Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User Jagged_85 and abuse of sources

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

---

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For those not aware of the background to this, Jagged_85 was previously the subject of an April 2010 RFC regarding his abuse of sources: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Summary. It was agreed that Jagged_85 had been making unacceptable edits, using references which did not support the claims made. As one of the outside views noted: "the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources". Jagged_85 essentially did not contest the case but used as his defence that he had been rushed and careless.

The conclusion of the RFC was that: Jagged_85 would stop abusing sources and would stop making such bad edits; Jagged_85 would help in the cleanup (to put this in perspective he is currently 253 in terms number of edits on Wikipedia, and has previously been much higher; a significant proportion of his edits have serious problems); and he was told to: "avoid any questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources, and in particular, avoiding edits which add exceptional claims, unless these have received strong confirmation from several reliable sources". Finally, Jagged_85 was warned: "if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban."

No further action was taken; Jagged_85 has made only a marginal effort to help clear-up the mess left behind him, but he stopped editing the Muslim history related articles where he had caused so much damage, and everyone was essentially happy to assume good faith and let him get on with editing other parts of the encyclopedia.

I came to the problem after the original RFC, when I got quite heavily involved in trying to clean some of the extraordinary mess left in articles such as Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Avicenna. As such I was watching the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 page. I then saw that a couple of editors in Jagged_85's new chosen topic area, computer games, were concerned with his use of sources and editing style. When I looked into it further I was frankly horrified, as Jagged_85 was making exactly the same sort of exceptional claims regarding computer game X being the first to have 3D polygonal graphics that he used to make about Muslim scholars inventing various surgical instruments that had existed for centuries, or suggesting Muslim scholars came up with Newton's first law of motion before Newton did.

With the help of users bridies and Indrian, who are editors in the computer games area, I have been looking into this further over the course of about a week, and the further I dig, the worse it seems. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence, which is the page where we've been collecting the evidence.

The list of provably false claims made on that page is staggering. And we really weren't trying very hard to collect examples. Over the course of investigating I looked into one article, Gun Fight; almost every substantial edit Jagged made to that article is problematic, trying to make what is undoubtedly an important game sound even more groundbreaking that it was. He makes wild, exceptional claims about things which he doesn't seem to understand and which are certainly not supported by the references he gives. I even found one edit so bad that it was specifically rubbished by a computer website: 'Even today, Wikipedia, that bastion of poor research, triumphantly declares Silpheed was "notable for its early use of real-time 3D polygonal graphics." No, Wikipedia, it really was not.'

I am of course happy to hear other people's views, but my personal opinion is that, given the previous RFC (which specifically mentioned a ban if he did not mend his ways), and given the sheer amount of damage he has done to the encyclopedia, by making so many referenced, exceptional claims which are simply not supported by the reference (sometimes directly contradicted by the reference), it must be time to consider a community ban. My personal opinion is that it needs to be a permanent one; we are surely way beyond second chances now.--Merlinme (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wowser. So, after peddling anti-Western Muslim propaganda in math and science articles for years, he now does the same for Asian videogame manufacturers usually at the expense of Western ones? And using the exact same methods? Who'd have seen that one coming? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. His editing is still very problematic as shown by that evidence, and he shows no sign of accepting the assessment of the previous RfC/U. Fences&Windows 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that diff. In it, Jagged_85 accuses anyone exposing him of having a "very explicitly obvious Eurocentric agenda". It figures. 86.121.137.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this constitutes outright lying in Wikipedia articles. With such a long history of it, this guy needs to be permanently banned.

Also, crap, I had no idea there was a Starglider 2! (I played the first game for a few years.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why WP coddles those who intentionally misrepresent sources to push their POV. Should have been banned long ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to attract new editors? "Hi, I'm Jagged 85. I've been rewriting world history on Wikipedia since 2005 (and so can you!)" 86.121.137.227 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time to block Jagged 85. Looking at the first half of the Video Game evidence, I can't tell whether xe is just unable to properly read sources, or is somehow obsessed with pushing a POV (though I can't quite see what it is, because I don't know what all of those games have in common (is it the geographic source of the company)? Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference. Furthermore, the earlier massively bad editing on Muslim science issues caused very long term problems. People familiar with the whole story regularly had to stub or at least significantly trim articles because so much of them was based on Jagged 85's work; the problem then became that users not familiar with the problem objected to what they saw as removal of sourced info, and then on article after article people would have to explain what was wrong with Jagged 85's work, insist that no, it is not salvageable in any way, etc. The reason why Jagged 85's actions are so bad is that they resemble, on the surface, very good editing--adding well formatted, fairly believable information that appears to be directly supported by specific sources. This has to be stopped, and since it is now clear that it's not just a specific topic that's the source of the problems, the only solution is to remove Jagged 85 from Wikipedia. An indefinite block is certainly called for here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the video games evidence, I've removed the autopatrolled and reviewer rights as a bare minimum. Reading the 2010 RFC/U now. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The pattern that emerges from the latest survey is that he is pimping various non-Western video games and their manufacturers (by necessity, these are mostly Japanese) with fake claims of various "firsts", "best-selling" and the like. 86.121.137.227 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• As noted above, I was involved in preparing this (though completely unaware of the original RfC until recently), but I support an indefinite (permanent) site ban for Jagged85. As others have noted, he acknowledged that he faced being banned if he continued this kind of editing and nevertheless he continued, in a different subject area. Even if these kinds of edits constituted a minority of his edits as he has claimed ("cherry-picking" being an accusation he has often levelled at his detractors), the absolute number nevertheless means that the limited wherewithal of our video game editors cannot keep up with them. Further, in at least certain sub-areas, I hold that Jagged85's bad edits are the norm rather than the exception. The page above illustrates the kind of edits for which he was previously taken to task: making extraordinary and spurious "factual" claims based usually on the direct misrepresentation of his sources (and sometimes by using a source which goes against wider research, perhaps even common knowledge in the case of the Space Invaders claim). I also put together a second page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Video Game Genres Evidence (which has largely not been copy edited by other users), detailing his edits in-depth across just a few video game genre articles. It shows wider edits which added lesser or more subjective historical commentary, but with equally direct misrepresentation of sources. There is also a wide tendency to add purely descriptive information to history articles/sections to imply historical significance (Jagged85 denies this) and to use material and sources out of context generally. It also shows plagiarism to be a prevalent issue with Jagged85's supported edits. bridies (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• And I am the other video game editor who has been looking into these issues. I first really began taking notice of Jagged 85 in January of this year when I noticed that a few of his edits seemed really out of whack based on my knowledge of video game history. I then began examining some of his edits over the previous year to video game articles and discovered a large number that needed to be reverted for accuracy. I then began following his editing progress on his user contribution page, which allowed me to catch a fair number of really bad edits within hours or days of their commission. This practice also led me to become aware of the original RFC against him in February 2012. I was quite disturbed at that time, because his MO on video game history articles appeared nearly identical. I contacted a respected video game editor known for his policy expertise and diplomacy about my concerns, but unfortunately it soon became apparent that this editor had recently left wikipedia permanently, as he has not been heard from since January. As I pondered what to do next (unilateral action not being palatable to me) I noted that Jagged's volume of video game history edits had declined by the end of March 2012 and that I no longer had the time to fact-check his contributions too closely. I therefore decided to keep an eye on him and try to catch particularly blatant looking problems, but not take further action. When Bridies first noticed the problem and decided independently to get involved on the original RFC talk page, I decided the time had come to take more comprehensive punitive action.

I can state from experience that while Jagged has made a small number of high quality edits to video game articles and a decent number of neutral edits, these are greatly outweighed by the distortions he has introduced. In fact, I did not realize how bad some of his abuses had become until gathering the evidence for this ANI posting because he was adding material so rapidly between January 2011 and March 2012 and adding specific bad claims across so many articles simultaneously that it would have taken weeks of work for a single editor to verify all of his edits individually. I do not know that he really has an agenda (though his pushing of Japanese games, sometimes at the expense of more well-known Western products -- a topic I chose not to delve into too deeply in the evidence I presented -- does give me pause), but he appears to be grossly incompetent both in his failure to understand the sources from which he draws his claims and in his lack of understanding of the historical and technological topics he attempts to engage with. I will not weigh in on what I think the appropriate level of punishment should be for his actions, but I firmly believe that his abuse of sources and distortion of fact has done great harm to wikipedia and must be stopped. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that Jagged 85 also had a long-term interest in making fake claims about Japanese inventions, not just Muslim ones. For example List of Japanese inventions, which was almost entirely his writing, contained ridiculous claims like:

"p–n junction

A junction formed by combining P-type and N-type semiconductors together in very close contact. It was invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989.[34]"

Akasaki invented/discovered some junctions used in LEDs, but by no means invented the p-n junction (and surely not in 1989). Another related and absurd claim made on that list was that Akasaki also invented GaN. GaN was first synthesized in 1932. Akasaki was three years old back then. What Akasaki's team discovered was that Mg-doped p-type GaN was useful for building bright LEDs. (Facts source: the introduction to Nitride Semiconductors and Devices by Hadis Morkoç.) Akasaki's contribution was described in Light-Emitting Diodes by E. Fred Schubert as "the first true p-type doping and p-type conductivity in GaN". That's quite a far cry from having invented the GaN substrate or the p-n junction, isn't it? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly remain unsure as to whether he is really biased or it is just a combination of incompetence along with focus area. He likes to add information about Japanese topics, and in so-doing has on several occasions distorted Japanese accomplishments vis-a-vis Western accomplishments in video game history and elsewhere, but if he chose to focus on Western topics he would probably end up doing the same thing in reverse. I still think its primarily an inability to engage in proper research that leads him astray and that it is easy to see bias in his work because that is a more believable explanation in some ways than his apparently staggering levels of incompetence. After chasing so many of his edits though, I really think he is just that inept. That is no excuse, however, and I think the community has been extremely patient in giving him opportunities to figure out his problems. The fact that he continued his sloppy research techniques in a different subject area after the previous RFC is somewhat mind-boggling. Indrian (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it's pretty difficult to read remarks like this and still not see any extreme bias. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Jagged 85 indefinitely. I'd usually wait for a response first, but given the history here, I don't think there's anything they could say that will change my mind. The evidence is clear that they have engaged in long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation. They've been more than adequately warned for this precise conduct during the RFC/U, but yet have persisted in this behavior. Cleaning up after them has already cost massive amounts of volunteer time, and allowing them to continue to edit will only cause more time to be wasted on checking up and verifying their work, especially since a lot of the problems involve difficult-to-obtain sources. In short, it is very far from a net positive to allow them to continue to edit. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's a pretty clear community consensus for a ban. For the record, although he is interested in Eastern subjects, I don't think he showed a particularly strong bias towards them in his computer edits. The connecting thread in his edits is hype; everything he writes about has to be the first, earliest, most significant, most influential example. I don't however accept the argument that it's just incompetence with sources on his part. His standard method was to find a source which said X was a Y, and then use that reference to claim X invented Y (or was the first Y, or introduced Y, or was a significant early example, etc. etc.) Jagged_85 did that hundreds or thousands of times, and I find it hard to believe he didn't know exactly what he was doing, especially when he apparently deliberately used references which were hard to check.

Claims to be first (or otherwise exceptional in some way) using bad references are what to look out for in any sock puppet discussions, which I suspect we may get. --Merlinme (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

I've unarchived this because he has posted a very long unblock rationale on his talk page. The community needs to decide if Jagged 85 is only WP:BLOCKED, thus any admin may unblock him, or if he is WP:CBANned, in which case he may only be unblocked by a consensus of editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see a few supports for a ban above, I'd also reiterate/clarify my support for a community ban (and a global one, if at all possible). His unblock request is derisory: he's essentially repeated his accusations of "cherry-picking", of which there was none this time. As I noted above, I picked the first 3 genre articles on my list of successful GANs, went through them, and posted the bad edits I found. I also covered what I left out. I'm certain Jagged85 couldn't come up with much of a list of good edits made to those pages, certainly not edits involving more than purely descriptive commentary. The edits on the main list are only cherry picked in the sense they were chosen to show he's still been doing what he's explicitly not supposed to have been doing per the previous RfC. Dig deeper and largely all one finds is more of the same involving subjective commentary, as well as original synthesis, plagiarism, and redundancy. His statement on his talk page that "the vast majority (I'm certain at least more than 95%) of that information matches the sources very accurately" is completely spurious. Aside from straight-up misrepresentation accounting for more like 50% (if Jagged85 can guestimate, so can I), often his content "matches the sources very accurately" because it's plagiarised. And if one takes into account that much of his recent bad editing is taking verifiable statements and putting them into contexts where they have no business being, it's no exaggeration to say that 95% bad edits is a more accurate ratio. Also, regarding his complaint that no video game editor came to him about systematic issues: I went to his talk page to ask him just what he'd done to First-person shooter, only to find it full of references to that old RfC, which in turn had linked to about a dozen threads on his talk page regarding abuse of sources. He further made it abundantly clear here and here, as well as in his unblock request that he doesn't feel he's in the wrong with much of his editing. For example, told me: "I completely disagree with your stance that only the "important" or "popular" stuff should be included. Sorry, but I just can't agree with such a narrow, restrictive view of history." (I never used the word "popular" and demanded only verifiable claims of historical significance). With regards to the irrefutably bad misrepresentations, he just maintains that these errors are to be expected of an editor with such high numbers of edits. On the contrary, there is no way an experienced editor can reasonable be making these kind of "mistakes" even semi-regularly. Highly active though he is, there are still hundreds more who are more active, yet aren't making these kinds of prevalently terrible edits. bridies (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban+global ban. As a certifying user heavily involved in the first RFC/U and the Herculean task of cleaning up after it, I can confirm that the main issues which have led to this ANI and which the blocking admin has aptly summarized as "long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation" have remained exactly the same as in the RFC/U two years ago. I strongly support a global ban from all Wikipedia projects for the reasons laid out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Global ban for Jagged 85. The damage done already far transcends the English version, affecting other language versions through translations of Jagged 85's articles. In future, faulty material translated from other language versions may be introduced to the English WP if the user – who has shown a prodigious output through the years – is allowed to continue edit the Wikipedia in other languages. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban/global ban. This is a user who clearly doesn't get it, and who refuses to get it. The encyclopedia is, sadly, a better place without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• In case it isn't obvious from my block, support community ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And oppose the so-called "global ban" proposal for the reasons explained in my comment below. T. Canens (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support permanent site/global ban. If achievable, Jagged 85 should be banned from all projects as there is nothing more damaging to the encyclopedia than a civil editor who systematically adds a large amount of incorrect and misleading information to articles, much of it with plausible sources. When other editors have taken the time to track down and study the references, many examples of the problem have been found: "severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim" (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community/global ban. If we keep this guy around, who knows what damage could arrive in the future? ZappaOMati 22:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I support an indefinite ban. Regardless of what proportion of Jagged's count these bad edits represent, the scope of the damage is extensive and is much more than should be tolerated from any editor, whatever their edit count and their good intentions. Considering that these same types of problems continue to arise after all these years and periodic, time-consuming discussions, it appears that Jagged just won't, or can't, address them sufficiently. Jagged has made many good edits and should be commended for them, but at a certain point it's just time to find another hobby.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support site-ban. Disruption this pervasive after more-than-fair warning is just unacceptable and should not be permitted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I had thought the indefinite block was for all intents and purposes already regarded as a site ban by the community, and in fact I was about to add the {{banned}} template to his userpage just yesterday - only opting against doing so when I saw that someone had already added {{blocked}} instead. We have given Jagged 85 numerous chances to reconsider his approach to editing Wikipedia, but the fundamental issues that have been present from the very beginning persist to this day. It is not just an issue of competence, but of honesty. An editor who cannot handle himself with integrity has no place on Wikipedia. As such, I have no choice but to fully support an indefinite global ban of Jagged 85 from all Wikimedia projects, as a means of making his edits under this or any other account name viable for immediate, unconditional removal without further discussion. Preventing this sort of abuse from recurring again is more important than retaining any positive contributions he's made over the years. I wish it were not so. Kurtis (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite global ban. Frankly this should have happened a long time ago. Enough is enough. Further, given the damning evidence, it is important that all of his edits that have not been totally rewritten by others are deleted as quickly as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban but please note that our community alone cannot enact global bans.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Sure. As far as I know it can only be implemented at Steward requests/Global, but with a clear consensus we could mandate an admin requesting a global ban in the name of the English WP community. Even more, from what I take from WP:BAN only a global ban could make it possible for editors in other languages to remove translated flawed material from their project on sight without going through the lengthy and cumbersome process of talking through each and every removal with well-intending but uninformed users unaware of its provenience. From my own experience in the first clean-up two years ago I know that this is a very time-consuming and ungrateful process which involves a lot of misunderstandings between these two user groups. This is why it is so important to express support for a global ban or not here. Practically, it is the decision to remove Jagged 85's material from other projects or keep it there for years to come. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely incorrect.

1. There's no such thing as a global ban right now. m:Global bans is a proposal that hasn't yet become policy.
2. Even were it a policy, Jagged 85 clearly does not qualify for a global ban. That proposed policy requires bans on at least two separate projects. Moreover, there must be actual crosswiki abuse; Jagged 85's misconduct seems to be localized to this wiki, though it may have effects elsewhere through the actions of other editors.
3. Moreover, any global ban will have pretty much zero effect, as Jagged 85 seems to be pretty much inactive in other projects.
4. A ban, global or local, does not affect the status of "Jagged 85 material" on any project in any manner. The "revert on sight" part of our banning policy applies only to edits made in violation of a ban (i.e., after the ban is imposed), not before the ban is imposed. A ban is not damnatio memoriae.
5. Our banning policy (including the "revert on sight" part) does not apply in other projects, and their ban policy may well be different from ours. Moreover, since the "Jagged 85 material" was likely introduced by another editor, a ban will have literally zero effect even if it applied to all edits by the banned user since there's no edit by Jagged 85 to revert on these projects.

We would sound incredibly arrogant were we to actually go to the stewards to ask for a global ban (1) for misconduct that is solely on this wiki, (2) entirely unsupported by any existing policy, (3) entirely unsupported by even the proposed global ban policy, and (4) that has zero practical effect. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Global bans are more than a proposal. Global bans have already been effected, they are a daily reality, see e.g. here. If you are prepared to leave the material out of fear of looking "arrogant", then we should consult Jimbo Wales personally who may rightfully fear more for Wikipedia's reputation, because the dimensions of the misuse are simply staggering. This is just the short list. The long list you will find [here]. Despite the clean-up, we are still talking about thousands of readers reading fabricated contents month and by month in the English WP alone. These distortions have already been noted by outside observers long ago. Ultimately, it simply boils down to the question: you are prepared to do something effective about this or you don't. You give the community the means to remove it or you don't. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a global lock, not a global ban. And it does not apply here either, because, first, Jagged 85 does not even have a global account for a steward to lock, and second, there is absolutely zero evidence of cross wiki abuse. Did you even look at Jagged 85's cross-wiki contributions? They have made almost no edits on other projects in the past several years.

Moreover, a global lock has absolutely zero effect on the acceptability of Jagged 85's old edits in any project. First, it is not a ban; second, bans do not apply to edits made before the ban; third, the "Jagged 85 material" on other projects are in the contributions of other editors and would be unaffected even if Jagged 85 were to be banned on those projects.

Your argument boils down to "we must do something about Jagged 85, a global ban (or lock) is something, therefore we must do a global ban (or lock)". That's fallacy, not logic. Of course I care for the project's reputation (and it's rather surprising that you would imply that I do not, especially since I am the one who blocked Jagged 85 in the first place), but what you are proposing is to make a request that is bound to be rejected, that will almost certainly cause a good amount of ill will toward this project among our sister projects ("Look, enwiki is trying to lord over the other projects again!"), and that, even if it were to succeed (an impossibility since, again, there is no global account for you to lock), would have zero effect. Count me out. T. Canens (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted below, I support a global ban as far as it is feasible; however I've not yet seen anything which makes me think it is feasible. However that does not mean "do nothing". We could, for example, at least alert other Wikis that there is a problem, and to bear this in mind when looking at pages in their wiki which may include material from the English wiki. As I understand it this is a real and current problem. --Merlinme (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Other projects (esp. Commons, a common place of asylum), tend to ignore disruption by users on other projects (at least in my experience). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. While I still support a global ban, it seems impossible because I see WP has not implemented the necessary guidelines for this yet. This means, given his proficiency in several languages, the user can continue to edit other language version, even after a community ban here. And I am certain, he will do exactly this. So for the entire WP project this community ban will change nothing. Effectively, we are exporting the problem only to another language version which will have to deal with it all over again and may rightfully ask one day why we did not more about it when we could. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't necessarily disrupt other Wikipedia languages, which are considered separate communities and projects for this purpose. However, if he does, the global bans policy may have to be speedily ratified in order to prevent more of this. But for now, we don't need a global ban.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support global site-ban. After wreaking havoc on history of science articles for years, he was given one last chance following the RfC/U, and has convincigly proved that he is unfit to edit an encyclopedia. The reasons, whether sheer incomptence or otherwise, are no longer relevant at this point. Time to go. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. I've explained in some detail why when I originally brought the case. I have also been discussing with Jagged_85 on his Talk page since the original block, and I find it quite alarming how he apparently thinks an acceptable defence, after five years of adding misinformation to the encyclopedia, is that he "tried his best" with sources he admits he didn't understand. I also support a global ban, as far as it is actually feasible. --Merlinme (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban This needs to be explicit. A lot of problems have been caused by this editor over a long period of time and I see no chance that if he were to edit again he'd suddenly be able to use sources appropriately. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Jagged 85 has failed the Wikipedia community for the last time. Giving the damning evidence that this user has done, he has now exhausted all of our patience. With that said, it's game over and as they say, "enough is enough." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Jasper Deng presents an unpopular truth, but truth it is. If there is no evidence of disruption to projects other than en-WP, then a global ban is simply not an option. A siteban from en-WP is obviously the right call (some of this stuff is amazing, and people will be fixing the damage for years to come), but until we have a consensus that certain classes of wikicrime require global bans (something that I haven't seen proposed) we shouldn't be acting as if that's already in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban —Ruud 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Those discussing a "global" ban: Please stop pretending that the English Wikipedia community has the authority to ban someone from participating in other Wikimedia projects. We don't. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite community ban I have had experience with Jagged85 from earlier encouraging him to contribute to articles on the History of Science in Islam, to participating in attempts to resolve his disruptive editing on Islamic science. The reports that his misleading editing has continued in his more recent editing on computer games convinces me that a permanent ban is needed to protect Wikipedia from his continued misinterpretations of sources. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Shouldn't this be closed by now? --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 04:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Kwamikagami and Lake Michigan-Huron

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

---

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This issue came up last week, and just today scrolled off the board. [1] Unfortunately, i must bring it up again. Under contention were two issues:

• whether the concept of "Lake Michigan-Huron" (the system of the two lakes when considered together hydrologically) should have its own article or be a section of the Great Lakes article; and

• whether "Lake Michigan-Huron" was a "lake" as normally defined, for purposes of inclusion in lists of lakes, replacing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, and how should it be described in the article (or section)

After a very confused beginning where discussion were located at multiple places, the content discussion settled down to Talk: Lake Michigan-Huron, including a merge discussion, and another merge discussion at Talk:Great Lakes. The discussion on the Lake M-H talk page was actually making good progress, with most editors agreeing that Lake M-H as a construct which was useful for purposes of hydrology, but was not a "lake" per se. There were still some differences of viewpoint about relative weight of these different aspects, but things were moving forward.

However, in the past few hours, Kwamikagami has made multiple edits to Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron which have the effect of pushing the two-lake concept, which he was pushing quite vehemently before, at the expense of the two lakes each being considered individually as a lake. These edits were not only premature, they go totally against the emerging consensus, and as such I have reverted them.

This complaint is not about the content dispute, which can be settled on the article's talk page, but about the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus which he will not recognize. His behavior from the beginning of this affair has been disruptive throughout, disrespectful of Wikipedia's process, disdainful of other editors, and, perhaps worst of all, intellectual dishonest -- he writes, for instance, that he is going to restore "the earlier consensus lead" to the article, when he fact what he does is to replace the current consensus lead with his earlier one in which his POV was prominent. I believe Kwamikagami's behavior deserves some kind of sanction, and it would seem most appropriate to be a topic ban from the entire area of Lake Michigan-Huron and related topics. Since it's not really his usual area of concentration anyway, this is a minimal sanction which will not greatly effect him, but will allow the process to continue without his disruptive interference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This is a content dispute, but since I got blocked when Ken made spurious charges a few days ago (for which I got an apology from the admin who didn't fact check), I figure I'd better explain myself here.

I reverted Ken's POV to the consensus lead at Lake Michigan–Huron, which everyone but him had accepted, and restored a source; I then added in suggested wording by two other editors on the talk page. I copy-edited the rather choppy summary at Great Lakes to follow, and I reverted Ken's deletions from the long-standing consensus at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

No-one is arguing that Lake MH should "replace Lake Michigan and Lake Huron". What we are arguing is that the scientific treatment of Michigan and Huron as one body of water should be given its due. There are all manner of suggestions on how to accomplish that without trampling on the usual conception of them as two lakes; the emerging consensus is coming along just fine without Ken forcing his POV on it, especially now that we have editors from the geo wikiprojects contributing.

Ken's idea of BOLD is that he makes a change, someone reverts, and he changes it back where he wants it; last time he did that over an obviously contested deletion, and it took an admin to restore the article. But if another editor does that he gets upset that they're violating BOLD: This just happened with another editor at the merge discussion. The edits I made today were the suggestions of other editors; Ken needs to learn that his opinion is not "consensus", no matter how strongly he believes it. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As can be clearly seen from my statement above, I'm perfectly happy for whatever is left of the content dispute -- in truth, there's really no one except Kwamikagami anymore who opposes the view that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a system of interest only for hydrological purposes -- to play out on the talk page. As I said, it's making good progress. My complaint is totally about the behavior of Kwamikagami in trying to force his own point of view on the articles through deceit and distraction.

The remainder of the discussion here shoudl focus on Kamikagami's behavior, because AN/I is not the place to thrash out content disputes, but it is the place to deal with disruptive behavior by editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I go off to sleep, I'll make a suggestion: topic ban both Kwamikagami and me from Lake Michigan-Huron. I'll be more than happy to have the monkey off my back, this whole incident has been a royal pain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what: I just took four days off, so you made your edits without us fighting. Why don't you try taking four days off, and see what kind of consensus emerges with my edits without us fighting? I can easily work with Jason, Alan, Dan, Pfly, RockMagnetist, and the rest who are making reasoned arguments for balancing the POVs involved. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand why the discussion was able to move forward so quickly, when it had been moving at a snail's pace before -- it was because you were not there for four days to hold it back. It also explains why, when you returned to editing, you felt the necessity to immediately revert to the old non-consensus article which was not supported by the sources. As for working with others - restoring your old lead and throwing in a single sentence suggested by another editor as a sop isn't collaboration, it's an attempt at cooption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on in 7 places, including my report here on Kwamikagami about a week ago. Long story short, since then Kwamikagami has gone even further off the rails. I don't have the hours it would take to summarize. A few quick decoder notes:

• A combine vs. merge discussion (which I'm neutral on) was a tangent/ distraction.
• Kwamikagami's talk page no longer shows actual discussions. In my case they deleted the points I made and said I can no longer post there because I "have nothing intelligent to say". They also rewrote their comment which I was responding to (just rewrote, not using strike marks) to make it look like something else.

This is Kwamikagami ramming their fringe view vs. everybody and an immense preponderance and probably unanimity of sources. Started with warring to remove tags, and a clear 3RR violation which was overlooked. Now certainly disruptive editing, wp:civil violations, (now throwing extreme bogus insults against me) and longer term edit warring (while more recently avoiding 3RR violations) for a start. PLEASE do something! North8000 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor - Yesterday and today, I looked over the substance of the dispute, and the ways in which the various involved editors have conducted themselves. It seems obvious to me that kwamikagami is pushing a fringe POV, and actively forum-shopping and otherwise gaming the rules in order to do so. Their attempt to drum up support on the Geology and Geography WikiProjects is especially glaring. I'd advise North8000 to relax a little; no-one is going to die if this dispute drags on a day or two longer. However, my own feeling is that (at the very least) kwami should receive a perpetual and wide-ranging topic ban, as they seem incapable of accepting the wider world's consensus that there are five Great Lakes. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(added later) BTW, on the forum shopping, Kwamikagami didn't just shop in those places, they started the same discussion over in those locations.North8000 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That was what I meant by forum-shopping: shopping around to find a forum in which the poster's view may be supported. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping? I notified the Wikiprojects that could be expected to be interested, and at the same time: It was simple notification because we needed more input. When there is a protracted dispute on a geography or geology topic, those projects should know about it; their knowledge may be able to resolve the problem. North8000 below is worried that we don't have enough eyes, and you criticize me for trying to get more? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From my end the caps on "PLEASE" and the exclamation point relate more to desperation than urgency. But one note on the "urgency" topic, above it looks like Beyond My Ken is at the end of their rope. They have been perhaps the main person who has understood and did the work of fixing the mis-use of sources, and the needed changes in wording to conform with the sources. I also have some concern about the article losing it's "more eyes" and related participation due to desperation and being "ground down" by Kwamikagami's relentless tactics. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban on the involved articles Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan–Huron, List of lakes by area and List of lakes by volume. The Great Lakes article is potentially also involved but I think has so many eyes on it that it can be kept from harm's way with less pain and suffering. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The unfortunate decision of an admin to lift Kwami's most recent edit-warring block has emboldened Kwami to the point where he figures he can win his little edit war, whose purpose is to abuse wikipedia by promoting the non-existent "Lake Huron-Michigan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The block was lifted because its rational was faulty: it was based on false allegations by Ken that the blocking admin didn't verify. The fact that Bugs would say that the lake is "non-existent", when we have multiple RS's for it, many gathered by uninvolved editors, and the consensus on the talk page is that it does exist, is astounding. What happened to the Bugs who could always be counted on to say something insightful at the ref desk? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the block was lifted because you promised not to edit war, which was a lie on your part. And there is no valid source declaring that there is any such entity as "Lake Michigan-Huron". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you had been edit-warring with bots for days because at a time when the title Lake Michigan-Huron was not an article but a redirect to Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, you insisted that the title Lake Huron-Michigan should point to "Lake Michigan-Huron", thus creating a double-redirect which the bot came along and fixed. This can be clearly seen in the edit history of Lake Huron-Michigan [2] (a name, incidentally, which appears in no source in the article). You were unblocked, as Regentspark clearly explains below, not because there was anything wrong with the block, but because you gave Regentspark assurances that you would avoid editing the articles involved for 72 hours. (Of course, you technically violated that assurance when you, once again, changed the redirect on "Lake Huron-Michigan", but by then no double redirect was made since "Lake Michigan-Huron" had been recreated -- with the old POV lead, which I had to restore to the consensus non-POV lead.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kwami, who did you get an apology from? It certainly wasn't me. I didn't object to RegentsPark unblocking, but that was because he seemed to have secured an agreement that you would not repeat the disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, whose accusations you linked to as the rational for your block. He had repeated Ken's accusations without verifying them. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fairy snuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. I, personally, checked the edit history of the two redirects in question and saw repeated reverts of the bots apparently creating a double-redirect loop; BMK had nothing to do with it. Instead I (ironically, given things) assumed good faith that you were not edit-warring to recreate the article and then reverting the bot for the redirects to point to the restored-against-consensus article, which, the next morning, it was pointed out was what had been happening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was the restored-WITH-consensus article: when we finally got a proper RfM, opinion was unanimous in keeping the article. That was the whole problem with Ken violating BOLD. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Further comment - The more I look at it, the more convinced I become that Lake Michigan-Huron is a POV fork of material that belongs primarily in Great lakes, and that attempts to assemble evidence to the contrary are an original synthesis in support of a fringe position. (Apologies for linking three policy articles in one sentence.) That is a content problem, and probably needs external scrutiny through RfC. Kwami's behaviour in defence of that position, though, is unambiguously disruptive, and I feel that timely administrative intervention would be a good thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a merge discussion, which has been unanimous in voting to keep the article, because it is clearly not fringe or a POV fork, but reflects the scientific view of the lakes. The only question is whether there is enough potential for development to warrant a separate article: if it were merged, the material would be placed in the Great Lakes article, and so the 'fringe' issue would be the same; without a merge, the section in the Great Lakes article is reduced to a summary with a main-article link, and so is not a fork, POV or otherwise.

Disruptive? What of the editors edit-warring over deleting an article when there are multiple objections to deletion, and which one editor characterized as a giant 'fuck you'? What of violating BOLD while quoting it, and of deleting summary material that has been stable at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan for years? Why is it that edit warring to impose a new POV is not disruptive, but that demanding we achieve consensus before changing what had been a stable article is disruptive?

If you'll look at the changes that spurred Ken's complaint today, you'll see that they are (1) reverting to a consensus established on the talk page (one which I did not write), (2) modifying that consensus with concerns expressed by other editors, and (3) reverting BOLD changes he made to stable articles. — kwami (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged Regentspark to notify him of this thread. FWIW I think that reducing the block to time served was incredibly lenient and that this display of good faith has, as BMK intimates, backfired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Or something hopeful that didn't work out. I too was more hopeful earlier in the process. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've been watching this thread. Though I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages), he is an incredibly prolific editor who is often right and my unblock was partly to do with that (and also because kwami was right that he had ceased editing on this topic after the warning, but my offer came before I'd figured that out). While we could easily have here a case of a prolific content editor going off the rails, I'd rather assume that is not the case and rather not hasten things along. Assuming that all parties are acting in good faith, what we have here a content dispute, the facts of which appear to be ambiguous, and, even though the complaint is brought her by another prolific content editor who is also often right, I'm not sure we should be discussing this at ANI at all. Why doesn't someone just open an RfC on whether or not the 'single lake theory' needs a mention, where and how it should be mentioned, etc.? Once consensus is clear, it'll be much easier to see what's what. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is already clear from the several locations of discussion about the topic. The consensus does not support Kwami earlier today re-introducing his favorite viewpoint, that the two-lake hydrological system is "the largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest of the North American Great Lakes." Kwami's edit summary about consensus was wishful thinking or an outright fabrication: "restore consensus lead; fix MOS problems; restore ref". He is indeed "off the rails" on this topic. Better to keep him away from it and on other topics where his thinking is clear. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Regentspark. I must emphatically say that IMHO that is NOT the core content issue. If it were, this would have been settled long ago. The core content issue is Kwami editing the articles to go much much much further than that. (and, regarding it being here, in a way that is very problematic in several ways.) North8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On the content issue, and looking only at the references in the current version of Lake Michigan-Huron, I'd say that the hydrological fact is interesting and worthy of mention in the great lakes article, the two lake articles, and, perhaps, in the Lake Superior article. However, it doesn't make sense (to me) to have a separate article on the combined lake because, other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron. I'm dubious, but uncertain, about the redirect as well. I only add this content note to make it clear that I think kwami is wrong in this particular instance but, perhaps because the discussion is so scattered, it is hard to see where the consensus on this is (the discussion Talk:Lake_Michigan–Huron#An_attempt_at_a_synthesis appears to be a step in that direction). It is much easier to address behavior when consensus is clearly established. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As I think I've said a number of times, I have no really strong views about the article vs. section part of the discussion. Yes, I Boldly moved the contents of the article to the section of the Great Lakes, leaving a redirect, because that's what seemed to make most sense, but that got undone and I haven't fought for it -- if having a separate article helps calm the waters, that's prefectly fine with me. I'm much more concerned that the contents, whether in a section of an article, reflect what you have said above "other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron" This, to me, is the important point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Gtwfan has repeated on the talk page a suggestion they had made earlier, but which has been generally overlooked because of the mishegas, and that is to re-title the article "Hydrology of Lakes Michigan and Huron". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a WP:TITLECHANGES discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Process Request I apologize, (if this should be at AN because it involves close requests and move it there as appropriate), but RegentsPark mentioned yet another process, formal RfC, above. Currently, there is Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal which was begun in response to a merge that was then procedurally undone, partly because of Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron#Recheck. If a kindly and uninvolved person of standing (Admin or experienced editor) would at the appropriate time, whenever that is, agree to review and close both of these in the exercise of wisdom and judgment -- that, I think would be appreciated, and a moving of things forward. (Jump on in, the waters fine! ;) ). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As much as I would love to make the very same arguments in yet another place, I feel an RfC is really unnecessary. As can be seen from the discussion here and on the article's talk page, there is a general consensus already, all that is really needed is for particulars of balance and weight (and perhaps title) to be sorted out. If the disruptive behavior of Kwamikagami were removed from the process, I feel sure that those would be settled fairly quickly. Starting yet another process would simply be rewarding Kwamikagami for his disruption, giving him another bite at the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We just need to judiciously close the process we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I recently became aware of this debate. Because it sprawls over several talk pages, I was unaware that there was a merge discussion going on (also, the discussion was not at the standard location, i.e., the talk page of the destination article). So I started a new one using the standard procedure in Help:Merge. This is the only discussion related to Lake Michigan–Huron that is clear and focussed. There are 10 votes in opposition and none in favor. Indeed, I had to provide the rationale for a merge myself even though I oppose it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

I propose that Kwamikagami is topic banned from articles including Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron - as well as any more deemed appropriate - for a period of, say, 3 months. GiantSnowman 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support I wish that there was another more graceful way but I think that we have learned from extensive experience in the last week that there is not. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - See my rationale above. I also suspect that the merge discussion that kwami refers to did not reach a terribly wide audience; I suggest that it should be re-opened. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and several came from forum shopping where Kwamikagami opened a new duplicate discussion there IMHO to convince them. But merge issue is really a sidebar. For example, I am strongly opposed to what Kwamikagami is attempting to do to the content of the articles but I'm near-neutral on the merge issue. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal, it has reached a wide audience (but is not closed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this has gone on far more than long enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - to make it formal. All my reasoning is above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban should not be simply for the articles involved, but their talk pages as well. A significant part of Kwamikagami's disruption has been his intransigence there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as I can tell, if Kwami says he won't edit project pages for 72 hours, he doesn't; if he is given a 3R notice, he stops editing. If the editors involved think this has become such a trainwreck, or that Kwami has gotten too personally invested in the topic or whatever, why not just ask Kwami if he would be willing to step back for a while, or limit his talk page comments. Neotarf (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And Ken, who has been reverting the contributions of other editors, deleting sources, and imposing his POV in violation of BOLD despite quoting it? — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any topic ban or block proposal for Ken, and I have no idea if he would keep such a pledge if given. Neotarf (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There are plenty of reasonable voices that I'm sure could quickly reach consensus, were it not for three individuals - BeyondMyKen, North10000, and kwami. Their endlessly repetitive arguments make up about 90% of the material in several talk page sections. At least since the previous merge was reverted, they have contributed little to Lake Michigan–Huron except to keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints. Recently, DanHobley tried proposing a reasonable synthesis, and the same three editors quickly got into a dogfight that resulted in this ANI. I think that if these editors genuinely want to see this article improved, all three should voluntarily step away from it for a few weeks and let others work on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That a completely inaccurate/ mixed up description of my involvement in this. To start with a simple blatant one "keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints" I have done ZERO writing anywhere in the article for the entire 8 day length of this flap, and made only three edits on it in the 8 days, each reverting to something written by somebody else. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I was a bit careless in my wording there. You haven't edited the article, but the other two certainly have. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you like, I can stop responding to Ken or North8000. You're right, nothing is being accomplished there. The rest of you are providing well reasoned POVs, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to come to a consensus. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a content discussion, that's taking place on the article talk page, this is the discussion about your behavior, so something is very much being accomplished here. Might I note that almost none of your reponses here have been relevent to the point of whether you should be topic banned or not -- you're just attempting to distract others from that discussions with repetitions of stuff you've said over and over and over again, and which has nothing to do ith your explaining why you have behaved so very disruptively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there is now new blood from WikiProject Geology and perhaps others — people who have experience dealing with this type of content — why not leave it in their hands. Neotarf (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Uh, isn't this supposed to be ANI, with an A? I'm perfectly happy to work with reasonable editors such as DanHobley, Alanscottwalker, and RockMagnetist, who aren't trying to pretend that sources they don't like don't exist. I took a break for 4 days, and Ken is still at odds with the other editors; I suggest that Ken take a similar break, and see what the rest of us are able to accomplish. I've also suggested developing a consensus version in a sandbox where it wouldn't disrupt the public article. Or, as RockMagnetist proposed (similarly to Ken), the three of us who are squabbling could step away from it and see what the other editors are able to come up with (one editor even suggested that everyone stop but DanHobley, which would probably result in a fine article), but let's start with the habitual BOLD violator Ken. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• And I'm perfectly happy to work with any editor who doesn't behave as atrociously as you have. Where I think you misunderstand things is that "working" doesn't mean "giving in to Kwamikagami's ideas", it means discussing, give and take, try something, adjust, discuss, try again and so on. You just keep reverting to the same damn version you liked a week ago, no matter what anyone says or does.

  One thing that Regentspark said above struck me quite strongly "I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages)" (emphasis added) Well, we've already seen one of your methods - using your admin powers against policy on a page move - get you desysopped, and I guess here we're seeing yet another one of your methods: grinding the oppposition down by constant repetition, including knowingly misrepresenting what actually happened over and over again, never changing your mind, never considering others opinions or thoughts, just bulldogging ahead hoping that everyone else will get tired of it and go away. Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is subtle, but very much in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. Perhaps our best editor, Dan, is dropping out because of interference from you. You said you'd be willing to accept a block on this, so why are you not willing to follow me in not interfering with what they are doing? — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. User is abusing wikipedia on this subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the versions written by Alan and Dan, which everyone but Ken and North agree are good, knowledgeable editors. That's hardly 'abuse'. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Regretfully. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not only is this abusing wikipedia the recent actions smack of abuse of WP:NOTTHERAPY. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Abusive behavior towards other editors should not be condoned. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Reverting while this discussion was under way was what pushed me over the edge to supporting this proposal. --John (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He did not revert to his own version, but to the new version of User:DanHobley, a geoscientist from WikiProject Geology who was not previously involved in the dispute. Neotarf (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant; you do not revert bold changes back into an article when the issue is under discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looked to me like there was already a consensus that RockMagnetist, Alanscottwalker, and DanHobley were trusted to be NPOV. Kwami and BYK, not so much. They have already been through the B-R-R-R-R without much success at D. IMO a lot of that can be caused by editing outside the usual area of expertise, so when they hit a snag, they don't know what to do next. The next shift has come on duty, they should be able to have a go at it without interference from the first bunch who were unable to come to an agreement. Neotarf (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that Ken's edits are not neutral (from what I can see it has only been Kwami that has claimed that both he and Ken are not editing neutrally, an unusual claim). IRWolfie- (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at RockMagnetist's comment above about endlessly repetitive arguments, or just look at all the personal remarks here. Or look at DanHobley's comments when he dropped out. [3] Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting at all during this discussion would still qualify for a topic ban in my book, just to be clear. --John (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami agreed to stop editing for 72 hours, and he did so. In the meantime, the editors who keep dragging him here, North8000 and Beyond My Ken, were put under no restriction whatsoever, and kept making POV edits. (Just to be clear, I don't agree with the content Kwami wanted to add either.) But Kwami was right about the article, they shouldn't have deleted it with no discussion. There is now a proper discussion and a unanimous vote to keep it. Neotarf (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So Kwami has stepped back, Beyond My Ken has left the building, and the real geoscientists have rewritten the article. Is there anything left to do here? Neotarf (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't nupedia. Just because someone who identifies as a geologist (I haven't checked any of the other editors) made the edit doesn't mean it can't be reverted or the rewrite is necessarily better. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Their credentials in RL don't matter. If they are with WikiProject Geology, then they have experience with this type of content. If they were not involved in the previous dispute, they have a better chance of reaching consensus. Also you might want to glance at the rewrite: one picture is worth a thousand words. Neotarf (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Their geology area of expertise is outside the area of dispute which is naming. The main benefit is that it is extra eyes involved / handling. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we have seen that Kwamikagami is and will almost certainly will be relentless on this topic and at these articles. One additional less-obvious item to reinforce my point: over the last 10 months they have have aggressively deleted even the smallest of changes of mine of the type that have now been widely accepted and implemented. They are also very wiki savvy in conducting this effort including knowing how to momentarily back off a bit at the right moments to avoid any corrective action from being taken. IMHO unless something is done they WILL be back hammering these articles into likenesses of their fringe view. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That maybe true (although you are suppose to provide diffs) but from my vantage point, had you both focused on the extensive sources on the topic and taken it to DR/N or TO (or some of the other notice boards), if there was specific wording or sources you could not agree on, much of that could or would have been obviated. (Just something to think about).Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did focus on the extensive sources, and even on the specific ones that Kwamikagami promoted (but misused); they were the basis for my edits. I'm sorry that the following rant is placed by your post because it is really directed only 1% at your mild recent post and more at ineundos by a couple of others. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of getting inuendoed as if I were just exhibiting some type of dispute behavior! Here's a quick chronology. Over time other commenters at the article have all said the same thing. Also the article had sever problems regarding categorical statements of the fringe view regarding naming in the voice of Wikipedia as fact, complete mis-use of sources to make them appear to say the opposite of what they did etc.. So, instead of just saying "somebody ought to do something" I decided to be that "somebody" for the good of Wikipedia. So, on a low key basis, on and off over 10 months I tried to make a few small changes in line with overwhelming sourcing, and also the input at the page. Kwamikagami reverted them all. More recently (2-3 weeks ago) I did another burst of editing on 2 articles regarding this, (incidentally. ALL of my edits were towards where the articles are now) Kwamikagami reverted all of those edits. So then I took a policy based-approach, tagging the unsupported claims for sourcing. Kwamikagami deleted all of the tags. I restored them and Kwamikagami deleted them again. I provided thorough rationales, and Kwamikagami provided brief dismissive notes when reverting them. At one I provided 9 rationales for 9 edits and they deleted them all on one swoop with a comment to the effect of "I have reviewed them and decided that you are wrong on all of them" So, at this point, when Kwamikagami was at 2RR and I was at 1RR I took it to wp:ani on a policy basis (removal of the tags). Others got involved and carried the ball. For the next 8 days I did ZERO editing on the article except three times restoring text in different places to what someone else wrote. In discussions I have consistently taken the high road. Even when Kwamikagami was basically calling me stupid, (some which they since redacted, not struck) banned (and deleted my post) me from their talk page because I "have nothing intelligent to say" I took the high road. I did all of the above to try to help the goals of Wikipedia, I took the high road at each stage, and followed overwhelming consensus and sources at each stage. So, if anybody is going to toss any innuendos, you'd better go first look for something to back it up!!!! And, BTW, you won't find it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I would say you did many good and right things, (unfortunately the crappy part of AN/I is the one finger pointing at someone else and the rest pointing back at you school). And I have thanked you for them, and I do again. Again, from my vantage point, you both had valid points (and seemed to support some rather irrelevant or wrong points. and talk past each other) but, by your own admission, going into it two weeks ago, you knew there were disagreements with Kwami about substance, so mayhap, you should have tried to tackle that in a neutral forum? (You hopefully know what I refer to when I speak of a recent (what 18 months?) discussion where if the active parties had been more quickly disposed to all the wide array of DR, perhaps that would have been done sooner, with less strain.)) Now. I did not have to deal with Kwami, (and I never have dealt with him before) because of where I came into the discussion, so you could well be right that the Wiki needs protection. (Also, again IMO, your position was ill-served by what someone else did, which if I am not mistaken was triggered by the first trip to AN/I) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really come back at me. But I'm concerned about even the few mistaken innuendos, as some might actually believe them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about people believing inaccurate statements others make about you, may I suggest you take care not to make them about others? The tags, for example, which in several cases you conceded were inappropriate. (I saw them as being disruptive, since you tagged things as lacking sources when they were already sourced.) You continue to present it as if I were being disruptive in removing them.

However, once you decided to discuss things enough to show me that you actually did understand the hydrology (and it took, what, weeks? you refused at least twice), I realized that I was wrong in my estimation of you. I retract what I said about your ability—you clearly have the necessary comprehension, even if I still don't get what your point is—and if you point out where, I will be happy to strike out such comments as wrong and inappropriate. (Give the page and quote a few words so I can do a text search—I might miss something otherwise. Feel free to start a new section on my talk page for this.) — kwami (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kwami; you put a similar post at my talk page and I answered there. Curious on what your thoughts are on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response either place would be cool....trying to reassure myself that it's real. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interim proposal

Both Beyond My Ken and Kwamikagami will stop participating in this AN/I and allow other editors to come to a decision without the distractions of their back and forth.

• Support as proposer. And I'll start right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary if you are aware of it; if you find yourself being drawn into a back and forth just disengage. kwami is required to respond here due to the topic ban proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - give DanHobley a chance to improve the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Rock, did you read that as stop participating in the article? Since this ANI is about me, I need to stay engaged. Last time I didn't stay engaged in an ANI I got de-sysop'd over something I thought too trivial to worry about (enforcing the closing admin's decision in a move request), and was told it was my fault because I wasn't adequately engaged in the ANI. So no, if accusations are made about me, I will respond. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you think you've learned something? Responding will only prove you have wp:battleground mentality, and that will get you banned. Mwahahaha... Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, don't do that. We don't need more sarcasm, we need less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Dan was not given that [4].Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Farewell, cruel world!

I didn't think I would break my self-imposed exile so soon, but immediately after I posted the above, I went back to the article to find that Kwamikagami has reverted all of my carefully considered adjustments to DanHobley's compromise version, and thst was just the straw that broke this particular camel's back.

I give up.

Kwamikagami, my congratulations to you, you have beaten me into a mass of protoplasm with your subtle but brutal "methods", and I am going away to nurse my wounds. How happy you must be to have done your little part to make Wikipedia just a little less collaborative than it once was.

For your convenience, I include here a list of the articles I will no longer be watching, in which you can insert your unsupported viewpoint that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is anything other than a name for a system of hydrology. Then you can also do your part to help spread WP:FRINGE viewpoints on Wikipedia, making it that much less authoritative and useful to our readers:

• Extreme points of Canada
• Extreme points of North America
• Extreme points of the Americas
• Great Lakes
• Lake
• Lake Huron
• Lake Huron–Michigan
• Lake Michigan
• Lake Michigan-Huron
• Lake Superior
• Lake Victoria
• List of islands in lakes
• List of lakes by area
• List of lakes in Illinois
• List of lakes in Indiana
• List of lakes in Michigan
• List of lakes in Wisconsin

Well done, Kwamikagami! Vaya con dios. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I only reinstituted Dan's NPOV edits, and your interference drove him away from the article. If you are no longer here to mess with the reasonable editors, and as I am not editing their work either, then we should be good to go: Dan, Alan, Justin, Rock, etc. should be able to craft a clear, NPOV article. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any edit that asserts there is an entity called "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a violation of POV rules and hence is unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Context I am sorry but anyone looking at this should read what Ken's recent edits meant to DanHobley, who spent all day reading and writing. [5]. It's too bad that people can't be more deliberative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deliberative? On ANI, dude? You gamma editors should scurry back to your Geography Wikiproject. You clearly don't have the right stuff to play for the high stakes with the alpha boys of ANI! Look at that pathetic DanHobley. He thinks he's an expert huh? Works for a Ph.D. in this area? Reads sources, huh? Who cares? His sources are FRINGE POV by wp:consensus on ANI! Let him scurry back to writing his unreliable fringe sources in academic journals, which Wikipedia will gleefully ignore. That'll teach him to try and influence the people's encyclopedia! Tijfo098 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

F*ck yeah! You go! If it's not about personalities, get it the hell out of Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at my current Rand McNally atlas, it shows a "Lake Huron" and a "Lake Michigan". No "Lake Huron-Michigan" nor any "Lake Michigan-Huron". Why do you suppose they left that stuff out? Maybe because there's no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder why my 5th grade math manual or even CS101 didn't cover Krohn–Rhodes theory. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mine did. But I was in a progressive school. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tij: You are bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no such entity called "bad". To say otherwise is prohibited by the POV rules. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider bringing up the specifics of the issue at WP:FTN (in a more succinct form). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue, try WP:NPOV/N. Oh, wait, that has a backlog. Shit nobody cares about. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Someone tag this under the "I shit you not" category.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Is it truly necessary for this encyclopedia to have both an article on Lake Huron-Michigan and an article on Lake Michigan-Huron? The whole concept just seems like a geologica/geographic debate on the exact characteristics of the two Great Lakes from a researchers' perspective -- I happen to think that merger with the GL article might actually work, but if it doen't I think we can just pull out the most prevalent term (Huron-Michigan vs. Michigan-Huron and use that, rather than have two identical articles except for the names. Just my 2c... DrPhen (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not two articles, it's a WP:Redirect just FYI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a great demonstration as to how we might better guide a perplexed reader who, interested in that huge lake that wraps around Michigan, searches for Lake Huron-Michigan, somehow blissfully unaware that much of it is actually named Lake Michigan, and the other part named Lake Huron, each of which has an article now that links to the other, and both of which should and could easily point out the close hydrologic relationship they share. Otherwise, I think that we do this hypothetical perplexed reader a great disservice to reinforce the misperception that the rest of the world must think of them as a single lake, especially if the only purpose in so doing is to indulge the writer. Most of us are "in on" at least a few pretty obscure and fascinating bits of trivia, but not all of them really need an article. Steveozone (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In articles, readers are not told what to think; they are informed about what RS think and it is done in an article form, not scattered about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, everyone has gotten so hung up on the minutia of policy here talking about maybe 10 sources that talk about "Lake Michigan-Huron". There are literally millions of sources that talk about Lake Michigan and Lake Huron as separate lakes. Why? Because they are! They may be the same body of water, but they are separate lakes. Given the millions of sources (and no, I am not going to even try to name them. Only a fool would argue the point.) that say they are separate lakes, aren't we giving undue weight to the few sources that describe the body of water as "Lake Michigan-Huron"? I really doubt either NOAA or the Corps of Engineers intended for anyone to take their convenient assigning of coincidentally the same name for the combined body of water as any sort of a proposal that the two lakes should be considered as one for any reason other than the hydrological factors they were talking about. This debate is about the silliest thing I have ever seen. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

99+% of sources that mention the Sun don't tell us that it's a star – should we change that article too, to better match the popular account? It's not necessary to speak of it as a star just because the scientific understanding is that it is. As for 'lake' (which has no set definition), some people feel that a lake is a physical body of water, others not. If we failed to convey that in the article, that would be wrong, but I don't think that we do. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like an example of WP:GAME by Kwamikagami and nothing else.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Solution

Without comment on the merits here: Kwami, I've looked at closing this ANI with the goal of using the least amount of sanction (if any) needed to comply with the consensus, but this is no easy task. I can't see any admin being able to close this without a topic ban for three months, unless you provided a reason why it was no longer necessary. The consensus exists, and I am giving this neutral comment to try one last time to coax a solution out of you, the only person that can change the outcome. Otherwise, this needs closing, now, as it has degrading into something outside the scope of ANI. If you truly don't "get it" and can offer a better solution, you will leave the closing admin very little choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I did the first ANI on this about 10 days ago (this is #2) and will be only partially on Wiki tomorrow and then off the grid for 9 days. Just to explain any lack of participation by myself after tomorrow. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides the edit-warring, Kwami's talk arguments have generally been based on Wikipedia policies and supported by sources. That's something which cannot be said about his most passionate opponents in this discussion. The de minimis solution would be to prohibit Kwami from editing the article(s) but allow talk page participation. I have a feeling however that a number of his opponents simply follow him around, just so they can disagree with him. (And I'm not alone in this [6].) If you kick this up to ArbCom, I think more than one topic ban will be issued in the area, and possibly some interaction bans as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That miles-off comment shows that you have not reviewed the (extensive) history of this situation. Which is understandable because it is spread over 7 locations and probably 30,000 words. A good place to start to get up to speed is the extensive thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(Notice the complete BS in the title of that thread: there were no such assertions, and the tags (for page numbers where there already were page numbers, for sources where there already were sources, etc.) were little more than defacement of the article. — kwami (talk))

In that case it should go to ArbCom. ANI is ill-suited for coming up with solutions in complex problems. The "ZOMG I've never heard of Michigan-Huron DEEELEEETE ITT AND BAAAANNNN HIMMM" that make up more than half of the uninvolved/drive-by comments in this thread are also a good argument for that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about what you just said and implied via your link, with no real basis. Kwamikagami is the cleverest person here, they know every wiki-warring trick in the book and you are falling for them, they know how to temporarily back off a bit at the right moment to avoid corrective action and then go back to what they were doing, they know how to subtly war their POV back into the article without you seeing it or thinking the opposite, they know how to lay low a bit and then later undo all of the balancing work that you have done on the article. The content issues are (temporarily) 95% solved, they are not currently the issue. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really addressing kwami here, and personal observations about how many Jedi mind tricks someone knows is a bit off topic and not completely appropriate. Let's just keep this simple. I put off closing as I wanted to hear kwami's final word in the issue. This doesn't prevent any other admin from closing, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

North8000's post above yours proves my point that he should be ibanned in relation with kwami. Rest assured, I've not fallen for any "mind tricks". I can read sources myself and evaluate them well enough. Kwami can be aggressive, but it takes two (or more) to edit war. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have NOT been edit warring. STOP the false accusations. And please leave this thread as Dennis requested, which I already did until you posted a false accusation. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis, as for consensus, the only admin that had voted the last time I looked was the nominator. This is ANI, after all, and the A's have stayed out of it.

If you want evidence that I can edit amicably with others, just take a look at Lake Michigan–Huron. There is a nice consensus developing there, starting with outside input at An attempt at a synthesis. I've made suggestions based on my concerns, at Hydrological POV, people have discussed them productively, with even North8000 on board, and it looks like we're close to finished. There are only a couple points that remain, with intelligent POVs on both sides, so that should be fine even if my suggestions are rejected. In fact, apart from North8000 making the occasional misguided edit (I'd hoped we'd both stay off the page, and let others handle it), I've had no disagreement with any regular editor apart from quibbling over copy editing, if you even want to characterize that as disagreement. Yes, the people who think the whole idea of Lake Michigan–Huron is a travesty against WP:TRUTH want me banned, but that's a content dispute that AFAICT has been resolved with the near unanimous rejection of the RfMerge. Ask the knowledgeable geo-project people now crafting the consensus whether my participation is disruptive.

The reason this is here in the first place was "the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus". However, the obvious consensus, as shown in the RfM, is just the opposite of what Ken claimed, and he brought me here because he had to edit war, violating BOLD (which he cites), to get his way. Sanctions are supposed to stop problems, not punish. Since Ken left with his POV pushing (he had problems with the geo-project people too, causing one to quit in frustration until after Ken had left), there is no problem here. As for whether there may be one in the future, perhaps we could have an interaction restriction between North8000 and myself (and Ken, if he ever comes back), where we follow BOLD as if it were policy: if one of us reverts one of the others, we take it immediately to Talk and let others decide. As long as North8000 and I aren't trying to convince each other, which we know doesn't work, it appears that things are moving along fine. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Inuendo trying to "use" me here forces me to respond. Please stop trying to imply this this is multi-person issue, especially involving me, including implying any equivalency or similarity of behaviors. For example, regarding the "misguided edit" baloney, the ONLY edit of mine that has been getting reverted, and ONLY by Kwamikagami is this [7] and near-identical twins of it (two places in the article). It is a graceful compromise tweak to correct an extreme mis-representation of the 3 sources involved which makes them appear to say the opposite of what they actually say overall. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel Pfly misrepresented that source, you could bring it up on the talk page, as I have done. The new group of editors has demonstrated they'll listen to whatever you have to say. — kwami (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Reopening. Dennis, you DON'T get to substitute your own opinion for actual consensus, even if you wave WP:IAR around as an all-purpose Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card. Now would someone uninvolved close using the ACTUAL consensus. Calton | Talk 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I take exception with your reverting my close without providing a proper basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The original close is here [8]. You are trying to pigeonhole me as closing admin and prevent me from using my judgement without providing a policy based reason for your actions. I would instead recommend reverting it back, and take any concern you have to ArbCom, and let them decide if I have exceeded the authority of WP:IAR and would welcome anyone else to do the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I've restored DennisBrown's close. Sometimes the no drama route is better and this is one of those times. Let it go. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Bidgee alleges that I have abused my admin powers

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

---

Bidgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alleges here that I have abused my admin powers by implementing a series of WP:CFD/S nominations.

Please can an uninvolved admin review my actions?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As stated on WP:CFDS at the very top in bold "They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal.", the IP did not tag any of the categories with the tag, therefore no one knew of of the CFDS, therefore the move is not vaild. I do sincerely apologise to you for my inexcusable outburst, I shouldn't have taken out my frustation on BrownHairedGirl. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that, in general, if a reasonable, good-faith objection against a speedy process is raised after the fact, in a matter where there are no obvious issues of policy violation at stake, it is often a good idea for an admin to just do a courtesy revert to allow discussion, a bit like an article WP:REFUND. In this case, however, I don't really see that Bidgee has raised any concrete argument why he thinks the new titles are bad (other than procedurally), so what's the case? Also, people, if you could take a step back from the issue for a minute and reflect: you are aware that these are category titles of template boxes, right? No normal reader is ever going to see them. I can understand why people might be concerned about the titling of article categories (they are displayed to readers), but template pages are not really part of the reader-directed interface at all, so why does it matter? (That said, personally I'd have a slight preference for the nominal, non-adjectival style too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for raising objections to the move, which I will do if and when the move gets nominated properly. This discussion is about the procedural issue and failing to revert encourages the gaming of the system. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, thank you for that clarification, and sorry that I did not spot the lack of tagging.

It would saved a lot of time and effort if you had simply noted that procedural oversight, rather than indulging in a series of unfounded personal attacks, and repeatedly reverting my edits to my own talk page.

However, now that you have shown that there was a procedural flaw, I will try to remedy it.

What I will do is to make a procedural listing of the relevant categories at WP:CFD, with a note that since these relate to the desired reversal of a procedurally flawed move, that the status quo ante should be restored unless there is a consensus to rename. Per the speedies. This is less disruptive than moving the categories back again, and possibly having the flawed move done again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, they should be reverted back to the stable version since the move is not vaild and having them remain is totally against the WP:CFDS. Also I wasn't "repeatedly reverting my (BHG) edits to my (BGH) own talk page", since I only reverted once on your talk page. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, unless there is a consensus to rename, they will be reverted.

Since they will be listed at CFD, the rename may be upheld. In that case, no change will need to be made ... but if the speedies are reverted first, we will have two extra sets of moves. That is pointless.

I did not accuse you of reverting your talk page; I accused you of reverting mine. Sorry that my comment about two reverts was slightly wrong. I checked again, and what actually happened was that you posted after I had closed the discussion, and when I reverted your comment you reverted me with an allegation of admin abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted when? It isn't pointless to restore the stable version, whether or not there is a consenus to move at a later time.

I'm responding to your allegation of "repeatedly reverting" your talk page which is not correct. Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but the proposed procedure here unreasonable advantages the person who nominated the cats without following the rules - the epitome of gaming the system. It may be inconvenient, it may be a pain in the proverbial, but unless we are going to reward those who do not follow the correct procedure, the move should be reversed, and either listed in the normal non-speedy way, or the speedy listing should be closed procedurally for not meeting the requirements. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, unless you have evidence of a deliberate attempt to game the system, you should assume that the failure to tag the categories was a procedural error made in good faith. Bidgee has backed off all hir ABFing, and it would help if you would do likewise.

The proposed procedure does not give any advantage to the person who speedy-nominated categories. Unless there is a consensus to rename as proposed at speedy, the moves will be reverted. As noted above, that means that the status quo ante will be restored if there is no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not intend to suggest that anyone was actually trying to game the system in this case, but I do maintain that failing to insist on correct procedures in cases like this lends encouragement to those who might seek to do so. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I quite agree that the procedures are important. They exist for a reason.

When they have failed, as in this case, the important thing is to ensure that those purposes of the processes are fulfilled, rather than that every step is replicated.

If the categories had been correctly tagged, then let's assume that an interested editor would have spotted them and objected. The proposal would then have gone to a full CFD discussion, with a default to the status quo ante. That's exactly what my remedy will produce. The only difference is that the categories will not be at the old position while the discussion is underway.

If these pages were articles, I would of course have move them back as soon as I became aware of the procedural flaw. However, category moves involve so many edits that back-and-forth movement is disruptive, which is why I propose to leave then in place pending the closure of the substantive discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Full discussion opened

Please note that these categories are now listed for a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 17#Television_navigational_boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Apparently not resolved

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

---

Please may I ask an uninvolved admin to review this again? Some Aussie editors are not satisfied with the procedural situation, and I am being subjected to personal abuse [9][10] for following a procedure which I proposed here and was approved as "resolved".[11]

AFAICS, this is all relatively simple. An editor nominated categories at WP:CFD/S, but didn't tag them all. When I reviewed the nominations and moved them to process at WP:CFD/W, I didn't spot that only one of them was tagged.

The initial reaction was a series of personal attacks on me from editors who had not spotted any procedural flaw, but criticised me for the substance of an move which I did not initiate, and in which my role was procedural:

Bidgee (talk · contribs)

1. Complaint that there was no discussion. [12] That's a designed feature of the speedy process, which allow actions to proceed unless there are objections, which I pointed out [13]
2. A further complaint that I had done this because I was Irish[14]
3. A compliant that the IP who nominated the categories was from Ireland, and I am Irish [15]
4. An accusation that I have a POV[16]
5. An accusation that I abused my admin powers[17]
   Note that Bidgee has kindly apologised for his outbursts both above and on my talk[18].

Nick Thorne (talk · contribs)

1. A complaint based on a rejection of the speedy criterion C2C [19]

At that point, I could see no procedural error, so took the matter here to ANI. It was only then that the lack of tagging was drawn to my attention [20].

When that oversight was drawn to my attention, I listed the categories at CFD [21] with a note explaining that the default position should be to revert to the status quo ante. This will ensure that the outcome reflects whatever WP:CONSENSUS is formed, and will not be prejudiced by the flawed moves. To avoid the disruption and loss of page history caused by category moves, I did not revert the moves in the meantime. This will not prejudice the discussion.

Once that was done, the ANI thread above was closed by an uninvolved admin as resolved.[22]

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be resolved. The CFD discussion is being used for a series of procedural complaints and personal attacks on me by some Australian editors.

1. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) politely says he zie is "disappointed" at my failure to revert the moves.[23]
2. AusieLegend declines my request to take the procedural issues to somewhere that they can actually be resolved[24]
3. Nick Thorne (talk · contribs) describes my failure to revert as "contemptuous", says there is "no justification not to follow the spirit and letter of the law"[25]
4. I reply to Nick Thorne[26], pointing out WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies" ... and Nick's response accuses of me of "cavalier actions" and says "suck it up princess".[27]

Since this issue came to my attention, I have been transparent and sought review here. I believe that I have acted properly in trying to remedy my oversight, and that my solution has already been approved here. However, if another solution is preferred, I am quite happy to defer to the consensus. I just want this resolved one way or another, so that the CFD discussion is not disrupted by a procedural disputer.

And whatever the procedural solution, I ask for an end to the personal attacks, particularly the misogynist abuse from Nick Thorne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was "I must admit to being disappointed at BrownHairedGirl's refusal to reverse the moves, even as a token of good faith. In the event that an article is prodded and deleted it can be easily restored simply by requesting that, because the deletion is obviously not "uncontested"." I then expressed concern that not a single affected Wikiproject was notified. This was fobbed off by BHG with "Your complaint about lack of notifications is a general criticism of speedy processes as a whole, not of these moves. Please raise it elsewhere." I explained my position with "Where exactly? This is a problem that nobody seems able to fix and is widespread. The Australian project is continually frustrated by failure of editors to advise the project of changes that directly affect the project. The only way to get the message out seems to be to make mention of it whenever it happens in the hope that the message will spread, even if one editor at a time" and THAT was it. I've made no further comment in the past 16 hours. For BHG to apparently still be stewing over my comments; well, it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if perhaps BHG needs to take some de-stressing time away from Wikipedia. Maybe it's a response to criticism by several editors combined with the realisation that the moves have been unanimously opposed, but it's a response that I don't expect from an admin. I'm sorry if I seem blunt, but I believe it's an appropriate response to being dragged into something in which I've had minimal involvement. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Aussie, I am not "stewing over your comments". I mentioned them as evidence of dissatisfaction with the procedural solution, and noted that you had been polite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a case of gross over-reaction by an administrator who seems to think that they are beyond reproach and who completely lacks any insight into how their actions are likely to be perceived by others. The expression "suck it up princess" is not a comment on anyone's gender, it is an expression applied equally to males and females and is a comment directed solely to those who need to suffer the consequences of their own actions. I wonder whether BHG recognises the irony of complaining about alleged personal attacks and then accusing me of misogyny. I suspect not, this seems to be yet another example of this administrator's lack of understanding of how their actions might effect others. Regarding the accusation of calling BHG's failure to revert contemptuous, what I actually said was, referring to BHG's refusal to reverse the move, The refusal to do that, especially after being specifically asked to do so, comes across as somewhat contemptuous. I am sure that was not the intention, but it certainly is the appearance. I note that BHG has conveniently forgotten to mention the second sentence there, taking my comments out of context certainly seems contemptuous to me. As for calling BHG's actions cavalier, the definition of cavalier is to act without due regard to the consequences. Given BHG's pole in this whole sorry affair, I think this description of their actions entirely appropriate. I do not believe I have a case to answer and I stand by my comments here and elsewhere about this business. None of this would have happened had BHG followed the correct procedure or reversed the error once it was pointed out - that is not my doing and I will not apologise for it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I chose a solution which I believed was the east worst option. I explained my solution here, and it was approved as resolved by the administrator who closed the discussion.

Since you and some other editors are unhappy with that, I suggested that you ask for it to be reviewed. You didn't do that, so I have asked for it to be reviewed.

That is not "cavalier" behaviour, not is it "contemptuous", nor is it "without due regard to the consequences".

All I have sought here is that the procedural issue be resolved, without personal abuse. It is sad that your reply doesn't address the procedural issue, and defend your personal abuse ... as well as trying to victimise me for complaining about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you still don't get it. Well, I don't care any more, I'm done with this whole subject and have said all I intend to say. Have a nice life, - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and before I go, I note that yet again BHG has failed to follow the correct processes. At the top of this noticeboard it clearly states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Absolutely no such discussion has taken place on my talk page. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Thought so. I'm out of here now. Ooroo. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There had been several exchanges on the CFD page, where we had not reached agreement on the procedural issue.

Given your pattern of personal abuse, I saw no reason to believe that a discussion on your talk would be productive. If you ad outstanding concerns about my conduct, you could have raised them on my talk, but chose bot to do so.

An admin trying in good faith to resolve a procedural tangle will frequently find that the solution approved by third-party review (as this one was) will not meet universal approval.

However, the personal abuse does nothing to help resolve the situation, and is a form of bullying. I want it stopped, because the abuse from these Australian editors in now becoming a pattern. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Get your own house in order before you cast around for stones to throw at others. I originally did believe that you were acting in good faith, however, that belief has been somewhat strained by your continued revision of history and your misrepresentation of what others, including me, have said. I think it is high time for you to stop and wait for the uninvolved administrator to comment on these proceedings that you claimed you wanted when you opened this discussion here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, your comments are sexist, uncivil and selfrighteous. It is never pretty when someone is a stickler about applying rules to others, but doesn't follow basic civilty themselves. In this case it is particularly blatant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented the history.

As to getting my own house in order, I have asked for this to be reviewed. I encouraged you to get it reviewed if you wanted, but rather than seek uninvolved input you chose to try bullying me through personal abuse and misogynistic attack. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the princess comment here purely as an sign of good faith. I find your continued accusation of misogyny, especially after the context has been explained to you to be highly offensive. The ball is in your court. You do indeed need to get your own house in order. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You are using clearly uncivil and sexist language through out this dispute. Yet you claim that others have to follow the rules strictly. Your taking offense at others finding your language offensive is unimpressive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think BHG should not have reopened the discussion. I can understand her desire to have everything be fully and perfectly resolved before moving on, but in these kinds of situations some of the hard feelings don't just automatically disappear after an issue is "resolved". There may be some residual fall-out, and unless it is truly egregious, it's generally better just to let it dissipate on its own, even if one has to ignore some of the comments one doesn't appreciate. The only post-resolution comment that bothered me was the "princess" comment by Nick. I'm not familiar with the phrase, but in the U.S., the use of the word "princess" in similar phrases would be considered offensively sexist. I can't speak for Australia. But Nick claims he uses the phrase for both genders, and I think, in this instance, we should accept him at his word. In the future, though, I'd advise him to be a little more circumspect of cross-cultural problems with certain words and phrases. Certainly, the phrase was unnecessary, so why use it? Beyond that, I think we should move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

CommentIn Australia, "princess" is indeed used for both genders. I can vouch for this being Australian myself. Its use is a bit off-the-cuff and it's one of those context-dependent local usage words that can either be offensive or just passing comment. Blackmane (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Added comment In this particular case, as "suck it up, princess", it basically means "take it on the chin". Very common usage amongst okker Aussies. Blackmane (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"suck it up princess" is a demeaning phrase: in that sentence, princess is being used to refer to someone who is "used to getting their way, but this time your not", among other things. Yes, "princess" is often used in this manner for both male and female - in Canada too. It's often said in mock sorrow: "awwwwww, suck it up princess", or with an angry tone "right: suck it up princess and get in the back of the police car". Either way, inappropriate. dangerouspanda 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)\

I have stricken the phrase. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Having had time to think about things and reviewing all the various parts of the matters at hand, I have a major issue with the way this case was opened by BHG. As already mentioned above, BHG failed to engage in any discussion about her complaints regarding my posts on my talk page as required. They claim to have raised these issues on the various talk pages, but what I see is just a run of the mill robust exchange between two editors of the kind you can find anywhere on Wikipedia. At no time did I take any of BHG's comments personally, and I certainly did not intend my comments to be taken so by them and in no case did BHG bring up the issues raised here. Had this been done any misunderstandings could have been dealt with on both sides. When I read BFG's post on the CFD page here I see it refers to the move discussion and taking it to ANI - no mention of any objections to what I have posted. I find it particularly ironic that in that post BHG talks about good faith yet when I come here expecting to see a discussion about the move, I find instead that discussion relegated to the sidelines with an all out attack against me about things they have completely failed to discuss anywhere else, taking my comments completely out of context which is inexcusable in someone with BHG's experience and an Admin too. I see a distinct pattern of behaviour where BHG seems unwilling or unable to understand how their own actions are likely to be perceived by others. They then exhibit a classic glass jaw when called to task rather akin to the child who cries for their mummy because the other kids won't let them win. It is not good enough and this case should be closed forthwith and the discussion about the move should return to the CFD page where it belongs. I am unlikely to reply to any further posts by BHG here short of a genuine apology. However, I reserve the right to reply to posts by third parties. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, as I said at the top, there are two issues here: the procedural question of whether the moves should be reverted, and your abusiveness. You have chosen not to discuss the procedural issue, and that's your choice.

Nick's comments about "cries for their mummy" are again offensive and abusive, and serve only as as a personl attack. Once gain, I ask you to stop.

If an admin's actions are questioned, they may resolve the disagreement either by doing what's asked, or by seeking a third-party review. This is the second time that have I sought a third-party review of this issue, and I have clearly stated my willingness to accept the result of that review.

Nick's says that I didn't understand "how their own actions are likely to be perceived by others". On the contrary, I have accepted that my actions are questioned by some others while supported by others. Nick's position appears to be that because I seek review rather than doing what he wants, he entitled to make repeated personal attacks. At no point has Nick indicated any willingness to see the procedural issue resolved by neutral third parties, which seems to me to a gross breach of the core policy of WP:CONSENSUS; instead he simply wants to bully me into doing what Nick wants.

I am still being being subjected to personal abuse here, I think that this is a wider issue which affects all admins. Is it really acceptable for an admin to be repeatedly abused when they have explicitly sought review of their actions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BHG, I refuse to be further provoked by you. I am taking this page off my watchlist. Say what you like, I won't hear it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why there's any need for the level of hostility seen in this thread. From what I can see, when everything else is boiled away, the important parts are 1) the categories were nominated for speedy rename (as C2b?), 2) the categories were speedy renamed, 3) the speedy criteria was objected to, and 4) the rename is now being given a full discussion. Sure, a speedy change that was objected to (on criteria grounds, not on procedural grounds) probably should have been undone prior to a full discussion, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not that important since the outcome of the current discussion will determine the names of the categories in future, regardless of what they're currently called. There's no rush here and a slight grammatical error for the duration of the discussion isn't the end of the world. Have patience, assume good faith and don't get so worked up over relatively trivial things like this. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that observation, NULL.

I don't actually see anyone offering any critique of my explanation at CFD of why I accepted the nomination as meeting the speedy criteria. Editors disagree about the merits of the underlying convention, which is fine, but that's not a fault of speedy. There was a procedural flaw, which I set out to remedy, and I have repeatedly expressed my willingness to accept a difft procedural remedy if that's the consensus of uninvolved editors.

What still concerns me here is the hostility and personal abuse I have received despite seeking review. If editors respond to procedural disagreements by hurling abuse rather than seeking consensus solutions, then an admin's role becomes far too stressful. I remain disappointed that this sustained abuse appears about to be let pass without so much as a civility warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're accusing every editor that has opposed your renaming as not acting in good faith, and yet you're doing the very samething! I was going to give you another chance but my good faith in you as an editor and Admin is all but lost. Bidgee (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, that's simply untrue. I have disagreed with their reasons, but I have not questioned their good faith. However, I have asked them to discuss the substance of the disagreements without making personal attacks. You were kind enough to withdraw your attacks and to apologise for them, but sadly your withdrawal was followed by abuse from a campaign of Nick Thorne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks, I've not looked closely, but the walls of text you all are generating on the topic are not helpful. It looks like both sides have over reacted to what seems to have been a simple misunderstanding. Everyone needs to drop the stick at this point. If for some reason you can't do that then each side needs to clearly identify what it is they want to have happen (in say a sentence or two). Hobit (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I want: 1) editors unsatisfied with my procedural solution to leave off the personalities, explain their preferred solution and let uninvolved admins decide what to do; 2) Nick Thorne to desist from and withdraw his misogynist personal attacks, or be warned/sanctioned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Comment Reading through the history of this, I have to say I fully support BHG, Nick Thorne seems unable to grasp that what he is saying is a personal attack, therefore he either doesn't care or has WP:COMPETENCY issues. A stern rebuke should be in order at the very minimum GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the remark used has been struck out by Nick Thorne after a few comments above. My question is, does BHG want both uninvolved admin review of her actions or actions to be taken out for what she perceives as NPA. (which isn't to say that they're not NPA, nor that they are, I'm entirely neutral on the matter, just throwing the question out there.) Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blackmane, I would like both; 1) uninvolved admin review of my actions, with a view to deciding both what do and whether I have acted wrongly; 2) review of Nick Thorne's conduct. However, if admins don't want to do both, then either would be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I am uninvolved and have been around for awhile. I don't see that BHG did anything out of line. Could it have been handled better? Sure, but no one is perfect and BHG did the right things to try to resolve this. In this case, as in some disagreements that BHG and I have had in the past, I have found that she listens to input and corrects any errors on her part if she can. I'm not going to comment on the second part of her request as to NT, that should be commented on by an admin IMO. Hang in there girl, you did OK. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick Thorne has asked me to comment here as an uninvolved editor (note that I'm also an admin, so I'll be commenting with that hat on as well). I agree with NULL's comments above; this appears to have been a procedural foul up which has been blown out of all proportion (I note that no-one has suggested that BHG has a history of making dubious moves, so there seems to be no reason at all to doubt her explanation of events). The responses to this seem to have been rather over the top, and I'm surprised that such a minor issue has caused such heated comments. I'd suggest that all the editors involved take a break from the discussion, and then reflect on whether an apology is in order. However, I do think that BHG should have moved the categories back to their original names when asked as the moves clearly weren't uncontroversial, though I can understand her reluctance to do so given the tone of some of the comments. Given that this is now at CfD and it looks like the moves will be reversed there doesn't seem to be much further to discuss. I'd note that cross-cultural language issues may have contributed to this situation; "suck it up, princess" doesn't have sexist connotations in Australia, though it's not something people would generally say to someone they don't know (to provide context, people in my very white collar Australian workplace sometimes direct the term as a joke towards friends who are whinging about work and this is considered totally fine, but they wouldn't dream of saying it to people they didn't know as it would be considered impolite). Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for your comments. Just for the record, my reluctance to revert the categories back was simply because I thought that would involve far too many (bot-driven) edits, and was best left until the matter was substantively resolved. When I adopted that solution, it was approved by an uninvolved admin, but when further objections were raised I repeatedly said that I was happy for it to be reopened. All I sought was that those who disagreed also seek 3rd-party resolution, rather than resorting to personal abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I unreservedly apologise for any offence I may have caused BHG. I am shocked that any of my comments could have been taken as sexist, they certainly were not intended that way, so I apologise for stating things in a way that gave that impression. I will choose my words more carefully in future and try to avoid being drawn into acrimonious debate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Closure?. Based on my comments as an uninvolved admin, Nick-D's more comprehensive comments as uninvolved admin, and Nick Thorne's apology, can this discussion be closed now? It would be helpful if BHG would agree to closing the discussion, but even without that, I see no reason to keep this open.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  This has already taken up more than enough of people's time, so I'm happy for it to be closed. Since an uninvolved admin believes the moves should be reverted now, feel free to do so.

  Thanks to all who have commented, and to Nick for the apology ... but most importantly, for Nick's assurance that he will chose his words more carefully in future. That gives me some confidence that when further procedural tangles arise in future, they can be resolved with less drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, BHG, nicely put. I'm going to close the discussion. Either another admin can revert the moves, or, as Nick-D said, it will happen in the natural course at CfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Article CBT and Psychoanalyse. Again

I was blockt two times (1d, 7d) by two admins because I violated the 3RR. The dispute began with an table the user CartoonDiablo trys to push in the article. The 1st Discussion on DRN ended with no result. After a copple of weeks the Dispute stared again. CartoonDiablo added the table again, but now he found a user, Stillstanding who supported him. After some warring and some discussions. CartoonDiablo started another DRN. The result, as I understand it, was to replace the table by prose. CartoonDiablo added a textpassage but also added a picture of this table.

Futher the "prose" was bumbling and he added Informations you can't find in the source. CartoonDiablo found this information by original research. Because I try to prevent an editwar again I just add a NPOV-Box to the textpassage and try to discuss the alteration. But CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding stated an WAR again by revert the NPOV-Box out of the article. They don't discuss my critic on the talk page and start an "incident" After I reverted again, and remember I just insist to add this NPOV-Box, a Admin blockt me for 7d.

After that proceed, I have some questions:

1. Why it is prohibited to left a NPOV-Box at articles the NPOV is doubted? Why is it possible to delate the box by editwarring?
2. I read the DRN again. I can't found any advice it was part of the resulition to replace the table by a picutre. Why was this trick not ignored by the admin how enforce the 2rr?
3. Both "mediators" on DRN say about themself they are no experts on psychotherapy research. But I'am. They can't estimate the neutrality of the prose CartoonDiablo esthablished.
4. Why CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding doesn't have to repeat my critic of the textpassage they warred into the article? [28] Why is it possible my both disputants don't have to reply the my ciritc? The result of DRN was not both can add false information into the article. It was just to replace the table by "prose".
5. In the DRN I was not ask if I'm agree with the result. On the contrary, the DRN was closed because the same arguments were repeated. I can't even answer it. So it seems to me, the admins interpreted the result as following: three useres on DRN, no one got a clue of psychotherapy research, decided, CartoonDiablo can write whatever he wants.
6. Therefore I'm not agree with the DRN-Result. It seems to me CartoonDiablo violated the DRN result also by add the picture of the table. His answers weren't really helpfull to reply my critic abouve.

So after this lesson what en:wp think a dipute resolution is: what is the next step for me to do? The text is still deficient and exaggerate an single source. The users who warred this picture and the divicient text passage into and the NPOV-box out of the articel doesn't seems to be eager to have an expert discussion about this topic. [29] [30] The admins block me, and only me, if I try to add an simple POV-box. Is this your idea of how to establish neutral and informative articles?

And the main question is: What's next? What can I do now? --WSC ^® 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to try discussion, discuss it with the blocking admin, or consider filing an WP:RFC either about the issue or about the people.--v/r - TP 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal: After the DRN fails and no admin wants to enforce the result (remove the table). Now I have to consult more instances of en:wp to ask more useres don't have a clue about the issue. --WSC ^® 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, your being an expert on the subject doesn't give you any special status or privileges with regards to the article. While that can be frustrating when dealing with Randys, please assume good faith and assume clue in other editors who genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia is for the most part written by non-experts, which is why we insist that material be properly sourced. Maybe it's a drag for an expert to have to convince non-experts, but that's how it works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the users interpretate the source wrong. As I repeatedly have shown. Of course you can always add a source, but thats useless if you not able to read the source well and interpretate the results correctley. Futher, in research areas where hourdreds of sources existing you can't pic out one single source and present it as the only one just because you like the findings or overstate it. Thats all terms you need expertise for. But it seems to me, en:wp is not interested in in-depth argumentations. DRN - one day discussed - some result no one cares about - no more questions allowed. There are similar tendencys on de.wp. But this proceed is really superficial. And the worst case is an editwar. POV, correct sources and such thins doesn't matter. The importent thing is, not to have 3 Reverts within 1 day, or whatever that 3RR means. --WSC ^® 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR is about edtior actions. It is independent of article content (except in the limited cases such as copyright violation and contentious claims about living people). -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm? I don't want to talk about the 3RR anymore. It's ridiculus that two users always "win" against one user. That maks argumentation unnecessary. Thats why german WP don't use this foolish rule. I'd rathe talk about the DRN-result and why it's allowed to CartoonDiabolo to violate the hallow result (turn the table into a picture). And why a NPOV-box is so frightening suddenly a 2RR exist, I never heard about? And what the admins to be looking to do, to implant a discussion about the issu again? --WSC ^® 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to choose what gets talked about when you report at AN/I. Everyone's conduct in the matter is open to question - including yours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it the result of the dispute resolution was both prose and an image. Thus far the only person who has had a problem with the content is Widescreen who at this point would need to appeal the DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at it this morning and I agree with a lot of Widescreen's views here. The edit warring has masked a serious content issue which appears to be attempting to promote CBT by cherry picking evidence. Its now at the dispute resolution notice board, and its a content issue on three articles. But that is where it belongs not ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 04:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

1) DRN is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions. 2) Wasn't the DRN closed as "change to prose"? There may have been a misinterpretation over the consensus of the DRN case and the purpose of DRN. DRN closures can't be enforced, but DRN does offer a venue for establishing consensus.--SGCM (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The first DRN was closed as "The content in question should be rewritten in prose." Some background on the DRN: I brought up the proposal of changing the table to prose in the second DRN, based on the proposal by Noleander in the first DRN (including the recent one, there have been three DRN requests so far), or the use of an image as a possible compromise, to replace the inappropriately large table originally placed in the article. The image compromise was struck down, and most of the editors, including me, agreed that prose remained the best option. The discussion on the DRN may have been misconstrued. DRN is an informal noticeboard, consensus can be established but not enforced.--SGCM (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But it seems to me admins have take the result as serious as it was a court with judges or arbitrators. So the comment on my second 1week block by EdJohnston was: "Amazingly, this dispute has already been through WP:DRN which came up with a result, which WSC still won't accept." [31] So the admin EdJohnston prohibit futher alterations by overstate the DRN-result. Also the 1st admin, Crazycomputers (chris): arguing like that. His comment to my 1d block was: "Due to ongoing edit warring against consensus, Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours." [32]

The admins claimed a consensus which never exist. Now the article is still POV and it's prohibit to me to add a NPOV-box. Thats badly done work. --WSC ^® 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the administrators were at fault. The block was primarily for edit warring, not the content dispute. Edit warring should always be avoided, regardless of who's right or wrong.--SGCM (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard about a editwar you can do alone! It taks two useres at the minimum. But your admins blocked only one of them. Such a behavior inhibit agrumentation. Also the prohibit of adding a NPOV-box. Your admins act like bureaucrats and not for the advantage of the articles. --WSC ^® 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My closure of a 3RR report was mentioned above. At present, the reason why Widescreen has not been able to get his desired change made at either Psychoanalysis or Cognitive behavioral therapy is that the regular editors on those articles oppose his change. I assume he is not here to request that admins override the decision of the content editors. There is a process called WP:Dispute resolution. Widescreen has used some of the steps of that process, including WP:DRN, and each time he has not persuaded the others. Normally, plain content disputes are not entertained at ANI. My guess is that Widescreen won't accept the DRN result because he believes that his personal expertise allows him to know that the very large INSERM study is not a fair summary of the merits of the two therapies. Our policy allows you to criticize one reliable source by finding another source which disagrees, but you are not usually allowed to disqualify a source because of what you claim is your personal expertise (see Widescreen's #3). You are also not allowed to keep re-adding a POV tag to an article when nobody on the talk page agrees with you (Widescreen's #1). His edit-warring to re-add the POV tags was the occasion for his last 3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ed Johnston: I'm getting angry. You talk about regular editors. Who is that? I've checkt that, here and I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example. You never read the DRN result and you block me after 2reverts for 1 week because I try to add a NPOV-box. Don't you think thers somthing wrong with that.

You don't know anything about studies in pychotherapy research. So what's your contribution to this discussion? You set a unbalanced block and now you talk about such things like I try to disqualify a source. I can't believe that!

You did somthing wrong. Please accept that. --WSC ^® 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example - this gives you no special privileges on Wikipedia. I would strongly suggest you drop the stick and go edit other article for awhile, while enjoying a nice cup of tea to cool off, before a boomerang hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, did anyone here read coherences? Or just the last contrib? The blocking admin gives as reason for the blocking that I'm not one of the "regular editors". So tell me again: Didn't it not count to be the top ten editors? No, the blocking admin, EdJohnston, has no idea of what the conflict goes about. Thats why he blockt the one he found was the one seems to be the weekest of all. By checking the contribs. Thats wat happend. --WSC ^® 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The only edit counter that is relevant here is "reverts per 24 hours". Your contributions to the article are more than welcome but that makes you neither own the article nor does it give you any special privileges or any enhanced credibility. And I'd be happy to learn that EdJohnston doesn't know anything about psychotherapy research because that leaves him unbiased in this matter. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But I had only 2 Reverts within 24 Hours. And now? Why had my opponent "special privileges"? --WSC ^® 23:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record here. I checked through the material and the insertion of the table went to dispute resolution and the general agreement seems to have been that the table (created by CartoonDiablo) should not be there, but replaced by text. (see here and here). CartoonDiablo feels that the dispute resolution should not have been closed prematurely and its his right to raise the issue again (as is the case on Family Therapy). However when I removed it he immediately inserted the material again claiming that the "closed prematurely" argument. Ed was undoubtably right to block Widescreen as he allowed his frustration to get the better of common sense. But in my opinion the problem here is a CBT advocate pushing a self-created table that supports his/her particular position. The diagram itself is from an old study and its findings are controversial in the field anyway. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you, checking the case and have a look at the DRN-result. Not one admin was able to do that. I still don't understand how I was able to have an editwar by myself? It seems so, because I was the only one being blocked.

I'm curious about the next conficts in this field. Now WP had the luck one user, Snowded, was so attentive to read the hole conflict and had the expertise to understand it. But that don't seems to be a exception. Obstinate obey of stupid rules like 3RR, without have a look at the core of a conflict is useless. --WSC ^® 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to trust the system more. You could have raised an RfC on this to bring other editors in, Ultimately evidence will win out but you have to he patient (I learnt that the hard way on the Ayn Rand articles); WIkipedia is managed through moderating behaviour, not through content resolution and that is its strength and its frustration. Although you did provide references you just scattered them in long postings so it was easy for people to ignore them - or see you as edit warring. The dispute resolution boards came to the conclusion the picture should not be there so it was legitimate to remove it But when the edit warring started you lost it. I suggest a 2rr or 1rr limit, then you can raise the editors behaviour here with a clean slate. I've got a copy of House and Loewenthal's Against and For CBT and Critically Engaging CBT waiting for me at home. I know they challenge the way evidence has been collected and used in studies. So when I have that we can balance the text as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the german wp-system since 8.5 years. I always thouth it was unfair, superficial and controlled by admins doesn't care about the quality of articles. But en:wp is the increase of that. Bureaucratic to the bone. The DRN was a joke. It seems like the worst case is not a unbalanced article but a editwar. If I was a new author I would be up and away. And I'm sure a lot of newbys are deterred by such a proceed. But the stupidest thing is the 3RR. It's not possible to have editwar with yourself. It takes two users at the minimum. But this system pick one of them randomly and let the other triumph. A better way is to block both warriors. Doesn't matter how much. --WSC ^® 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An even better way is not to put yourself in the position where you can be blocked. Its not necessary, it weakens your case and it is more likely to result in poor articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You might think having the speed limit at 55 (or 65, or whatever) is stupid, but "I don't like the law, you should change it" isn't going to make a judge rescind your speeding ticket. It doesn't matter what anyone else has done, just you, and if you're reverting to one version and multiple people are reverting to the other, maybe the problem isn't with them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I think Widescreen does have a case that his antagonist should also have been blocked for a period. In terms of the content issue I think he was correct (and editors at the dispute resolution board overwhelmingly agreed that the diagram should go and be replaced by text which is what happened). Even now and in the face of that consensus CartoonDiablo is still inserting his diagram on the grounds that he has reopened the DRP which he thinks was prematurely closed (for which read, did not agree with him) and trying to argue that the supper for CBT is similar to that for the link between lung cancer and smoking which is arrant nonsense. Removing the PoV tag inserted by Widescreen was provocative. OK the response is not to edit war, but frustrations of experts over dealing with subjects are well known here. While not tolerating edit warring we should not assume (especially on controversial subjects) that the regular editor (plural is questionable as there was only one other) is right. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to complete this. Cartoon Diablo is claiming that he replaced the table with am image, therefore the consensus does not apply. However to summarise comments the editors who looked at this at DRP say:

1. Dmitrij D Czarkoff "the table should be rewritten as prose" and "I fully concur with all the other participants in all three DRN cases that the table should not be present in the article in whatever format"
2. SGCM "prose is still the best option because it is more neutral while conveying the same information"
3. SGCM "the image suggestion was again struck down and most of the editors including me, agreed that prose remained the best option"
4. Kerfuffler "I can say for sure that the table is WP:OR'

Its very clear that we have a case here of an editor who cannot let go of something they have created. Three DRPs, continued slow edit warring. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The most amusing part of this is that the two edit warriors always win, because only one guy (WSC) is willing to revert them. Everyone else just talks, talks, talks... And the admins block, block, block... WSC. Epic win. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been no blocks of Widescreen since September 10. But there is a new edit war raging at Psychoanalysis between Snowded (not a party to the original dispute) and CartoonDiablo. Snowded has reverted three times and CartoonDiablo twice. Perhaps an admin who has not taken any previous action on this can look into the matter. It does not make much sense that people will continue to revert while the article is being discussed at ANI. Full protection might be considered, along with a warning to the current participants. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See also a 3RR report at WP:AN3#User:Snowded reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: ). I will refrain from closing this one. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Protected and both edit-warriors warned. --John (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, CartoonDiablo has taken this issue to dispute resolution across three articles on several occasions. The clear conclusion of that (check it out I did) is that the table/image should not be included. Despite that CartoonDiablo has reinserted the material against a clear consensus. See my summary above. I don't see any discussion of that here. I was previously uninvolved, but when I came across it I looked into the history; that is pretty clear in its conclusion that the table/image is not acceptable. I also put effort into summarising the position on his/her talk page. Its three articles involved, its been discussed several times but you have an editor who will not take no for an answer. I'm frankly surprised that those admins involved have not tracked back over the history before they make judgement calls. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Give the inability of ANI admins to tackle this in part because of the scattered evidence, it looks like a RfC/U on CartoonDiablo may be necessary. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like CartoonDiablo has managed to drive off the page all previous protesters, see Talk:Psychoanalysis#Checklist and Talk:Cognitive_behavioral_therapy/Archive_2#French_survey_table where User:Maunus first objected. (I had an essay about stuff like that this, but it was deleted for some reason...) Also, this piece of wiki-lawyering is extremely amusing, moreso after reading Wikipedia_talk:DRN#Premature closure of Family therapy? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_34#Cognitive_behavioral_therapy.2C_Psychoanalysis --WSC ^® 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WSC in this pedia when it is one editor against two the one will always be block first what you have to learn is that sometimes you must leave the article in its bad version while you argue your case on the talk page. The way you went about this with apparent rants on how bad en wiki is because I would not let you have your way is off-putting to many editors. It obscures you logical arguments behind a madman shouting his own version of truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits of the new user "Unindicted co-conspirator" in Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

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

---

Unindicted co-conspirator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hey guys, I'm seriously tired of this.

For the past several says, "Unindicted co-conspirator" makes lots of mostly really bad edits to the aticle Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Misinterpretion of sources, sensationalism, also just very poor writing on many levels. And reverting, repeatedly.

Not working on any other articles, too.

Do with it what you want, I give up. The article should be probably redirected to Innocence of Muslims anyway. --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also just to remind of the unaddressed issue at #TheDarkPyrano100's possible many IP socks. --Niemti (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Niemti ordered me to put my External links in alphabetical order and warned me to do so a few times.

I do not see anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines that this is the rule. Also, he has removed relevant, well sourced information about Nakoula being a government informant. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=513430577&oldid=513415297 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=513431801&oldid=513430848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unindicted co-conspirator (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing about alphabetical order was uncalled for, but the rest and gist of the complaint has merit. The way you go about things has been problematic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it's customary to accompany accusations with diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like the "Unindicted co-conspirator" is here to promote the fringe view that Nakoula worked for US government [33]. Not only this is fringe view (at best), but he also misrepresents the source he provided. Although title of the source tells: "Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch", it is clear after reading the entire text that Bakula only cooperating with prosecution and told about the alleged ring leader who was not even charged with the crime if I understand correctly. The "Unindicted co-conspirator" is not here to improve the encyclopedia.My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• He cooperated with the government for a lighter sentence. I put in Nakoula's own quotes to make it clear. No one says that he was employed by the government nor that it not what the references say. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed this [34]. No, by quoting him you are giving an undue weight to the words of fraudster whose credibility is less than zero. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the edit Unindicted made, which My very best wishes describes as "Nakoula worked for US government", as bad (I would have worded it differently, but so what?), certainly not anything requiring administrative intervention. Unindicted said that Nakoula became a government informant, which is precisely what the source says. Being a government informant hardly makes Nakoula out to be a good guy in this context. I agree that the Nakoula quote probably should not have been used, but I'm still waiting for diffs that justify this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Co-conspirator" is an SPA with political agenda. No need in diffs. Whole his edit history is right there. Yes, I still believe he twisted the sources. But I am not sure if any action is needed. My very best wishes (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry...quoting Nakoula in an article about Nakoula is giving him undue weight? This logic makes no sense whatsoever. I don't see anything wrong with any of Unindicted's edits linked here. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the concern is that Nakoula has been proven to be a liar, so we have to be careful not to cite anything he says as fact. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I doubt you'll find a single person anywhere in the world who hasn't lied at least once in their life, so stating he's a liar strikes me as pointless. But on-point, a quote is not a statement of fact. He could have said 'green space aliens from Mars told me to make a sandpit in my back yard', for all it matters. As long as his statements are attributed and relevant, they're perfectly acceptable to include in an article. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To correct a misconception by My very best wishes, yes diffs are needed as an admin asked for them for the purpose of understanding why this ANI report was filed. Otherwise, this just needs to be closed as it isn't our job to dig through all the contribs of someone because you think they did something bad but won't point to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

To put it simple, this is already in the single diff I provided in discussion above [35]. "Co-conspirator" inserts the following text: "Nakoula’s June 2010 sentencing transcript for fraud shows that he was a U.S. government informant." Perhaps I do not know English well enough, but after reading this sentence, I would be under impression that he worked as an undercover agent of US government. Not so in the source: it tells that Nakoula cooperated with prosecution as a witness after arrest. "Co-conspirator" repeated this edit many times. He edit war a lot to keep precisely this misleading wording in the article. Why? Should this be filing to ANI? Of course not. It was not me who filed this request. The only thing that was required is to warn "Co-conspirator" to stop edit war and to make this edit, and that is exactly what I did (see my 2nd diff above). Problem was resolved. Cased is closed. It can be archived. I thought it was clear. Sorry that it was not. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be getting lost on you in the translation. In American English, as soon as you say "informant" it is clearly known they are not a legitimate employee and are instead under indictment, likely for a felony. This is another word for "snitch" or someone who "rolls over". "Informants" are generally the bad guys, who are turning in other bad guys, to get less jail time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Ongoing incivility by User:7mike5000

• Mike was indefinitely blocked Aug 2010 for "threatening off wiki action" by User:SarekOfVulcan. He was subsequently unblocked in Feb of 2011 after agreeing that he would be civil and that a block would be reapplied if he was unable to achieve this.[36]

• On Sept 6th [37] and Sept 17th of 2012 [38] he received further complaints of incivility.

• His replies are here [39] and here [40] and are not hopeful.

• As I was uninvolved in both these resent re-occurrences I have reapplied the block. Wondering if others have comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many other example of less than pleasant comments including: [41] and [42] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Does he do anything useful? If not, indef. Otherwise ANI/warn, ANI/warn, block/unblock, block/unblock, RtFU, ArmCom, ANI/warn, block/unblock, ANI/warn, ArbCom, ANI/warn, ANI/warn, maybe he retires. It looks like he has fans. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after looking and reading some of his talk page, I have no desire to see if he does anything "useful" and don't much care. Fully support the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Mike can be a bit rough around the edges if approached the wrong way or to the uninformed (who may just have distaste for his crude but often hilarious wit). However, this user has shown great improvements since the initial block and has worked closely with his mentor to become a very productive contributor. Over a year and a half after the initial block was lifted, it is time to relax these trigger-finger sanctions. That being said, Mike, you really gotta pick and choose who you use that awesome charm of yours with, because some people are unable to cope with the artistic choice of words. Keep it to your user/talk page and out of the drama-prone discussions - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You must be joking, surely. By what stretch of the imagination can the words 'hilarious wit', 'awesome charm' or 'artistic choice of words' be applied to sentences like 'please be a fat scumbag somewhere else' or 'oh yeah, and your a dick'? Support this block, Mike should know better, considering this comment. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I am not joking and I stand by what I said. The occasional lapses in temper are far outweighed by the contributions this user makes. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Really? How have you measured the effects of his "lapses in temper" on the innocent users who are the targets of it, or would-be editors who are scared off by it? If an otherwise productive editor stops contributing for a week because they're hurt or angered by the insults, how much does that offset User:7mike5000's contributions? If three editors with useful information to contribute refrain from posting it in an AfD for fear of being the next target of his attacks, what weight do you assign that? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm torn, but reserving judgement. He is obviously being confrontational and unnecessarily rude, but I'm not a fan of civility blocks. The fat scumbag comment is a bit out of context, and refers to Psychonaut's user page reference, which points to [43]. Still incivil, but context does matter. That said, we will see if Mike takes a more conciliatory tone in an unblock request. Indef doesn't mean forever, although I think a fixed term block would be a better solution. This doesn't mean I have great hope long term, but I can't help but to prefer the liberal use of rope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Have emailed his mentor to see if he is willing to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's me. Bugger. I got an email from James yesterday but have just now had a chance to look at this. Mike has been uncivil and a block is certainly justified. He does a lot of very good work but does have trouble curbing his sometimes quite acerbic tongue. I'll have a think and say more when I've had some sleep. James, I'd have preferred you to have left the blocking to another admin, given your shared history, but do understand your frustration. I'll get back. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In Doc's defense, he did bring it here for review and contacted the mentor, which is the proper response (or WP:AN) if there is any potential concern regarding involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block I can see why the block was made; Mike reacts to any sort of challenge aggressively and is quick to shoot people down with uncivil language. Mike states that he doesn't want to have to walk on egg shells but yet expects other people to walk on egg shells around him to avoid his hostility. I think underneath all of this, Mike has a good side in that what drives his editing by his own words is to 'help' other people by providing useful content for our readers. It would be a shame to lose a valuable contributer such as Mike but if we do it will be his own fault. I think that before the block is removed that Mike has to agree to treat others as he would like to be treated himself and try harder with how he reacts to other users with regard to civility.--MrADHD | T@1k? 08:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• When someone points out that an image that one uploads infringes on copyright as was done here Sept 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:7mike5000#File:West_nile_virus_rash.jpg_listed_for_deletion and you reply that they are a "dexter" we have a problem. Copyright infringement is a huge issue.
• Less than civil responses go back a long time. Here on July 4th he replies to concerns with "Acting like you run the show, and leaving annoying messages for people who actually make useful positive contributions as opposed to writing about kiddie's video games is also extremely bad form, as is dictating in the manner you have. Alleging somebody engaged in "vandalism" is also (drum roll goes here) extremely bad form. Ta Da" [44]
• Another July 2nd "Hello, maybe you should make a wee bit of effort in finding information on a subject instead of coming off like a know-it-all." [45] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Totally uncontroverial block. Shame on anyone who would consider ignoring such flagrant long-term hositility on grounds of productivity: we have masses of editors who edit productively who can behave civilly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Several SPA editors repeatedly removing cited content

Three editors have been repeatedly removing cited content from two articles associated with a company, Brookfield Asset Management. The users involved are:

AndrewWillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AndyWillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TracySteele00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The affected articles are:

Brookfield Asset Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Island Timberlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given a quick Googling of the editors' names and their behaviour (removal of cited content that reflects poorly on the company), it seems fairly obvious that there's an undisclosed COI here. There are also sporadic additions of promotional content. The involved editors have both been previously warned about their behaviour, but the warnings have seemingly been ignored and their removal of content has continued for several months. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Without even looking for the name(s) in the company directory, it seems that these are indeed problematic edits. If a CU happens to walk by something interesting may come to light quickly. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• The content removal has resumed today: [46] [47]. There's also a new sock-puppet, Awillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has been removing content. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Has an SPI been started? If not, one should be. GregJackP Boomer! 21:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and started the SPI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

After glancing at the contributions, it was so blatantly obvious, that I didn't need to run a CheckUser on the accounts. Mr. Willis is listed on the company website's contact us page, so I assume that the three accounts with his name are him. The other one, whether him or not, was still being used inappropriately. I blocked the three socks, but left the oldest account unblocked in hopes that Mr. Willis can be engaged in a discussion regarding his edits. Any other admin who feels that the remaining account should be blocked should feel free to do so without consulting me. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

User ZarlanTheGreen

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

The affected articles are:

Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WQA/Broadsword (disambiguation)#August 2012 cleanup
User talk:Trofobi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Broadsword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WP:DR noticebaord#Broadsword
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Edit war)

User ZarlanTheGreen disagreed with some (MOS:DAB-according) changes of "Broadsword (disambiguation)", starting 28 August 2012‎. On the talk page, he got sufficient answers to that but accused me of giving no answers, while actually he just refused to read the answers and especially refused to look in the article's history what changes he had done himself(!) and what changes others had done, but rather repeating on and on false accusations what he thought his/the changes had been. While repeatedly refusing to accept the MoS:DAB[48][49][50][51]..., he charged me with not following his own word-by-word interpretations of WP:BRD. Instead of working together on solutions, he accused me of "trolling"+[52] and opened a case against me on WP:WQA, where he got many more answers, but none of them supporting his views. My request to remove the "trolling" PA was answered by only more PAs. When WQA was closed on 15 Sep 2012, Zarlan opened a WP:DR case on the same questions, making further personal attacks there and refusing to remove them even after being asked so by the volunteer (Guy Macon). Current climax: Now, as it turns out that WP:DR, too, doesn't fulfill his hopes, ZarlanTG now starts editing the Manual of Style/DAB to his personal favour [53][54] and reverting other users there.

Additionally ZarlanTheGreen is often mixing up formats like [[ {{ == etc. not caring about the mess he leaves,[55] even if kindly asked to.[56] (As I am not a native English speaker I hope to have chosen appropriate words, if not pls let me know!) --Trofobi (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR dangerouspanda 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You hardly make it clear who you consider to be lacking in competence, in what way, or what should be done about it. Also, I would like to point out that WP:CIR is an essay, which is to say the advice/opinion of some editors ...and it is not uncontroversial, as the page itself points out ...as well as stating that if one links to the page to point out incompetence in an editor, one has not understood the point of the essay.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's far from clear what administrator intervention is required. The DR process seems to be progressing. Comments on user behaviour are not necessarily personal attacks, and as for syntax errors on your talk page, I think that you can simply fix, delete or archive that section, surely? While Zarlan does not seem to have conducted himself impeccably, I see no ongoing problem here. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

I have yet to be shown what part of the MOS:DAB that is relevant or in what way, aside from the order of entries (though whether that interpretation is accurate is being argued), and I have already pointed out that I never refused Guy Macon's request, but rather explicitly pointed out that I would comply if he insisted despite the misgivings I noted. As to editing the MOS:DAB to my personal favours... that is a personal attack, a misscharacterization of events, and an assumption of bad faith. I merely reverted an addition to the page, which added something not previously present, with which I disagreed. The person that tried to add it has the WP:BURDEN of motivating the addition, and according to WP:BRD, must proceed discuss to be able to get it in. He/she may do so, and may be successful in doing so. That is yet to be seen. I could say that the person added that bit, because he/she wanted to edit the MOS:DAB to his/her favours, as its present form didn't suit their arguments concerning the Broadsword DAB page ...but that would be assuming bad faith, which is improper and unnecessary: it may have been done in good faith and it doesn't really matter either way. As to the rest, I feel no need to say anything.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this current edit war [57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65] have to be reported at WP:AN3, or can it be dealt with here? --Trofobi (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that, that was a bit edit war (or on the brink of it, at least), with part of the fault being on my side, as I myself have noted. The editing has died down, however, and attempts at discussion has started, so dealing with it as an edit war would be inappropriate and unnecessary. There is no need to deal with a war that is already over, that would be to unnecessarily inflame matters. I may consider a DR if discussion doesn't happen, but I see no reason for anything beyond that. I must say that this whole thing has been quite a learning experience. I have learned more about the MOS:DAB, BRD and some other guidelines and policies, as necessary, in the process of this. Generally nothing that goes against what I propose, though with some good pointers, that shall make me less inclined to revert to reverts as often in future and make things a bit less messy and edit war-y, which is good.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

...Especially as that discussion is now completed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kensho

(Restored from archive Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive769&action=edit&section=10

Unresolved

Recently User:Suchawato Mare has three times restored newer versions of the page on Kensho to his preferred version, removing well-sourced and valuable information:

• 1st revert [66]
• 2nd revert [67]
• 3rd revert [68]

I have informed Suchawato Mare three times about my objections to his edits on the Talk:Kenshō page. These were answered one time, with a long story that did not respond to my first series of objections, nor give a clear insight into the reasons of his edits. After complaining on this noticeboard followed a longer response by Suchawato Mare:

• After 1st revert [69]
• After the 2d revert, Suchawato Mare gave this response [70]
• This was my agitated response [71]
• I've waited two days, then started restoring removed sections, giving these explanations and expanding my response to Suchawato Mare's response [72]
• After the 3rd revert I posted this notification, which resulted in a long reaction by Suchawato Mare [73]
• On which this was my response [74]

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you disputing the conduct or the content? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  06:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Both. Simply restoring your own preferred version, without discussion, is very unpolite and non-cooperative. Regarding the content, there are two problems: the removal of well-sourced info, including notes; and the use, by Suchawato Mare, of a very limited range of sources, from his own Zen-denomination. It gives me the impression that Suchawato Mare is simply not knowledgeable on the wider range and context of the topic, especially contemporary research on Zen, and does not understand how Wikipedia works. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, normally they will punt a content dispute to WP:DRN. I'm definitely not a topic expert, but my meta-analysis is that he's done several mass reverts of almost all the work anyone else has ever done on the article, back to when he started editing it 6 years ago—the first mass revert being in 2008.

—Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response from Suchawato Mare:

Joshua Johnathan seems to be acusing me of being a disruptive editor. namely, by:

• • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

However this is false.

He says he has asked me "three times, etc, etc."

making it seem like he has made every reasonable attempt to be reasonable with me but I'm just so 'uncooperative'.

The reality is, it's been only a few days at the time of this posting since he wrote any of his posts in the talk page on the article in question.

And, indeed, I did actually respond to him once in that time.

He seems to think that "Oh, if I post it three times within 72 hours or something like that" that everyone else 'must' respond to him within the timeframe of his choosing or they are being 'disruptive'.

I posted the reason for my edits on my edits summary.

I don't think it occurs to him that other people may have things going on in their lives that take precedence over responding to him on wikipedia.

Also, I could level the same accusation of disruptiveness at him, because he:

• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

He is also failing to "get the point" and "understand the point".

• "Failure or refusal to "get the point"

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

• "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement."

This above quote is a central point, just because I disagree with him, doesn't mean I didn't hear him. Perhaps it may not have occurred to him that other people simply may not have time to respond as quickly as he wishes.

• "Failure to understand the point {{anchor|Failure to understand the point

"Sometimes, even when an editor acts in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up an editor's mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed, though it is rare for them to be permanent."

This is a central point, what he calls removing "valuable" content, I call cleaning up his mess he made of the article.

Simply because he adds more information, does not make the article better.

It can make a forrest for the trees phenomenon, where the reader gets so bogged down in "trees" that they miss the point of the "forrest" (the point of the article) entirely.

Finally, I would suggest that he simply exercise patience.

And realize that it might take some days or even weeks depending upon what a person is doing in real life, to get back to him.

I have been working on this article for several years, a few days seems hardly inconsequential.

-Suchawato Mare

It's completely unreasonable to revert and then disappear for “weeks” without discussing the changes. Discussion is fundamental here; if you can't participate in it, then don't make contentious changes. Further, pretty much all of your personal attack is false; there is no “community” or “consensus” against making changes, there is only you. Nobody else has spoken up on the talk page or reverted any changes. To accuse another editor of numerous failings when you simply disagree on the content is shamelessly rude (not to mention hard to reconcile with Buddhism). —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  08:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan

• "Engages in disruptive cite-tagging": in my latest version of the article, there are two {{citation needed}}-tags:

• "In kenshō one realizes that there are no inherently existing 'things', that the world we experience is empty of inherent existing "things". But according to Houn Jiyu-Kennett, this not a 'vacuum': "It is the fullest, 'nothingness' you will ever know." Suchawato Mare gave this quote on the Talk Page; I've added it to the article, but couldnt't find the source via Google. The only hit it gives, is Wikipedia.
• "Oh Buddha, going, going, going on beyond and always going on beyond, always Becoming Buddha. Hail! Hail! Hail!" Suchawato Mare provided a source for this one; that's good. That's why we use those tags.

• "Tendentious editing": it's not just one point, it's a long list of points, which Suchawato Mare keeps removing without substantial discussion. The "opposition" has hardly been explained; requests for this have mostly been ignored. "Repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" - this describes exactly Suchawato Mare's behaviour.
• "Failure or refusal to "get the point"": Kerfuffler is correct, there is no "community-consensus", only Suchawato Mare who keeps restoring his preferred version, removing a lot of sourced and valuable information without substantial discussion.
• "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"": also when you have little time, first discuss, then edit.
• "Failure to understand the point", "cleaning up his mess he made of the article": I've exactly pointed out what my problems with Suchawato Mare's edits are. You may prefer to call this a "mess", it still does not mean you can just remove a lot of well-sourced and valuable info. First discuss, then edit.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the thread, beacuse it is not resolved yet. What do with it now? Is there going to be any action by an administrator? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be screwed here. WP dispute resolution procedures are not geared toward the kind of once in a blue moon hit and run reverting that particular editor is doing—every time it comes up, you'll just get a lot of “he's had an account for years, and he hasn't done anything else bad recently” comments. If he continues that pattern, your best bet is to wait for him to go away and then go back to your editing. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  04:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How about posting it at the edit-war notice-board? Or is that too late? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked third opinions from User:SudoGhost, User:Tengu800, User:Keahapana and User:Suddha to give their opinion on my recent edits on kensho, to reach consensus. They are experienced editors with a lot of knowledge on Buddhism. I've also Suchawato Mare of these requests. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Is blocking appropriate for User:66.180.192.21?

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

---

I'm sorry if I'm over-reacting, but I came across a contribution which seemed excessively vulgar and clearly libelous. I know we're supposed to leave three warnings, but because this is a BLP I wondered if immediate blocking is appropriate. I felt I needed to defer to more experienced editors.

On September 20, 2012, the editor User:66.180.192.210 added to the article on Rex Reed the following content: "[redacted a fairly tacky insult]"

If a warning is all that's required, I can add it. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than blanking it, or even asking an admin to revdel it, how about repeating the alleged libel on the highest traffic WP noticeboard? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Revdel'd, and redacted above. No sense blocking the IP, it was last used 8 hours ago, and the history suggests it was a throw-away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Review my actions

Alright, I took action on an RFPP over Sultanate of Rum. There was pretty clear edit warring going on in my opinion, and I ended up protecting the page for five days to allow for some discussion, warning Qatarihistorian (talk · contribs), and blocking Mttll (talk · contribs) due to his extensive track record of edit warring. Mttll has now complained at his talk page about my interpretation of the events at the article and so I will bring my actions here for review. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here's what I see. Pretty clear evidence of edit warring by both parties per these diffs about Qatari's editing ([75]--this is not vandalism, [76], [77]) and these diffs regarding Mttll's editing ([78], [79]--this is also not vandalism, [80]). The two of them are both engaged in discussion on the talk page, but there is nothing remotely close to consensus, because they are the only participants on these matters. They need a third party or more discussants at the talk page. So no, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the admin's conduct in this situation. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I see no real evidence (based on the article talk page) that the two editors came to explicitly agree on anything related to the content that was the subject of edit warring. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mttll. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A comment on the transclusion above, it is true another editor is involved in the page history. However, they haven't engaged in edit warring, and my larger point was that they are not participating on the relevant parts of the talk page. So my point stands that there is no consensus over any particular content changes because the only users involved in actual discussion were Mttll and Qatari. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

E4024 was edit-warring by tag-teaming with Mttll, as he performed two quick reverts in support of Mttll. What is more important is that he wasn't involved in any talkpage discussion, which means the discussion was only between Mttll and Qatarihistorian. But this has nothing to do with Mttll's actions anyway. Athenean (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Mttlll. He did what an editor was supposed to do, added a ref when challenged [81]. A one-month block for that is totally ludicrous. Qatarihistorian on the other hand gives the impression of an edit-warring SPA POV pusher who should probably be blocked for a while per WP:NOTHERE. Qatarihistorian removed text without even bothering to look for a source or add , and then repeated the same even after a source was added.

Honestly that article is in a POV flip-flop, what sources say is more nuanced:

• [82] "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as the law, theology and science, the culture of the Slejuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in [...] and use of Persian as a literary language (Turkish must have been essentially a vehicle for everyday speech at this time)."
• [83] "Persian became the official and literary language while Arabic was preferred as the language of the law, thus overshadowing the Turkish language."

But Wikipedia is seldom good at nuance... Tijfo098 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And as one may have guessed, Qatarihistorian is no stranger to edit wars [84] or apparently editing logged out in such contexts [85] [86]. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support admins actions. One editor had a more extensive history of problems, so differing levels for each participant was appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support admin actions. Though I would have blocked both for edit warring. --Defensor Ursa 04:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And Totally on a tangent, we should probably establish the Ahmadinejad barnstar to be awarded for writings like "a dynasty of Persian origin who established a Persian Empire". Tijfo098 (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Since 1)the Sultanate was not of Persian origin, 2)was not a Persian empire. --Defensor Ursa 04:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support admin actions. Just a few days ago Mttll was blocked for edit-warring on Turkey, and was unblocked on condition that he would behave. Now he has broken 3RR again, this is ridiculous. A one month block is reasonable considering his long block log and recent edit-warring. As for E4024, he was merely tag-teaming with Mttll against Qatarihistorian [87], which does not in any way mitigate or legitimate Mttll's edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support admin actions. Mttll has been overdoing things for a while and on more than one article. While his latest unblock was related to other articles on Turkey, the unblocking admin had made it clear then that the user needs to change his revert-happy approach when it comes to disputed edits. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is Qatarihistorian
First of all, user Mttll was conducting vandalism on a hidden agenda. He didn't like the fact the Sultanate of Rum is identified as a Persianate state, even though sources clearly indicated the Persianate nature/identity of the state due to two factors: 1) that the state was based on a Persianate court culture. 2) that the state's official language was Persian.

Nevertheless, user Mttll decided to move the term "Persianate" to the section of arts and architecture, in order to disguise historical facts. When I prompted him of this, he tried to FURTHER disguise his actions by renaming the arts and architecture section to --> culture, but that still was invalid.

The irony is, even though he wanted to discuss this issue with me on the article's talk page, he didn't want to compromise, therefore he said something along the lines of "I don't care what you think" and went ahead with his pathetic actions of distorting facts.

I even showed in my edits that I had no problem with him wanting to call the Sultanate of Rum a "Turkish" state, so long as he provided references for it. By the way, LONELYPLANET travel guides are not reliable references, I hope you people realize that.

Therefore in my recent edits, I wrote the Sultanate of Rum was a Persianate AND Seljuk Turkish state. It can be both at the time. They don't conflict each other by any means. Now the problem with user Mttll is his clear nationalistic agenda in the article, whereby he tries to promote only the Turkish aspect of the state while negating the sources to suggest the Persianate aspect.

In his user talk page, he is blatantly lying to the admin by telling him that I reached agreements with him. I certainly did not. And for the sake of wikipedia's reliability, I will ensure the information regarding Sultanate of Rum being a Persianate state will be restored because nothing warranted its move in that article, unless a hidden nationalistic agenda was intended. Qatarihistorian (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Addition: Actually, to further prove my point, look at user Mttll's recent changes. He was following me around like a stalker, reverting two other changes I made in other articles, even though my changes were of legitimate concern, one of which concerned a poor source from a nationalist website, which me and others are currently reviewing in the talk page before finalizing a decision. Then he comes along and reverts the changes out of thin air. Mttll is clearly a stalker with a hidden Turkish nationalistic agenda.Qatarihistorian (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• So, without commenting on the legitimacy of your edits, you can let go of the "he has a hidden agenda" arguments and calling editors "pathetic" because those won't really get you anywhere here. Also, question for Ks0stm and/or the closing admin: Was there some reason Qatari only received a warning for edit warring and not a temporary block? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Eh, speaking of agendas, hidden or more obvious, Qatarihistorian repeatedly deleted that Turkish was (still) a language spoken in the sultanate. Even after it was referenced inline from Encyclopedia Britannica (by Mttlll). And it can be easily found in other history books that are definetely WP:RS. Qatarihistorian's actions are hardly the work of a historian we want here. Mabye Mttlll has pulled off other crap, but blocking him for this is insane. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• In my experience, Qatarihistorian is a tendentious editor from the Iranian side of the Iranian-Turkic ethnic edit wars on Wikipedia. He seems to be trying to diminish the amount of Turkic influence in Iranian history even in cases where, for instance, the Turkic origins of rulers are utterly uncontroversial.[88]. In other words (based on my experience at Afsharid dynasty), he's definitely pushing a POV and will bend the facts accordingly. No opinion about Mttll as yet.--Folantin (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Qatarihistorian's latest edit [89] speaks for itself. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo: go to the page and see in the article history that I agreed with the source of the Turkish language once Mttll added it. So don't go around falsifying what happened or perhaps you are accustomed to this way of lying around here?Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Folantin: Unless you're trying to troll, you would also concede that after the conversation finalized, the article remained in its shape.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I don't tolerate nationalism in articles. The articles I've contributed to originally owed much of their content to a pro-Turkic nationalist agenda. In such instances, I have taken actions in the past to neutralize the articles. Unfortunately, since most of these articles are sabotaged by Turkish nationalists more than Iranian nationalists, my form of neutralization is is seen by the likes of Folantin as "taking the Iranian side", which quite frankly I find laughable given his background.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tifjo: once again you're lying about my edit in the Huns page. I simply moved the Turkic language paragraph to the languages section. Nice try lying though.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"which quite frankly I find laughable given his background". And my background is? --Folantin (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The battleground mentality, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks displayed by Qatarihistorian in this thread are unfortunately typical of the intellectual climate that has dominated this domain of editing for several years. To nip this in the bud, I propose to impose the same block on Qatarihistorian as previously imposed on Mttll. I'll do that soon-ish unless I see objections from fellow administrators here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Qatarihistorian, I take it you're asserting there's nothing wrong with you removing "Many authors suppose that it may have been a member of, or related to, the Turkic language family" backed by a dozen refs from article on the Huns either? I grant that I would have written that slightly differently as there's controversy how close to Turkish their languages was, with some well-known historians (like Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen [90]) and linguists (like Karl H. Menges [91]) only finding enough evidence to ascribe them to the larger group of Altaic languages. But complete removal of the issue/discussion? Only in Wikiality! (Articles owned by nationalistic POV pushers and continuously alternating between extreme POVs seems to be standard in this area, alas. So Wikiality is perhaps closer than we think.) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I moved it to the languages section of the same article. Look back into the article's history smarty pants.Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC

There is way more going on here than I can sort out, but just looking at his last 100 edits, it does seem that Qatari is rather hell-bent on removing references to Turkish language and adding references to Iranian language; in at least one case the change is obviously gratuitous. And I wonder why he did this, and what his source is for this? OTOH, I totally agree with this change. It seems like he's in such a rush to make these changes that he's being somewhat careless. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  09:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He correctly removed a tendentious and incorrect Arab nationalist edit. Doesn't make his tendentious and incorrect "pro-Iranian/anti-Turkic" edits any less biased and unencyclopaedic. The solution is to crack down on POV warriors of all sides, not to play them off against one another in the hope that something neutral will result. I've edited these areas for a long time and I can safely say that it doesn't. --Folantin (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Folantin, you can continue to think my edits are pro-Iranian and anti-Turkic. I think of my edits as anti-Turkish nationalism. I've already stated I'm against all forms of nationalism on wikipedia. But you don't see Iranian nationalists sabotaging articles each day, which is why most of my edits concern Turkish nationalists, since they're more determined to push their points of view around here, such as the case of Sultanate of Rum where a source indicating the Persianate identity of the state was mysteriously moved to the architecture section. Anyway Mttll has my blessing to sabotage more articles where he can happily push his Turkism points of view. That's what free encylopedias get you. :D Qatarihistorian (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler, I'll happily tell you my changes. The Kidarites are Xionites, who according to Columbia University's encyclopedia Iranica historians are most probably of Iranian origin and spoke an east Iranian language. They were related to the Bactrian-speaking Hepthalites. Second, Qazwini article was sabotaged by an Arab nationalist and some guy changed it before I came in contact with the article. Afterward, I made grammatical changes in that article and removed the Arab nationalist POV. As for the Huns, the Huns have obscure origins but Turkish nationalists keep putting the Turkish hypothesis in the top of the page, even though it belongs to the languages section, along with the other non-Turkic hypotheses. There you go. No pro-Iranian or anti-Turkic agenda at all. Just a normal guy who wants to neutralize wikipedia and stop it from being hijacked by different interest groups of the middle east. Something you guys cannot do because I doubt you know much about what's going on, otherwise these things wouldn't have happened. But I couldn't care less anymore. Since I'm being the target instead of the actual nationalistic vandals, it's no wonder why people like Mttll even exist. I give him my blessings to push his Turkish nationalist pseudoscience and fabricated history around here, since it's probably what wikipedia ultimately deserves.Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have long experience of dealing with nationalistic editors and you clearly pass the duck test. You were desperate not to admit any Turkic element to the Afsharid dynasty, a subject you clearly know nothing about. Despite your best efforts to claim otherwise, there is no scholarly controversy over the Turkic origins and Turco-Mongolian cultural interests of Nader Shah, the founder of that dynasty. This is as clear-cut a case as possible. As another editor pointed out on the talk page, you were cherry-picking sources and were reluctant to accept the full implications of their conclusions [92] when those conclusions implied Turkic influence. Your other edits confirm your agenda. You are a time-wasting POV warrior and I support Future Perfect at Sunrise's proposal to take action against you to prevent further deterioration of Wikipedia's content. --Folantin (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I told you Nader Shah's lineage was adopted by the Afsharid clan. That doesn't mean he wasn't Turkic from another tribe, it just meant he was assimilated into the Afshar clan. If you actually know history, which you don't, then you would know this for a fact. I think you're the last person to make dubious claims on others, since your background is built on crumbling foundations. Where did you suddenly come out from Folantin? :D Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No historians of any merit think Nader Shah was adopted, as I proved on the talk page with reference to The Cambridge History of Iran, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Michael Axworthy (Nader's leading modern biographer) and Nader's own personal court historian. You failed to provide a single source stating otherwise. You are an ignorant and tendentious time-waster. --Folantin (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Qatarihistorian, 1 month, just like the other guy. We don't need this attitude here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-determination

It is clear that discussions about the Falkland Islands at Talk:Self-determination are spiralling out of control, despite the attempts of various parties to intervene. (See WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:DRN#Self-determination.) Heated discussion about sources and continued edit-warring are ongoing and I have now had to warn one of the editors involved for posting an uncivil message. For the record their reply is here. I fear this is heading for Arbitration unless things cool down and am requesting more eyes on this page. Ben MacDui 12:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the edit-warring and signs of tendentiousness in the edits, I would suggest a block against at least Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), who I believe has been the most stubborn and the most overtly tendentious of the lot; not quite sure yet about those on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree as a careful analysis of all of Gaba's contributions for the entire year seemed to be directed overwhelmingly at Wee's edits in the Falkland articles with Gaba being the aggressor in this case. Please see: [[93]]Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note the past conflict I've had with FPaS and from my knowledge this is the second occasion has proposed sanctions against me. My edits are sourced to reliable sources, giving due weight and the others aren't. I have addressed problems in the article, I've followed WP:DR steps and I've remained civil. I have very little faith in WP:ANI as too often I see posts like the above looking to settle old scores. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to Gaba p's edits is labelled by him as WP:OR and WP:SYN, as far as he's concerned that is sufficient for any discussion. In this case, insisting on using a source that made a demonstrably false claim. [94]

I point out that his edit is misleading, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [95]

I point out an edit is contrary to WP:WEIGHT, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [96]

I raised the matter in talk [97], I started the DRN [98], I started the RSN discussion [99]. On every occasion I have given a reasoned response to proposals, if Gaba p disagrees - its [[WP:OR], its WP:SYN, its a lie [100], its wikilawyering but he never actually discusses with an aim to reaching agreement. His approach is confrontational and antagonistic to anyone who disagrees [101],[102]. He has previously been warned about WP:CIVIL [103] and that he faced a block if he continued. Whilst its just been warnings from several admins but no action he has simply got bolder. User:Langus-TxT who in a RFC at Falkland Islands was warned for POV editing has previously backed up Gaba p in a WP:TAG team to try and force POV changes into articles. User:Langus-TxT did exactly the same with the now indefinitely blocked editor User:Alex79818 who stalked me in real life forcing a change of user name. When User:Gaba p started editing both User:Nick-D and User:JamesBWatson considered there was sufficient reason to consider User:Gaba p yet another sock puppet of the prolific sock puppeteer User:Alex79818. He was only unblocked after providing ID identification and I privately disclosed Alex's real life ID to James (I knew it from the stalking). After being the object of abuse from Gaba and Alex I remain convinced they're one and the same - the edit patterns are identical. And the edit patterns have the hallmark of a sleeper account, registered in 2009 [104] but no edits between 2010 and 2012 [105] and restarting editing immediately after another obvious sock was blocked. WP:DUCK.

You would find it difficult to find a posting where I have been uncivil, despite repeated provocation and I really don't think any editor should have to put up with this level of abuse. He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is. He'll make a whole host of allegations to muddy the waters and avoid sanctions again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

First: I have no idea why Muginsx is attacking me so ferociously, he came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago to threaten me in my talk page while as far as I can remember we had never crossed paths.

Wee was told by two other editors in addition to me and Langus in the RS/N that he was in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN in his attempts at removing a properly sourced sentence from an article. The sources I used are the ones directly recommended by those two editors at RS/N.

Yesterday Wee reverted 3 times and edit agreed upon by 3 different editors[106] (Langus, Churn and Change and myself)

A source which we were advised not to use by editors in the same RS/N discussion had to be removed on 3 occasions because Wee kept introducing it back to the article with every rv he made.

I tried several times to come to an agreement with Wee but he is hell-bent on keeping a properly sourced sentence out of WP and there is no middle ground: no matter what sources I or other editors present, he will immediately embark in a crusade to discredit it ("it's an Argentinian source", "it's ambiguous in its claims", "its contradicted by other sources") all based on his own WP:OR.

Wee had me blocked earlier this year accused of being a sock puppet. To this day Wee keeps accusing me of being the same person as Axel after I revealed my true identity to a WP administrator who ended up lifting the life-ban that had been imposed to my account. What else can I possibly do?? I've created two scientific articles about a topic that was missing from WP (Thin disk and Thick disk) and have two more in the same area in the making[107] Nothing will convince him that me and Axel are not the same person and he will keep attacking me on that grounds.

Let me try to put this as simple as I can. This is the sentence Wee is determined to keep out of WP and which sparkled this whole mess:

"Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British."

The first source was advised to both of us to be used at the RS/N discussion (anybody can go and check this). The second source says verbatim: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833.". Wee contests this source saying that "The comment here is just moving the goalposts"[108]. The third one is an article by an author who was also recommended at the RS/N as a trusted source[109]

My addition of this statement backed by those sources to the article was reverted 3 times by Wee yesterday. He routinely behaves as if he WP:OWNED several articles and as if his was the last word on the matter: I don't agree so it doesn't get consensus.

He will accuse me and Langus of WP:TAG teaming because we both agree that the sentence should be present in WP as does a third editor (Churn and Change), who recommended that much at the RS/N.

Wee accuses me of "getting bolder" when it was him who breached the 3RR yesterday by constantly reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 different editors.

"He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is", this is just a petty and untrue accusation. Several articles are related through the Falklands issue and Wee edits in all of them. Please take a look at my history[110] where you will find that 99% of my exchanges with Wee have taken place solely at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. Aside from that one I have only collaborated in this one (Self-determination) and made two comments in the talk page of the Arana-Southern Treaty article long ago. That is all. Does this really count as me following Wee "all over wikipedia"?? Gaba p (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The opposite is true insofar as the "following all over Wikipedia" and Gaba's contributions provide the proof as I pointed out above. Gaba would like everyone to feel he is being persecuted when in fact he has been the persecutor and has has the help of User:Langus-TxT to help him at every opportunity - an editor that he knows full well also has a previous history with Wee and a careful review of his contributions [[111]] as well as his talk page remarks on the Falkland articles and his personal talk page and most recently here: [[112]] where he inserts himself into remarks that did not concern him, indicates a clear pattern as a tag-team participant with Gaba, at least to this veteran editor. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx I have no desire of anyone feeling that I'm being persecuted, it's you and Wee who are accusing me of persecuting him. As I said before, if one edits in almost any article related to the Falklands issue (as I have in only two of them) one is bound to come across Wee since he edits in virtually all of them (I restrain from saying literally because I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it would be hard for anyone to come up with an article in WP about the Falklands that Wee isn't involved in)

Also, I find it funny to say the least how you are currently accusing Langus of not being involved in this current episode[113] and yet here you are. You, who I have never crossed paths before as far as I can remember prior to your out-of-nowhere attack in my talk page[114] (please point me to where we have if I'm mistaken), are right now defending Wee in a matter you were not involved in, in any of its ramifications (ie: the Self-determination article which you didn't edit, RS/N, DR/N, Ben MacDui's talk page[115], etc...) I have no problem with you defending Wee but, wouldn't you say you're being a tad hypocritical? Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba doesn't collaborate, he accuses someone of WP:OR and WP:SYN constantly and does not enter a discussion to find consensus, this is his mechanism to ignore any occasion when someone raises a quite reasonable point in talk. He accuses editors of lying rather than entering a discussion to find consensus. I am not proposing to discuss content at WP:ANI, which is about user behaviour, but there was a good reason given for reverting him and his dismissal as WP:OR and WP:SYN is not a reasonable response. I did not break WP:3RR, I gave an informative summary why I was reverting you and I raised it at WP:RSN, which is the latest place chosen to move the discussion. Unfortunately an editor at RSN forgot WP:BEANS and has given User:Gaba p another idea for disruptive and tendentious editing.

I end up in the classic dilemna faced by many productive editors at wikipedia who cares about WP:NPOV, when faced by an editor who won't discuss an edit in talk, who insists on bulldozing material into an article pushing a nationalist agenda of asking myself whether I should revert or not. If you examine User:Gaba p and User:Langus-TxT's edits they're not about improving wikipedia, they're about forcing what they refer to as the Argentine POV into articles. They're just getting more sophisticated about how they go about it.

You won't find me being uncivil to either and the last time this came up at an RFC an editor commented that my edits were fair and meticulously sourced [116], whilst Langus reverted cited edits without any real rationale. I've been hounded for a year. Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two, I have to take every edit round the boards to get 3rd party input. Really its beyond a joke. I can almost predict what will happen here, there'll be a load of tendentious arguments obscuring the real issues, Langus and Gaba will make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against me and in the end nothing will happen. They'll continue doing makin life unpleasant here until I quit. Its exactly situations like this that is why wikipedia is losing productive content editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, it is you who doesn't care about consensus. As I have pointed out already you reverted 3 times and edit that was agreed upon by 3 editors because you didn't agree with it.

You keep accusing me of being tendentious while it is you who is trying to keep a thoroughly sourced sentence out of WP by any means necessary. How am I bulldozing an edit that was agreed upon by at least 3 editors Wee? I'd say that it's actually you who are bulldozing said sentence out of WP, based (as was told to you not only by Langus and I but by two other editors at RS/N[117]) in your WP:OR and WP:SYN.

"Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two", Wee you know very well the opposite is actually true. In fact, it's the whole reason we are here now: because you reverted 3 times an edit agreed by 3 editors.

I have no desire of Wee being blocked (and of course no desire of being blocked myself), I just need Wee to stop acting like he WP:OWNED those articles he is involved in and accept that every once in a while other editors can and will make contributions to them and, though he may not personally agree with such edits, that is not a valid reason to remove them. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you two now please stop continuing your fight on this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wee has just said above, this is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia. I can say as a careful observer on the article edit history and the article talk pages that Gaba has been the obstructionist in this case and it seems that sadly, he just will say anthing it seems to keep an argument going. It seems that Wikipedia is just a "game" for him. I do not say that lightly. His language and his edits, especially on the Self-determination article, but elsewhere also, seem to indicate that he is not at all interested in the furtherance or the quality of the article, but to just continue the reverts and not discuss substance. I wanted to edit on the article but could see what was happening. It discourages other editor when they see this. It is really too bad, but something needs to be done to convince Gaba that Wikipedia is not a video game- the prime directive to outmaneuver and frustrate ones' opponent. I have been here on Wikipedia for some time and if there is one thing I have learned early (as most editors do) it is to differentiate the well-intentioned editors from the others. If proof is needed then it is here and in the article pages I have mentioned. Mugginsx (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, your recent vicious attacks at me have me baffled. You are the first editor to accuse me of more wrong-doing that Wee (and that is an amazing feat) What can I say in my defense if you have already uncovered the truth? Clearly this is a game to me, that's why I've put in so many hours trying to improve an article with a sentence that keeps getting reverted by Wee. Surely that's why I fought tooth and nail for over a month to have my account back when I was wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet to the point that I gave away my right to anonymity[118]. Right? One would say that an editor that takes WP as a game would have just let that account die and made another one. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a kid who thinks WP is a video-game. Cheers man.

Fut.Perf. yes, understood. I will only write here again if my input is requested. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not been told I cannot edit here so I will answer as best I can. I wanted to contribute on that Falkslands related article. I took some time to research with the idea of inserting a constructive paragraph into Self-determination, which perhaps would also go into the sister article. What I saw there were two editors, both of whom have past beefs with editor Wee, tag-teaming him on purpose. How do I know this? Because I have been here a long time and because it is obvious to anyone who looks. I tried to approach you on this and you sent what I took to be a vicious email back to me. That matter has been resolved by an administrator and I will mention no further. The reverts of Wees work were discussed openly and honestly by one editor only, namely Wee. He presented argument with links which I looked up myself and found to be valid in my opinion. They were said to be false links or not good enough or one sided or pro-British or WP:OR anything that you and your team member could think of and the variety of your answers and the complete failure to have a civil conversation about the same edit showed to me that you were not sincere. I found those links with no trouble. Why couldn't you? No, there was something else going on there and perhaps it is really over this perceive injustice you mention, I do not know. You mention that Wee worked on many of the articles, so far as I know that is nothing wrong or new at Wikipedia and generally shows a real interest and knowledge in the subject. When working with other good faith editors, it usually makes for excellent articles. Anyway, when I said it looked like you were "Playing games" that is because that, to my mind, is exactly what was and still is happening, only now here on this board. I don't wish you ill will but I do not think you and your friend have been acting in good faith, as a matter of act, I know it. You seem like a very angry editor as does your friend and especially angry at Wee and as you just need to be prepared that other editors have other points of view on an article and if they are well-sourced, which this one was, and do not violate real wiki guidelines, then you have to let them in. Mugginsx (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was earlier suggested by Administrator User:Ben MacDui that some links be provided here which serve to prove the accusations made by Wee, myself, and another editor. Here are some that I found:

See [119], [120], [121]. [122], [123],[124], [125], [126]. All examples of the same tendentious editing by User:Gaba p. His constantly treats present historical events as just a British claim. Referring to the talk page Wee shows that sources of all nationalities confirm the same series of events, original eye witness accounts of all nationalities agree. He has never produced a source to back this up see WP:DRN#Self-determination, when asked his response is to accuse Wee of WP:OR and WP:SYN and not answer.

[127] An example of a typical response to attempting to engage Gaba in a reasonable discussion. In one response Gaba accuses Wee of using talk page discussions to maintain the status quo, editing because of a dislike of Argentina, claiming all Wee's sources are "pro-British", instead of looking at the sources Wee provides, he simply accuses Wee of deciding what is fact and what is a lie. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ignoring groundless accusations from an editor I've just have met, and to whom I am suspicious as he claims to know very well my activities in WP)

These edit wars stem from the inability (or unwillingness) of Wee Curry Monster to correctly interpret the advice of knowledgeable editors, together with his "not-give-an-inch" behavior and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude when he believes he's right (possibly always).

In this particular case, two times uninvolved editors have told WCM to attribute the statements and not incur in original research: this NPOVN thread three months ago, and this recent one at WP:RSN. But, as you can see from the comments in both threads, he just isn't prepared to accept he's wrong.

In the last three reverts by WCM to the article, you can see he's pushing in the source Key to an Enigma, by Oliveri López. If you took the time to read through the last NPOVN thread, you should know that Lopez was recommended to be avoided, but that instead Risman could and should[128][129][130] be used. Attitudes like these are the ones that cause an edit war.

Also note that WCM did broke the 3RR rule: [131][132][133][134]
And he nearly did so again yesterday: [135][136][137]

An example of WCM fighting till the end an edit backed by the majority can be found here (please note the reactions at subsection Enough when WCM accuses of TAG-TEAMING). This Thatcher issue led to a Mediation Cabal case which, despite the remarkable well-played role of the mediator, ended up in nothing. If you read the article now, the "Leaders" section of the infobox is missing.

Another example of his intransigence: an administrator tells him to be careful with accusations of vandalism, and he merely dismisses his advice.

Finally, I'd like to point out that insinuations of socket-puppetry in discussions like this are completely unacceptable. I've been victim of this harassment by WCM for a year or so, till he finally seemed to stop after a discussion at Wikiquette Assistance (do note how he ends up fighting the volunteer).
Or maybe it was just a coincidence, I don't really know given how he refused to acknowledge the opinions there. --Langus (t) 03:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Constant disruptive edits

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

---

Richmond College (Sri Lanka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richmond College (Sri_Lanka) has been maintained by me (Ananda DIas-Jayasinha) for sometime. This is about the history of my alma mater and I have updated it regularly when ever I found supporting information from Methodist Mission records. It may be difficult for someone in USA or England the attitude of people in the East. The history has been up until about year ago is that Richmond started in 1876 where as factually it was started in 1814 as an English School by the pioneering Missionaries. I wrote to the Newspapers and they too published the article giving the history. I find as of day before yesterday the page is being changed by several people altering historical facts. I am reproducing the amount of disruptions here below for the last 24 hours or so. I have helped several schools in Sri Lanka with their chronological history of their schools from data I found when researching for the history of Richmond and it took me almost five years to read through more than 300 documents. Can you please BLOCK any others from editing this page? I need to add some more info but is holding back because of the constant disruptions. Thank You Ananda Dias-Jayasinha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananda Dias-Jayasinha (talk • contribs)

" Can you please BLOCK any others from editing this page"? No. Absolutely not. See WP:OWN. Nobody has exclusive rights to edit an article. And then refer to the multiple policies this article violates. For a start, it cites no sources whatsoever - so we have no way to tell whether your version or the alternate one is correct. Furthermore it isn't written in a remotely encyclopaedic style: "Richmond College is now a well-established institution with a reputation as one of the finest schools in Sri Lanka" - it may well be, but we don't say such things in Wikipedia's voice, particularly without evidence. With regard to the edit-warring going on over the article, I'd suggest that you all read WP:3RR - there have been multiple violations - and then (a) find some sources to support your viewpoints, followed by (b) discussing the issues on the article talk pages. You may well have plenty of time to find sources, as I suspect that blocks for edit-warring will be handed out all round shortly - and full page protection so none of you can edit might well follow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I also share my own thoughts on this? Aside from OWN, the fact that a supposed graduate of the school created the article and tries to stop other people from editing smacks of COI and NPOV as well. To the article creator: I hate to say it, but what I just said perfectly describes your actions.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted the article to a pre-edit war version and protected it from editting. Go to the talk page and resolve your dispute. WilyD 15:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All I can say is I agree 100% with Andy, and someone else has already full protected the page to prevent anyone from editing, which is a much better solution than blocking in this particular case. Focus on getting sources and let them prove your case for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion, as it looks like a lot of puffery for a foreign primary school. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And how far outside your perimeter fence does "foreign" start? Arjayay (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that the article is halfway accurate, it's also a secondary school, and it's nearly 200 years old. So on the face of it, it probably deserves an article. But yes, WP:OWN, and all that. And now, doubtless, WP:WRONGVERSION. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A cursory search with Google Books suggests it flies past WP:N, but if someone's insistant, they can start an AfD, and I (or someone else) will add the note through protection. WilyD 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Be sure to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, too. The best Wikipedia articles cite a reliable source for every fact. It is essential you understand our sourcing policy too: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Isn't it obvious this is a clearly inexperienced user who has no clue how WP works? Don't we all know that the morass of WP policies are a nightmare to navigate for a new user? The user only got the usual "welcome" links today from WilyD. What's the point in jumping down his throat with aggressive responses as if he's deliberately flouting our rules (which are often counter-intuitive)? He needs to decent advice not treated like some criminal miscreant. Hopeless. DeCausa (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not obvious to me what you're looking for here. Obviously inexperienced users is why twenty reverts today got a page protection rather than a fistful of blocks. Linking relevant policies and guidelines is (I think) a good place to start (indeed, it's why I dropped {{welcome}} templates on them - because it links to helpful places. There're enough eyes now, I think, to answer any questions. What else? WilyD 15:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what you (WilyD) did was exactly right. I was despairing at the over-the-top reaction from most of the other posts (excepting Anthonyhcole) which is typical of AN/I. DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indenting it like it was a response to Anthonyhcole is probably what confused me, then. WilyD 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If we are concerned about the editor, likely, the best course of action is helping them on their talk page, to explain some basics about sourcing. This would actually make a difference. In this case WilyD did *exactly* the right thing in not blocking because there is no question their faith was good, even if their methods and experience are lacking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Francis Bacon

User:Jon C. is continuously removing well cited content in favour of his own original research. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like both of you are edit-warring in the article starting on September 18 with your adding/changing content to the article. You said you were "restoring cited content", but I don't know what you mean by that. Jon refers to a talk page consensus, but I'm not sure what he's referring to as the talk page hasn't been edited since July. One of you should open a discussion on the talk page. I almost locked the article based on its recent history - and another admin is welcome to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I was restoring cited content, as my description had six references. This was removed by Jon C in favour of his own uncited description.

There's no right way to describe Bacon. You have to figure it out on the talk page. If you know about Bacon, and I assume you do, you'll know "Irish-born British" is not wrong, neither is what you said "described as both Irish and British", neither is saying that Dublin was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time etc etc. Talk pages are there to figure things like this out. Have look through the previous discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But would we describe an English painter as "English-born British"? "Irish-born British" implies he was a Briton who just happened to have been born in Ireland. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 89.100.207.51 for 2 weeks because of repeated removal of the material at the top of the talk page identifying the ISP, how to respond to vandalism, and the recently added abuse template. This address has a long list of blocks, the most recent being in August for one week. If another admin disagrees with the block, feel free to adjust or unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The page as it stands now is a stable version that was previously agreed upon by a discussion on the article's talk page. I am not, as Bbb23 has suggested, adding or removing anything, merely reverting to this stable version and imploring the IP, per BRD, to open a new discussion rather than edit-warring. As soon as that new discussion has been opened I'll participate, but I'm not going to let him just steamroller his own version through. — Jon C.^ॐ 19:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, violations of talk page guidelines by Fowler&fowler

Re: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Fowler&fowler has been persistently violating talk page guidelines, with uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Repeated request to Fowler&fowler to stop uncivil behavior have so far failed.

[A]. On September 20th, I made specific suggestions to improve the article Caste on its talk page: Ex1 - per talk page and RfC guidelines. My suggestions were:

1. Summarize all sides of significant and mainstream scholarly literature. [...delete rest for brevity...]

2. Casual use of word caste by any published source, once or twice, is an unacceptable basis to include that source in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

3. We will consider the following as adequate basis to consider including a mention or summary in this article: multiple secondary sources discuss caste in a country / region / culture, and one or more reliable tertiary source include this mention.

4. Substantive discussion of caste in a society by multiple secondary sources, in sociology/anthropology/cultural and similar scholarly fields, suggest such sources will be considered for inclusion in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

5. Scholarly published secondary and tertiary literature from around the world, on caste, are acceptable and welcome.

Fowler&fowler’s replied with a personal attack, which took the following form: ‘As Fifelfoo has said, you don’t have competence to write this article.’ See Ex2. A review of the discussion proves, Fifelfoo criticized the article, but did not attack any wikipedia user with those words. See this comments section. Fowler&fowler misquoted and misrepresented another wiki user, to launch a personal attack.

Mitigating factors: In fairness to Fowler&fowler, I note that this September 21 morning, after I noted that I will seek wikipedia admin help to address the personal attack on September 20, Fowler&fowler voluntarily acknowledged and struck out the personal attack he made a day ago Ex7. Similarly, in fairness, along with personal attacks, Fowler&fowler has also welcomed my contributions and made constructive proposals recently with suggestions such as

‘user:ApostleVonColorado should rewrite 3. and 4.’ - Fowler&fowler, 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See Ex8. I assume from this that Fowler&fowler is capable of respecting and welcoming constructive contributions from other wiki users such as me. These mitigating corrective actions and constructive suggestions are offset by the unrelenting, counter-productive attacks and uncivil behavior from Fowler&fowler. See below.

[B]. The uncivil behavior by Fowler&fowler is not limited to one instance. It is repetitive and persistent. See for example Ex3 with this cleaner version where he impersonated me, and see Ex4, as two examples. Fowler&fowler persistent attacks and violation of talk page guidelines are of concern because this triggers counter-productive responses from other users. I am concerned because both talk page guidelines and RfC guidelines remind us that our goal should be to improve the article, discuss suggestions for the article, build consensus, assume good faith and welcome input from all users to help improve the article. Systematic abuse of talk page guidelines discourages me and other potential users from participating with constructive contributions.

[C]. The attacks by Fowler&fowler are not limited to one user. On September 17th, Fowler&fowler attacked a new wiki User:Hoshigaki, someone who has been contributing well researched, constructive, through and a detailed response to an RfC, currently in progress on Talk:Caste. Fowler&fowler wrote,

‘Hoshigaki, You are doing this again. I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.’

See Ex5. Once again, such personal attacks are an unacceptable behavior.

[D] The incivility and violations of talk page guidelines are not limited to talk page of one article, Talk:Caste. It extends to Talk:India. For example, Fowler&fowler had used the talk page of India as a forum with comments, irrelevant to improving the article, such as,

‘[...]....casts its one vote, half to Mrt3366 and other half to RegentsPark as the next President of Wikipedia. Let's throw that Jimbo guy out. I will now be going down to the bar to order a Vodka Martini.’ - Fowler&fowler, 14:30, 6 September 2012

See Ex6. That is an irrelevant, frivolous and disruptive forum-like comment on an article's talk page.

[E]. In summary, Fowler&fowler has persistently violated the following talk page guidelines:

1. Personal attacks
2. Misrepresenting another user
3. Impersonating me and creating a section ‘Comment by ApostleVonColorado’ without my permission or knowledge
4. Using the talk page as forum

I request an appropriate review of the facts, followed by appropriate action to address unacceptable behavior by user Fowler&fowler.

Please note that this request is about a user conduct. It is not a commentary, nor is it a content dispute about the article Caste or any other. Others and I have already acknowledged and agreed that the article needs rework, has serious flaws, some sections need to be removed, some rewritten and that the article can be significantly improved. Polite and article-focussed discussion, not personal attacks, is a way to rapidly improving the article. Above all, any wikipedia article regardless of how good or poorly written it is, gives no one the right to be uncivil and to repeatedly personally attack other wikipedia users. No one has the right to harass and attack others regardless of whether they are a new user or have many years of experience on wikipedia. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't finished looking over all of this, but as a note to the humor-impaired; Example 6 is what's known as a joke. It plays upon the tropes of hyperbole and facetiousness. I'll finish looking over this, but it seems obvious to me that was meant as a deliberately hyperbolic comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler has been doing his level best to handle a group of tendentious filibusterers, of which you are one. In particular, dealing with your insistent TLDR essays is an absolute frustration, and not just for him. I've very nearly blown up on a couple of occasions when discussing things with you and the others on article talk pages, so it is no surprise to me if someone else actually has done so. As long as you continue in your ways, I think that you'll have to roll with the consequences - it is not a one-way street. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I'm finished with this. ApostleVonColorado, a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them as much as express amazement at how long it took to get to that point. I'm thinking now about instituting a topic ban for you under the discretionary sanctions in place, I'll come back to this in a couple hours so I don't make a knee-jerk decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Fowler has breached civility on Wikipedia, there were more than two editors who were discussing on the talk page but I am sure there are more than two editors who felt that Fowler had crossed the limits. It is not at all surprising to see Sitush making such a comment but what is more surprising is The Blade of the Northern Lights saying a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them --sarvajna (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is my comment "not at all surprising"? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, like The Blade said, the examples don't show me in a good light. Example 6 was indeed a joke. I was mimicking the states' roll call at the Democratic National Convention. Example 2 is not entirely accurate. I myself realized that my response was too hot-headed and before anyone replied to my post, changed it in this post. I still seem to remember that Fifelfoo had used the word "competence," but when I went back to look at his statement, I couldn't find it. In any case, he had made a pretty damning evaluation of AVC's contributions to the Caste article. As for Hoshigaki, here is the deal. Two new users appeared in the RfC. They had joined WP a few days earlier. Predictably they both opposed me. They are Hoshigaki (talk · contribs) and OrangesRYellow (talk · contribs). Hoshigaki in particular, kept misinterpreting my words, "India is central to the topic of Caste" to mean "Caste is central to the topic of India," he also kept misinterpreting the adjective "central" to mean "unique." So, he repeatedly replied "Cast is not unique to India or Hinduism" or "Caste is not the central social topic in India today." When this happened the third or the fourth time, I became frustrated and replied in the post AVC has cited above. The problem as I see it is simple. The major tertiary sources are unanimous in stating that India is central to any discussion of caste. The major tertiary sources spend 75 to 100% of their content discussing India. Yet we have a Wikipedia article which (especially after AVC's edits in Feb and March this year) spends 80% of its content discussing caste in Europe, Latin America, Africa, East Asia, .... It has sections, "Caste in Finland, " "Caste in Sweden," "Caste in England," "Caste in Ireland," ... Although AVC is always polite, and never fails to cite WP policy on polite behavior, he nonetheless subtly subverts the RfC process by writing vague, general, essay-length responses, which are difficult to respond to. He produced some tertiary sources of his own to support the extra-India emphasis in the article. The first one had a general sounding abstract. The abstract was all that was available on the web (unless of course you had access or subscription). I managed to get the pdf of the article. It was written by the Indian sociologist Veena Das. Despite its general abstract, it turned out to be entirely about India. I suspected then (and still do) that AVC looked at the abstract and thought it would support his POV, but didn't read the rest of the article. When I said so to him, he became upset. But the question still remains: if your first tertiary source is entirely about India, how are you writing an article 80% of which is not about India? The more long-term background to the Caste or caste-related articles is that it has been the stomping ground of nationalists. In fact it no coincidence that the second most prolific contributor to Caste system in India and Caste articles (after AVC) is none other than Hkelkar (talk · contribs) the notorious Hindu nationalist sock master. One of the favorite tacks of the nationalists when editing articles about India's perceived social ills (not just Caste, but also Bride burning, Dowry etc. is to universalize them; in other words, to have little sections on Pakistan, Nepal, .... and to mention India casually as just one among the crowd. Whether this is AVC's motivation or not, his edits have certainly served that purpose. He had made similar edits to Culture of India, where "caste" etc have been swept under "Perceptions of India." Anyway, I have to take our cat to the vet. So this all I have to say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PS. I've got to get this in too: most of the abstract discussion of caste has taken place historically around the paradigmatic example of Hindu India. All the great theorists of Caste, Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil, G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, M. N. Srinivas, F. G. Bailey, Louis Dumont, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, McKim Marriott, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, Andre Beteille, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart, and others have theorized in the context of Hinduism and India. Even the one anthropologist, Gerald Berreman, who during the 50s, 60s, and early 70s advocated the comparative approach to caste, for which he has been cited a dozen times in the Caste article, has spent most of his lifetime working on India. It is that sort of history this article is flying in the face of. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And it is interesting that sarvajna has been contributing both to the discussion there and here, given their past support for such notorious characters as MangoWong (talk · contribs), Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), all of whom have favoured a revisionist, nationalist Hindutva depiction of Indian society and history. Sarvajna does more good than those people, but the presence actually reinforces Fowler's analysis. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(multi ec) As Sitush says, Fowler has been dealing more or less single handedly with long tendentious posts on the article in question and, in my opinion, has been doing this patently and above and beyond the call of duty. If he's blown up a couple of times, it is worth looking at the many other times that he hasn't blown up and to look at his willingness to compromise, even when he doesn't necessarily agree with the outcome. AVC would be better served if he/she took a good, long hard at his own editing style, one that is exemplified by the long and tedious complaint above. Topic banning AVC would be an ideal way to implement the discretionary sanctions recently placed on India related articles. --regentspark (comment) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think a 6 month ban on AVC from Caste and the associated discussions would be perfect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That would probably require extension to related articles, eg: Caste in India. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That, in my view, would be a good resolution, but then I'm not exactly a disinterested party. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's too much stuff for me to look at in detail, but AVC's support of User:Hoshigaki clearly put him in the (in)famous guy's enablers camp. Although AVC himself is quite polite, the good cop/bad cop routine can wear down many good people. So AVC & friends need to give the area a break. Or be given one. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, anything we apply to AVC should also be applied to Hoshigaki; barring objections, I'll implement them tomorrow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Hoshigaki at all, but as far as the rest of the discussion goes, while the major problem is at Caste, it is not restricted to the article, but rather to the topic, so any discretionary sanctions will need to cover the topic area and not just the one article in question. This is covered by both the community imposed sanctions (WP:GS/Caste) and the India related arbcom sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Blade of Northern Lights - What is my crime? Look at my contribution history (or talk to Fiflefoo) and you will find I have only brought scholarly sources to the discussion which weaken Fowler's centrality argument. Fowler was deliberately attacking my English skills because reliable sources brought by me clearly indicated that centrality of caste to India can be intrepeted either way. Exact quote provided by me:

From another source cited by Fowler (Berreman, Gerald D. (2008), Caste, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences):

Among social scientists, and especially among those who have worked in India, there are basically two views: (1) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India or at least to south Asia; (2) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features which are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well. Those who hold the latter view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, north Africa, east Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America, and the contemporary United States. Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes.

Anyway if you decide to ban me for 6 months, go ahead, I have no interest in editing Wikipedia if this is how it works. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hoshigaki, Please don't cite incorrectly. The Berreman article is from the 1968 edition of that encyclopedia. I have said both in my list (see reference 16) and at least once in conversation with you that that reference has been superseded by the 2008 edition of the encyclopedia in which the article on "Caste" is written by someone else and devotes 80% of its content to India. Berreman represented a trend current in the 1950s and 60s; even then it was a minority opinion. It has long been discarded by anthropologists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I give up. My crime is to have gone through all accessible sources presented by Fowler in support of his argument (such as the above source) and pointed out internal contradictions in them. When I succeeded with that, Fowler now wants to discard the source. He or she originally used this source as one from 2008 (and thus acceptable since it was from within the last 25 years - a time limit set by Fowler himself unilaterally). This is deceitful behavior. I have never seen such treachery. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well please read the article "caste" in the 2008 edition (my reference 7) How much space does it devote to India? And how much to other countries? And the first of those is just caste practices of the Indian indentured laborer immigrants in the West Indies. Here is what it says about Berreman (the author of the 1968 article): "... purely on the grounds of universal practices of discrimination based on ascription, scholars such as Gerald Berreman (1960; 1972) have attempted to compare American blacks to untouchable castes in India. However, the black-white dichotomous system in the United States differs from the fourfold caste system in India in that it is ordained not by religious considerations, but by economic and social ones (Cox 1948)." Anyway, I have to go to bed now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have never seen such treachery, perhaps a perusal of Idi Amin, Ne Win, or Than Shwe will give you some perspective. I'm only saying what the most beneficial solution is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's use of rollback

Apparently he used it in the recent content dispute [138]. He should be warned not to use it that way. I haven't investigated Fowler&fowler use of the right further back. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I used it because Hoshigaki had been told that the references were the correct ones and there had been a week long discussion on it just before Hoshigaki appeared on WP ten days ago. He chose nonetheless to make the edits in an FA which has a long tradition of discussing changes on the talk page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the archives by searching for Fowler and rollback. The first link I found shows Fowler has misused rollback in the past. I did not explore further links. This ist he link I found: [139] Hoshigaki (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look at the history (and search the cites source), they will find that the source Fowler was referring to indeed did not support the content it was cited against. That's why I added a new, more accurate source in its place. It turned out that the source was cited at the wrong place. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a blatant misuse of rollback, and I would support removal of the rights, especially in view of the previous incident. Rollback is for vandalism/spam only, and for curbing "widespread disruption", none of which apply here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please remove it. I'm unlikely to go about cleaning spam etc anyway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cal Rein

• Cal Rein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Powerstorm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Eyephoto08 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Webmaster7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There is some mess of WP:OTRS and WP:BLP concerns here. The three accounts above are almost certainly some sort of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT situation. There are apparently OTRS tickets involved (see talkpage) and this AIV report...I'm logging off but this probably needs some eyes to figure out whether it's a page that should be deleted or to levy blocks as appropriate. — Scientizzle 18:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've fully locked the article (for 3 days) and restored it to the 5/28/12 version by Graeme Bartlett (when he applied move protection). More work may need to be done, but the history is so awful, it's hard to sort out. Webmaster was blocked a long time ago. Powerstorm and Eyephoto08 should probably also be blocked but I haven't done so. I have no access to OTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Might want to raise an SPI. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

OTRS has been alerted to this matter through several tickets, and for the record, they are #2012091310000927 (handled by The Rambling Man, also see his talk page) and OTRS#2011102310000747 (which I handled). As you're aware, OTRS correspondence is confidential, but in this case reading the e-mails is no prerequisite to understanding the matter.

Furthermore, there is a RfD on Commons, which was speedily closed on my request. Lastly, I've warned Powerstorm against disruptive activity on his/her talk page.

1. Powerstorm is a one trick pony account almost exclusively dedicated to wreaking havoc on the Cal Rein article by removing substantial parts of it,[140], replacing the page with nonsense content[141] or outright blanking it[142] as can bee seen on the user's contribution page.
2. Additionally, the user has attempted to have the article speedily removed, then marked it for deletion (though without making an AfD request) when that was refused.[143]
3. In the course of these "edits", the user has claimed or admitted to have previously been known as User:Webmaster7, an indefinitely blocked account that was also making disruptive edits to the same article. (Same link as above)
4. Also, the user has tried to have an image with a valid license deleted (by, amongst other actions) removing the OTRS ticket tag from the image page. There, too, the user claims to have been known as Webmaster7. As mentioned above, I had the request closed immediately.

Consequently, I request the user be indefinitely blocked (again).

The activities by User:Eyephoto08, which were new to me until this ANI, also seem to be of the same disruptive nature as Powerstorm's, and I suspect we're dealing with sockpuppets. Furthermore, I suspect this is a case of cyberstalking.

Lastly, as to the question of Cal Rein/Carlo Giardina: The actor used the name Giardina for a very short period, while all his major work has been done as Cal Rein. There is no indication whatsoever that he plans to use the name Giardina in his future endeavours. IMDb lists him as "Cal Rein".[144] Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 20:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Asav, has it been established whether Powerstorm is or isn't Cal Rein, as he claims?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer that. I'm an OTRS guy, I don't have checkuser tools. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would willingly admit to being a permamently blocked user. (Addendum: I have absolutely no reason to assume that this user is indeed Cal Rein, again, I suspect a cyberstalker.) Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I just blocked Powerstorm for one week for admitting abusing multiple accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• I have created a SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley

Regarding: Elliott Miles McKinley, I was attempting a review and saw irregularities that need an Administrator review. This may be all above board, but it is not clear to me what has happened. There was a deletion discussion that is closed as delete then the same deletion discussion listed as keep on the article. Then some moves and relisting as a new article. Please see discussion at: Talk:Elliott Miles McKinley. This should be handled by administrators. Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I came across it too and asked for admin help. There was only one discussion and that was to delete. The article was re-created. I asked an admin to see the deleted version and compare with the new version before I put it up for CSD. I'm running out of admins that will help. I see this about once every three days and I guess people are getting tired of my requests. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any deleted versions of the article. The whole history of the article is visible to everyone. It was deleted in July 2011 as the result of this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Miles McKinley. It was then userfied by Timotheus Canens on 18 Sept 2012. Then on 21 September Timotheus Canens history merged the article and moved it back into the article space. This was the version that was deleted. GB fan 22:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was recreated as a result of a deletion review dated september 6th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.147.168 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_September_6#Elliott_Miles_McKinley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.147.168 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

User talk:Sakimonk turned the discussion personal and began to personally attack me on Talk:Wahhabi he then proceeded to join discussions im involved in Talk:Al-Ahbash and he also began to edit the article Al-Ahbash..is this not wikihounding can an admin step in here? Baboon43 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Providing diffs would be helpful. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

this [145] [146] [147] & [148] Baboon43 (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe Baboon43 is turning the tables on me. The reality is that Wahhabi has been heavily under attack by editors with a sectarian agenda for the past several months by various sockpuppeteers generally called "WikitruthsX", "Theone", "Thetruththeone", organometalic etc. I myself along with User:Pass a Method, User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Mark Arsten to mention a few have persistently been dealing with this problem (the trend was that there would be a message similar to the one posted by Baboon43 [149] [150] claiming "wahhabi" to be the root of terrorism, heretics etc. with no empirical evidence whatsoever, simply wild accusations in the exact same fashion before the page would be littered frantically wiping out blocks of text and so on, hence why I was alarmed yet again). I simply got fed up with yet another person launching a personally driven / faith based / sectarian argument against the Wahhabi movement whilst providing absolutely no verifiable, peer reviewed sources. I admit anger got the best of me since I was being accused of "pushing an agenda" I decided to scan through this fellow's edits and found out that he in fact clearly is pushing an agenda since he was persistently rev-warring over the Ahbash page with McKhan (who by the way had entirely sourced edits from Oxford univeristy Press and Oxford academic professors and so on) as opposed to a blissful representation of the Habashi sect / group / movement whatever you wish to call it founded in the 1980's. I am NOT a wahhabi however I strongly believe in giving everyone a fair, non-biased representation on Wikipedia which apparently is meant to be an entirely academic source not a space for everyone to advertise their group, product, brand etc. I was simply trying to explain to Mr Baboon43 that not everything in the real world works in black and white, most things have good and bad. I clearly stated he is welcome to add any content he wishes so long as it meets the criteria necessary.

Let me provide some differentials;

Here is Baboon43 accusing me of having an agenda after I posted an article written by the Tunisian president, whom he attacked as being a "wahhabi scholar" (lol), and in return I (yes I admit) became quite angry and responded that he in fact had the "agenda" and went on to clearly state any edits are welcome so long as they are verifiable and not based on hatred / sectarianism / extremism / faith based etc. [151]

During my scanning of his user contributions to investigate as to whether he was involved in any rev-wars / arguments / pushing false information etc. I discovered his persistent attack on User:McKhan, whom provided an excellently sourced number of edits which were being persistently wiped out by Baboon.

Please I implore you to have a look at the two versions, I personally went out of my way to please Baboon to stop him from rev-warring by making a composite article of the two versions, but alas to no avail. Baboon's rev warring to which I corrected, only to be accused of "personally hounding him" (a bizarre accusation since this is one instance of clear commotion that I simply wished to set aright) [152] reverting once [153] twice [154] reverting thrice

and so on, I am clearly not hounding him because this is one instance and in fact I am concerned for the quality of the article since information being CLEARLY CENSORED is directly from academic, non biased sources as opposed to the version Baboon wishes which is heavily skewed in favour of the group being detailed as opposed to being neutral (honestly have a look at the information he is removing [155] there is absolutely no justifiable basis for this), I say the truth is Baboon43 not only violates WP:NPOV guidelines he is also clearly rev-warring on that page.Sakimonk ^talk 23:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe sakimonk has joined discussion only to inflame the situation by choosing sides. seeing that he admits he was angry over a discussion on another talk page..the user mckhan whom he accuses me of reverting has been blocked for a month very recently and has failed to get consensus also im not the only one that reverts his edits..sakimonks personal attacks and hounding warrants a block. Baboon43 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

For those that haven't seen it, this article has been discussed here before. Sakimonk, you said "...during my scanning of his user contributions to investigate as to whether he was involved in any rev-wars...", where you then purposely took up the other side of the dispute after looking through his contribs for any disputes...that is wikihounding. "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Following someone's contribs may be used for correcting unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy but I don't see anything unambiguous here, otherwise someone watching the two AN/I discussions, three related sockpuppet investigations, half a dozen 3RR reports and the multiple discussions on the article's talk page would have made some mention of it. - SudoGhost 00:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can argue about wikihounding even if he did follow the user to one article with bad intent. In addition, it seems that Sakimonk genuinely did feel that Baboon43 was inserting wrong information, and was acting in good faith to prevent that from continuing. (I'm not making a judgement on the content here.) —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  00:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sakimonk admitted to going through Baboon43's contribs for the sole purpose of looking for disputes, and then jumped into a dispute solely because Baboon43 was involved. That is the definition of wikihounding. If it were an issue of looking through contribs for unambiguous policy violations then that would be completely different but that isn't the case here. Thinking another editor is "wrong" is not an exception to wikihounding, otherwise the policy on wikihounding might as well not exist. Most disputes generally involve someone thinking another editor is inserting wrong information. - SudoGhost 00:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Sakimonk admitted to going through Baboon43's contribs for the sole purpose of looking for disputes" this is a fabrication, I was looking through user contribs as I am entitled to simply to find out if the user was a previous offender. I "jumped in" because I mistakenly thought Baboon43 was rev-warring with McKhan who's edits appeared to be quite well sourced. I didn't realise there was a previous controversy. Perhaps read through my explanation of the events again because I don't recall saying anything of the sort.Sakimonk ^talk 00:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And you'll notice that the description of wikihounding uses the word “multiple”, etc. Wikihounding is a pattern of behavior, not a single incident. It's erroneous to accuse someone of hounding because they followed one thread.

BTW, looking through McKhan's talk page, it's clear this war has been going on for more than seven years. I suggest that anyone taking action here should spend more than a couple of minutes trying to understand it first. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  00:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what you mean by I inserted wrong information when i have yet to edit the article which sakimonk seems to think ill be a future vandal. Baboon43 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I am very happy to completely drop the issue if it is such a problem, I simply can't understand the reason why McKhan's edits are being censored since they, on the face of it, appear quite verifiable. This has nothing to do with a personal disagreement with Mr Baboon43, I couldn't care less for the fellow - I simply assumed he was threatening to vandalise the page wahhabi and checked his edits to see if he was a vandal, came across him reverting 13,000 or so characters and immediately thought it was ill intent since the information being censored appears to be quite verifiable. That is all. :) Sakimonk ^talk 00:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Ahbash should be thoroughly vetted by someone who has the time, I am no longer interested in engaging in edits since it appears my editing rights are threatened due to a previous run in with the chief instigator on that page *sigh*. Sakimonk ^talk 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to retire from Wikipedia, I have tried my utmost to rectify Islamic articles on Wikipedia and I believe I have done as much as I possibly can however I find that editing on wikipedia is giving me a lot of stress and I am constantly checking my watchlist and receiving emails with notifications from other users and having pontless drawn out conversations on the global encyclopedia around the clock. It's a stress factor and distraction I can do without during my studies at University - I guess this is expected. May Allah guide me and you all to the straight path and keep us firm upon it. May Allah forgive me for any of my mistakes and I apologise for any rudeness or misunderstanding, all goodness is from Allah and anything bad is from either me or shaytan. Jazakum Allahu khair. Sakimonk ^talk 03:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Campaign to eliminate American English

Virtually all of User:82.153.125.210's edits are for the purpose of eliminating American English from articles. He/she was warned on his/her talk page, and chose to remove the warning from the talk page and continue the campaign. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• EatsShootsAndLeaves (dangerous panda) added a template about MOS, I left a more specific note backing it up. This should help them to understand why their actions are disruptive. I also left then an ANI notification (see top of page in red) which is required when you report someone here. Try to remember to notify, please, regardless if they are an IP or registered user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Notification was left four minutes after this thread was created. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User:Bali ultimate reverted an edit of mine, claiming - without a shred of evidence or proof (for which there exists none) - that I am an "activist" on behalf of a certain group of people. The edit I inserted was simply an allegation that a bunch of sheep were eating dozens of trees in a night, to an article on conspiracy theories in a conflict.

The edit summary states: "there is nothing conspiratorial about settlers disruipting the olive harvets. that happens. removes deceptive claim made by settler activist."

While the first part of the edit summary deals with a content dispute over whether sheep can really eat dozens of trees in one night, the second part (the part that I bolded) is a direct personal attack on myself, without any proof, and I find it to be highly offensive. The editor, Bali Ultimate, has been around for a while and should know better, and he was even blocked as early as June for 10 days (although for a separate reason, he disrupted an ArbCom case).

While searching the archives, I found another example of Bali launching a personal attack for which he can't back up evidence, where at this AE case he accuses (as a fact) certain editors of coordinating Wikipedia activity offline. Specifically, Bali wrote "Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other)."

I find these personal attacks, which Bali writes as definitive facts without zero proof (and I know, for one, that I'm not a "settler activist"), highly offensive and troubling to encounter.

--Activism1234 21:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to explain why being called a "settler activist" might be considered a personal attack - I see it as a mistaken (based on your explanation) assumption that you're part of a group based on the type of edits being made. Perhaps you could point me to where you tried to discuss the meaning of the phrase with Bali directly so I can have a look? dangerouspanda 21:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a defamation of my name. Now, I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, I'm actually an activist (who knows, maybe I'm paid too!) who should be constantly monitored, and the fact that I'm an activist may even suffice to revert some of my edits, and can be used in edit summaries. It's insulting to me - I'm being labelled as someone that I'm not. I'm an editor, I'm not an activist for anyone, and that claim has no proof whatsoever. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is a phrase that labels me as an activist for settlers. I'm not an activist for anyone - period. If I was called an activist for movie directors, I'd reject that too as a false labelling of my name and defamation without any actual evidence that I am said activist. Even if my edits appear to support a particular POV, say movie directors, would that make me an activist?? Of course not. Bali can't prove that, and will never be able to, because I'm not. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But why is it "defamation of your name"? Your userid says "Activism" and does not identify you directly as a person. Being misidentified as being part of a group? Really? dangerouspanda 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My name as an editor, not my userid. Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Again, we also have that claim by Bali that there's a group of editors who engage in off-Wikipedia activities to coordinate their edits, a claim he stated as a fact, without any evidence. Then there are further attacks on me below. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was me. I believe your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad, and to support a particular faction within Israel's political discourse (in shorthand, I'll call it the settler movement). My evidence is your editing behavior here, which I've looked off and on for a few months. (You popped up on my watchlist when I checked in today on a really awful hit piece I helped fix a while ago). Your antics at Maureen Dowd recently may also be of interest. Do I care about your beliefs, what's in your heart? No. But the way you act on them here, to skew content on one of the most highly trafficked websites there is, does concern me. It should concern more people. I understand it won't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Another attack on me... I'm trying to fathom how some articles I created and made substantial contributions to, like 2012 Nigeria floods, Mostafa Hussein Kamel, Nagwa Khalil, Momtaz al-Saeed, Shaanxi bus-tanker crash, August 2012 Caracas prison riot, Marikana miners' strike, Menachem Cohen (scholar), Hisham Zazou, or Deeper Life Church shooting, none of which have anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, can possibly be evidence that my "sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad." So yes, here's another personal attack for me that labels me as someone that I am not.

I edit based on RS outlets, if there's a specific problem with an edit of mine, feel free to discuss it with me on the article. For example, I'd be happy to discuss the content-specific aspect of this edit on that article, but the personal attack was just incendiary. Simply put - it's false. You made a gross assumption and believed it as a fact, and then defamed me as such. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you find the label "activist" to be offensive maybe you should have chosen another username?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Why am I labelled as a particular type of activist? As I showed above, Bali has attacked me further, claiming that I have only one sole purpose on Wikipedia, which I punctured by demonstrating a variety of articles I've created or significantly expanded and worked on which aren't even related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet Bali singles me out as a "settler activist." --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that if a user with the name "activism" makes edits that can be seen as tendentious or motivated by a political stance it is unreasonable to expect that others don't call you out on it. If you don't want to be called "settler activist" then 1. change your username and 2. be sure to edit in ways that do not seem biased in favor of settlers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Settler activist" is not an insult. If you make edits that appear to have some specific POV, don't be surprised if someone mistakes you for having a POV. The title itself is not an insult, so it cannot violate NPA dangerouspanda 22:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He's publicly labelling me as an activist. Not even just "reverting a POV," but going the step to say I'm an activist in real life for them. That's something he can't corroborate. --Activism1234 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, so what. Being an activist of any type is not an insulting term dangerouspanda 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"going the step to say I'm an activist in real life...". Your Wikipedia editing is part of your 'real life'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just note that your edit, Activism1234, with the edit summary " add, sheep don't eat dozens of trees overnight (edited with ProveIt))" was blatant original research. There was absolutely nothing in the source you cited that characterised the event as a conspiracy theory. If you intend to make inventive edits like that, you really don't belong in this project, understood? --JN466 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite. And by the way, the implication is not that the sheep ate trees whole, bark, trunk and all overnight. It's a pissed off farmer complaining that the sheep ate the... wait for it... the fruit, presumably all the fruit they could get to (olive and other orchard trees are pruned to stay low). Did that really happen? Don't know. Does "Activism" who abhors being called an "activist" know the reality of what happened? No. All we have is a probably badly translated article from Maan (which doesn't say what he claimed it said). Did Maan news agency write what he claimed they wrote? No. Straight down the rabbit hole, we all go. Blech.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Activism1234 needs to be warned for WP:OR insertions. And putting "activism" in his user name skirts what's acceptable WP:BAIT, given his POV pushing unsupported by sources which may caused by WP:COMPETENCE or WP:ACTIVISM issues. In any case, Activism1234 is a disruptive user name, and should receive a WP:UAA block in light of his editing. To put it more bluntly if someone registers User:POVPushing1234, does some WP:POVPUSHing and then runs screaming to ANI that he is being "discriminated" because of his user name when people object to his editing, we should oblige with WP:BOOMERANG. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat and personal attack

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

---

Jp112015 (talk · contribs) sent me a Wikilove message containing a personal attack and clear-cut legal threat due to a content dispute on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 14). Per WP:LEGAL, I believe this constitutes a block. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The user was Jp112015 (talk · contribs), by the way, and a pretty clear-cut WP:NLT vio to me. I almost logged into my admin account to take care of it too dangerouspanda 22:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response. Davejohnsan (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Johncheverly

Hi. Johncheverly (talk · contribs) has been causing problems. His attitude is quite incivil. On Abraham Lincoln cultural depictions, he added text which violates the WP:MOS and is a direct copyright violation. He also insulted IllaZilla (talk · contribs) by calling him a punk. What is the best solution to help solve this problem? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The best solution would be for Johncheverly to conduct his account in a much more collegial manner. I'm thinking it is likely that we may have to opt for a second best solution. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

EIther IllaZilla has many fans using the same vocabulary ("See "Illa made me do it" in edit summaries) or JohnCheverly has now logged out and is continuing the campaign of harassment through 173.76.119.10 (talk · contribs). And based on the IP's edit history, I'm voting for a single purpose troll account on the part of John. I know that's not very AGF of me. Sorry. Millahnna (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I take it back. IP doesn't look like John. Illa does get a lot of fans some days, I know from interacting with him (her?) at the film project. Must just be one of those days. Millahnna (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, JohnCheverly also sent a possibly harassing email to the Wikimedia Foundation and myself. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What specifically did this "harrassing" email say? Go Phightins! (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but Johncheverly's email said "I am writing to report attempted bullying by the aforementioned user over constructive criticism and comments I attempted to make about the Abraham Lincoln subtext in John Frankenheimer's 1962 film version of "The Manchurian Candidate." I am a 49 year old man and do not have to make smug remarks off a creep hiding behind a pseudonym." Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is a clear violation of our no personal attacks and harassment policies. Just to clarify, IllaZilla is a well-respected editor and if you check Johncheverly's contributions here and the notifications on his talk page, he was warned about a possible copyright violations and also his civility issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I invited Johncheverly to join this discussion to explain himself about an hour ago, so we'll see if he does. If not, I would stipulate to that being a personal attack per WP:NPA and support sanctions of some kind. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, here are some more differences of Johncheverly's incivility: [156], [157], [158]. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For those outbursts alone, I would have supported some kind of sanctions. I understand that this can be frustrating, but WP:STAYCOOL needs to be adhered to. Granted, those edits were made in July, so I will assume that he's moved on by now. I would say we give JC until tomorrow (or depending on where you are, I suppose later today), but at the moment I would support a block for a week or two. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Question when was this email sent? Go Phightins! (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It was today. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, in that case, I would say forget explanation, administrative action probably needs to be taken. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my comments about the threatening email towards me and the WMF, the "aforementioned user" Johncheverly is referring to in the email is IllaZilla. Also, Johncheverly posted a personal attack directed towards IllaZilla on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, but it was promptly removed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to this dude's anger, which has been covered well enough, we also have:

• spamming the same crap across several pages: [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164]

• pointy editing: [165]

• obvious competency issues: [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]

Maybe a mentor would help… maybe not. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  04:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FAC Sheriff Hill

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

---

Good evening

I am not a new reviewer but I am have never made a post here, so I hope this is the correct place.

I offered Sheriff Hill to FAC for a second time several weeks ago. This was the first article I edited here and a is labour of love on my part. The first review rather died, with barely a handful of comments, and the second attempt was doing likewise. Four days ago I got a response to a two month old GA nomination for Carr Hill. The review is available here. The review was a little tetchy, and a few comments were borderline argumentative, but sound overall, save one point of disagreement. That disagreement was raised at WP:GAN and the matter was clarified and closed so far as I was concerned.

In the last 48 hours, I was pleased to see that my FAC of Sheriff Hill was getting a lot of comments. user:Casliber offered some comments, followed by user:hamiltonstone and then user:Malleus Fatuorum; the reviewer of Carr Hill. In light of this activity, I rushed home and spent several hours trying to address the comments raised. I left a message advising that I was working at the issues raised and that I would continue tomorrow. I did continue 'tomorrow' (21 September) and asked a few work colleagues to proof read the article to check for errors. I then posted a comment at around 10.30am yesterday stating that I had addressed the issues raised.

I received a response, as you can see, at 14.40 yesterday. Some comments were raised and more vague suggestions for improvements were offered. Contrary to any sort of polite conduct, I was referred to as "as estate agent" (please read the review for context and clarification) but I still responded to the comments and made further edits to the article, and offered these to Malleus. This was the response:

"Then we'll have to agree to differ and my oppose will stand." Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In spite of what was a very short comment, I then spent two hours adding a public services section and asked again for more recommendations. I was told to add material that other reviewers had taken out as it made the article sound promotional(!)

By this point I was extremely annoyed but was considering how best to proceed. I posted a message back to Malleus, in terms which matched the unacceptably rude terms he had addressed me in the last 12 hours, and was pending a response when I headed to his talk page and found the following discussion:

Link to talk page; collapsed huge copy/paste.

"Hi Malleus Just wanted to post a couple of little things now that the GA review on this one has now closed (and I figured here is better than a completed review page). Firstly, and contrary to your closing comment, I actually don't think you were being especially harsh. As it happens, I much prefer thorough GA reviews, because no-one but me ever adds a thing to my obscure, Gateshead-y articles so a fresh pair of eyes is always welcome because I tend not to pick up silly errors that I make. And I agree that the article is better for it, especially now that I have a reliable source for climate data. Additionally, I would eventually like to get at least one of these articles through WP:FAC, so a comprehensive GA review helps a lot. Secondly, as regards our disagreement re:WP:UKCITIES. As you said, for the purposes of the review now concluded, the point was moot, but your reading of the guideline is genuinely new to me and isn't one I would have even considered to be honest. This is important to me as I tend to concentrate my wiki-efforts on articles like Carr Hill and I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future. I am not a 'wiki-expert' – I concentrate mainly on editing and offering the occasional review – so I have no idea how I might be able to clarify this point, and wonder if you have any suggestions? Thanks again... Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I always tend to look at well-developed articles like Carr Hill – and it was well-developed – with an eye to FAC, otherwise GAN just becomes a rubber stamp, which I don't think is very productive. I also prefer to fix the easy things myself rather than clutter up the review, as you may have noticed. So far as our differing interpretations of WP:UKCITIES is concerned, I'm certainly not in any way trying to prevent you from having a similar discussion in the future; my comment was localised to this specific review. I'm not sure there's any general answer to your question though, maybe it's horses for courses, but has it never struck you as odd that an article such as Montpelier, Brighton has extensive coverage of church buildings without ever mentioning the religions of its residents? For me, that's a clear breach of GA criterion 3a, but no doubt other reviewers will have their own interpretations. So basically I have no right to stop you having whatever discussion you wish wherever you wish. If you go on to FAC though the rules change, and you have to satisfy all the reviewers, not just one old curmudgeon like me, which is quite a different game. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, it occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted your "... I would like to know whether you are right to prevent my having the same discussion again in future", when what you really meant was "I would like to know whether you are right, to prevent my having the same discussion again in future". If that's so, a good place to kick off the discussion would be WT:GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC) The reason why it has never struck me as odd because I have never considered it a requirement of WP:GAN. The failure to include that information in my view would certainly preclude success at FAC (something I tend to know a lot about, annoyingly) but my reading of 'broad' precludes 'comprehensive'. As you say; perhaps it is horses for courses? I am going to raise the issue at WT:GAN, simply to ensure that I don't end up crossing swords with a future reviewer– if it should be in, I'll include it in future articles– and also as I have dipped my hand into reviewing over the summer and it would help me provide better reviews I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC) GAN's "broadness" criteria obviously isn't well-defined, for obvious reasons. Should be an interesting discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 19 September 2012 If I know an editor's keen, I'll try to give a article a big a shove as possible towards FAC....aaaah and I've now seen Sherriff Hill. I am reminded of a scene in Green Wing where they decide to do an operation in Geordie....but my accent would be atrocious I think...apart from "alreet" and "howay then".....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I did try to give a big shove; maybe the issue is whether I shoved too hard with this particular article. Reviewing, especially GA reviewing, is a pretty lonely and thankless place by and large, but all we can do is the best we can do, and I did the best I could. If that's not considered good enough then so be it. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Well all I can say is that Sherriff Hill FAC will be mmarginally less lonely. I've left Meetthefeebles some stuff to do. I'd be intrigued to see what else you come up afterwards with as I do like reviewing villages and towns but not hugely familiar with it like plants, mushrooms and birds...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I hadn't realised that Sherriff Hill was at FAC. I seem to make almost as many enemies there as I did at WT:RFA; I expect that'll be the topic of my next arbitration case. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Ooh err, I hadn't realised until I read this and I've been up there weilding my pruning shears after it popped up on my watchlist. :-( J3Mrs (talk) I expect I'll be doing a bit of pruning too. I notice immediately that there's nothing on climate ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC) and I see you're not the only one with the pruning shears out. Hamiltonstone's been having a good go at it as well. On the face of it this nomination looks to have been a little premature. Malleus Fatuorum 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) And no Public services. It does need a really good copyedit — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3Mrs (talk • contribs) It does. I'm a bit disappointed that nothing seems to have been learned from the Carr Hill GAN. To be brutally honest I wouldn't have passed Sherrifs Hill as a GA, so I've had to oppose its promotion. Maybe the work required can be done within whatever time remains at FAC, but it's getting towards the bottom of the queue now, so I'm dubious. Basically, it ought not to have been nominated in that state. I actually think that Carr Hill would stand a better chance at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC) To cut the editor a bit of slack, I was "precious" about my prose until I learned it was better to be precise but I was lucky in that it was frequently improved by an expert, and though I'm still incredibly sloppy, I do try to keep a simple past tense and use as few words as possible. I'm working on another of my "masterpieces". The important thing is learning the lesson not carrying on regardless. J3Mrs (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC) I'm lucky I guess, in that I've always found writing easy; maybe a consequence of having read so voraciously as a kid. But the problem with Sheriff Hill isn't just the prose, there's far too much detail on stuff that just doesn't matter at all, unless you're writing a tourist guide I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've been there too! I've removed some things that were plain wrong too, about the turnpike and the colliery. (see edit summaries) I tried to copyedit it before but some just got re-added in a different way.J3Mrs (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Wow. Have just read this. Wow. Meetthefeebles (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)" I now know that I have wasted my time. I know that the comments left were completely disingenuous and that several editors had commented outside the review in contradiction to the comments left. Frankly, I question whether or not the review had any chance once these people started collaborating.

I am disgusted by what has transpired, and request an adjudication please.Meetthefeebles (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrators are not adjudicators. What are you asking them to do? Block me? Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh dear, alright then some points. I am sorry that the experience has gone a bit pear-shaped currently and hopefully we can get it back on track. This happens sometimes. Ultimately it is up to the delegates to decide whether any remaining Opposes have are actionable and/or objective. Articles have been passed with outstanding opposes if this has been the case in the past. I can see how this has come about and will have a look at what Malleus has said as well. Writing these does come easier after a while. Quite often when writing one can lose distance and not see obvious fixes. One of the best pages I read since editing wikipedia is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. I will see what we can do to get a resolution here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked at the article in question, but there is nothing to be done here. Administrators do not judge content. I would suggest that you work within the system and if nothing can be done and the nom does not pass, that you seek out people known to be good at prose and ask one of them to work with you, not only to explain what needs to be done, but also why. I suggest you, first of all, wait for what Casliber has to say and be guided by it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 The only thing I'd like to point out is that the FAC was submitted about a month before the GAN was completed, so MTF couldn't have known about the section weighting issues at that time. Of course, there has been an opportunity to apply those comments to the FAC in the last few days. Outside of that, there's nothing actionable here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know when you are the one that did most of the work, and it is a labor of love, it is easy to wear your emotions on your sleeve, and I think you may be here. If they are talking about it, it means they think it is worthwhile, even if not yet ready. It isn't easy to accept blunt criticism, but it will be a much better article if you find a way to. Since I don't see personal attacks or even incivility (as we define it here), and only see blunt, informed and good faith criticism, I can't see anything that needs action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't the result of the review, which frankly I would withdraw if I could. It is the duplicitousness of the reviewers. That is the issue. Meetthefeebles (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any duplicity here, since you were the one who started that conversation in the first place. There was no reason to think you wouldn't see it, and it's not as though it were being hidden from you in any way. I'm sure you would've been more than welcome to chime in at any time, and still would be. I think everyone is just frankly discussing how to improve the article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha, ha, having the "Health" section of a neighborhood leading with a "Main article: Sheriff Hill Lunatic Asylum" is cute. FA material fosho. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a constructive comment. Meetthefeebles (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Casliber: "I can see how this has come about and will have a look at what Malleus has said as well". Yeah, obviously whenever there's one of these daft reports it's bound to be my fault. Jesus fucking Christ! Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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