Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.226.203.145 (talk) at 23:37, 31 December 2012 (→‎Article needs temporary protection: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Boomage

    We are done here... - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 15:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
    Examples:
    User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
    User talk: Cobi -- As above
    User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
    User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
    User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
    The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
    Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"

    Many thanks

    Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest Boomage is really struggling to understand how things work here, and a strongly worded final warning from an uninvolved administrator might help them see sense. Then again, it might not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I agree this looks like someone who simply doesn't understand the way things work - give me a short time and I'll try to explain things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 14:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a word - feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the disruptive behaviour continues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Boing, that looks perfect. Incidentally, the use of the word "git" as a (mild?) insult suggests that the editor may be British, so I would hope that we extend the same forbearance that is traditional for British editors who make personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, he's definitely a fellow Brit, and yes it is quite mild. But it's more the attitude than the word itself - in my view, for example, it's entirely possible to say "fuck" in a way that is not a personal attack, but "git" in a way that is, and it is the attack rather than the word that is not acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite - there seems to be a lot of confusion over this, in both directions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh what fun :-) Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. I had earlier tried to give him some unsolicited advice and he had indeed not realised he needed references. I've now seconded what you said and pointed to the welcome template with which Bwilkins started his talkpage; I closed the box around it for clarity. For what it's worth, a couple of his edits that triggered Cluebot were false positives ("He is known as a hard worker" or something like that), but he hasn't taken my advice to simply report that and I'm aware of the limits of advice. At least the deleted page shows he is willing to do research. I concur about "git" - hardly worth getting in a tizzy about, but he got himself in a bit of a rut here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your additional comments too - I hadn't realised that ClueBot revert had been labeled "vandalism" (though I thought all the reverts were appropriate, for various reasons). I'm hoping that a reading of the riot act might get through - and hopefully help turn Boomage into a productive editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ClueBot actually says "possible" vandalism, so as to assume good faith. Bots jobs are very thankless :). --Malerooster (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, both Boing! and Demiurge, for your assistance in this matter - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all,

    Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.

    My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Wikipedia page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.

    Many thanks, Boomage (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage[reply]

    Hey, Boomage, I think you have a few misunderstandings on a few points. First, you don't have any rights on Wikipedia; it is a website that is privately-owned (by a non-profit, but privately-owned nonetheless), and as such, you have only the rights that are allowed to you but the owners. So, it's better not to talk about things like human rights being violated; it carries no weight, and may in fact be offensive to those people in the world whose real human rights have been, or are being, violated.
    JohnCD was correct to delete your page, as it was an article on a non-notable subject. See the notability page, and some others, for more information on this. In a nutshell, though, your "Anti-ClueBot" crusade would need to have been specifically reported on in multiple, independent, reliable sources for it to have a Wikipedia article. Though you cite sources in your article, none talk about your movement, and in fact were all published long before your movement was started. So they don't help to establish notability. You should really drop this issue altogether, as you will get exactly nowhere with it, but if you really want to, it would be acceptable for you to create a page compiling evidence for your complaints within your userspace, like your sandbox, for example. Don't make it in the regular article space. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good afternoon Boomage
    Just a few comments from a passing admin who reviews ClueBot NG's interface.
    Firstly, I have reviewed the edits that the bot warned you for and yes, in a couple of instances the edits were genuine. However, if an edit you feel was not vandalism, then all you need to do is report it here, one of ClueBot NG's reviewers will then review the edit, if it shouldn't have been reverted by the bot we will then train the bot on that edit and hopefully a case like that won't happen again. However we cannot train the bot if you don't report the edit.
    Secondly, you were not blocked previously because you don't believe in ClueBot NG, you were blocked because your edits were deemed to be vandalism.
    Finally, I would echo what Writ Keeper has said that you should drop this issue with ClueBot because you really won't get anywhere with it. The encyclopedia needs an anti-vandal bot and an anti-vandal bot is always going to be an on-going project because vandalism can happen in so many ways and change so many times. Without ClueBot NG there would be edits like this one (and much worse) happening all the time. Guess who reverted this edit? Yup, you got it--5 albert square (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello albert square

    Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).

    Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Clue Bot is one of the best and most helpful bots we have: I very rarely see a false positive. "Campaigning" against it is not a wise thing to do, and a total waste of your time, as it will inevitably come to nothing. You're better off doing something productive. (Besides, if you get too enthusiastic in your "campaign", it's likely that an admin is going to find it disruptive and block you.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to add that if you wish to request the stopping of ClueBot and you go via appropriate channels, then you are welcome to try - someone suggested the Village pump, and that sounds like a good place. You would need to get a consensus of Wikipedia editors in support. However, an off-wiki "petition" will not be taken into consideration, and the opinions of individuals canvassed on an external site will carry very little weight. To succeed, you are going to need the support of existing, experienced, Wikipedia editors - and as a number of people are trying to tell you, you are not going to get that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again Boomage
    Us administrators/moderators do block vandalism however we cannot be online 24/7 (much as we'd like to be!)
    ClueBot NG makes thousands upon thousands of edits a day, of which a very small percentage are false positives. On top of deleting vandalism the bots also do a lot of behind the scenes work to keep the encyclopedia functioning as it should.
    I'm sorry but any idea that you have of admins taking over what ClueBot NG does is not going to work. The editor burnout rate would be much, much higher. You may even find that there is more vandalism on Wikipedia and that more genuine edits are reverted accidentally.
    I suggest that you read this article that the BBC did on ClueBot as it may help you to understand ClueBot NG and what it does a little more.--5 albert square (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Boomage.
    Please tell me where I have been so called "rude" and "unprofessional" in my exchanges with you and also where I make out to be a saint, then I may apologise to you. Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can assume that you haven't in fact been rude or unprofessional, and that we can move on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear that, I'm sure nobody will mind me closing this :) - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 15:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Elizabeth Maconchy

    User:Novaseminary has an attitude problem, being extremely patronising to other users who are trying to be reasonable WP:OWN while insisting on removing valid information from the article including (but not limited to) links to her husband and daughter while claiming this information is "unsourced" when in reality he just can't be arsed to check the sources and has a major attitude problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm quite confused. Not a single edit you reverted here was substantive. That is, Novaseminary made some cosmetic changes to the article, fixing some grammar and the format of some references, but made no substantive changes to the article's content, and it appears you just reverted them wholesale with no actual reason. Can you explain that? --Jayron32 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Confused? Yeah me too. Sorry I thought he was continuing to be an ass but not yet at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look further back in the edit history and see Talk:Elizabeth Maconchy#Novaseminary unnecessary removal of material, Jayron32. We're clearly looking at things like this edit, where Novaseminary removes Maconchy's daughters from the article, and this edit where Novaseminary removes all mention of the daughters, studying under Wood and Vaughan Williams, OBE and DBE, Bartók, marriage, tuberculosis, string quartet, and choral and vocal works.

        Not only is it the case that the LeFanu information is supported by the source that was cross-linked to the prose, which I've just read page 348 of and seen in the supporting source, but additional sources confirming this and all of the other information can be found in about 10 seconds with almost no effort at all. I found several without breathing hard. Maconchy has full length biographies in several encyclopaedias and dictionaries of biography, as indeed does LeFanu. Their mother-daughter relationship is amply verifiable. Maconchy's first daughter is in her encyclopaedia entry in the Encyclopedia of World Biography, which also has an entire section headed "Suffered from Tuberculosis", confirming the information about contracting tuberculosis that Novaseminary removed for being supposedly completely unverifiable. The marriage, husband, compositions, OBE, DBE, choral work, and other information is verifiable from places ranging from a composer profile at the BBC by Andrew Burn to the several page biography in Pendle's Women & Music.

        Yet these 10 seconds are effort that Novaseminary has not expended in eight months, preferring instead to grossly misapply the verifiability policy and remove encyclopaedic content (which is in encyclopaedias) that xe clearly hasn't bothered to check. It is understandable that 86.129.242.193 is peeved at eight months of such destructive and lazy "work" by Novaseminary. It is understandable that not reading what is right in front of xem leads one person to consider Novaseminary's "work" incompetent. This is not how one writes and behaves when there are biographies of and encyclopaedia articles on the subject coming out the ears that one can collaboratively check and cite in order to improve the article, and where the information repeatedly excised for supposedly being unverifiable was right there in the cited sources cross-linked to the prose.

        The venue for this, however, is, as was pointed out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior by Blackmane, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This isn't an incident requiring administrator intervention. This is a months-long pattern of destruction of patently encyclopaedic content, unhelpfulness, lack of collaboration, and blatant mirepresentation and misapplication of content policy that obviously requires stronger negative feedback from the editor/writer community at large to the person exhibiting it. Content writers know that this is not how one writes collaboratively.

        Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe North8000 will need to be taken up on their offer to spend the time to gather the evidence for a RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember an offer like that but I'm the Wikipedian most familiar with the editor. The 30,000 foot view is that some guidance for them in problematic areas is in order, (although they might have already have improved.) And that this will not be apparent to someone at first glance /not fully familiar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, excuse me, I misread "it would take 20hours" for "would take the 20 hours" ie that you would undertake the gathering of material. This was in the previous ANI on Novaseminary that Uncle G linked to above. Blackmane (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can say that as of a year and 2 years ago ago there were exhibiting very destructive obsessive battling behavior, and in a way that was clever enough that the casually involved would not be able to "see" it. I imagined a prize in my mind for the person who gotten the most editors to leave Wikipedia. I have not watched closely over the last year (though I did see a second ANI by someone else). My general impression / guess is their actions have improved or dialed back at least some since then. With respect to myself, they have 99% disengaged.....the remaining 1% has exhibited the same tendencies but has not done any harm. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of this until alerted by North8000. The IP never got why I was doing what I was doing and, despite me trying to engage him/her constructively, made rather unbecoming notes on my talk page (User_talk:Novaseminary#Elizabeth_Maconchy). As for that article, I added the vast majority of the citations to RSs and could not find or missed the one fact. But I added it back in myself even before I could source it while looking for a source (the IP's source was a pay site). The article previously had been partially sourced to hard copy program notes from some performance apparently written by the subject's daughter. I am sure they were lovely program notes, but probably not RSs. I had removed it along with some POV language that the IP inexplicably (other than calling it vandalism) reinserted. Regardless, the article now has many good sources that can serve as the basis to grow it with proper citations. It looks like the IP made this posting in error (mistaking my referece cleanup for vandalism... further displaying he/she is less famiiar with how things work than one would expect before casting sones) and has moved on. (I am not sure why Uncle G has a bee in his bonnet.) I see nothing more here. Novaseminary (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page vandalism and harassment after closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi

    After closing the above AFD as "delete", my talk page and the talk page of Explicit (talk · contribs) who had previously deleted it because of a prod have been spammed and vandalized repeatedly by multiple IPs (we are the only admins showing up in the deletion log for this title). The vandalism has all been reverted and the first IP was blocked, but successive IPs were merely given warnings by editors who I think weren't admins and probably also didn't realize that these were continuing harassment, and the vandalism in turn just spread to not only those editors' talk pages but also to other editor's pages and project pages (all since reverted). I've blocked the other two IPs and I'm thinking about semi-protecting my talk page for awhile. Below are the three IPs so far; the post-AFD vandalism is the only contribution history for all of them. Perhaps a range block can prevent future whack-a-mole? Beyond my technical know-how. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also another IP in the same range 118.103.224.4 (talk · contribs) had only made edits related to the AFD, none yet postdating its close. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    New IP, different range, only contributions are attempts at vulgar insults about this deletion on five different user talk pages and several project pages: 111.119.164.72 (talk · contribs). All reverted and blocked now, but this is getting tiresome. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Range-blocked 118.103.224.0/20 for 36 hours; that should at least get those in the 118.* block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Explicit and I got hit again by a new IP: 115.42.70.200 (talk · contribs). Blocked and I've semi-protected my talk page. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell"

    The edit filter on this page: Robert B. Bell is oversensitive and is reporting multiple false positives. Two of the recent trips are described here: [[1]] and here: [[2]] 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps WP:EFM might be a better place to resolve this? I see the issue is already posted there, they'll handle it. Salvidrim! 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately it was archived once (see the second link) without being resolved, so I want to make sure this gets on whoever's radar it needs to be on.70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is a false positive, but there's no way to fix that through the edit filter; that's just how it goes. Why do you say that this should be in the article? "Internet celebrity" is...exaggerated at least, I'd say. Chandler wasn't notable the last time someone tried to create an article for him; what's changed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the false positive is triggered by the edit filter, isn't that where it would be fixed? As to whether or not that information should be included in the article, well, editors can discuss that if they want on the talk page. The point is it's not "Sonichu and other repeat vandalism," as it is reporting. According to here: [[3]] the original creator of the filter needs to fix it. Can we find out who that is? 70.241.73.164 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    MuZemike was the filter's author; I'll ping him to ask about it. Long story short, though, is that false positives are not something that can be eliminated entirely. You're probably better off discussing this before inserting it anyway; I very much doubt it's something that should go into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Given some of the recent edits on the Robert B. Bell article and the recent above IP's request to unsalt and recreate a virtual BLP nightmare on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20#Christian Weston Chandler, I conclude that the edit filter is working as intended. This latest attempt is basically an end-run around the failed DRV. --MuZemike 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The issue is not the recreation of an article on Chandler, I just want to mention him on the article on Bell, and your edit filter is claiming it is "Sonichu and related vandalism," which it isn't. Other admins have agreed that my trip is was a false positive. Please tweak this to allow legitimate edits. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Five X-Bucks says all those IPs !voting "relist" there were the same chap. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:XLR8TION and User:Yerevanci

    Recently, the mentioned user have being aggressive toward me:

    Also, notice how he uses bold and capitals letters to justify his moves and refusal to discuss. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 05:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks as basis for my claims.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 05:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One more thing. The user seems to get nervous for writing on his talk page and calls it "vandalism" ([4], [5]. Even when I notified him of this discussion, which is a rule clearly stated in a red box at the top of this page. An admin should also consider teaching him the basic rules of Wiki.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 05:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • User vandalizes page by reverting my constructive edits.
    • Continues to remain stubborn and not comprehend that justices, military, and law enforcement are not politicians.
    • Reverts pages within one minute if he doesn't hear from me.
    • I have provided points in Talk Page on article List of Armenian American politicians about steps to follow when posting entries on list since August 2012. He refuses to even read or comply with these simple requests. Please see talk page discussion to see my posts.
    • Has vandalized my Talk Page after I have warned him not to write on it.
    Please provide guidance on how to deal with an unstable, uncooperative rogue editor who doesn't comprehend the U.S. political system, Wikipedia article formatting, or English grammar.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:VANDALISM:
    Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. (emphasis added)
    Inserting "Penis" or "I love Mary" into an article is vandalism. Disagreeing with you isn't, necessarily.
    Have you tried discussing your disagreements with Yerevanci?
    Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, I would like to hear a statement about his aggressive behavior.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 06:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't comment on the content dispute, which is outside my sphere of knowledge although Gtwfan52 has made a point on the talk page. Please avoid calling edits "vandalism" if they are not blatant vandalism. Yerevanci's notification post on your talk page is required per the instructions when posting an ANI about another user. These are not vandalism and calling them such is a personal attack and continued use of this term is blockable. You can ask Yerevanci not to post on your talk page in future and by common courtesy Yerevanci should cease doing so. And Yerevanci, for your information, when XLR8TION removed the notices from their talk page it is considered that they have read acknowledged the notice so further posting isn't necessary.
    There has been general combatativeness from both of you and really it's time to calm the hell down. XLR8TION please refrain from using caps, particularly bold caps, as it usually means you're shouting at the other party. If you're intending to emphasise a point without shouting, italics or bold italics would be preferable and is less inflammatory. Also, in [6] edit your comment overwrote Gtwfan52's hence their comment that you reverted their talk page comment. Yerevanci has posted a compromise on the talk page so here are a couple of trouts for making such a mountain out of a mole hill and back to the talk page you go. Blackmane (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been general combatativeness from both of you isn't quite accurate if you think about it. What languages I speak and what languages I don't speak isn't a discussion topic, at least, it wasn't last time I checked Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling names, SHOUTING through the computer screen isn't acceptable also. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 06:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is undoubtedly a content dispute, and I have suggested to them that they go to WP:DRN. But one side of the dispute has a serious case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I am not a mediator, so I give up.Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you understand the word "stop"? I have told you only to discuss topic on article talk page. That is why each article has one? Why did you vandalize my page when I have told you numerous times to stop?--XLR8TION (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have constantly informed user talk not to discuss topic discussion on my page. He disrespects me and continues to vandalize my page. I have numerous historical links I can show that I have asked him to ONLY discuss on article talk page. I only use my Talk page to discuss bot-related changes and personal messages that I relay to other users first, and nothing else. Please stop dsisrepcting my talk page. I have told you numerous times stop vandalizing my page.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear XLR8TION, it had been stated several times (including by User:Beyond My Ken) that my edits on your talk page were good faith edits. If you still have a problem with that start another discussion. This case has nothing to do with you. --Երևանցի talk 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have told you numerous times whether good or bad faith edits, DO NOT write on my Talk page? Why did you disrespect my talk page?
        • Dec 27[7]
        • Dec 27 (second Time)[8]
        • Dec 29 - [9]

    Why didn't you comply with these requests?--XLR8TION (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • A user's talk page should be respected. If I tell you to stop, it means stop. What if you warn a vandal to stop vandalizing your page? Do they have the right to edit your page after you tell them to stop? The answer is no. Your edits are considered vandalism. I have provided you numerous warnings to stop.--XLR8TION (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth time - DO NOT WRITE ON MY TALK PAGE! Only write on article talk page. It's my talk page. STOP!--XLR8TION (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, per WP:NOBAN, you may request that users not edit pages in your userspace, however the policy also states that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to" thus preventing you from outright banning people from contacting you and making their edits not vandalism. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yerevanci: If XLR8TION has asked you to not post on his page, you should not do so unless required to do so. After the required post, stop. If XLR8TION deletes the notice, it's taken as an indication that he has read it - except for active block notices, there's no requirement that he leave the notice on the page. Do not try to repost it or comment on his removal, it's none of your business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified him that I will report him for edit warring. It is a mandatory step I have to make according to the 3RR guidelines. Also, when did I repost anything? --Երևանցի talk 18:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But then you yourself edit-warred to keep that notice on the page. Don't do that. Users are granted a certain amount of control over their talk pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, this (by another editor) seems to me like an abuse of that privilege. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    you don't seem to have a point. --Երևանցի talk 19:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at his talk page history where do you see edit warring by me? I simply notified him of the cases he's involved in and he simply removed them.--Երևանցի talk 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct - I have struck that comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask that an administrator merge this section below the line into the section above titled "User:XLR8TION and User:Yerevanci", as the discussion below the line is much more related to that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be thankful. --Երևանցի talk 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yerevanci fabricating claims that images uploaded as non-free are actually public domain

    Earlier today, I removed about a dozen images identified as non-free from List of architects of Baku. About half those images were included in the list section; the other half were in a gallery displaying the work of various listed architects. None of the images had NFCC rationales supporting their inclusion in that article. No argument has been advanced suggesting that such use can be allowed under applicable NFCC policy.

    One minute later,User:Yerevanci began restoring all the images to the article, declaring them to be public domain. In response to my remocal of the images, he altered their underlying file pages, changing the original identification of the images from nonfree to public domain. Yerevanci was not the original uploader of the images, and there is no reason to believe, especially given the very short timespan involved, that Yerevanci made any significant efforts to verify the applicability of his boilerplate tagging. In general, the public domain claims he makes with regard to the images require that either the date of death of the photographer or the circumstances of the original publication be established; however, for all of these images, the identity of the photographer has not been provided, and the original publication has not been ascertained. These are simply photographs found on various websites, with no discernible provenance, of 20th-century subjects. Absent more information, we cannot presume these images to be PD. The original tagging was careful and correct, and Yerevanci should not have summarily altered it or restored the images.

    Yerevanci is a combative user (see an earlier section on this page, for example), and the article is already entangled in the sort of disputes that often spread across articles even tangentially related to ethnic controversies. Some of his other image uploads/uses are clearly problematic at best (eg, putting a nonfree image in a BLP infobox). I suspect community intervention is likely to be more productive, perhaps necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understood, there is a huge confusion here. Please take a look at the death dates of the architects. Most of them have died in 1940s and 1950s and I, being an Armenian editor of Wikipedia for over 3 years, am familiar with most of these men. The Russian and Azerbaijani copyright laws set the age of the copyright at 70 years, which takes us back to 1942. Most architects in the list have worked as architects before the Russian Revolution of 1917 and de facto worked until 1914, the start of WWI. Therefore, it is very likely that these photos have been taken before 1942, thus are in public domain. I am admitting that I din't not manually check each one of them, because there is an 80 to 90% chance that they in PD. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 00:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not good enough - we need 100% evidence that they are PD, not just your personal reasoning regarding likelihood and your 80-90% estimate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if they aren't in PD, then go ahead delete them. What's the problem here? I just gave the reasoning of my moves. --Երևանցի talk 01:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Be aware that the copyright period is based on the copyright owner which is likely the photographer and rarely the subject. Without knowing who the photographer is or when they died, we'd have to assume a long copyright term (120 years from date of publication, IIRC). They definitely aren't PD. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the Russian copyright law (which includes Azerbaijan and whole territory of Soviet Union) says that copyright doesn't include works
    If you can find the authors of these works I wish you good luck.--Երևանցի talk 01:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You, Yerevanci, have to proof the first part: that they were published anonymously or under a pseudonym. Because no source is listed, we have to assume them non-free and treat them that way until you positively proof that PD statement. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You, my dear friend, are free to do whatever you think is right. If you think that a photo from pre-1918 era isn't in PD, then delete them. Don't make a big deal out of nothing. Again, as a person who is very familiar with the topic, I'm absolutely sure that it's almost impossible to find the original authors of these photographs. --Երևանցի talk 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright starts from the point of publication, not creation. I don't doubt these are pre-1918 images, but there's no indication (due to a lack of source) that they were published around then. They could have been first published in 1970, for example, and that would make them well within copyright. This is why you need to positively show these images are in the PD, because we can't make assumptions otherwise like that. The fact these lack any source declaration does not help. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You folks are attempting to enforce an interpretation of copyright and Wikipedia policy that would basically make it impossible to upload almost anything, since the degree of certainty you are demanding is generally impossible to achieve. I assume your good faith, but in point of fact, your actions significantly harm this project and make it less useful for our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really. First, we're not saying this pictures can't be used, that without any confirmation of the original likely source, we have to assume them non-free and treat them as non-free. They can be used on the article pages about the various architects in line with NFCC, but they can't be used in tables or galleries. If they were PD, then that would mean they would meet the requirements of Commons, and my experience there is the lack of a strong declaration of a source for these will cause Commons to reject them, irregardless of the apparent age of the photo. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been editing Wikipedia articles for over 3 years and have uploaded hundreds of images to the Commons and you can check and see that I provide as much information as possible, but in this case I simply do not know of a way to find out the authors of those photos and the dates of their first publication. Believe me, I've done a enormous amount of work for this project and I do know what you're talking about and do respect that. But you should also understand that English-language sources are much more in number and much more available online than Armenian, Azeri and Russian or any other language sources, which makes it very difficult for users like me, that work on articles outside of the Anglophone world, to find detailed information for every historic photo. Let me give you an example for a clearer view. The Library of Congress has millions of images that have pretty good description about their history, including the author or the publication date. There is no such resource that I can use for my work. See the difference? This is all I can say. If you eventually decide to delete them, I can't blame you, because we have no actual way of finding the required information. --Երևանցի talk 04:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, there are some works whose copyright status is hazy enough that we cannot be sure. Despite a good-faith effort to find out and/or possible rationalization, we don't have the authority (legally--as I understand it--or per WMF-based more strict and conservative policies) to overcome that problem. Orphan works really are a problem, but there's nothing that we can do about it ourselves here. We really do need some actual evidence (doesn't have to be on-line, but does have to be actual). DMacks (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly - the problem is that when we mark an image PD or CC-BY, we're enabling its free, unrestricted reuse by users of Wikipedia. If we are wrong about that tagging - putting a work into PD/CC-BY that is still under copyright - we are violating copyright law. On the other hand, there is minimal harm of marking what really is a PD/CC-BY image as nonfree, certainly nothing that would put WP in legal trouble. Hence, we require strong prove of an image's PD/CC-BY nature. Mind you, we do assume good faith at times since for older images tracking the exact first publication can be impossible, but this always requires at least one other source that has also published said works so that a review of their history can be started. Most of the images in question lack this source. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the issue isn't whether or not to delete them - if they're properly labeled as NFCC and used in a valid context (eg to illustrate each architect in a biographical description), then that should be fine. What is not fine is to mark them as PD when we cannot actually show for sure that they are PD. So, as long as they are labeled correctly and used appropriately, I don't see any problem with keeping them as NFCC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage content as a discussion topic

    the moncument

    User:E4024 had been aggressive toward me lately. In numerous occasions he had brought up the past content of my userpage, particularly the photo of the ASALA monument in Yerevan (pictured) into discussion. Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was a military organization in the 1970s and 1980s that assassinated few dozens of Turkish diplomats around the world to reach justice in the Armenian Genocide recognition. They fought for something I believe in, although there have been few cases of unintentional killing of civilians not having any connection to the Turkish government, which was also one of the reasons why it was dissolved, because their goal wasn't to kill innocent Turkish people, but diplomats in order to force them to recognize the Genocide.

    So, this user claims that "those terrorists killed a familiar of mine", which he thinks gives him the right to bring that up in every discussion we have. While I never had brought up into discussion the fact that few of my ancestors have been killed during the Armenian Genocide, while others escaped. I don't bring this up, because it is not quite appropriate to discuss such issues with anybody on an online encyclopedia, especially with hostility he has:

    Also, this is not the first time he does this. On December 10, he also brought up my past userpage content into discussion: So you removed the ASALA monument pic from your TP and even began searching consensus?

    Also, during the first discussion User:Deskana, who is an admin, said the following: "If you don't want someone potentially commenting on something on your userpage then you shouldn't have it there, anyway." Don't you think it is simply absurd? It's like one of those people who tell girls not to wear provocative clothes in order not to get raped. Why dooesn't he/she follow the basic Wikipedia rules?

    Conclusions
    1. Instead of discussing on the article talk pages, the user prefers to avoid a discussion by discussing my userpage content, which clearly is a personal attack.
    2. He/she thinks of all this in a hostile way, singles out himself for being of certain ethnicity

    Myself, being an experienced Wiki editor, tried to be civil as much as possible to the end. He twice removed the phrase "Calm down, my lovely friend, and then we'll continue our discussion", first replacing with "(Personal attack removed)", second time simply removing it summarizing "Removed Personal attack per WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. BTW I am not your friend. I do not support terrorism"

    I would like the admins to take care of this user. Either block him or give him a warning that next case of personal attack will result in one.--Երևանցի talk 17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. the user immediately removed my notification of this discussion (which is a rule) on his talk page.--Երևանցի talk 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Controversial stuff on user pages is subject to deletion. Meanwhile, I am puzzled, and must ask this: How many of those who were assassinated had been part of that 1910s-1920s genocide program? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Controversial" according to whom? And what difference does it make? Of course none of the 1915 genocide perpetrators were alive in 1970s and 1980s. Though, the main organizers of the genocide (Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha, Djemal Pasha) were assassinated by Armenians, but in early 1920s, because the Western powers didn't simply care about justice as they still don't to this day. The United States, Israel, the UK and most importantly Turkey continue to deny the fact of genocide, while even in 1939 Hitler said: "Who remembers the extermination of Armenians?" and called the Wehrmacht to do the same with Poles.
    Turks and Azeris also consider Andranik Ozanian, Vazgen Sargsyan, Monte Melkonian terrorists. Does it mean that I should stop admiring them as heroes or I'm banned from putting up their picture on my userpage? Obviously no. Turkey is a country that treats non-Turkish citizens of its own like US did with Blacks before 1964 and South Africa before 1994 has to be brought up to justice and if you think that killing diplomats is terrorism than it's your own problem. One the other hand Azerbaijan (that had also organized massacres of Armenians throughout history: 1918, 1920, 1988, 1988, 1990) whose President Ilham Aliyev had openly stated that "our main enemies are Armenians of the world and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control". You can see the whole speech at his official website here. A clearly chauvinist comment, which is quite unacceptable in 2012, didn't get any reaction from the "cradle of democracy": the United States or the EU. What else are a nation of up to 8 million can do to survive in this planet?
    The ASALA members, to whom a monument was erected in Yerevan, are nothing but freedom fighters for me and after all what had happened to Armenians you call them terrorists for fighting for justice that was never given to us, then it will be hard to talk about human values.
    MOST IMPORTANTLY, I do not bring up the fact that few of my ancestors were killed by Turks during the genocide into every single discussion I have with Turkish users, because I do believe that this is an encyclopedia and it's not my userpage that needs to be discussed but the article itself.--Երևանցի talk 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is information on your userpage which indicates you may be biased in a particular discussion, then bringing it up is fair game. Furthermore if content on a userpage is deemed (by community consensus) to be offensive and disruptive you may be told to remove it. Prodego talk 06:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You think it's rational to bring up the userpage content to every article talk page in order to avoid actual discussion? That's simply disruptive, don't you think? Also notice that it was replaced by me with another picture months ago, just because I decided to change the style of the page. It has been on my userpage from August 17 to August 22. So for 5 days it was on my userpage about 4 months ago. I still don't think it was "offensive and disruptive", but even if it was for him, don't you think it's time for him to move on? --Երևանցի talk 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if it was so offensive for him, why didn't he report it instead of whining around. --Երևանցի talk 07:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm making general statements - nothing specific to this case. Bringing it up where it isn't relevant would not be appropriate for him to do. Furthermore I am not saying that this particular content is disruptive, but rather that in general disruptive content can be removed. Prodego talk 07:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1st complaint. WP:OWNTALK says "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". I do not like this rule either, but it is the rule.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, what am I suppose to do when a user brings up the past content of my userpage that was simply replaced by another picture in August into discussion on an article talk page that has no direct connection with it? --Երևանցի talk 19:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she is raising that you may have a conflict of interest. He/she might not be doing it in the best way, but he/she might have a point. My advice is to try to avoid contact with him/her as much as possible.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to avoid him, but he still does that in "not the best way".--Երևանցի talk 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, notice that labeling me a "terrorism supporter" is a personal attack. --Երևանցի talk 21:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-report of an ad hominem

    Doncram banned from making any edits relating to Indian castes across all namespaces for a year under WP:Castes by yours truly. Sitush about to be minnowed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am self-reporting an ad hominem response by myself to Doncram. If this means I get blocked, as would be likely per policy, then so be it. This type of thing has gone on for long enough. I will inform the other party. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Relatively uncivil, but not an ad hominem. @Doncram, what experience do you have with castes/what is your purpose in editing those articles? Ryan Vesey 01:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For Christ's sake Sitush, if I had a sprat handy you would get it in the mush. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram says in that diff "this is an encyclopedia-building project" so I would imagine that putting that together with WP:AGF would lead us to an acceptable conclusion about his purpose in editing any particular set of articles, absent strong evidence to the contrary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkness Shines: Apart from the numerous embarrassing typos (now hopefully fixed), I really do not care. I often make typos but that is not the issue. Block me for the ad hominem and for god's sake sort out the underlying mess. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, a sprat is a very small fish, hence what you said does not even raise to the level of a trouting. Get back to editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I know what a sprat is. But the initial "s" may be redundant here, in my case. I'm past caring when it comes to the "polite incivilty" that goes on where Doncram is concerned. I am fed up of seeing this person steamroller stuff, seemingly accept consensus only when it suits and misrepresent what others say. Honestly, I'm pissed off with all this stuff. I may be wrong and I know what the likely outcome of this report will be but, well, I'm past caring. Doncram himself suggested RfC was the best option last time I recall him being here, but he has not filed one and my experience of him forms only a small part of all the various complaints etc. I'm not best-place to form something for RfC and Doncram (probably rightly) seems unwilling to self-report even though admitting it is likely the best option. What can one do? I certainly cannot stand by and watch someone with so little understanding of a subject matter run riot just because they think they are good at copying an extant primary source list on to Wikipedia and, well, "it must be right" (paraphrase). - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the idea last time was that it should go to Arbcom, even Doncram himself suggested as much, but nobody ever took it there. For background on the issues see Doncram on Indic communities and subsections thereof. Ryan Vesey 02:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel honored by this. Sitush is stating at his talk page that he is "falling on a sword" towards bring me down, specifically:

    ....We are sleepwalking into a big problem here and someone who thinks they're good at turning a hardcopy list into a Wikipedia list is missing numerous relevant points while playing a very good game of pretending to acknowledge them. This is not the only sphere in which they've done this and their ability to insult without seeming to do so appears to know no bounds. I'll take him on and I know that I'll lose because the policy wonks will be unable to see beyond their beloved rules + he is very, very good with words even if less good with action. I'm past caring when umpteen admins etc are aware that there is an issue but nothing can apparently be done: block me, and let his new Wikipedia friends from India take pleasure in seeing that happen. Frustrated although I am, at least I will have fallen on my sword with honour.

    Sitush opened a recent ANI and RyanVesey expanded the scope of that. What I think this new outburst seems to be about is my observing, at Talk:List of OBCs or Talk:List of Scheduled Castes, that virtually every comment made by Sitush seems to involve disparaging or attacking someone else. That is just what I observed. It gets in the way of any real discussion, for (almost) every entry to be presented as an attack on others' ignorance or other failings. I was giving feedback and asking him to show some other behavior. As evident from links from User talk:Doncram#Your interaction with Sitush, Sitush consulted with Salvio giulano and seemed to acknowledge kneejerk comments of that type: ""I need to back off, I think, and will try my best. My last there was a bit of a kneejerk, although verifiable. Must try to pay more attention to what you, Dennis and others have said, ie: there are many eyes. Mea culpa".

    But subsequently several statements at my Talk page and at the given Talk page and at Sitush's Talk page and this ANI itself are also of this character. Sitush did make one statement at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes#Redlinks that was not of that character, but upon my reply to that he replied that I am clueless and he opened this ANI. At his Talk page he suggests "I'll take him on" and that he wishes to fall on a sword here. I don't care for a "self-reported ad hominem" attack turn into a trial of me here at ANI. I kind of would like to see some admonishment of Sitush, to tell him not to fall on a sword, not to seek to confront another editor. I hope not to comment much more here. I hope this could be closed with some response to Sitush who seems to have provoked some disagreement and seems to be seeking other admin involvement, where nothing should be necessary. Simply, at the Talk:List of OBCs and Talk:List of Scheduled Castes, just discuss the articles' contents, okay? Give Sitush some feedback: don't "take on" another editor, please. --doncram 04:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked at two talk pages you link above, and by no stretch of the imagination is "virtually every comment" a disparagement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) To quote OrangesRyellow at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes#discussion and question:

    ....Sitush has tried to create the impression that India is a chaotic country and that the official sources on India are also chaotic (without showing any sources to support his claims). He keeps telling Doncram again and again at various places that Doncram is unfamiliar with this subject area. But then, Sitush is also an amateur and no more. I am only trying to set the record straight so that people can work on this article with official sources in the usual way. I see no unusual problems in dealing with the subject of this article and even if some problems crop up, we should deal with them when they do crop up. I would certainly like to help when such problems crop up, but do not approve the negative climate about sourcing that is being created now. I do not think it is helpful to demoralize people by talking about problems in vague terms without pointing out any specific problems in the article. I think it is quite easy to write this article by sticking closely with what the sources say.

    I think it is reasonable to point out that Sitush has repeatedly suggested horrific consequences of any contributions, even if fully sourced and justified, I think with implication of inter-caste warfare or really I don't know what else being caused, which are all really vague. Editor OrangesRyellow is pointing out the vagueness. Sitush has mentioned death threats. But I think it is reasonable to say that the only outrage I have observed in any of this is Sitush's. I have not familiarized myself with past Indic article disagreements that led to Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups judgments, but I wonder if Sitush's aggressive style displayed recently had contributed to disagreements getting out of hand previously. He has commented to me that he has won previous ANI type discussions on Indic topics. I don't want to win anything, but i and some others including OrangesRyellow also don't see any real impediment to developing wikipedia, with sources, in these areas. --doncram 04:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider this a smacking
    I suggest smacking Sitush with a minnow, since WP:TROUT would be too punitive here. (Here in Minnesota, in the United States, we use minnows as bait to catch other fish.) I can see why Sitush is getting frustrated -- it seems like Doncram's behavior has that sort of effect on people. I've seen plenty of people getting frustrated with Doncram's modus operandi on Wikipedia, but Doncram only has suggestions on how those other people should be admonished or punished or changed, while he considers his behavior beyond reproach. It's funny how that works out, isn't it? In fact, I remember how he accused me of lying about the date when the Floyd B. Olson House was built. Then again, I suspect that Doncram will vent all of his frustrations in the Arbcom case he's pondering submitting. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm....well, I quit rather than interact with you, so maybe the pot should stop calling the kettle black. Lvklock (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I don't think this report will solve anything. There is a fundamental difference in editing strategy here. Doncram seems to believe that any info is good info, no matter how badly formatted, no matter whether it is even accurate. All that matters is adding info that seems to be correct because it's cut and paste from an official website. This, of course, ignores the fact that the same word can have multiple meanings in different parts of India. Then there's Sitush, who believes (as I do), that no information is better than that which is potentially in error. I happen to believe that our stance is fundamentally fixed in policy, but others, especially those who've been editing for a long time, harken back to the "good old days" when anyone could start a page on anything with one sentence, no references, just something off the top of their head (or copied from the 90 year old version of EB) and that someone, sometime, would eventually come along to fix it. So, whatever, this will fix nothing. But doncram, before you start casting aspersions and say Sitush is seeing things that aren't there, don't forget that Sitush has been the victim of an off-wiki attempt to very seriously smear his character and has, in fact, received real death threats for his attempt to make caste articles neutral. Furthermore, Sitush and myself both came to this topic after several others had already been driven off the site by coordinated off-wiki attacks. This isn't just random talk. It doesn't help that some of your edits are just hopelessly wrong, such as your belief, for instance, that there is a national, official list of OBC (in fact, there is a national list, but it actually has far less relevance to basically everyone's lives than the individual state lists). But, as I've told Sitush, sadly, there seems to be nothing we can do here. To me this is exactly like your behavior with the NRHP articles, where you felt that creating tons of them was worthwhile even if they contained literally no usable information and/or clear and obvious errors. Please note that I do believe you're acting in good faith, and that you really think you're improving Wikipedia...but I really, really, think that you aren't. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just absurd. Sitush self-reports, truthfully that he has been making ad hominem attacks, and his victim gets banned?!!???!!!! What a crock. --doncram 05:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When the "victim" has been doing something worthy of topic-banning, they don't get a mulligan just for being a victim. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Intentional Vandalism

    This user has range of ip addresses here.Already used many for the same cause and some of them get blocked too.Some diff,s are with this range [10],with other range [11].Did all disruption with same tone and in common articles as Vidya Balan,Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara‎ ,[[Wanted (2009 film)]‎].---zeeyanketu talk to me 07:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I just hit the most recent one, let me see if there's a blockable range. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the ones you gave are from widely spaced ranges, so I don't see any way to do a rangeblock. At the moment the best solution may be just semi-protection on the targeted articles. I see that Floquenbeam has already protected the 3 you mentioned; are there any more targets? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two ranges are for sure while i dont know exactly how ranges are described at wiki, I will put some more differences if i found further.Thanx---zeeyanketu talk to me 08:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One range with common starting 101.63.98.70,,101.63.86.238,,101.63.44.114 etc,
    Other with 115.240.38.133,,115.241.247.149,,115.242.69.83,,115.241.203.78 and 115.240.123.33.They all worked during near time intervals with similar type of edit summaries and their network provider is same from india.May be from a company or organisation.---zeeyanketu talk to me 08:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He's back [12].---zeeyanketu talk to me 11:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, we cannot put a rangeblock on such a vast range of IP addresses. Visit WP:RFPP to request page protection for common targets (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to disturb you, but there is no specific target for me. You can find which page I have targeted and revert the vandalism. 115.241.178.64 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not fix it yourself? In fact, why do the equivalent of colouring in a library book at all? Freedom to edit does not mean freedom to edit in a stupid manner (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Official Lists

    Can someone please enforce the no legal threats policy against this POV pusher? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Joy doesn't have the half of it, alas. There's a whole theatrical company of single-purpose characters here:

    They all have interests that span only a small set of articles:

    Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I'm aware, I just didn't intend this to be a full case summary, I merely wanted someone else to pull the plug because it was me who they were targetting in this particular edit, so if I had done it, there might have been a WP:INVOLVED problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism only IPs (repeated vandalism, IP hopping)

    --Niemti (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    They stopped editing a while ago, so there's not much point in blocking them now. For a faster response next time, you might want to report them to WP:AIV. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the same user falsifying review scores on video games. I've left them warnings and notice of this discussion, but DoRD is right, if they make more such edits, AIV is the place to go. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption and personal attacks by IP user

    The individual using the IPs 198.228.228.147 (Special:Contributions/198.228.228.147), 190.211.255.12 (Special:Contributions/190.211.255.12), 198.228.228.157 (Special:Contributions/198.228.228.157) and 190.211.255.20 (Special:Contributions/190.211.255.20) has used those IPs almost exclusively for disruptive POV edits, vandalism and threatening personal attacks. It's possible that the abuser may also be using other IP addresses.Spylab (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nick.mon

    Hi! This is my first time doing this, so I hope I'm doing this properly!<3 ^_^ I'm a very casual wikipedia(er?) who occasionally edits various election pages with new polling data. Recently User:Nick.mon has taken over the "Italian general election, 2013" page and has deleted a large amount of polling data (which was sourced and linked and everything) and reformatted the entire article. He left no explanation, and did not discuss his edit with anyone on "Talk" before hand. I attempted to reach out to him several times, but he reverts anyone who attempts to change the article, refuses to offer an explanation, and won't talk about his edits on the "Talk" page.

    I realized I don't actually know what wikipedia's policy was, and did some research and his behavior seems to violate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

    I got the link to this page from the article on dealing with disruptive editors. I hope this is the right place to report this, and if not, could someone please explain to me what I should do? Thanks for your time. ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4idaho (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that all the links in that page must be reduced because in view of the following election all that data are useless, it only takes an half. I apologize with everyone who have tried to formatted the page, but I'm not very expert of Wikipedia and its Talk Page. Excuse me and thank you for your suggestions.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.mon (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    MalesAlwaysBest

    This user has just come off an unblock for editwarring. He has resumed his disruptive editing, twice moving List of Syrian Civil War slogans to the title List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans in violation of NPOV. We also have this defaming/bigoted/vilifying/propagandising slogans whose tolerated presence make a joke of WP:NPOV) And accusing editors of dishonesty[13] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And he has just moved it again for the third time.[14] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor blocked for a fortnight. I admit the temptation to just indef for tendentious editing was rather strong... I may still succumb to it... Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Steady. "Proaganda" is not a bad word - though it can be argued that this editor thinks it is. On the headings, I wonder how we would feel about labelling days "Friday of Crushing Rebels" for example? The editor simply needs to be made to respect BRD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    Harassing editor banned from other projects

    72hr block by King of ♥ applied. Salvidrim! 19:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Fête, indef'ed this week over at fr.wiki & fr.wiktionary (at least) has moved on to ENWP and is now proceeding to relentlessly harass a myriad of editors, bluntly requesting that they record voice clips of Quebec pronunciation of words. I would not so go as far as to call this editor crazy or maniacal, because I hardly make a habit of insulting people, but I believe the behaviour speaks for itself... This needs to stop before it is allowed to escalate. I myself had to vehemently repeat at least three times to the user to stop harassing me on my talk page, and I was close to growing in incivility... although I am generally known for my serenity! Others will clearly not display the same patience and I'd hate to lose good contributors over something so trivially useless as this. I made the mistake of trying to help when he came to the Help Desk, before realizing the extent of the user's obsession, and I fear he may have taken it as enabling of his behaviour. Salvidrim! 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the fr.wiki admin warned him explicitely that he should top or a project-wide ban was going to be requested, on his en.wiki talk page. Salvidrim! 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contacted said admin, meta:User:Quentinv57, who's sysop/crat on fr.wikt & meta, and is a Steward. Hopefully he will be able to assist. Salvidrim! 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him for 72 hours for now, but feel free to modify it if appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, you've blocked account creation only. Salvidrim! 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But otherwise 72hours should be enough for the Steward to have the time to review and decide if yet another indef. is needed. Salvidrim! 19:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a block on an account with any kind of settings will block editing as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation! Guess there's still some stuff to learn, heh. Just for information, if I understand correctly, the block you applied, in addition to blocking editing, blocks account creation from that IP? :) Salvidrim! 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but only for 24 hours. See WP:ABK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I was just reading that. Anyhow thanks for your time. :) Salvidrim! 19:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive behavior by Earl King Jr. (AN #2) and Neutrality of The Venus Project

    Earl King Jr. has been disruptive on the article page of The Venus Project.

    • 1. His first disruptive behavior incident noted that "he repeatedly accuses Ijon of being biased because Earl King claims that Ijon is a member of the group itself.--Bbb23" and informed him that, "Sorry, no, you dont remove other peopoles talk page comments twice on a whim. Thats grounds for an immeidate block! If you gfel it inapprooproate ou should discuss it or take it here.Lihaas" and "Earl, your repetitive comments about Ijon's supposed non-neutral position are not helpful.--Bbb23"
    • 2. He reverted a constructive article edit containing encyclopedic information about the project's history that was verifiable and properly sourced with page numbers, paragraph information, time spots, and quotes, back to his incomplete and inaccurate version with the edit summary of "Remove new wordy promo version. More like propaganda from the group than literal information," which suggested a group member contacted the sources (Miami News, Lionel Rolfe, WTVJ/Larry King, and William Gazecki) to publish propaganda on their behalf.
    • 3. A review of his contribution history since March 12, 2012 shows his edits primarily, if not entirely, consists of reverting and removing information from various articles surrounding the same topic. He was repeatedly informed on his self-created clean up section on the article's talk page to cease disrupting article improvement.
    • 4. He reverted another edit with critical commentary by New York Times back to his incomplete and nonrepresentative version with the edit summary of "same edit, different name. No. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional mouth piece for any group or company." He was informed in the article talk page that the encyclopedic information was notable work (the Lionel Rolfe source references Madman Muntz's half million commission, Fresco's Air Force patent, Forest Ackerman nominating him for president, as told by Jack Catran), which he afterwards described in the talk page that "an exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it" which suggested the enecylopedic information belonged at an unnamed, somewhere else and aforementioned sources haven't detailed the project.
    • 5. Conveniently, Bobrayner would revert the article to Earl King Jr.'s edit twice (equaling King Jr.'s own two times) using King Jr.'s promotional line in the edit summary of "Seems to be far too promotional." If the history/background of an organization or company "seems to be" "promotional," every Apple, Einsten/scientist invention, etc article should be reverted to their earliest, incomplete and unrepresentative edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that Ijon was topic banned from this area due to disruption? You seem to be going to AN over a content dispute. That's not the purpose of AN. Special:Contributions/NotDeletable and this account appearing looks like a potential DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1-No, as I'm primarily concerned with article content and good faith edits being disruptively removed. 2-I'd say since his disruptive behavior was brought up in ANI before, that part belongs here, but I'll move this over to disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Our articles around the Venus Project, and Fresco, have historically had severe problems with promotion & spamminess (which has occasionally leaked out into other articles, so some of our articles on economic stuff would have lengthy praise of stuff which is obscure and fringey in the real world). We won't get neutral articles by cherrypicking from sources and then framing it as positively as possible. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, but it appears that an editor (talk, that brought this issue may be using multiple accounts. If I am wrong on that I apologize now Special:Contributions/NotDeletable They may have used an i.p. address also for recent edits. My guess is the editors contribution is well intentioned but promotional or information placement oriented to the subject and so not neutrally presented. The article in question and other related articles, as has been mentioned, are problematic, with adherents to those groups making many edits that often are cut and pasted from the information given out by that organization. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Posted in wrong category, then was told to post in dispute, but this was the original destination (so the dispute should be closed).

    WP:SPI would be a better place to answer questions like that, but looking at certain timestamps I doubt that the two editors are the same person. There might well be some off-wiki connection but that's always a difficult case to prove.I suggest that it's not really worth it though - nobody's hammering the revert button, there are plenty of other eyeballs, we even have a DRN page - I'm sure we can solve this disagreement by civilised means instead of reaching for the banhammer. I haven't seen any suggestion that multiple identities have been used to get around the three revert rule, and it's hardly a crime for somebody to edit with an IP and then get an account a few days later. This is at the polite and cooperative end of the content-dispute spectrum. bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing

    I am reporting Darkstar1st for violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behaviour here Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. He is pushing the idea that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society, and is cherry-picking sources to support his view. Darkstar1st's proposals have been unanimously rejected by all other users, and his usage of sources has been strongly criticized, but he refuses to accept consensus, and continues to push the issue.

    I strongly believe that Darkstar1st has anti-socialist political views that are influencing his edits, he repeatedly edits articles in a manner that would appear to present Marxism-Leninism and fascism including Nazism as the major manifestations of what socialism is. The most important evidence I can provide of this is a cynical sarcastic-appearing remark recently made by Darkstar1st where he said "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action.", here's the diff [15]. He also has said in the past on the Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge, saying "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's the diff [16]. I believe that his intentions on Wikipedia with regards to material related to socialism, are to present socialism as a whole as totalitarian and linked with Marxism-Leninism and fascism.

    He has been warned in the past to desist from similar behaviour on articles pertaining to socialism, and considerations of topic bans for Darkstar1st on socialism-related articles have been considered, as shown here: [17], where he was given advice by me on how to improve his understanding of socialism to avoid such assumptions of socialism being totalitarian. He has not heeded the advice or warnings of anyone there.

    He has completely expired community patience at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. Many users there are aggravated with his pushing of the issue. Multiple users at the talk page are openly angry with his behaviour, some have called it "trolling". Darkstar1st neither listens nor cares about their criticisms, he just keeps pushing the issue.

    Since he was warned to desist from such behaviour here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, and has completely refused to accept consensus, I believe that indefinate topic bans for Darkstar1st on all articles relating to: socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism, is the minimal of what is needed. I advise that users here talk with other users who have been involved with the discussions here: Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I fully agree with this summary and this complaint. Darkstar is an exceptionally disruptive and tendentious editor. He constantly plays fast and loose with sources, he initiates long and repetitive discussion threads, and then, weeks later, when the issue has seemed long closed, he returns and repeats his intention to carry out disputed edits, he refuses to accept consensus, and he attempts to wear out other editors by repeatedly making the same contested assertions. He appears to be here mainly to push his personal political beliefs, to attack socialism and justify nazism. Although the RfC has been open for six weeks, he has failed to respond, except for one edit in the wrong section repeating his content argument. Several editors (myself included) have reached, and gone beyond, the limits of their tolerance in dealing with his behaviour, which now verges on trolling. I am convinced that an indefinite topic ban is required in all articles and talk pages relating, however tangentially, to political issues. Then perhaps the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    i have no idea what you mean about my page identifying me as an opponent of communism, or any comments i made confusing totalitarianism and socialism, please provide difs or withdraw your accusation. the edit i propose, "the USSR was the first socialist state and the USSR was the first socialist society. here are quotes from the 6 RS i presented, none of which have been challenged as a RS
    • The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
    • For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
    • The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
    • Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
    • the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
    • Soviet...the first socialist society.
    • With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are asking me for a diff for a quote of what you said. Are you contending that you never said this: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action."?--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    i said it. how does that make me an opponent of communism or think all socialist are totalitarian? much of the modernization of Russia can be attributed to socialism, which is what i meant with the words "shinning" and "action". perhaps you have simply read too much into my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure you can say such convenient stuff now when your editing is under observation now, but I am familiar with your editing history as are many other users, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It's all here as recorded by the user TFD and others: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. I read exactly what you intended to say, in context of what else you have said and how you have edited, you view the Soviet Union as the epitome of what socialism is. On your user page you are photographed in front of a building in Hungary where fascist and communist regimes tortured people and say: i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people. So by your own words, if the Soviet Union is the "shining example of socialism" and you went to a place where ""liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people", I can see no other meaning other than that you view socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical. Since you wanted a diff, here is your edit where you said that: [18].--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    so a photo in front of the house of terror makes me an opponent of communism? I read exactly what you intended to say, you should stick to reading what i write, not what you think i think. if you have a dif of me confusing totalitarians and socialist, plz provide here or withdraw your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people are not my words, rather from the article about the terror house. since the USA has also tortured/killed people do you think i am also anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalin "liberated" around 6 million of his own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are here because you have grossly violated WP:DISRUPT involving failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You are here for that. I have adjusted my statement in accordance with your concerns, but it is my firm belief, regardless of your attempts to deny it here to avoid topic bans, that you are anti-socialist. You appear to have indicated at Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge in your view, you said: "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's your diff [19]. Regardless of whether you are anti-socialist or are not, I may be mistaken but I doubt it, your edits on articles related to socialism have been highly disruptive, you have ignored consensus and have pushed issues after consensus has rejected them. This is a long-term problem, identified by the user TFD here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, you did not heed the warnings nor advice by TFD, me and others there and have continued your disruptive editing behaviour. Again, that is why you are here.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkstar1st has continued to argue a case despite no other editor agreeing with him. This is disruptive and I would agree to a topic ban as suggested by R-41. TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkstar is persistently tendentious; he falsifies discussions (see his mendacious nonsense above about the six purportedly reliable sources he uses to push his spurious agenda, which have long since been rejected by all other editors in the discussion); and he has a severe case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban would be a wonderful idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear from both the talk page and RFC discussions linked above that Darkstar1st's edits have been completely rejected by other editors, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't know how to actually understand, interpret, and weigh sources on this subject. Offering rhetoric from the Soviet Constitution claiming that it was the first socialist state in history as a RS for the factual claim that it was the first socialist state in history shows incredibly poor editorial judgment and a misunderstanding of core WP policies. The Soviet Constitution is a reliable source for its own content, and that's it; it's not a reliable source for verifying claims it makes about facts external to the Constitution itself and it should be obvious why this is so.

    Maybe a topic ban is appropriate now (maybe he isn't WP:COMPETENT to edit Wikipedia at all), but I'd like to see a clear statement of what he understands consensus on the matter to be and what he intends to do next. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    i understand consensus is against the proposed edit. the edit is a bit redundant anyway since the article already has an entire section dedicated to the 1917 revolution in Russia. the same claim (and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state) is made on the October Revolution article in the Soviet historiography section, so i really did not expect this kind of resistance. many people think there were socialist societies and states that pre-date the USSR, why are they absent from this article? wouldnt it be an improvement to note where socialism began? i plan to work on the tamarindo, costa rica article next. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To Darkstar1st, you have said that you understand that consensus is against your proposal but you are still pushing for it to be included in spite of that. You have effectively admitted then that you have knowingly violated WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and you are still rejecting consensus.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To Postdlf, from what Darkstar1st has just said, I think it is time for topic bans to be organized and implemented.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    what i meant by redundant is the edit i proposed in talk, is unnecessary and not worth perusing further, sorry for the confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out on the article taklk page when Darkstar first offered this justification,[20], Darkstar here is completely misreading the article on the October Revolution, where the view he offers as neutral fact is explicitly presented as the position of Soviet historians concerned to demonstrate "the accuracy of Marxist ideology". To offer a misreading once could be ascribed to a lack of understanding and an inability to read text critically; to offer this justification a second time, at AN/I, after the error has been pointed oiut, can only be seen as deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead readers. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking now at the October Revolution article for the first time, but it seems obvious to me your explanation is correct, that it is not claiming neutral fact for the "first socialist state" statement, but instead attributing that to Soviet historians. Particularly given that the section is titled "Soviet historiography", and the sentence about the "first socialist state" claim opens with "In this view..." as a rather obvious qualifier. To miss all that takes some rather serious carelessness or fundamental problems with reading comprehension. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps you could see the section of the October revolution title Legacy which has same claim without the qualifiers. The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus you have proven to us that you have wasted everyone's time with pushing this within your proposal when it actually was referring to "the first large-scale socialist state in world history" that you misleadingly used to say that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society" in history. Now I am certain that topic bans are absolutely needed as a minimal, and considering that Darkstar1st has inadvertently shown that he either is incompetent or unwilling to use material in the correct manner that it is worded, I would propose that it would be beneficial if Darkstar1st be indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether because of this level of complete incompetence or misleading behaviour (whichever it is).--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    but i never cited the article as a source in my proposal, only here as an example of how similar articles have similar claims. i have also said i am no longer pursuing the edit which was two-fold and had sources for both state and society, so i only meant this as an example relating to state. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really getting frustrated. Darkstar1st, do you realize the level of trouble you have put yourself in because of pushing the issue in violation of consensus? Do you realize that by the fact that you have admitted that you know that your proposal was against consensus, but you still kept pushing, puts you in deliberate violation of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU? Do you realize that you have made multiple users so frustrated with you because of your editing behaviour involving pushing proposals against consensus, that they are all agreeing in calls for you to receive topic bans? I am asking you this, because it seems that you do not care at all about these issues of serious breaches of policy at WP:DISRUPT, and are just attempting to side-step them.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable

    per wp:disrupt, i have presented 7 verifiable sources on the socialism talk page, yet made no edit to the article unlike R-41's recent massive rewrite of the lead. [21] the editor who reverted wrote this, Reverted R-41's mess of the lead. You've been warned about this already. You need to get some form of consensus on the talk page before altering the lead.

    • source one, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within, source rejected, no where in the book does it state the Soviet Union was the first Socialist society.
    • source two, The Constitution of the USSR source rejected, Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed.
    • source three, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2011 source rejected, "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism" If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought.
    • source four, Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia source rejected, Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society"
    • source five, Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy source rejected, Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning.
    • source six, Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921 source rejected, THE SOURCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE FIRST SOCIALIST SOCIETY. IT STATES THAT SOVIET HISTORIANS HELD THIS VIEW.
    • source seven, Contemporary World History, 2009 source rejected, Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not put the material back in and even though I disagreed with the user, I listened to the user and opened a discussion with that user on the topic. You on the other hand have not listened to any users on the talk page. You have refused to accept consensus that unanimously rejected your stance, not one single user agreed with you, but you keep pushing the issue, even here - that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy regarding failure or refusal to get the point, that I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR all agree here about what you have done. You have cherry-picked sources to promote your view while having little to no understanding about the source - what it was about, what the context is, and who is saying what you have noted, etc. and multiple users have criticized you for that. But you neither listen nor care about the unanimous rejection of your proposal, nor multiple users' requests for you to cease pushing the issue; instead you keep pushing it. This kind of behaviour has gone on too long to be tolerated any further, and that is why I as well as TFD, RolandR, and Orange Mike are supporting topic bans on you.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the point i was trying to make is i made a proposal on the talk page for a few words to be included in a subsection, you made a massive rewrite of the article lede without discussion, even tho you have been warned before not to do so. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference here is that, both here and elsewhere (Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original research, Talk:Socialism#would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?, Talk:Nazism#Rationing and shortages and many more) you have engaged other editors in exactly the same tedious time-wasting debates about misreading of sources, the origins of socialism and fascism, and other issues; that you consistently fail to hear what others are saying; that you repeatedly refuse to accept a consensus (even wheen you are the only editor in disagreement); that you will not drop an issue, but belabour it long after others have grown weary of explaining the same things to you time after time. You have exhausted other editors' patience and goodwill; R-41 has not. Your behaviour causes so many other editors to waste so much time, energy and emotion preventing you turning articles into a poorly-sourced POV nightmare thsat it is way past time that you were sent packing, enabling the rest of us to edit, and even when necessary to disagree, in a collaborative fashion. You are a drain on this project, and a net liability. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ClueBot NG Must Go

    User blocked or 24hours by Materialscientist. Salvidrim! 00:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ClueBot NG Is Stupid And Pointless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.227.104 (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably User:Boomage (see above). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I once thought AN/I had some sense to it. Entries like those above confirm my opinion that it's all a bit of a clique, really, and of no real benefit to WP. Is there any good reason why I shouldn't just delete this section as cobblers? Tonywalton Talk 00:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Was User:Boomage notified of the above? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look, he replied to the above section. Salvidrim! 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'll re-open this quickly since the crusading user started attacking people, for instance in calling them big fat idiot. Boomage isn't blocked so this isn't evasion even if it is him, but whatever the case is, nonsense and personal attacks in the first 10 edits makes me think the user behind this IP isn't here to work on Wikipedia. Salvidrim! 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, blocked already... Salvidrim! 00:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

    I think we need some administrator intervention. I believe that edit warring, POV-pushing, or misuse of sources is still going on even after article was under semi-protection. The edit warring has continued. Sources like Norcross are being misrepresented. It is very complicated discussion with a lot of history but it very difficult to get on with improving the article because editors just work against each other or seem to be tag teaming or misrepresenting the sources. There are some sneaky moves to avoid detection. It is very complicated because it is partly POV pushing, partly content dispute and the article attracts editors who are either overly promotional or overly skeptical. It is hard to find editors who are genuinely trying to collaborate on improving the article. I'm trying my best to assume good faith but...

    So, it seems that several editors are co-ordinating their efforts behind the scenes to misrepresent sources and push their own POV.

    The atmosphere at talk page is also uncivil. It is difficult to keep things on track in order to work together to improve the article in line with wikipedia policies. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My lone edit to that article was to restore (I thought) a consensus-backed lead. I haven't been involved with the discussion there, for quite a while. No longer interested, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconsolidation is the current ID of a long term SPA, the original of whom is under ArmCom restriction. This is the fifth user name they have used in serial. Each new ID makes very similar edits after a long period of silence. Another part of the pattern is to bring an issue here when they know a case is being prepared (see user:snowded/nlp case against them. Its to muddy the waters. As Action Potential (one of the previous IDs) there was clear evidence of meat puppetry and todate we have had 15 new SPA accounts created in the November/December period all pro NLP. ----Snowded TALK 04:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This would really be better covered in a comment on user behaviour. As I said to you, I have already confirmed my identity through wikipedia. I'm not trying to evade a topic ban or sanction. I fully support the remedies of the arbcom case. Anyone editing articles characterized as pseudoscience are covered by discretionary sanctions which I fully support. This ANI is related specifically to disruptive editing involving misrepresentation of sources and POV-pushing. This misrepresentation of sources can be easily verified by an uninvolved third party. Your accusation that I am involved in canvassing off-wiki is false and unfounded. I have no way of confirming or denying it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've previously asked you to provide evidence of having confirmed your identity through wikipedia and you have not responded. Please do so ----Snowded TALK 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get some advice on how your request can be fulfilled without violating privacy. I actually think the best way forward would be to create a series of RfCs to resolve our content disputes one by one. We can also resolve what I consider to be misrepresentation of sources using an RfC or even third party comment (but there is multiple people involved). The issue remaining is the incivility caused by people accusing each other of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. That would be less of a problem if we held people to abide by the suggestions of RfCs. If all that fails then we can use mediation. Would you agree to this plan? What about the other editors involved? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPA accounts make discussing sources impossible for experienced editors. For example, one of the problems with the apparent meat puppeting is that the steady stream of new accounts do not take into account past administration and editor discussions and conclusions. They attempt to revert changes long ago agreed, and worse bring up arguments on the talk page long ago resolved. I think this kind of disruptive behavior in context of a pseudoscience that is nevertheless complex is doing untold harm to the pro-NLP perspective in the article. --Encyclotadd (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    TeeTylerToe Block Appeal

    TeeTylerToe has posted a block appeal. Since his previous block and appeal were a result of discussion here I'm posting this here for discussion. I talked extensively with TTT on the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. My personal conclusion was that while TTT has the potential to be a good editor, he is still unwilling to get past his disagreement with the consensus opinion on the S-76 article. Further I expect he will not be able to accept any consensus (on any article)-edit which does not agree with his opinion, and therefore I recommend against an unblock at this point. However this needs more input than my own so I am posting here. Please take the time to review. Prodego talk 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI TeeTylerToe has voluntarily suggested a topic ban on the S-76 article for himself as a condition of unblocking. I would be willing to do so under those circumstances, but I want to give some time to see if there is additional support before doing so. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here to point out exactly what Swatjester has; TTT suggests that he will be completely away from the S-76 article, consensus (which i take to mean the talk page) or dispute resolution regarding the S-76. This being the case, i would suggest unblocking ~ after all, he'll be watched, and he knows it, so surely wouldn't be foolish enough to venture back to that topic. Cheers, LindsayHello 08:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any potential unblock would need to come with a thorough understanding of WP:ROPE - and an understanding that it would be a very short rope provided. Topic-banning from the S-76 article would be a good start, although a very, very sharp eye would need to be kept out for that sort of attitude that led to the problem in the first place spreading elsewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TeeTylerToe's record on Wikipedia is full of raging disputes. (He has only 13 edits prior to June 2012, so it is fair to limit your attention to the period since June 10). All his past unblock appeals are still on his talk page, and you can get an impression of his attitude by reading them. His tendency to make personal attacks has been noted. In my opinion it would be excessively hopeful that steering him away from a single article, S-76, will allow him to have a productive career. I recommend declining. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    99.225.202.45

    This anonymous user, 99.225.202.45 (talk · contribs), is edit-warring over sectioning (gasp).

    They appear to be so attached to Vojislav Šešelj that they've gone to really bizarre lengths at Talk:Vojislav Šešelj#Sectioning to try and argue that we can't call the part of the article that describes his incarceration - incarceration, instead we have to call it "academic career" because his academic work preceded the incarceration and, well, because.

    I don't think I've seen this level of pointlessness from an actual anonymous newbie before; it looks more like User:Velebit or similar (but it's not him, at least it's not his standard ISP - this one is in Canada - could be a new entry from the Serbian Youth League or something).

    Can someone else please handle it, because I'm WP:INVOLVED? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably this is the same person as 99.225.203.13 (talk · contribs) ...? bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost certainly, their first contribution was this which fits the pattern. And the rest fits my WP:OWN accusation - the previous IP added almost 50 revisions and 10 references to vseselj.com. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More wild, stab-in-the-dark accusations, POV labeling, insinuations of bad faith, and plain blatant Joy-style bullying. I'm not involved with anything called Serbian Youth League. I'm not claiming "ownership of the article", I'm simply trying to ensure sectioning provides proper context.
    What do I need to do (other than submit to Joy's bullying) to get this guy to stop accusing me of stuff while insinuating some grand conspiracy on my part? I've done nothing wrong here.
    References are to an extensive interview from the early 1990s that contains a lot of biographical info. It was conducted by an independent journalist (not affiliated with Seselj), that happens to posted be on vseselj.com.99.225.202.45 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by User:Sagapane

    Moved from WP:AN#Personal attack by User:Sagapane

    User:Sagapane abused Wikipedia:No personal attack, here, here, and here. He/she wrote

    • But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”
    • I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg )

    I'm neither a Turkish nor a fascist. Moreover I don't hate Kurds. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't this be next door? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided a hand-typed only warning for NPA. Also reiterated that they review copyright/IUP. I cannot see them as 3 separate personal attacks, it's exact same one 3 times - normally, I would indeed block due to the nationalist/racist connotations. Maybe I'm giddy over the upcoming calendar change, but I'm hoping that a stern warning will be sufficient to stop future similar behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tried to give context to the copyright issue; BWilkins, Sagapane is having the (perfectly legitimate) problem of not understanding our licensing in the sense of "Wikipedia is non-commercial, the map says it can be used non-commercially, so we can use the map". You know why this is an issue, I know why this is an issue, but it isn't as apparent to a newcomer. I've tried to explain why our licensing doesn't allow for this content: in future I would request people give more nuanced copyright explanations rather than pointing people to a 27,000-character policy that may not actually address the point of confusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also offered what little advice I can on my talk page, having becoming involved from commenting on Doug Weller’s. I ignored the attack and unfair accusation of vandalism there because I was uncertain about the etiquette of confronting someone ‘out of the blue’ on an admin’s talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sagapane has also been leaving messages on my talk, complaining about fascist Turkish users. If he continues on his current course he is probably headed into Arbitration enforcement anyway, due the fierceness of his national views. It might be a useful step for an admin to get him to agree to stop with the 'turkish fascist' language as an alternative to an immediate block for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The "fascist" comment on your talk page was before Bwilkins' warning (a fact I failed to notice before I blocked - and subsequently unblocked), so no further action or further warnings are needed unless it is repeated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    NovaSkola

    NovaSkola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Non-consensual article edits ([22], [23]). Insists that the Facebook and unknown dubious Lithuanian web-site - reliable sources ([24]). On the talk page does not respond. Congratulate him on the New Year, grant him furlough. Divot (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not Russian Wikipedia, and we have a different mechanism for conflict resolution. You should really talk to the user on their user page, otherwise no action will be taken, since they are unlikely to be aware of the problem. The user also should have been notified of this thread, but this I will do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Divot, never been even talked to me, as far I know, he was previously banned for his biased reverts, and ignores other users' views by acting that he is always right, then makes instant attack like this without warning this users. I demand from moders to take action for such fake allegations against him. Furthermore please check out his sarcasm "Congratulate him on the New Year, grant him furlough. " this is personal attack on me --NovaSkola (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling that a personal attack just undermined the credibility of the rest of your reply. So was "demanding". Well done. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned both NovaSkola (talk · contribs) and Divot (talk · contribs) about edit warring on Khojaly Massacre although since Divot was previously blocked and placed on notice of sanctions for edit warring related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 (AA) arbitration case, perhaps further action is in order.

    I've also issued and logged an AA2 warning with NovaSkola. Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP redirect for delete and salt

    Already being discussed at WP:BLPN, the more suitable venue. GiantSnowman 14:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This redirect helps Wikipedia out a person who may have transitioned gender. A former sock and several tendentious editors have been using a tabloid source to try to re-add birthname to the article. The BLP subject does not apparently discuss this and it's bringing them real-world harm. There are also several postings of links on the talkpage that may need to be looked at. The article may need to be deleted as well but at least the redirect pushing this onto the top of Google results needs to go. Any help appreciated. Insomesia (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The article itself says previous to 2006 she published books under that name. And her own website is "tagged" with that name. So if it's supposed to be a secret, it's not being very well kept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Baseball Bugs

    Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has made an unambiguous personal attack here, accusing me of anti-Jewish advocacy. There are any number of things that I would like to say to this "editor", but in the hope that ANI isnt as broken as I think it is, will something be done about the straightforward lie of an attack directed against me? I know he spends a lot of time here and has friends who will undoubtedly rush to his defense, but this is bullshit should not be allowed to stand. nableezy - 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You're advocating for an obviously racist, anti-Jewish "news agency". What other conclusion can I draw? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That isnt true, and repeating it does not make it so. nableezy - 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) It's not clear that the edit you cite is a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? In what world is saying somebody is advocating for racism not a personal attack? nableezy - 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The same world where someone can call an opinion a lie. Tiderolls 18:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you guys kidding? Accusing another editor of being an antisemite isn't a personal attack? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would likely be, but I haven't found that yet. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you please say what exactly you think somebody engaged in anti-Jewish advocacy is if not an antisemite? For the record, an antisemite is somebody who has prejudice against Jewish people. nableezy - 19:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said opinions weren't sanctionable, Malik. Tiderolls 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    An opinion? An opinion that Im a racist? I cant call that a lie? What is wrong with this place. If accusations of racism are acceptable, there are a few things Id like to get out of the way before my New Year's resolution of being more civil takes effect. And no, that isnt an opinion. He made a statement of fact, a false one, that I engage in anti-Jewish advocacy. A false statement of fact, whats that called again? nableezy - 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the diffs and comments above, the only person that said anything about you being a racist appears to be you. I think Bugs said you were advocating for an organization. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so being an anti-Jewish advocate, whats that? There a reason Malik also sees that as calling me an antisemite? And no, he said I was engaging in anti-Jewish advocacy. nableezy - 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs' quote here seems Ok to me. But this seems a bit too much, unless Nableezy was specifically arguing for the inclusion of anti-Jewish propaganda in articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not. nableezy - 20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it crosses the line then. Bugs, will you strike that comment please? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it as a personal attack, but I wouldn't care. I guess some people can't take attacks, however I do see that reply as a personal attack and in actuality smart attack by someone who looks to be a narcissist. He really seems obsessed with being on top of everything, talking down to people and in general unpleasant to reply to. Baseball Bugs, or whoever he is, I'm worried about your mental health. --Hinata talk 20:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hinata, what you just said is a personal attack. Bad idea. Further, considering you deny mass killings ever happened under Communist regimes, I'd say you're not the person to be disparaging others. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked comments were comments on behavior. Their validity etc. can be debated, but such is not a wp:Personal Attack. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. WP:WIAPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence [emphasis mine]. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I'd say that antisemitism is a serious accusation indeed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate antisemitism as a serious accusation? I thought that antisemitism accusations were so common that it was "medium" but not serious. Although I agree it was an attacks bugs made, antisemitism is not a serious accusation. --Hinata talk 22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They arent common here. Most things I have no problem brushing off, but that accusation, given the topic that I most often edit, isnt something that I am willing to ignore. nableezy - 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what wrong needs to be righted here? Are you using this as a forum to advocate that Bugs be blocked? Because that seems very unlikely.--WaltCip (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The wrong? How about the accusation of antisemitism that remains on RS/N, the author of which is happily editing along as though he didnt in fact make a rather cowardly accusation without basis. That wrong enough for you? And yes, he should be blocked for it, though I dont dispute the final sentence. nableezy - 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)A block is absolutely appropriate. Whipping out the "well you hate Jews" card in a debate is a sucker punch if there ever was one, and in contentious areas like Israel-Palestine, such behaviour should merit sanction. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is probably not going to do anything though. What is the logic behind blocking? --Hinata talk 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to issue ARBPIA / Discretionary Sanctions warnings to both sides - further abuse will result in short term article or topic bans to keep you all apart for long enough for the situation to cool down. I would URGE that you all just step back on your own now, please. The discussion is not advancing the encyclopedia, or your own standings, in any way.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm agreed with GWH here. Blocking is only productive if it prevents future occurrences, and we've got no real evidence those are going to happen. Sticking a one-strike-and-you're-out system in is a pretty good way of ensuring that things are locked down if they do happen without punishing people for theoretical future excesses. Ironholds (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm kinda perplexed about the "both sides" bit, though. What exactly did Nableezy do wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
    (edit conflict)The best place to address the ad hominem is within the thread, indented directly under it. For best effect, the sooner it is rebutted, the better. Context is critical as well. The debate was heated from both sides, steadily increasing, with no apparent efforts to deescalate. Everyone needs to calm down, take a break and bring in the new year in peace. Nableezy gets a minnow slap for feeding the trolls and BB gets a sardine slap for resorting to ad hominem when he realized his argument was weak; instead of acknowledging the other editors reasonable assertions. Happy new year across the globe. --My76Strat (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    GWH, if I am going to be warned for something, at least allow me the opportunity to do something warn-worthy. If you would please be so gracious to allow me to let BB know exactly what I think of him and his accusation, Id be fine considering the matter closed with a warning to both sides. nableezy - 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you would probably have to be blocked for being disruptive.--WaltCip (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what Nableezy's personal beliefs are. But the fact that he considers an obscene racist diatribe to be a mere "op-ed" is extremely troubling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know what the term op-ed means? I tried to explain it to you earlier, but I see that it didnt take. nableezy - 23:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, and you're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I'm wrong? What is an op-ed? nableezy - 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this agency "racist". That's a particularity strong accusation. In any case, why are you taking such an strong exception to this? --Hinata talk 23:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of an extremely vile and racist rant which they allowed, which Nab insists on calling an "op-ed" as if it were someone arguing over whether main street should be widened. That is not an "op-ed", it's something Hitler would write about the Jews, and that so-called "news service" stands by it. So I assume anyone supporting that news service stands by it also, until they demonstrate otherwise - specifically, by rejecting it as a "reliable" source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So now, instead of redacting the cowardly attempt to silence others as racists, you expand that bogus attack to the numerous others who have in that same RS/N agreed that a source that the NYTimes, the BBC, the Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz (those last two are Israeli papers) all cite is in fact a reliable source for their news reports? Awesome. I think that just maybe makes this more deserving of a block to ensure that Mr Bugs understands that he cannot brand others as racists because he has no better argument. nableezy - 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting uncivil. In any case, from my understandings Israeli media tend to cite the agencies work from time to time. --Hinata talk 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That news agency supported that obscene "op-ed", and Nab supports that agency. He has some 'splainin' to do, and he ain't there yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is op-ed anyway? --Hinata talk 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It means "opinion-editorial". And if the news agency in question doesn't disclaim it, then they support it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "opinion" is opinion cannot be used as sources, but what about the agency as a whole? It cannot be deemed racist just on part of its operations? --Hinata talk 23:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, actually it doesnt, and that last part of your sentence is as wrong as the first. An op-ed isnt an editorial, that is signed by the editorial board of the paper or one of its members. An op-ed is an opinion piece by an unaffiliated person, or a member of the board who doesnt wish to associate his views with that of the board's. So now that you hopefully understand what the term means, would you care to redact that comment at RS/N? nableezy - 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the agency doesn't refute or disclaim it, then they must be assumed to support it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It covers all related discussions as well. nableezy - 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It took a while longer to actually lodge the warnings, due to a real life phone call and computer problem, but now that those are over...
    Re to Tarc: Nableezy has used confrontational language and to some extent abusive language, and if not precisely escalating the situation has not acted to defuse it. I will restrict these observations to this thread and the RSN thread; I may have missed other behavior elsewhere, but that's what I am referring to. These do not rise to the level of personal attacks but are part of the overall disruption.
    On the scale of things, he was approximately one step short of an actual serious problem, as was Tkuvho; I think Bugs walked right up to the line (personalizing the responses against Nableezy).
    Were this another topic area, the odds of an ever-increasing spiral of nasty would be lower and we would hopefully not need the nasty.
    To all three of you (Bugs, Nableezy, Tkuvho) - and AnkhMoorpark, though you did not participate in the borderline rude, your post to RSN percipitated this...
    It is perhaps wise that all sides who are actively engaged in or caring about a particular troublesome conflict area post perceived source or information reliability issues to the noticeboard and then step back and let uninvolved editors assess, review, and decide. If questions are asked, it's reasonable to answer them. If you are feeling like getting more engaged than that, you're in danger of situations like this, where rhetoric escalates and obscures the underlying issue.
    There are long, long histories of both non-Arab/non-Moslem and Arab/Moslem anti-Israeli sentiment or outright antisemitism on Wikipedia; that is a real problem we should acknowledge and not minimize.
    There are also long, long histories of both antisemitic and Arab/Moslem (on one side) and Jewish or Israeli (on the other side) individuals or groups attempting to whitewash Wikipedia, remove sources, slant articles, etc. This is why ARBPIA was done in the first place, and it was neither the first nor last of these. You've been around the block, have all seen this before, etc.
    You all have been around for a while and are not known for being problem editors in this space. In this particular case, you all are behaving in a manner that is problematic, however. Please stop. It's not helpful for you, your beliefs or causes, or the encyclopedia.
    I am reasonably sure you won't all be sending each other new-years cards, but if you can stop pushing each others' buttons and sniping at each other for a while, perhaps you can be constructively editing together not that long from now.
    Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Newbie biting by ElijahBosley

    I'd like to bring an incident to the attention of some admins, if that's worth anything. I'm not asking for a block or anything serious, but a formal warning or notice so that this behavior does not continue in the future. This will also give any users that interact with him in the future fair warning of what to expect.

    I was recently doing some research on torture in the United States. I found a few sources saying that waterboarding was derived from the SERE program, which was designed to train US soldiers to resist torture from Chinese communists in the Korean war meant to illicit false confessions for propaganda purposes. It seemed appropriate to add this information to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques if it wasn't there already. However, to my dismay, the article claimed the connection between SERE and Chinese communist torture was "erroneous". Having already found reliable sources contradicting this, I checked the link and the source. I didn't have access to the physical source, but this is how it was cited and linked:

    though [[Mind control#Army report debunks brainwashing|erroneously]]<ref>A 1956 U.S. Department of the Army report called physical and psychological abuse resulting in brainwashing a "popular misconception;" thorough investigation had revealed no deliberate physical abuse of POWs by the Chinese for purposes of interrogation or indoctrination, and there was not a single reliable report of brainwashing.{{cite book| last = U.S. Department of the Army | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = |title = Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination, and Exploitation of Prisoners of War |publisher =U.S. Gov't Printing Office | series = | volume = | edition =Pamphlet No. 30-101 | date =15 May 1956 | location = | pages = 17 & 51}}</ref>

    Both mention the debunking of brainwashing, but not the debunking of false confessions. With an obvious misinterpretation of the source discovered, I deleted it here, with a short edit summary for a fairly obvious and seemingly non-controversial edit. This is where the conflict begins.

    • ElijahBosley reverted this deletion with the edit summary, "revert vandalism by IP address".
    • I'm editing anonymously, so I understand the skepticism. Still, I did include an edit summary. So I reverted the hasty restoration of questionable content here, with a much lengthier edit summary.
    • Enter user Zymurgy, who reverted without summary and placed a warning template on my talk page, calling my edit "unconstructive". (He later conceded that this reversion and warning were incorrect)
    • Alright, maybe a second guy is so skeptical of IP editing that he'll revert without even checking its validity. But again, I had two lines (on my screen) of edit summary and I have yet to receive any response to the issues I raised, no comments on my talk page (besides a warning template), and nothing in any edit summary to indicate any consideration at all to the point I brought up. I posted on the article talk page, reverted and directed users to the article talk page for an explanation of the revert, and responded to the warning template with one of my own.
    • Slowpoke admin Bbb23 chimes in with an edit warring warning and tells me to use the article talk page, which I had already used. I told him as much.
    • ElijahBosley responds on the article talk page by showing 0 comprehension to the actual point I'm making, wiki-stalking, and fallacious threatening (I had only "reverted" twice, it takes 4 for an unambiguous 3rr violation), and of course, he reverts with the explanation, "edit warring--warning given". Keep in mind that at this point he has exactly as many reverts as I do: 2. He also posts on my talk page with more threats. The tone of this message is borderline harassment, I responded equivalently.
    • So I do a mountain of research and make several posts on the article talk page and establish that not only policy is on my side (which was unambiguously clear from edit #1), but reality is on my side, as the very wikipedia article that Elijah mentioned covered the issue in "greater depth" in fact supported the very information that we were calling "erroneous". Additionally, being the good faith editor I am, I found another source.
    • With absolutely no legitimacy left with which to argue, Elijah grudgingly re-deletes the material, but not without passive aggressive message on the talk page, making sure to establish that my anonymous editing was the reason for his hostility.

    I can't believe that this is the kind of reception we should expect for anonymous editors who are making good faith, constructive, and correct edits. If this was just a misunderstanding about the validity of the edit in the first place, I would understand. But the last message is why I'm posting here. Elijah seems to have it in his head that all things go when dealing with anonymous editors, that blind reverting and open hostility are acceptable alternatives to reviewing a diff or reading an article. Wikipedia is in desperate need of new editors, our population is so low that we can leave RFCs open for months without receiving a response, while the number of articles continues to grow linearly. Trying to intimidate new editors is counter-productive. I would like a formal censuring of ElijahBosley from an admin to establish that this aggressive behavior is completely unacceptable. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified here. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I just realized upon more careful review of his re-deletion, that he merely tried to hide the erroneous claim (in a wikilink), rather than try to delete it entirely. I don't get this insistence on pushing material that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and without any sources backing his position. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Putting aside the content dispute, both EB and the IP have been edit-warring since December 27. The first round, which consisted of 3 reverts by the IP, one revert by EB, and one revert by another editor (EB's side), stopped on December 28. I believe I warned the IP about edit-warring after the 3rd revert. A new but related round began on the 28th and has continued through today with each party making two reverts. I can't comment on the geolocate/traceroute issue. EB should stop using vandalism labels in his edit summaries, and he should not use an edit summary like the last one ("Do this one more time-your're blocked") as it implies he has the power to block the IP, which, of course, he does not. I'm tempted to lock the article, but perhaps the two of them can step back and talk to each other civilly. There has been an extended discussion, but it's way too strident.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It saddens me that an admin is unable to accurately count reverts, considering how much of their job this constitutes. Look at the history pro. I had 1 deletion and then 2 reverts. How is the very first edit a revert? Lol. And here are two reverts with the default revert text in them for EB: [25][26]. So my count is wrong, his count is wrong, what else... After the weekend, I cleaned up the article by removing another use of the word "erroneously", removing the dispute tag that I added, and then removing the link that EB left. He reverted the latter edit. Apparently now that is an edit war...? And where I'm an equal participant I guess...? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP address editor 159.1.15.34 is apparently neither a newbie, nor has he been bit. The posts give evidence of an experienced editor conversant with Wikipedia block procedures no longer able to use whatever moniker he had before, now taking refuge in an IP address. Told the misbehavior risked a block he has attempted a preemptive strike here. I take Bbb23's valid point about the inappropriate placement of "do this one more time and you're blocked." Still--have a look at how many other editors, on how many other occasions, have had to say exactly the same on the 159.1.15.34 talk page. This is an argumentative individual looking for things to argue about including on this page, who is counting wrong. Patience and understanding only work with those who want to resolve a difference, not with those who enjoy arguing for its own sake.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh shiii... I had no idea I was dealing with such a powerful psychic that he could read my mind from states away. Seriously though, if you want to talk about my past disputes we can. It's a lot of dealing with bad faith editors who think that reverting is a game, rather than a tool to protect the encyclopedia. In one case, I was unambiguously correct and the article now reflects that. In the other, the sources available weren't sufficient, and the dispute was resolved as soon as the restoring editors provided them, sound familiar? Except in this case you have no sources. You're being aggressive for aggression's sake. I have nothing to hide, so browse my history all you like, read every post I've written. My good faith will be apparent in every word I say. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Regarding being "bitten". Like I said, this isn't about me. This is protection for future newbies that you might just casually revert and accuse of vandalism. That should not fly on Wikipedia, so let's see what the community thinks of your behavior. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    159.1.15.3 is apparently correct on the relevant content issues here. Other editors would have better utilised their time in exploring diligently said content issues including carefully reading the sources. Doing so and engaging in debate on issues of content and sources would have been more productive and may have led to article improvement. There are lots of legitimate reasons to edit as an IP. If another editor chooses to edit as an IP that, in the absence of evidence of malfeasance, is their legitimate choice and not an invitation to engage in (implicit) smears against them. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carlmarche has been repeatedly adding material to the falsetto article that is either copied verbatim or closely paraphrased from source material. I have left warnings on his talk page and on the article talk page to no avail. It appears he is now editing as an anon IP in order to avoid violating the WP:3RR rule. It should be noted that he and I are in a current content dispute which I hope can be resolved amicably on the talk page. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Article needs temporary protection

    I added some material to India and weapons of mass destruction and another editor also added the reference to the section. Then some editors proceeded to remove it. I requested discussion, but the reverts continued. Then discussion started and another editor also expressed complaint that one of these editors are removing material. The editor who is warring with me also refuses to provide any sources to support his claims and uses speculation. Please see: Talk:India and weapons of mass destruction.

    I therefor request the article be temporarily with a disputed template in the sections edited. Thank you-99.226.203.145 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=530681229"