but I trust Dahn when he says it's obvious for people who know the backstory here. Perhaps Dahn could confirm who it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandlisim and slander being repeated

Slander about a third party is being posted on the American Digger page. It has been removed twice in three days by those who monitor it, but was reposted. Here is one view of the coments, calling a former employee a fraud and fake. It was not posted by anyone with any knowledge of such things nor connected with the magazine, but purely as a revenge tactic against the person slandered, Ric Savage. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Digger_(magazine)&diff=485402608&oldid=485279098 Even though we are 99% dertain who it is, we can not prove it. If it is the person we suspect, we have warned them before about slander and such abuse. Can this action be stopped and the poster either warned again or blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.124.165 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)