Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Talk:Germans

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

---

I think attention here is warranted, a consensus is forming for redefining Germans to "ethnic Germans" a concept that has no working definition but which is depends entirely to subjective and bigoted criteria and which would leave millions of German citizens outside of the scope of the article on their own nationality. I had to unwatch the talkpage myself though, I couldn't stomach it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Amazing -- a section heading "Karl Marx and Albert Einstein are not Germans" - people arguing they should be removed from the infobox because they are Jews and not ethnically German. I'm not sure what we should be doing about this but it needs more eyes. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Guitar hero on the roof

It turns out that Germans is not the only article where this user has been pushing the POV that Jews cannot simultaneously hold any other ethnicity. (He justifies this using what appears to be a thoroughly racist definition of ethnicity that cannot be reconciled with the definitions in ethnic group.) He has also been working to skew articles on Austrians and Poles. Apparently, Talk:Germans is merely the location where his agenda of exterminating Jews from other ethnicities first encountered serious opposition. (Apparently Marx and Einstein wasn't German as well as Jewish, Freud wasn't Austrian as well as Jewish, and two Polish Jews cannot possibly have been Polish as well as Jews.)

Someone should check his contributions to articles on Jews in various countries. It appears he mostly added infoboxes. They should be checked for POV problems.

There are also serious behavioural problems that may warrant direct admin intervention. The situation is unlikely to calm down without some kind of restriction on this user, and the longer they are active, the more cleanup work may be required afterwards. Hans Adler 14:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion its content issue and thus should be decided on relevant talk pages.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the thing, it already was. The article talks about ethnic Germans (we had people who didn't agree with that claim that eventually agreed with it), when ethnic Germans=Germanic people who formed together by union and assimilation the German ethnicity during the Holy Roman Empire, therefore we, Jews, are obviosuyl not a part of that ethnicity because we are a separate ethnic group. This guy came, didn't read or take part in a discussion which lasted for 2 weeks and not suddenly starts his weird destruptive behaviour calling people racist and neo-Nazis. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call canvassing several other wikipedia users when you couldn't win the discussion you were having, then ganging up on the sole person who opposed you, accusing him of being racist and telling him he had mental problems and he should get help until he ragequit, saying he just wanted to 'get it over with' a consensus; or someone agreeing with you for that matter. - Rex (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When a "content issue" spans many pages, it becomes a behavioral issue. I would point out that Guitar hero has—and continues—to engage in canvassing, with odious comments at that. See User talk:Malik Shabazz#Claims Jews are not an ethnic group for one example. More recent examples include these, made today. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If there was canvassing this clearly a behavioral issue. Did the user canvassed after being warned?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Twice after the first warning. See my warning on user's talk page. Hans Adler 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you are such a weirdo running here. On Poles and Austrians I stoped because the articles are aimed at nationality (which I said ages ago). The Germans article is talking about ethnicity, which was discussed on the talk page. We actually reached a concensus until you came and try to use your private definitions. I am Jewish myself and me and other Jews brought up a fact that Jews are a separate ethnic group, you are being racist by trying to play with those facts so please stop lying :-) We brought quotes by Einstein on the page saying he's not German and doesnt like Germans. I'm a Jew who had ancestors who faught against the Nazis or died at the holocaust and their adler guy dared to call me neo-Nazi, while the querstion is what was his great-grandfather doing in 1941! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. What any of our ancestors may have been doing during WWII is irrelevant; nor do I have any way of knowing whether you, or Hans Adler, or anyone else here is fairly representing their own ethnicity. You are in no more of a position than anyone else to determine who is or is not German. It is not at all widely accepted that each person is uniquely a member of one ethnic group - quite the reverse. Jewishness does not preclude membership of other ethnicities. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The main problems are racist POV pushing / IDHT (the user simply ignores the modern definition of ethnicity and pushes a 1930s purely genetic one) and canvassing (see my warning on user's talk page). Hans Adler 14:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also edit warring to restore the non-neutral talk page section heading [1] that featured in his lates canvassing campaign: [2] [3] Hans Adler 14:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike admonished me for calling the user racist, but Talk:German is full of evidence and it's relevant in this context. Example:

"A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, it's not changeable. It's your genes, where your ancestors came from. I don't see what's your problem just admitting the fact that Jews are a separate ethnicity. Einstein never identified as a German but for a reason a few Germans here insist on having some ownership on him (after trying to kill him and his people)." [4]

This is not any official modern definition of ethnicity, but an obsolete, racist one. Hans Adler 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are tendentiously advancing a modern "PC" definition rather than a historically correct one. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you don't know what you are talking about. The "historically correct" one was outphased fifty years ago because it is nonsensical and cannot be implemented in reality without absurd consequences. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you want to get involved with the ethnic group article. Incidentally, the corresponding German article agrees with the English one that the way people think about membership is much more important than any genes, and even says explicitly that the members of national minorities in Germany (Danes, Frisians, Sinti and Roma, Sorbs) are considered to be of German ethnicity even though they speak different languages (and obviously belong to other ethnicities as well). Hans Adler 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I actually very recently had the occasion to insert a link to Germans in the current piece I'm writing; I made the actual link-words showing in the article "ethnic German" rather than "German" because that is exactly what I was trying to say. There is no need to give the page the title "Ethnic Germans" although that is precisely the topic of the piece. Ethnic Jews are ethnic Jews, ethnic Germans are ethnic Germans. Karl Marx would be a "German Jew"... This is neither difficult nor racist but somehow there are a lot of Americans in particular who have trouble with the concept that the Hebrew nationality (to reuse a really old word) and the Judaic religion are not one and the same, even though are both called "Jewish." The Holocaust was an attempt to wipe out a nationality; Israel is the nation-state of a nationality, not a religion, etc. The matter of ethnicity matters less and less over time in biography writing, Early 21st century figures exponentially less than early 20th Century figures... But it is absurd to pretend that there is no such thing. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure you got the point. There is no disagreement on whether ethnicities exist. The disagreement is on whether you have two of them if your family has been mixing freely with both of them for a few generations, whether it is ultimately about genes or about behaviour, and whether "German Jew" always means ethnically Jewish but happens to live in Germany, or can mean ethnically both German and Jewish. But this seems to be a content discussion. Hans Adler 16:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more or less a content discussion. Cultural assimilation muddies the waters, to be sure. Like I say, noting ethnicity in a BLP is orders of magnitude less important than noting ethnicity in a biography from three or four generations ago... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not about the content issue - the content issue is solved by the fact that no-one has been able to produce a source saying that it is impossible to be an ethnic Jew and an ethnic German at the same time. This is about tendentious disruptive editing from Guitar hero. If he had at any point backed his views with sources instead of merely repeating flat statements about wehat is a fact regarding the complex topic of ethnicity then this wouldn't have been a problem. If he had also refrained from misrepresenting statements of others and falsely claiming that his views is backed by consensus and further discussion should cease then we would have less of a problem still.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll help you out one comment down... Carrite (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Karl Marx is actually a pretty good example for your point, come to think of it, being both a "German Jew" and "German-Jew" (mama was ethnic German, daddy ethnic Jew)... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Marx's father was not an ethnic Jew - he did not consider himself to be Jewish but in fact changed his name and his religion in order not to be associated with Jewish ethnicity/identity. This is exactly what Einstein did when he dissasociated himself from his German identity - which is the reason we are reaching a consensus not to include him in the infobox. Marx himself was an anti-semite and an atheist, and clearly and unequivocally identified as a German so also not an ethnic Jew by a long shot. He was baptised and celebrated christmas, didn't speak Yiddish or study Hebrew, didn't wear a yarmulke, didn't study the torah, and didn't practice anything associated with a jewish cultural/ethnic identity. The only way to consider Marx a Jew is by implmenting a blood criterion for group membership in which case Marx and would still be BOTH Jewish and German.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhhhh, that's pretty much a fringe view from where I'm sitting... I'll refer you to a book by one of my professors at Oregon State U., the late Murray Wolfson, god bless him: Karl Marx: Economist, Philosopher, Jew. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you leveled an accusation of "PC" and assumed the mantle of "historically correct".

Pray tell, do continue.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Leaving aside cultural assimilation issues, it ought not to be controversial, or regarded as unduly PC (whatever that means) to point out the existence of mixed-ethnicity people like Marx. To return to the user behaviour issue, rather than the content issue, I think it is highly tendentious of 'Guitar hero on the roof' to suggest otherwise, by claiming that being (ethnically) Jewish disqualifies you from also being (ethnically) German. We rely on Reliable Sources here, not the uncited claims of individuals that one user claims to know. I would also draw attention to their battleground mentality, and their attempt to implicate Hans Adler's ancestors in WW2 atrocities. (His great-grandfathers, no less. How young are you all? My grandparents fought in WW2.) AlexTiefling (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to digress there into content issues.

The fact that there is a somewhat repugnant personal attack, which you have diplomatically drawn attention to, is perhaps indicative of the reason for the existence of this thread.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Indicative for the reason" maybe, but it's not the reason, in case that's not clear. Such attacks are only pseudo-personal and can't hurt me as much as historical knowledge does. On the other hand, in this case they seem to be a symptom of an unhealthy approach to editor interactions in which consensus is seen as something to be manufactured through canvassing and timing tricks and then enforced against the losers, rather than the result of a debate in which everybody learns and everybody wins.

I am still optimistic that we will get to such a point eventually, but the current climate at the talk page is absurd. When you think you have seen it all, someone comes along and claims that the number 88 is always automatically a WP:UPOL violation, regardless of context. The level of suspiciousness is mind-boggling. Hans Adler 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I think there might be some merit to this dialogue. I don't suppose any article on peoples must include a portrait of a specific individual. Their pics (like all pictures in an ad-hoc gallery of loosely connected individuals) have more-less sentimental value, and therefore feed into a variety of personal pride among various editors. Replacing any thumbnail in a hand-made collage will not change the actual biography of anybody, obviously. For example, quite a few photographs I once added to Polish Jews have long been replaced by other names. I accepted that (with only a brief comment in talk, once), and never looked back. Can you do the same? “Put a bandaid on it... and stop the bleeding now” (John Lennon, Double Fantasy). Poeticbent talk 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not about whether there is merit to the discussion it is about Guitar hero's behavior in the discussion. There is merit to the discussion but not to his arguments which rely entirely on unsupported claims that his definition of ethnicity is right and the majority of editors who disagree with him is wrong but which he nonetheless keeps repeating ad nauseam.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So will the result of this discussion be that there can't be anyone designated as American because there is no such ethnicity as American? RNealK (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I thought the subject of this discussion was supposed to be the behavior of a certain editor. Isn't the rest of this content discussion more appropriate to some article's talk page? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Guitar hero's editing is disruptive and tendentious in the extreme, he repeatedly misrepresents statements by other editors, he falsely claims consensus when the discussion doesn't go his way, and repeats unsupported claims and definitions ad nauseam without ever providing a shred of sourcing. The fact that many of his statements are borderline racist woudl be less problematic if he would at least show which sources he get them from instead of merely repetitively claiming that it is "a fact". He needs some serious talking to about how we do things around here at wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, my behavious is disruptive :-) ? That's funny coming from a troll like you who goes psycho when people don't agree with him. I think you need a tralk regarding the fact you don't own Wikipedia. My quotes have no racism at all, much less then your dictator views. What I say is ethnicity is based on identity and common origin, and where is the racism? I always said all ethnicities are equal as humans and deserve equal rights. Also, being of different ethnicities doesnt effect your nationality or rights as a member of a nationality. Being Jewish doesnt prevent you from being German by nationality and doesnt mean you have rights, but it doesnt make you ethnically German. I am Jewish with roots and Germany and I am not of German ethnicity.

This quote was used against me: "A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, it's not changeable. It's your genes, where your ancestors came from. I don't see what's your problem just admitting the fact that Jews are a separate ethnicity. Einstein never identified as a German but for a reason a few Germans here insist on having some ownership on him (after trying to kill him and his people)." Where is the racism in what I said? it's true! Regarding Einstein, he actually said he wants nothing to do with Germany or Germans and he is a Jew and that is his identity. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Was I not clear when I asked you to refrain from personal attacks? Please, permanently, stop referring to other users as trolls, dictators, and 'psycho'. It's disruptive and unhelpful, and it harms your case. If you want to argue the question about ethnicity, do it somewhere else, bring reliable sources, and be prepared to accept the existence of people with multiple ethnicities. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When someone calls me racist or neo-Nazi it's fine, but when I use dictator and troll it's wrong? Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone has called you a neo-Nazi then I think you should provide the diff here and then I am sure the user who did so will be reprimanded, because that is of course a personal attack.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Would all you admins & other who should know better please heed Gtwfan52's suggestion to stop talking content and address the behavior? NE Ent 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

yes you are right. Sorry for losing track. Guitar hero's behavior is disruptive and he needs to be told not to canvas, not to repeat unsupported arguments ad nauseam, not to misrepresent statements by others on talkpages, not to claim consensus in order to close ongoing discussions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

They've been told all that. Can we just skip to the part when someone with sysop bit finally gets fed up enough to apply a block? NE Ent 16:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In the least there are behavioral issues that need to be addressed so the discussion can proceed as calmly as possible. I.e. Guitar's disregards the attempts to hat off-topic discussion as can be seen here. If hatting doesn't work, then it just goes on and on. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If Guitar hero on the roof really thinks that ethnicity is "your genes", and wishes this absurd statement to be reflected in article content, he/she has no business editing any article where ethnicity is of concern, and should be topic banned on the grounds of promoting wilful ignorance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say that, but he should be expected to back his claims up with sources, and when unable to do so to simply shut up and let others move on, and failing to do that, then yes he should be blocked.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said it's only genes. I said it's origin (genes), history and idenetity. And no, ethnicity is not changable. And it's not my definition. What makes me a Jew? I'm not religious and don't consider myself to have a religion, I speak English, so what makes me a Jew? The fact my ancestors were Jews and belong to the ethnicity which came to be known as Jews.

Yes you did. It is even quoted above in this discussion. Here is the dif, which mentions nothing about "genes, history and identity", it just says "genes", several times in fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care what is reflected in the article. If you read the discussion you will see my point was: If Germans are about the ethnic group, that Marx and Einstein should not be in the infobox (Einstein himself said he hates Germany and Germans). If the article about Germans as nationality, it's racism not to include a Turk due to the fact Turkish people are the second largest ethnic group in German nationality. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user 48 hours to allow pondering of the complexity of race and ethnicity to take place. I have proposed the user avoid the area which led to so much disruption entirely in the future. Do these actions enjoy consensus? If not I will be happy to reverse them. --John (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If anything he should be blocked for canvassing and violation of WP:NPA but not for having his own legitimate WP:YESPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Noone has suggested that he should be blocked for his POV, just for the way in which he was seeking to implement it with no recourse to rational argumentation or backing by sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm at least as concerned about the personal attacks, including several right here in this thread, such as "a troll like you who goes psycho" - this is not acceptable. KillerChihuahua 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree that Guitar Hero's conduct has been disruptive here, and I have purposely avoided reading the talks. Calling Mannus a troll is way over the top. However, have you all failed to note that this is a user that has less than a month's experience? As Shrike has pointed out, this editor's POV is perfectly valid; he just needs to learn to argue it. Would he consider coming back from his current block to a one month topic ban during which time he takes on a mentor? He can learn to argue a position talking about the Maryland Terrapins football team, or some other less volatle (for him) topic while having someone to guide him. Just one man's opinion. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also this violation didn't happen in vacuum when someone implying that you might be a Neo-Nazi[5] this may rise the heat up.Of course this doesn't excuse him for violation of WP:NPA but the user:Hans Adler should get some administrative sanction too as he far more experienced. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hans Adler does not call anyone a Neo-nazi in that diff - he makes the point that we cannot know eachother's identities in an internet discussion and therefore cannot use claims about our identities as leverage in a discussion. Guitar hero had himself been going on with personal attacks for two weeks when Hans Adler appeared, and had to apologize to User:Illraute for equating German users with perpetrators of the holocaust.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"A person can choose an identity, like an Italian American can see his main identity as American and not feel Italian in any way, but ethnically he will still be Italian, 'it's not changeable.ì It's your genes, where your ancestors came from.

That's not only a personal view, but dangerously simplistic and ideological. Identity/ethnicity/ etc are extremely difficult concepts to handle, and the only appropriate way to edit aricles regarding this is by restricting edits to paraphrases of the content of quality academic sources bearing on the subject. I was reminded, reading the tripe above, of the Holocaut survivor, emeritus biologist and author Alain F. Corcos's The Myth of the Jewish Race: A Biologist's Point of View,

‘

All my life I discovered that anti-Semites are not concerned about personal beliefs or even religious doctrines. Rather, they regard Jewishness as inherited, just like original sin. . As a trained biologist and geneticist, I am convinced there are not and never were human races, because groups of people have never been isolated from one another long enough to form distinct races..p.10 Years ago I accompanied my brother Gilles, and a young couple with two boys.on a hike in Point Reyes National Seashore, 25 miles north of San Francisco. The mother of the two boys, who knew that Gilles and I had escaped from Nazi France during World War 11, asked us:”Why did you escape? Was it because you were Jewish?” Gilles answered very quickly: “I am, but my brother is not.” I was amazed at his response because a few years before he would have simply replied:”Yes, we are Jews.” Such as answer is consistent with the idea that Jewishness is inherited. . .That concept was pounded into our brains during our youth by racist propagandists. It took years to rid myslf of this false and deadly idea. On that afternoon in California had Gilles finally realizd that being a Jew was a personal choice and not, as we were told, due to a specific biuological characteristic? . .Like Ashley Montagu, I define a Jew as someone who professes the Jewish religion.’ Pp.15-16 Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

topic-ban?

I've left a longer comment at the user's talk page. I am happy to enforce the topic ban going forward, as long as there is not a consensus here that this is too heavy-handed. I do take Gtwfan's point about this being a relatively new user who we should not bite. However, as I've pointed out, I don't think for the moment that they can help us in these sensitive areas. There may be other areas where they can. What do folks think? --John (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• If behavior continues after block expires, topic ban is badly needed. (it is, btw, the most reasoned and well-defined rationale for a topic ban I've read) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - on both points. Very well written indeed. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree per Seb az86556.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with both the block and subsequent topic ban. Guitar hero's demeanour here on this page strengthens my conviction that these actions are appropriate, especially his statement just above, "I really don't care what is reflected in the article". If you don't care about that, what are you doing on the article talkpage at all? (Yes yes, I'm being rhetorical: I am aware that Guitar hero can't reply here.) Did I misunderstand that statement in some way? (It seems oddly disconnected.) You have never edited the article as far as I can see; just the talkpage. That points to your using it as a forum, which is not what it's for. The talkpage is a place for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum for people to promote their opinions and ideology, as is clearly stated in the template at the top. You might want to study the talkpage policy while you're away. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC).
• Support block and topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban. Not seeing any other way forward with this editor at this time. KillerChihuahua 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious battleground behaviour compared with SPA-symptoms. --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - His comments in this thread seem on-point and historically accurate. Stop the fucking steamroller. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I support the block, but not the topic ban. His personal insults and canvassing are things I have repeatedly warned him about, and yet he continued. I think a short vacation will do him some good. However, he did make some very good points in that thread and I feel that he might be a valuable contributor, if he can learn to keep his temper in check.Evildoer187 (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban - This is the kind of editor we have no need for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: The topic ban has nothing to do with his accuracy or content in any way. This is about his behavior. There is no "fucking steamroller" to stop; there is an editor who seems a bit too passionate about the topic. He can make all the "good points" in the world, but if he combines that with personal attacks, he needs separating from the topic which results in his lack of respect for his fellow editors. If he cannot control his passion, he needs to be elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 05:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban. Unfortunately seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support block, support topic ban if he continues to fill article talk pages with insults and other irrelevancies. Guitar, successfully editing Wikipedia articles, and prevailing in content discussions, depends on the quality of your sources. If you can't find a recent very high quality source that says exactly what you're asserting, say nothing. Assertions that you're Jewish and therefore can't be racist are rightly sneered at, and epithets such as "troll", at least on article talk pages, will get you at least topic- if not site-banned. Improve the quality of your rhetoric. Dramatically lift your game. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I do not support topic ban, he made very good points regarding the issue, the way how he presented it was wrong. However, he is far from being lonely on this issue here as well as sadly in other articles. I agree that his personal insults were unacceptable. That is why he is blocked and that is enough.--Tritomex (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Support short term block for canvassing and violation of WP:NPA.I don't think that topic ban is needed.Also I think that this user should get a mentor.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - His latest remark on his talk page is to tell Adler that the last person to assert that the Sorbs are German was Hitler. Until this user stops wilfully associating German-named editors that he disagrees with to Naziism, I don't think he can be relied on even to discuss this topic productively, much less edit on it. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree as per John.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree -the user has shown no willingness or abilty to discuss or support his POV with suitable sources and does not seem to understand the point of doing so. His understanding of ethnicity is valid, but extremely one-sided, and he does not acknowledge the complexity of the term or allow any deviation from his opinion. Until the user has shown that he acknowledges that alternative definitions of the term do exist, Guitar hero should be banned from the topic. A mentor might be a good idea also. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agree as per John and others.

The user has not been receptive to engaging with new information presented to them by other users in relation to their POV. In this case, the schools of though on ethnicity described under Ethnicity#Approaches_to_understanding_ethnicity have been introduced to the user, assuming that he read the section. Even so, he continues to argue in an exclusionary manner solely for a position that would probably fall under the "Essentialist primordialism" category, providing no sources to support specific claims he makes, and resorting to personal attacks when met with rational disagreements made in good faith.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose topic ban. If he agrees to apologize to others for the insults and promises to focus on content, this might be more constructive than topic-ban with no apology to anybody required. Please take a look at a lively discussion on his talk page with good comment by KillerChihuahua. We all need to learn to argue our points properly, as necessary also in the real world. Editing Wikipedia is a good venue for learning that. A hot debate is not the same as the disruptive editing in main space, sockpuppetry with ulterior motives, or the 3RR violations in controversial areas. I would support behavioral blocks only but growing with an arithmetic progression in case there’s no improvement. Poeticbent talk 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support but I think discussions on his/her user talk page should not fall under the topic ban as the problem is a combination of extreme activity and WP:IDHT rather than anything more immediately serious. That would also provide a chance to demonstrate a learned lesson about the fact that different people mean different things when using the same words and similar problems related to WP:AGF, potentially allowing a lift of the topic ban. (I responded to Maunus' ANI report and am now highly involved – like many of those opining above.) Hans Adler 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note:I think there is a consensus here already. I am counting 14 (incl. John) in support of the topic ban, 3 supporting it under certain conditions, and 4 opposing it. As it doesn't matter much any more due to an indefinite checkuser block [6], I think someone who hasn't commented yet should close this discussion. Hans Adler 16:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. He's now both indef-blocked for socking and indef community topic-banned in parallel to that (with the topic ban obviously applying to all, past or future, user names.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Block extended, talk page access revoked

I noticed Guitar hero had not really addressed his poor behaviour but was continuing to use his talk page as a chat room to discuss his theories on race and ethnicity, exactly as I had instructed him not to. I have therefore extended the block to a week and revoked talk page access. --John (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent call. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Per Maunus's appeal I have restored the original block settings. This user needs to realise he has just about exhausted our patience though. --John (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for undoing your last action. It was the right thing to do and I would have asked you as well. Also thanks for taking the initiative with the block and topic ban. Let's hope the situation calms down now. Unfortunately the situation is still much more adversarial and full of suspicion than seems reasonable to me. Hans Adler 23:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Noodleki

Noodleki has been deleting massive amounts of text from the 1934 article. There has been a back and forth; I have responded to his or her questions and referred him/her to the right forum. He/she has basically communicated with me through increasingly unhinged edit summaries ([7]); has not raised the matter at the WP:RY talk page; has gotten no noticeable support from any other editors, and has not even responded to my points on his/her talk page ([8]), all whilst complaining that I am not explaining myself to him/her. I do not want to violate WP:3RR. One concern I have is that his/her deletions are subjective and will be be followed up, if given a clear signal, with other years (i.e. 1920-1939). Quis separabit? 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Noodleki notified of AFI discussion. Quis separabit? 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours by User:Alison. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate action has been taken, but what I'm surprised about is that multiple IPs were also involved in this saga, doing exactly the same things as Noodleki, and yet they haven't been specifically brought up here. [9] is one with an edit summary that is pretty much the same as Noodleki was using, [10] makes mention of the talk page without ever having edited elsewhere with that IP. I'm not completely accusing Noodleki of being these IPs, but I'm highly suspicious (they did precede her). I suggest the page is semi-protected or even fully protected pending further discussions - either Noodleki is socking, or there are a couple of different POV-pushing people involved. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, some of the mentions removed there aren't even American: the FA Cup final, Dionne quintuplets, Stanley Matthews' England debut... so the original IP's edit summary is a bit vague considering the quantity of content deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually have a substantive reason as to why you disagree with the proposed edit? There are guidelines for notability that have been set down which are clearly not being met here. The entire contents of the US article have been copied over including events lacking in notability. For example, should the opening of a rodeo in Mississipi be mentioned? Or an anniversary of a Civil war battle? How about the results of a boxing match?Noodleki (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Have you read my post above? You, and those IPs (are those you as well?) have deleted things that aren't American as well. Some of the things you deleted I'd agree with: many of them, I would not. I can see you have a lot of negative history, with previous blocks. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those other IPs were me as well, and no it wasn't some evil and grand conspiracy, I just forgot to login. Deleted things that aren't American. Well, yeah, buddy that's the whole point. Non notable events don't get in regardless of country - it just happens to be that US events are particularly endemic. If you don't agree with some changes, then that's fine, but we seem to have a consensus that 'some' changes should be made...right? So why is everything being reverted? Oh, and your nasty allegations about my 'negative history' show that during your snooping, you didn't bother to actually read the block, as it was finally made clear that a misunderstanding had occurred.Noodleki (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you continue your content dispute on Talk:1934? Unless you require an administrator to do something else, it doesn't need to be discussed here. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Given the enormous history of IP vandalism (which wasn't what you were blocked for, by the way), I've taken it to an SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noodleki Lukeno94 (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor Wee Curry Monster moving my comments around

There's currently a discussion ongoing at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Editor Wee Curry Monster somehow thought it would be appropriate to move my comment about the removal of a section to a new section called "Separate section for comments on individual editors", which he alone came up with, with the summary "move rambling personal attack to appropriate section"[11]. I advised him to not mess with my comments again or I'd report him here [12] and then I moved my comment to the right section again. He swiftly deleted my message at his talk page [13] and proceeded to move my comment once again [14] with the sarcastic summary "WP:IAR". This is not acceptable and needs to stop.

The comment I moved is nothing but personal attacks against editors. Yes I did move it to a separate section, since it contained nothing about content and filibustering is a problem with this editor (see below). I would normally not move a talk page comment per WP:TPG but considered this a case per WP:IAR as an exception. If that is criticised I won't be doing it again.

WP:BOOMERANG, which Gaba p has been warned about:

Frequent personal attacks eg [15],[16],[17], [18]

Edit warring constantly, never follows WP:BRD eg [19],[20],[21],[22]. Noting the comments from the previous ANI session I have endeavoured to avoid edit warring with the editor by using tags to bring attention to other editors to address issues but he will edit war to remove those [23].

WP:FILIBUSTERS. Classic tactic, text demanding detailed answers [24], disputes response [25] then claims no response obtained [26].

Most edits rely on WP:OR or WP:SYN, constantly pushing WP:POV and working in a WP:TAG team with User:Langus-txt to force material into an article.

Abusive edit summaries [27], cherry picked quotes and partisan sources. This is an editor who is single minded about conducting his editing in a disruptive and confrontational manner. I believe given recent comments he has been deliberately seeking confrontation in order to have himself and several other editors topic banned per the last session here. Likely this editor is a sock of the bannned sock puppet master User:Alex79818. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ADD: [28] diff of my edit, which he claims has a sarcastic edit summary. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarify. There are so many examples of disruptive behaviour by User:Gaba p this took 5 minutes to compile. Per the previous WP:ANI thread usually tactic by User:Gaba p is to fling many accusations, combined with diffs, notably the diffs rarely support the accusation but gives the appearance of such to those that don't check. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you had this prepared, that's ok. I'll be adding some examples of your behavior next. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I encourage Gaba p not to bother posting dirt on WCM -- if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors. NE Ent 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent I don't understand what you mean by "if they don't want their talk page comments they can simply stop discussing other editors". Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also encourage Gaba to stop trying to run Wee off of Wikipedia with his constant harassment from article to article which has now gone on well over a year. When I tried to warn Gaba, he and Langus made very inappropriate remarks to me which I could have reported but chose not to. Despite the remarks, I have briefly edited on these articles and have only had only brief remarks with Wee, always over Wikipedia matters. I find it unsavory that you Gaba would follow him everywhere to the exclusion of all other articles and harass him and then you and your alter ego make extremely unsavory remarks to anyone who sees it and tries to defend the Wikipedia:Assume good faith ethical standards of Wikipedia. For once and for all, please desist and resume good-faith editing again. I am sure with your education that you have more to offer Wikipedia than this. Mugginsx (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice editor Mugginsx has been following me around since september when she stopped by my talk page to make uncivil (and untrue) comments about me [29]. She did it again a few weeks ago [30]. I note that up to today I have never been involved in a discussion about content with Mugginsx, she simply shows up to defend Wee whenever needed and nothing else. I've requested her to stop following me around to no avail. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An indefensible untruth. I have the diffs too. [31] Mugginsx (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What is that supposed to prove? Would you please stop disrupting the discussion? This is about Wee's unacceptable behaviour. You did the exact same thing in September to the extent that you got in a fight with another editor about some remarks you made about him. Could you please stop? Regards Gaba p (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW if you examine the diffs presented by Mugginsx, they are neither uncivil nor untrue; which goes back to my comment of making accusations and presenting diffs, which don't back up the claim made (how many editors simply presume they do?). And as for the comment they have never touched on content see [[32]] and Mugginsx's edits on Self-determination. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil: coming out of nowhere to accuse me of stalking [33] and again recently [34]

Untrue: accusation of being blocked due to sockpuppetry when the block was proven to be wrongly applied [35]

I repeat: Mugginsx and I have to the best of my knowledge never discussed content on any article. Wee's link [36] shows only Muggins commenting in the talk page, not me. I request any admin/editor reading this to please go and check the links for yourself and tell me if I'm lying about any of them. This is just an attempt by Wee to throw mud at me once again. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Presenting diffs without all the information again? See [37] where User:JamesBWatson refused to unblock as he was convinced the original block for sock puppetry was well proven. User:Gaba p conveniently finds a diff that I know the personal details of the banned editor User:Alex79818 (I do but only because in harassing me in real life he accidentally revealed them). After providing this information in confidence to James, he cautiously unblocked User:Gaba p see [38] only for a few days later to have to issue a warning for incivility [39]. I note that in this diff that James considered there was still compelling evidence of sockpuppetry but sufficient doubt to give you the benefit of the doubt, User:Nick-D also considered there was evidence of sock puppetry [40] but also gave the benefit of the doubt. There has been plenty of suspicion of sock puppetry and it was not mentioned as a personal attack. I remain convinced on the basis of the types of edits, the subject matter, quirks of grammar and spelling and the fact you're constantly hounding and attacking me in exactly the same way that User:Alex79818 did, that you are one and the same. On past performance it is likely there are other sleeper accounts. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On accusations of sock puppetry: in early 2012 Wee accused me of being a suck puppet of blocked editor Alex79818. The life-time block quickly imposed on my account was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity to one of the admins who checked I was not the same person (Wee knows this blocked user's real identity). Notwithstanding this, Wee has continued with his accusations. At the previous ANI he did the same accusation and I offered an admin to reveal my identity once again ("have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith") [41]. Admin User:Nick-D has said verbatim: "Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing".[42] Who's selectively quoting Wee?

I will once again repeat my offer to reveal my identity to an admin here so then can check the identity of this user to see I am not that user. Please send me a private message and I will gladly do so. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving comments around is not allowed per Talk page guidelines , further Wee Curry Monster is moving them from a section he started, thus making him involved.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we also have WP:IAR and if his comments were about content and there wasn't an issue of paralysing discussion by filibustering, then I wouldn't have done so. I did think twice about it and was attempting to reduce disruption. As other editors have noted he has followed me from article to article frustrating any attempt at editing. Note I did not refactor his comment and btw it was in the same section just moved to a sub-section for personal attacks. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. You were attempting to reduce disruption by disrupting my comment?

Care to give links to which other editor has accused me of following you around? As I remember only Mugginsx has done so and as I have stated already, she only shows up to defend you whenever needed. For the record: some time ago I added my name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group so as to make it clear that I would be helping in Falkland related articles. This hasn't stopped Wee from accusing me of hounding (he is present in virtually all Falkland/Gibraltar related articles). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wee Curry Monster, please don't move the posts. I do not see egregious attacks, nor was the post off topic. Gaba p; please don't accuse other editors of vandalism when it isn't clearly vandalism, that merely escalates and does not resolve any problems. And anyone can remove anything on their talk page, unless specifically prohibited from doing so by an ArbCom decision or due to issues such as being an indeffed sock account. WCM can remove posts from anyone and that's perfectly fine. Don't "warn" people you'll take things to ANI, that's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people with ANI. That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Your behavior here has been less than exemplary. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so. You say the attacks were not egregious, sorry but the effect of constant attacks of lower level incivility are cumulative. You may like to review the fact this has been constant and unremitting. I have also moved articles, only for User:Gaba p to follow me there. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the mention of "anyone can remove anything on their talk page", I never complained about him deleting my comments on his talk page, I simply pointed to it to note that he had taken notice of my warning. I warned him about ANI in an attempt to get him to stop moving my comments around and avoid this report. Is it not polite to warn an editor that further disruptive editing will be met with ANI? I note I had already warned him to not mess with my comments earlier [43], is this not enough?

I assume good faith always Killer. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors who sometimes disagreed with me and sometimes agreed. I did this from 28 Dec to 3 Jan and I had no problems with the rest of the editors involved in the editing. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [44]. Who's not assuming good faith here? The issues appear the moment Wee shows up.

He needs to stop the personal attacks and he needs to stop accusing me of being a sock poppet, I've asked him this more times than I can count now. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, your warnings are not "enough" they are far, far too much. You're not politely informing another editor, you are threatening them; this is combative. If you wish to complain about WCM accusing you of being a sock, and of you requesting they not, you must provide diffs. Regarding always assuming good faith, I see Kahastok, below, has provided two diffs of you attacking another editor and accusing them of lying. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments on soap boxing refer to content, in which a quote is used to add a political statement not for merit. It was a comment on content NOT the editor. I have been a regular contributor to ARA Belgrano for years but chose not to comment on most of User:Gaba p's edits for the simple reason he would turn it into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Gaba's behaviour in these discussions has really been dreadful.

He has been fairly continually accusing other editors of lying and issuing repeated personal attacks on multiple articles over the past couple of weeks. Curry Monster has only provided diffs of four such instances - it's not difficult to find others. Curry Monster has already pointed out that, after issuing me with several personal attacks (apparently for having the temerity to disagree with him) he was completely ignoring any objection made to the edit at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, claiming that I hadn't made any. This is why I ended up just posting "I remain opposed for the reasons already expressed" - I saw little benefit to the encyclopædia in detailing the objections over and over again only so that I could be subjected to personal attacks and then ignored.

Worth noting that in many cases where he accuses someone of lying, the point is not even whether a given error is in good or bad faith (though he should be assuming good faith). He at least twice accused me of lying - and also threatened to bring me here (a threat that I did not consider particularly significant because of WP:BOOMERANG) - when I suggested that this proposal had the effect of substantially increasing the weight given to the Argentine position in this particular dispute while only downplaying the British position. Now, I've looked at that diff several times, and I'm afraid I can't find any way that I can look at it in which the point I made was even inaccurate. It appeared to me that he was trying to intimidate me into accepting the proposal. Kahastok talk 18:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Wee lied at an admin's talk page [45] (see point two of my first comment) about something I had supposedly done, which was simply untrue.
2. He lied at ANI about me removing a citation ("Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [142] sorry but the article history tells a different story") [46] which I proved to be false again.
3. Wee's latest string of personal attacks [47] (accusations of "disruptive behaviour", "butchering an article", "edit warring" and making "untrue" statements") where fueled by a lie as I proved beyond doubt below the title "Time for a reality check for Wee Curry Monster".
4. He lied just now at an admin's talk page [48] about me adding tags to a section when it was him who added all the tags in said section (!).

What else could I possibly call this actions by Wee? Repeated "mistakes"? Should he just get away with his constants attacks and untrue statements directed at me without me calling it for what it is? Assuming good faith can only be done for a while.

Regarding the accusation I made of Kahastok lying, please see [49] where Kahastok accused me saying "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain". I politely asked him to either provide a link where I proposed such a thing or take back his words. He did neither (he actually repeated the same accusation again) so I warned him that any new unfounded accusations by him would take us to ANI. Is this also a "mistake"?

I note that both this editors (Wee and Kahastok) are used to work as a team backing each other's edits and defending each other whenever something like this comes up. Not long ago both editors were topic banned from editing Gibraltar related articles (another former British colony) [50], Wee in particular was "warned against bad faith accusations and further disruption." [51]. He is doing the same thing now in Falkland related articles. Gaba p (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me but can someone really repeatedly allege at ANI I am a liar and not be sanctioned for repeated incivility?

Typical example Point 4, he claims I'm lying about him adding tags disruptively. See [52] where rather than edit warring I tagged his edit to bring attention to other editors. Another editor reverted to an earlier consensus and [53] please note the edit summaries.

Sorry but this is too much I am fed up with the constant incivility and I really shouldn't be expected to put up with it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There's no reason why you - or I - should have to put up with any of this. In my case, admins might note that my response did provide a link to his proposal - the same link as I provided above (in fact I copy-pasted it), which I believe I described accurately. One might also note in there detailed objections to Gaba's proposals (and not the first) that Gaba still claims even in this ANI that I never made. Kahastok talk 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

One more instance of Wee making a "mistake". See my point 4 where I comment on how Wee complained at an admin's talk page[54] that I had added disruptive tags to a section. This is what he said:

"You'll of course note that he even revert warred over tagging and added un-neeeded tags to be disruptive in retaliation." (bolded by me)

Please follow the link to the admin's talk page and you'll see that the discussion revolvs around the article Self-determination where it was Wee who added all of the tags[55]. Please notice the state of the section with the three tags added by Wee which he tried to pin on me.

Wee's response here refers to a completely different article Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute where once again he added the NPOV tags[56] later on removed by Kahastok by reverting the article's section to an old version. I then proceeded to add the very same tag Wee had added earlier[57]. This tag was removed by Wee [58] saying that I "previously considered this [section] neutral" when I never said anything of that sort. As you will notice the tag is gone from the article since I saw no point in adding it one more time only to have it reverted again. Once again, Wee makes a mistake by assigning to me something that just isn't true. What should I do about his constant behaviour? Just let it slide?

Do also notice Kahastok response where he accused me again of "you propose listing for Argentina but not for Britain" (something of course I absolutely never did) and gave no link to prove that I had said such a thing. What should I call this? What should I do about his? Should I just keep quiet?

It is just not acceptable that these editors get to bend the truth the way they do with no consequence whatsoever. Even worst, if I say something about it then I'm being the disruptive editor. Please do tell me: is their behavior acceptable? Gaba p (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment(s) by long time observer(s)

• I have been witness to Wee Curry Monster and Gaba p behavior towards each-other for some time now. I have a few times tried to intervene by way of trying to re-direct the argument towards a solution - this has not work - So thus recently (yesterday) I have removed the disputed text on the sub page Self-determination and have had that page locked 2 times this month. I am in the middle of trying to help again as seen here - however I dont see how these 2 will ever get along - the situation is has been so degraded for so long that I believe an interaction ban between these 2 is the only solution to stooping the disruptive editing.Moxy (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• I too have been following this for a while, and I don't think an iban is called for or necessary. My opinion is that Gaba p's behaviour on several articles pertaining to the Falklands dispute, and their talk pages, is causing a great deal of trouble. It's obvious at this stage that he has a very well established opinion on the matter, and his editing serves mainly to further that viewpoint. Much of the classic behaviour of the tendentious editor (as linked by WCM above) is evident - slow edit warring, breaching the spirit if not the letter of 3RR, threats to report others to noticeboards and demands that other editors self-revert, statements that he'll revert others if they don't themselves (as if this somehow makes it ok), filibustering in the manner outlined by Kahastok above (demanding unreasonable levels of detail and lengthy explanations for the actions of others, challenging any explanation given and later denying that any explanation was ever made) etc. etc. This is the classic wikipedia problem of one disruptor being able to hold an entire swathe of articles and talk pages to ransom, even in the presence of multitudes of opposing reasonable editors, if they are fanatical enough. I'm involved here and so won't be taking any action, but those are my thoughts. Please note I don't think WCM's behaviour is perfect, but I don't think he's the root of the problem here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On Basalik's accusation of filibustering: I recently made four different small edits to Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Wee and Kahastok repeatedly blanket-reverted all edits giving as reason only vague statements of OR and POV: [59] [60] [61] [62]. As the talk page proves I asked them to please comment on why they thought the edits where inappropriate separately so we could work on them and to please stop blanket-reverting, many many times. They did not and Wee is now asking for the whole section to be removed. Basalik accuses me of filibustering when all I did was to bring current, relevant and properly sourced information to a section in that article. Editors Slatersteven and Langus were working with me on each of those edits with the aim of improving the article while Wee and Kahastok kept repeating the same mantra of "OR" and "POV". I have never opposed an edit when the majority of editors have agreed on something, can you provide a link where I have? Gaba p (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, can I ask you to please note that the antagonism is one way, one of those occasions where a two way interaction ban is distinctly unfair on one party. You might also care to note that the same editor is attacking others, even here. User:Gaba p appears fixated on me but it isn't reciprocated. I know all too well from past experience that such a ban would be flung in my face as evidence that I'm a problem when I am not the one creating conflict here. I actually believe that to be Gaba's objective here for that very reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not concern over who did or said what to who - I am here concerned about the disruptive editing going on. I am sure even you agree that the interaction between you two (despite who's at fault) is at a point were behavior is being discussed more so then content. Both should take a break from each-other and from the topic all together in my opinion. Page after page after page after page of a debate were no-one is listing to the others position is pointless. For over a year nothing has changed - just getting more and more personal taking up tlakpages that are to be used to helping the articles. Section like "Personal attacks by Gaba p" and/or "Lies by Wee Curry Monster" is not helping the article at all - just putting more fuel on a fire. If you believe its all Gaba p fault and that its a problem all over see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or more specifically Wikipedia:Editor review .Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes indeed you should concern yourself over who did what to who. Could you point to an occasion where I have been unjustified asking Gaba p to comment on content not myself? Equally comparing a comment on a personal attack, with a whole section dedicated to making a personal attack I would suggest shows you're not being entirely fair. Yes I agree its not healthy and whilst I don't claim to be perfect or faultless, I've not been disruptive in my editing. I have remained civil, tried to follow WP:DR and my comments have been based on content. To suggest a sanction where one editor has done that and the other has done everything to create conflict simply rewards disruptive behaviour. Even here he is continuing to make unfounded allegations that I am a liar with impunity. I ask you a straight question, if an editor followed you around calling you a liar repeatedly and when it came ANI I suggested you be sanctioned too, would you not consider that unwarranted? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me just note that on September 2012 a dispute came to ANI after Wee broke the 3RR by reverting an edit agreed on by 3 editors [63]. The discussion ended with an admin proposing an interaction ban between us and a 4 month topic ban (relating to Falklands) for both of us, which I accepted. WCM on the other hand did not and instead left an uncivil comment ("like a lot of content editors before me I can just turn round and say fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here")[64] and "retired" from WP. He never actually stopped editing and certainly not on Falkland related articles.

If the ruling here is an interaction ban and/or a topic ban I will again accept it, noting once again that an ANI report caused by Wee's actions is one more time spilling over to give sanctions to other editors. If Wee were a new editor any of his actions I commented on above would have had him blocked for sure. Gaba p (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note Wee's WP:CANVASSING: [65] [66] [67] Gaba p (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Gaba accuses Wee of provoking him (Gaba) of filing this ANI just to throw dirt at him. How messed up is that? Here is the comment from above: I warned you to not move my comments around and you did it again just so I would file this ANI and you had a chance to post dirt about me. I believe this provides insight into Gaba's mind and his unexplainable dislike for Wee and anyone else who does not agree with himself.

With all due respect, an interaction ban for both, in view of the proof here of Gaba's constant attacks, not only on Wee, but anone who disagrees with Gaba, who even anyone who tries to suggest anything constructive to him is unfair. Gaba has made it clear he is more interested in attacking than improving the articles. I would suggest a ban on Gaba for all of the Falkland Island articles so they can move forward. After I and others who have commented here trying to help Gaba but instead getting attacked, I have concluded that this is his motis operadi, not just to Wee but anyone. Mugginsx (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's Wees comment about him moving my edits around: "No worries, I will give a solemn undertaking not to do so." Everything else he has said here are simply attacks on me (just like yourself), the fact that he started this by moving my comment twice after I had told him to abstain from such actions is now completely buried under a pile of accusations against me.

I have no idea why you started attacking me so ferociously a couple of months ago but I'd like you to stop. You are most definitely not an un-involved editor and your past behaviour shows you have been trying to get me blocked for a while now (see Mugginsx's comments on previous ANI, [68]) so viciously as to even call the attention of an editor [69]. Could you please drop it? Thank you. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, you seem to feel that anyone who does not agree with you is out to get you. That is not true. You have a fine education but instead of using it to create great articles as you probably could, you use it in this manner. It is realy too bad. BTW, Wee reverted some of my edits on these articles, I did not start a vendetta against him. When I saw the argumentative editing on the articles, I decided to step away from them. That was quite awhile ago.Mugginsx (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No Mugginsx, I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me is out to get me. As you can see in the history of ARA Belgrano (another Falkland-related article) and its talk page, I edited with absolutely no issues along with other editors from 28 Dec to 3 Jan. After a short discussion it was clear that the majority consensus was to remove an edit I had made which I gladly did[70]. Wee's first comment in a section I started in the Talk Page regarding that very same edit was to accuse me of "soap boxing" [71], notice the difference with the rest of the editors?

You and I on the other hand have never crossed paths in a discussion about content. Ever. I have never disagreed with you on anything other than your constant lobbying to have me blocked. I have a vendetta against no one, but do note that Wee still accuses me of being the sock puppet of a blocked account, even after I revealed my real life identity to an admin once and am willing to do so again. This accusations by Wee have been happening for a full year now. Who has a vendetta here? Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edits and talk page discussions and I must say it is you and not just with Wee. This is the first time I remember asking that you be blocked and that is only on these articles that frustrate everyone. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I gotta tell you your memory must be failing: "I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [49] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [50] even after they were verified at [51] and not acting in good faith.", " I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team.", "I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them", etc..[72] Pretty much every comment you made on that ANI is an attack to either me or editor Langus or both of us. You have never been involved in a discussion with me and yet have repeatedly asked for sanctions against me at every situation possible. Once again I'll politely ask you: would you please stop it? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, on these articles that frustrate everyone. I am finished arguing with you. You must stand on your record. Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If this means you'll stop attacking me every chance you get, then I'm glad we are done. Hope to see you around on better terms. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Question - Am I allowed to casually call another editor a liar repeatedly?

I ask this because for months User:Gaba p has been repeatedly calling me a liar, he has continued to do so here. He has been allowed to do so and is becoming bolder and bolder in his incivility. Has WP:CIVIL been simply abandoned? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you repeatedly tell untruths about other editors behavior you should expect to be called a liar. The solution would be to apologize and not repeat the untruth, in which case I am sure Gaba p would retract his claim that you are a liar. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course he's not typically permitted to repeated call you a liar. Was he able to refute your statements in some manner with a diff? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he presents a diff out of context claiming this shows I am a liar. Look above. He is effectively calling me a liar at WP:ANI with impunity. He gets away with it by loudly making accusations of misconduct, chucks in a couple of diffs and no one questions it. If we've abandoned WP:CIVIL at this point I would feel it beneficial to be allowed to vent, because I've been subjected to incivility for months now and as noted previously have remained civil throughout. Also excuse me, where in WP:CIVIL is it ever acceptable to call another editor a liar constantly? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is allowed to call anyone a liar.Its a clear violation of WP:NPA--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaba has usually backed up his accusations of lying with links/diffs to a previous interactions/discussion. Not checked all of them, but on the face of it, I find this to be interesting. Probably should take a close look at all of Gaba's provided links. (Well-founded accusations of lying are not against Civil if its evidence of problematic editor behaviour). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

More self-determination stuff, I think WCM 'I didnt break 3rr' claims here are certainly misleading, if not outright lying. And certainly not in the spirit of 3rr Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fairly straight forward. Saying an editor did one thing when they did not can only be excused as a 'mistake' so many times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if some of the edits and/or assertion of certain editor its not true.Only thier edits should be discussed as WP:NPA is clear on this." Comment on content, not on the contributor."--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, factual descriptions of editor behaviour when backed up by evidence is not a personal attack. However repeated accusations of someone being a sockpuppet when its been proved to an admins they are not is a personal attack. 'Only their edits should be discussed' doesnt extend to disregarding edits where they are stating something they know to be an untruth. (The above is meant as a general case, not applied specifically to WCM) Fortunately since Gaba has helpfully included links and diffs we can look at them and see exactly what the case is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike and what should I do when the untrue assertions by an editor are used in a discussion about content to gain an advantage? I note that I'm not even counting the times Wee has purposely misinterpreted sources to favor his position (the Reisman case at Self-determination is quite telling, if you want I can fill you in) I'll gladly comment on every link I presented here about Wee "making untrue statement". When is it acceptable to say "I can no longer assume good faith and this editor is simply lying"?

The accusations of sockpuppetry have effectively been going on for a full year now (starting from the moment my block was imposed and then lifted). He has directly called me "Alex" twice now on different occasion while discussing content: "You've been given a chance you didn't deserve Alex, don't blow it"[73], "Stop being utterly confrontational in every aspect of your edits on Falklands topics Alex please."[74] Is this civil behavior? I remind you that in order to have my account back I had to give away my right to anonymity and I am even willing to do so again if needed.

Just for the record, I never called him a "liar". I simply noted the particular instances where I caught him lying. I believe there is quite a difference. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't talked specifically about you but really talked in general terms that making personal comments about editor is never a good thing even if you think that you 100% right.If there are some problems with this user conduct there are appropriate forum to deal with it-this board and WP:RFC/U.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On this I agree Gaba, if you think there are long-term issues, raise it as a WP:RFC/U and make sure you back up accusations with diffs/links to evidence that supports it. Secondly, as the original complaint here was regarding moving your comments, and WCM has been told not to do that, you might want to back away now and get back to editing. ANI is for immediate issues, not long-term behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone a "liar" or even saying that they are "lying" are both actions that are bound to ruffle feathers, and escalate a situation needlessly. "That's not exactly what you said earlier" - followed by a proper in-context diff - will actually say the same thing, in a far more useful manner. When it comes to using sources, if they misuse/misquote a source, that does not mean they're doing it on purpose or doing it maliciously - in that case, give them the benefit of the doubt and propose a better interpretation of the resource on the article talkpage. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone say something about me which is not true and which I can demonstrate is not true, and yet when confronted with this untruth does not retract but in fact repeats the untruth, then I will call them a liar. Lying about someone's actions or views is a classic uncivil move, and pointing that out is necessary to address the problem. Using the word liar to point out that someone has been lying is not comparably problematic to the actual lying.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is Gaba has just been accusing people left right and centre. Gaba has repeatedly accused me of lying [75] [76][77][78] - not always in so many words - based on a point that so far as I can tell is entirely accurate: specifically, that what was proposed substantially expanded upon support for the Argentine claim while only downplaying British side. I'd like some outside feedback here - is my description of the proposal inaccurate? Because I can't see any way that it is. Does it appear malicious to any uninvolved editor? In the view of outside editors, can this description be civilly characterised as "a lie" (emphasis original)?

Because it certainly appears to me that the accusation of lying was not being used as you describe, but in attempt to intimidate me into accepting Gaba's position, a position that I opposed (and oppose) on the grounds - among other things - that I considered it POV (a suggestion that Gaba dismissed as "childish"). And frankly, it does not appear to me that Gaba is learning from this discussion. Kahastok talk 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What Bwilkins said. We should always be mindful of behaving in ways that reduce conflict and don't inflame emotional responses to situations. If someone says or does something that contradicts an earlier action on Wikipedia that have done, it is fine to demonstrate the inconsistency in their behavior with diffs and non-emotional language. The problem comes when you label someone a liar or when you label their behavior lying. Instead of doing that, just say "In this diff [1] you did blah blah blah, but in this other diff [2] you said you did yada yada yada" That is sufficient to demonstrate an inconsistency in a person's behavior without calling them names or being insulting about them. --Jayron32 14:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. A determination of "lying" depends on a state of mind that is generally unknowable by outside observers. Making untrue claims you believe to be true does not make you a liar. Comment on the contributions (I'm fond of "I don't think that is correct", but have been observed to venture into "that is plain wrong" when provoked ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to take exception the comments of User:Only in death, show me where I have made in excess of 3 reverts in a 24 hr period. I have even self-reverted on a vandalism edit to avoid Gaba p making a frivolous 3RR report after he edit warred to force one of his edits into an article. I rarely make more that 2 reverts, I stretch to 3 reluctantly when there is a clear problem with an edit. You can bet your bottom dollar Gaba p and Langus-TxT would have skipped gaily over to the WP:3RRN to make a report had I done so. When you've checked those diffs and find its not true, I expect an apology for calling me a liar and backing up Gaba p calling me a liar.

There are many occasions where I could have pointed out edits that were blatant lies but I have never resorted to calling an edit a liar. But thank you guys, if I find someone lying again I will be sure to make sure I call them a liar repeatedly and if called up on it I will refer to this thread as justification that such conduct is condoned officially by this noticeboard.

I am not a liar, I have not lied and I am fed up to my hind teeth of being the focus of this guy's constant incivility. Thanks for all the navel gazing and backing up of an uncivil editor. It just convinces me that being civil is a waste of time on my part. Because as Basalisk notes above one editor can paralyse an entire topic area with personal attacks and filibustering and no action will ever be taken. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What in the above comments leads you to the conclusion that "this thread as justification that such conduct is condoned officially by this noticeboard." Three people immediately above have stated unambiguously that no one should call anyone else a liar. So, your conclusion does not follow directly from the comments you are responding to, because those comments all agree that no one should be calling anyone a liar. --Jayron32 07:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as you ask, I have been subjected to persistent incivility from this guy for months, he continues to call me a liar here in blatant breach of WP:CIVIL. I demonstrate with an example his diffs don't support his claims. And yet other editors join in calling me a liar and no action is taken. A number of editors have commented that this is an example of a disruptive editor and no action is taken. And he is continuing to do it. Could you avoid any other conclusion that his conduct is condoned? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I have to prove I did not lie

An example.

Gaba p claims I lied at an admins talk page stating "You'll of course note that he even revert warred over tagging and added un-neeeded tags to be disruptive in retaliation."

He alleges this refers to Self-determination. No it doesn't and I never actually said at any point it did. Gaba p has been disruptive on multiple articles. I was actually referring to this and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, another article where Gaba p is filibustering and paralysing any discussion.

Rather than indulge Gaba p in a revert war, I tagged his edit for NPOV [79] the edit summary is ‎International position: identify section where POV problem is, in the hope of bringing other editors into the discussion. This is a suggested means of resolving editing disputes is it not. He was reverted by another editor so he added a NPOV tag see [80] the edit summary is (→‎International position: identify section). The tags are unneeded, he was previously involved in the discussion that resulted in that text see Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 8#2012 Summit of the Americas. You'll note the striking similarity in the two edit summaries and my conclusion is not exactly unwarranted. You may try to accuse me of not WP:AGF but AGF is not a suicide pact and I have seen too much of this guy's disruptive edits.

On Self-determination, Gaba p and Langus-TxT, edit warred in a WP:TAG to try and remove a NPOV tag. [81] and [82].

My comments about revert warring to remove tags and adding tags disruptively clearly have basis in Gaba p's actions. I did not make them up, I did not lie as he claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example.

Gaba p claims I lied and that his edit did not separate a statement from its original cite [83]. He later suggested removing it as the cite did not support the edit. He repeats the claim at ANI. Sorry but the history of the article shows different [84].

Again my comments about Gaba p's edit were accurate, I did not make them up, I did not lie as he claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• It does look like Gaba p is not himself sticking very closely to the facts. He clearly does remove the Lopez source from the claim it supports adding a CN tag, and you clearly restore the source to where it belong. Whether the source was later found to be unreliable is not really relevant. I also do notice that your edit summaries are fairly combative and probably weren't conducive to making Gaba p accept them as valid. Often time we overstate the facts when we are angry and instead of considering that someone may be acting in good faith we ascribe bad faith right away so that "being wrong about something" becomes "lying" and restoring a source to its correct place becomes editwarring.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ·ʍaunus going through all the history from those articles can be confusing. Let me try to make it clear. After a couple of days of editing the Falklands section (both me and Wee) at Self-determination, Wee introduces a version of the section which uses the Lopez book to source the statement "Argentina thus argues that, in the case of the Falkland Islands, the principle of territorial integrity should have precedence over self-determination."[85] Right after this is done the article is locked by an admin[86] and the issue goes to RS/N where the Lopez book is found to be unsuitable for its use. After the RS/N is done, with the mandate not to use that book, I go back to the article and remove it leaving a cn tag instead.[87] Wee immediately reverts this edit bringing back the unsuitable source to the article.[88] Another editor rv's Wee and removes the unsuitable source.[89] Wee for a second time brings it back.[90] Once again I remove the unsuitable source[91] and Wee brings it back for a third time.[92] I rv his edit nothing that he is introducing back to the article a source we were told not to use.[93] What Wee said of this episode at an admin's talk page is verbatim: "I have posted at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN, which concluded the source Gaba p was using was not reliable. Today he went straight back to the article, re-introduced the same edit and attributed to the same unreliable source."[94] He effectively assigned to me the re-introducing of an unsuitable source to the article when it was him who did so three times. See what I mean now? How else could I call such an action? Please tell me if something is not clear. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Actually you're assuming they are combative but I am a Glaswegian and we have a blunt way of speaking. As text is an imperfect method of communication because it does not convey nuance well and can easily be misconstrued I do not pay much attention when editors express an opinion in a forthright manner. I do however object when they flat come out and call me a liar, especially when as you politely put it, they're not themselves sticking very closely to the facts. If I was being combative, as anyone who has drinking if Glasgow would know, you would know about it. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated allegations I breach 3RR and this is simply untrue.

An example, Gaba's reverts [95],[96],[97],[98] 4 in less than a 24 hr period. He tries to wikilawyer the 3rd revert as an "edit" to game the system.

Mine [99],[100] and [101] thats 3. To be utterly honest I had earlier reverted a borderline vandalism edit [102] but I self-reverted [103]. Thats the closest I've ever come to breaching 3RR, the vandalism edit was later reverted by another editor but not for weeks.

No I wasn't happy about reverting but for anyone familiar with the history of the Falkland Islands would realise this is a mistaken reference to an earlier event the Lexington raid of 1831. I even said so in the talk page [104]. You'll not however I have been more than honest in presenting the one occasion when I was close to breaching 3RR but did not.

Gaba p claims I was the only editor to breach 3RR [105], the above diffs show this to be untrue.

Gaba p claimed to be awaiting a reply on his 3RR warning [106], I'd already replied [107] and I note he had read it [108]. Gaba p's claim to be awaiting my reply were untrue - he'd already had it.

Gaba p's allegation I have lied about not breaching 3RR are untrue, I've shown it with diffs. The maximum is 3 and I did so reluctantly because common sense and knowledge of the subject led me to conclude it was an error.

On this occasion, Gaba p's allegations that I lied are false, he also made several claims that are demonstrably false. What would we call an editor repeatedly making false allegations and claims in the talk page. Answers on a post card please. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

First I'll note that I had no desire of entering this exchange of commentaries about another user behavior but was forced to do so after Wee commented on mine.

I have posted here four occasions were Wee "told things that were not true". If any editor/admin is unsure about any of them and wishes to go trough them I'll explain exactly what makes them "untrue" (avoiding the use of "lie" as advised here), like I did above with the Lopez book and his claim that I was "bringing it back" to the article when in fact it was him who did so on three occasions. Before ending this let me comment on an example of an untrue statement by Wee done in the comment right above this one:

Gaba p claimed to be awaiting a reply on his 3RR warning [109], I'd already replied [110] and I note he had read it [111]. Gaba p's claim to be awaiting my reply were untrue - he'd already had it.

So Wee presents a diff were I supposedly were awaiting a reply on my 3RR warning[112] and my claim to be awaiting a reply "were untrue". Please check the link for yourself and you'll see that I say verbatim: "Once again I reiterate to you my proposal that you self revert your last edit given that you have breached the 3RR. Otherwise I will be forced to report you. I'll await your reply. Regards." Wee says I already had a reply[113], in which he said he did not "intend to make any further reverts". In fact it was after that reply by him that I reiterated my proposal that he self-rv (please check the time tags) and it was the reply for that reiterated proposal I was waiting for because I wanted to prevent a report for breaking the 3RR. He effectively self-rv'd after I asked him to, so the report was finally not presented.[114] See what I mean? Who is making "untrue statements" here? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to block MMAbot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MMABot#MMABot_v3.0_Task_Proposals_and_Notes. If you look through the talk pages of the project, you can see that the MMAproject has serious disagreements on formats and guidelines. At this point there hasn't been compromise or agreement reached by the entire group as how proceed. One of the editors, TreyGeek has has history of trying to impliment his viewpoints by falsely linking guidelines that don't apply, threatening to get editors blocked that refuse to agree to his point of view, and he has even went as far as trying to get admin to step in and make people do things his way. Now he is attempting to circumvent the viewpoints of the entire group by programming a bot to change the articles to match his opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MMABot&action=history. If you look at the talk page for the bot, I have tried to voice my opinion and he keeps deleting it and saying its his talk page. Well if its his talk page and he is refusing to accept input from anybody who doesn't share an opinion, then it innappropriate for him to be using a bot to change formats to match what he wants. The bot is serving his interests and not the interests of the group, and I respectfully request help from somebody who had the authority to temporary block use of the bot until the group can come to a compromise that is satisfactory to all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg is unhappy with the consensus that formed at WT:MMA#Cleaning up the format. TreyGeek posted a notice on the MMA WikiProject talk page about creating a new task for MMAbot regarding table formatting. Trey is simply asking for input from the WikiProject about the task, and so far Ravensfire and I have asked questions about it. Willdawg is attempting to stonewall the discussion, claiming that a compromise is what matters, rather than consensus. Users PoisonWhiskey and SubSeven have asked him why he has a problem with it. He opposes "somebody who has stirred up so much controversy and refuses to compromose being the one to do it". I don't think Willdawg understands that this bot task being discussed is still in it's infancy, and is nowhere close to going live yet. Ishdarian 19:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read consensus, CONSENSUS IS COMPROMISE. You can't seperate the two. You are also wrong about me having an issue with the Conensus. The Conensus was to go to the blue tables, and I have not expressed any issue with what was agreed upon. The admin who closed it out specifically said that the consensus didn't indclude minor changes. I have an issue with the table being too fluffed up and hard to follow, which is why I am suggesting a couple minor changes to make things look better. I am looking for a little diplomacy, I don't object to the major layout, and in exchange, they agree to a couple small, minor edits that would make the table easier to read. This is the problem with the group. There are a few editors who keep refusing to accept opinions and viewpoints that are different than their own and they have to get their way. I'm willing to compromise and drop the issue if they are willing to compromise on a couple really minor edits (The way the columns end up spacing out, the judges scores make the table look better if they are put into the comment section, and 95% of fights that end in KO or TKO end because of strikes, so its redundant and fluffing to add anything behind the TKO unless its something like a physician stoppage or something out of the ordinary). You be the judge. Am I really asking for them to compromise that much? I'm willing to give in to the majority of what they want in a format but they can't budge just a little bit on a couple minor issues. Really? What they are doing isn't consistant with a CONSENSUS. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor issues? may i remind you why the discussions about the format began? (tip: Talk:Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Seven and [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]) Poison Whiskey 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who are new in this drama, just take a look at the section "Repeated editing of articles against WikiProject consensus" above. Poison Whiskey 20:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You know that section is going to show exactly what I'm saying, that there are a couple editors who are trying to use admin to circumvent the COMPROMISE portion of CONSENSUS and have tried everything including trying to get admin to tell me and other editors that we have to bow down to their viewpoint and to stop requesting that the project be a group effort. Take a look, it appears you have a case of the IDIDNTHEARTHAT that you like to point out. Weren't you told that I was following the rules and there wasn't any action to be taken in that complaint. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment from someone involved. The discussion Willdawg is referring to is for a proposed task for MMABot, reformatting result tables in MMA events (where possible) to use the consensus format. The bot does not do this right now and probably won't for at least a week, probably several weeks. There's a discussion on the WT:MMA page about the proposed change where he's already posted. Leaving essentially the same comment on the MMABot talk page doesn't help and could fragment the discussion. I think he's mistaken in his comments and aggressively pushing back on attempts to use the new event result layout. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All I want is for everybody's opinion to be taken into consideration and for everybody to compromise on issues. Remember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If a couple editors are trying to force the rest of us down, then yes, I will push back, but the difference is I am only pushing back to the point where all the editors are equal and can have their viewpoints treated equally. Willdawg111 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Beyond My Ken, I have restored Willdawg's messages on MMABot's talk page. Willdawg has raised no specific complaints other than I shouldn't be operating MMABot. I don't know how to respond to that kind of complain other than to say I have the support of a number of people in the MMA WikiProject to operate this bot and its tasks for v1 and v2 have been approved by the WP:BAG. I am open to suggestions or guidance in regards to this issue. I've been asking at ANI for two days now at this thread for guidance as to how to deal with Willdawg and I have been ignored. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Right. It really is time to start enforcing the discretionary sanctions here. If no uninvolved admin objects, I'll be topic-banning Willdawg111 for a couple of months, shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Crazy idea, since I'm one of the people with a headache from interacting with WillDawg. They're a relatively new editor that does some good work but I don't think they've got a good understanding of policy and their interaction style is causing problems. Rather than a total topic ban, perhaps a restriction for MMA related areas to edit only articles and article talk pages but may not change any existing format in the article nor revert format changes that others make, maybe for a month or two. After that, restrictions are lifted but they're on an interaction probation to force them to be more congenial in how they interact with others. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think there's a chance of him becoming a solid editor but a topic ban would probably chase him away or, when it's over, result in a backlash where he gets blocked. A wake-up call might work here. Ravensfire (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a revert restriction is going to work. As evidenced at the MMA wikiproject talk page WT:MMA, other editors have observed that Willdawg111's behavior is not only restricted to article space format changes. Personal attacks have been called out, snide remarks are ignored, and objection to any sort of forward movement (because a Bot is operated by someone on the other side of the MMA debate) indicates that they are engaging in a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and therefore their actions (including this thread) show that it may be wise to cut our losses with this editor. Hasteur (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm hoping that there's a good editor in there that's fallen in line with some of the ugliness that's in MMA. With the right shock (from some admin he doesn't know and who's never stepped foot in the MMA area), it might be enough. Right now the pain is from his behavior on WT:MMA and refusal to accept the formatting consensus. Okay, end his ability to do that while still letting him work on MMA articles. If that fails, he gets the hammer. Ravensfire (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for sanctions to be applied now, but I'd like to note that Willdawg111 has not yet had the MMA riot act read over them. They've been "suggested" at a couple of times, but no official delivery of warning yet. Hasteur (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, more MMA drama? It's time to put a stop to this. It's bad enough they've driven Mtking away. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great news! Evenfiel (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban This situation is really annoying. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Okay, I've topic-banned Willdawg for three months. I don't think the lack of a more formal warning should be really an issue here, because throughout this whole thread and the preceding one, discretionary sanctions had been mentioned multiple times, as had the idea that Willdawg had deserved a block already for his behaviour a couple of days ago; it must have been clear to every participant in this discussion that such sanctions were on the table. I have also blocked Evenfiel for 48 hours for the nasty personal attack just above here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dang. That seems a little harsh. I could see a month, but 3? Sure, I haven't been following most of this. But in the interactions I have been involved with that feature Wilddawg I don't recall him making snide or less than subtle insults. He just seemed like a genuinely good intentioned editor who was being stymied (along with myself) by an incredibly small group of people. A vocal minority if you will. The ANI is the last stop when people are unable to see (in our view) reason. Or at least be open to consensus, which wilddawg pointed out was not being followed because these folks would not allow for any compromise to be made. This is all compounded by the fact that mma is a relatively small topic, and the ones who are here but not participating have probably been driven off by the same person who outed me. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wilddawg's frank admission that he will not accept a consensus that does not incorporate a "compromise" towards his viewpoint is evidence enough, even in isolation, that his continued involvement is disruptive. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• He has already been banned. No need to grave dance. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if that's the way it came across; I had no intention of "grave dancing". I was simply indicating to FPaS that I supported his actions (it is not uncommon for admins to comment on each other's actions at ANI). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support this too, reluctantly, since I think that Willdawg has good intentions but a lack of knowledge, or a lack of interest in knowledge, about how Wikipedia should work. Besides, I urge Portland to stop making these claims of conspiracy theories. I suppose Portland is making reference to JohnnyBones or whatever the hell is name was, with the suggestion that the editors who are commenting on this and other threads are somehow swayed by that now-blocked editor and the ones who aren't are driven away by Johnny. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. Moreover, both Willdawg and Portland repeatedly accuse "the rest" of the editors of unwillingness to compromise; I see no evidence of that either, and it is time to put a stop to the "consensus=compromise" fallacy. Consensus does not necessarily entail compromise. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  In response to you claim about "no evidence", this is because I don't like to spend my free time digging around for an "AHA!" quote. Even if I did, you would just repeat what you already said. In response to your last sentence: But it could, and it's a shame that they won't because If I had the nerve to resort to sockpuppetry there wouldn't be a need for compromise. Maybe that is where this JBJ character comes from in the first place. Either way, the mma project is just that, a project in the same vein as those in Chicago.

edit: This is also not about me, as I did not participate in the majority of these issues such as formatting( I think I said I liked elements of both and left it at that), nor did I follow the mmabot conversation. But in the arguments I have had with the others regarding The Ultimate Fighter, and the whole tier system all there appears to be blocking me is a massive stonewall. This is how teenagers compromise. I also liken mmaprojects version of consensus to "America; love it or leave it!" [User:PortlandOregon97217|PortlandOregon97217]] (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fry1989

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

---

I am a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Fry1989 made a request for dispute resolution there which I have closed as premature. In the process of investigating the background of that dispute, I noticed that Fry1989 had made this edit at 18:11 today in which he says to, and in reference to, AussieLegend,

"Why should I give a source to someone with such a delightful (there's a better word I can think of) outlook that he rejected a perfectly valid one over the birthplace of his politician(s)?"

apparently in reference to this edit by AussieLegend. I subsequently discovered that Fry is under editing restrictions in lieu of an indefinite block which extend through March 15, 2013 (6 months from 15 September 2012) in which one of the restrictions is:

"All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages".

Unless I misread it, the comment quoted above is a clear comment on individual editor AussieLegend. A prior allegation here at ANI involving Fry's restrictions can be found here. I am not suggesting or requesting that any action be taken, but am only reporting this event as a neutral party for whatever action, if any, that might be appropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what exactly I have said or done that breaks my restrictions or has caused an "incident"? Sure my use of the term "delightful" was sarcastic, but that's hardly an attack or comment on the user, and considering my entire paragraph on his talk page, you're quoting me out of context. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See also concurrent AN discussion. A user talk page is a noticeboard to discuss a user's behavior and the instructions at the top of this page clearly state "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The purpose of the unblock conditions was to provide a means to allow Fry to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, not set up a gotcha booby-trap. NE Ent 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly acknowledge that the comment is mild, but it is negative — sarcastic, as you admit — and the restriction is about an individual user: "someone with an outlook". The last discussion here ended with a recommendation of "a warning to Fry that they need scrupulously follow both the spirit and letter of their unblock conditions going forward". Even a compliment to another editor could, in theory, violate your restriction under that strict application (though I wouldn't have raised a compliment or other positive remark here, of course), but that's not what has happened here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fry came to DRN looking for help. They opened a request on WP looking for help. Perhaps we could follow the spirit of dispute resolution and find a way to help them? The very act of opening at ANI thread on someone is never a neutral act. NE Ent 22:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge and understand, and will consider, your criticism, but neither accept nor reject it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sort of a cross between "No comment" and a "Non-denial denial." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the two admins who drafted those unblock conditions Fry is under, technically it is a violation (as would be a complement also, as TransporterMan pointed out) because it's a comment about a person. However, it doesn't cross into incivility, nor do I believe it rises to the level of a personal attack. Those things are what I and the blocking admin Bbb23 had in mind when we all agreed on the unblock conditions. The restrictions are strict, to be sure, but as NE Ent correctly pointed out, they weren't intended as hair-trigger booby traps. I don't consider this incident actionable other than to remind Fry1989 that his edits are under intense scrutiny at all times, which I have done. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, Fry went to DRN without making any attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page before hand. The matter was discussed on the article's talk page in 2006. Fry made a change in 2010, which was reverted with a direction to the talk page discussion. He then made the same edit only hours ago, and this was reverted. After a "discussion" on my talk page consisting of only 2 posts he headed to DRN, and then to WP:AN because of the "shortsightedness" of DRN. All of this happened within only two and a half hours of my first response to his post on my talk page. Fortunately, he's now discussing the matter at Talk:New South Wales. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DR/N requires EXTENSIVE discussion before a filing. It also states clearly that an AN/I filing and DR/N filing should NOT be made at the same time.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I apologize for adding to this after the close, but I have looked further into the matter and sought the advice of others and have concluded that I should, indeed, have brought this matter to the user's talk page before raising it here. I apologize to the community for having done so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this Socking, ?

Major changes have been made to Alternative Medicine over the last 2 weeks[124] by experienced editors who have decided to use ip address[125]. All other significant contributions are immediately reverted[http://en .wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_medicine&diff=533407841&oldid=533407493], [126], [127],[128],[129], I've changed a few back myself but with no impact [130],[131],[132],[133],[134],[135],[136]

There is an active discussion on the talk page but it seems to make little difference to what the ips decide to do. The article is heavily monitored so presumably this is all being done with the consent of the community and it may well be how articles evolve on wikipedia but it feels dishonest to me.

Why are controversial articles not permanently semi-protected ?Aspheric (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

First, let me say that I sympathize with the people that have been reverting you. "Alternative medicine" doesn't merit sugar-coating of terms. It is the result of superstition and ignorance, and there's no need to tap-dance around that.

However, and it's an important however, I firmly believe that an IP that edits that way in order that "your edits, not you, are what is looked at by others" is violating WP:ILLEGIT. We are supposed to be able to evaluate the edits in context of the editor's editing history.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP editing at Alt. Med. is undoubtedly disruptive in the way Kww mentions. Will admin make suitable intervention please. Qexigator (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send it to CU. Illegal alt. account (logged-out editing on purpose). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a CU issue, actually. I'll just soft-block, permitting him to edit with his account.—Kww(talk) 23:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Softblock him for what? Editing logged out? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For intentionally doing so to avoid scrutiny. It's hard to interpret his comments in any other way.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good hand, bad hand accounts are not allowed. I think the person still needs a head slap on the main account for that, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything that approaches avoiding scrutiny here. You can't claim a good/bad hand account without establishing both hands, that is pure conjecture. It would be inappropriate to block here. An IP can be used as an alt account for privacy, and there are legitimate reasons for undisclosed alt accounts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• If the IP doesn't have a log-in account, then he's fine. If the IP does, though - given the advice s/he gave to Widr, I must conclude that he himself took his own advice and edited logged out. I think CU would make sure which case it is, and we don't have to block the IP if it's the former case. This, though, doesn't feel like a legitimate reason for undisclosed alt account. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK#LEGIT, Privacy section, and the notify section below. We shouldn't be treating the IP any differently than a registered alt account here. If there is a reason to block otherwise, that is fine, but I don't see any violation of socking by virtue of an IP editing. For that matter, I don't have any proof this IP is even acting as an alternate, or at least none has been given here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ergo, a CU check (w/o linking to the account) would confirm which way it is, which is what I suggested originally... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you can talk a CU into checking, go for it, but that is a dynamic IP and unless you can show abuse, it is highly unlikely a CU would jump on it. That is the de jure definition of fishing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Which of those reasons at WP:SOCK#LEGIT would cover "so your edits, not you, are what is looked at by others", Dennis? I don't see that any of them fit. I'll temporarily drop the block until I see further discussion, but I think you are wrong.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I pointed to the Privacy section as one POSSIBLE reason for an alt account use. What you haven't done is convince me or anyone that I can tell, that this IP is actually an alt of anyone. If this was at WP:SPI, it would have been closed for lack of evidence. Who is this is a sock of? Were they tag team editing? What is the "abuse"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• By this same logic, I can block any IP editing a contentious article because they are "hiding" behind the IP instead of registering. You can't block someone for a "well, I know they are socking" gut feeling, there has to be some actual evidence. I'm all ears, and I look at sock evidence all day here, I just don't see any presented here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• We've both blocked on the basis of "I know they are socking, I just don't know for who", Dennis, and I will admit that is the basis of my argument for blocking. I see his comments as evidence of avoiding scrutiny. Other editors commenting have the same opinion. You apparently don't. That's why I lifted, and why I'm not in a rush to put it back. I do wish you would drop your insistence that he has to edit the same articles as the only reason to be treated as a sock, though. That's not what WP:SOCK says. His own words indicate bad intent, which is the underlying basis of our policies. This is also under the umbrella of pseudoscience, which gives admins more leeway.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• We don't permanently protect articles for being controversial. If anything, that is a good reason to leave the UNprotected. We do permanently protect a few articles that are magnets for vandalism, but the IPs edits here are in no way vandalism. As for socking, if they aren't editing the same articles when they are logged in, it isn't socking. Socking requires abuse, ie: overlap, appearance of more support than exists, etc. They don't look like an open proxy either. If all else fails, maybe full protection can be tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An editor may edit from an IP because of association with an author of a source who is an expert witness in a criminal medical fraud action off wiki, so they will not be trolled off wiki (i.e., stalked), in a context where others were so off-Wiki trolled". There may be many other reasons. The reasoning behind "look at the edit, not the editor", might not be in bad faith, as appears to be being assumed, rather than AGF. Admin powers were never intended to be a hyper-Stanford prisoner experiment, where if their is any possible bad faith interpretation possible, all AGF possibilities are immediately abandoned. If there is a problem with an edit, then voice it at talk. Otherwise, AGF. "64" is the ATT&E hot-spot IP that just got range blocked for two days for an entirely unrelated reason. So far, there are no policies, guidelines, or even essays, pointed to being violated, in hundreds or more edits. There appears to be a desire to finally improve the alternative medicine is article to Wikipedia standards. Not that questionable hyper-prosecutorial admin actions at Traditional Chinese Medicine, ended with all mention of it even being an altnernative medicine, or in any way being unscientific, being totally scrubbed from that article. How is that improving Wikipedia in any way? 64.134.222.106 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to drop evidence of that final complaint on my talk page. I'd find that highly problematic, and a quick look at the article makes me suspect that there's significant truth in your statement about Traditional Chinese medicine.—Kww(talk) 01:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

[137] The TCM itself is empirical evidence that admin blocks are out of control and not improving Wikipedia. This end product article is all the evidence anyone should need. Where did alll the reliable sources go and why? Why is TCM no longer a alt med and how did it happen? Something is wrong with the way admins are weilding blocks in assumptions of bad faith, and insanely prosecutorial accusations as if any edit error is a "crime', with flimsy to nonexistant "evidence" in "trials" that no reasonable person would bother to be in. Why should they "volunteer" to be an accused in a witch trial with secret evidence leding to an arbitrary and pointless block? It does not improve Wikipedia, and no reasonable person who does not want to live their life on WP, will tolerate it for long. cAdmin blocking power and witch trials with secret evidence and arbitrary "discreation" always ends up going to the same place, adn the curent block, made without a single accusation of anthing being done other than improving Wikipedia, is an example. TCM is an alternative medicine, not based on science, dangerous, and based on traditional superstitions combined with Mao's fraud and Communist propaganda. But one would never know that by reading that article. Something is wrong. 64.134.222.106 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of CU?

Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote""

OP has been advised on how to proceed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I call to your attention the recently closed AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"". I have several procedural questions. If I'm not asking these question in the correct forum then, please, point me to the correct forum. Disclaimer: I apologize if the language that I'm using sounds legalistic. The only way I can come up with to get traction on the issues, described below, is to use careful logical argumentation which, to some people's eyes, looks distastefully lawyer-like. I am attempting to address persistent problems that I observe associated with disputes about editing the Paul Krugman article. These problems are associated with a simmering, but untagged, POV dispute. In the course of attempting to reason through the issues with other parties to the dispute I observe some of the problematic behaviors described in WP:CRUSH. I filed the now-closed AN/I item[[140] with a view toward trying to solve the persistent problem of some parties to the dispute(s) failing to use logical reasoning and respond dispositively to good faith questions. I am confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: "Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". It should be *clear* to anyone reading the AN/I that my concern was *conduct*. Quoting myself therefrom: "The discussion, that is the subject of this AN/I, is riven with failures to respond dispositively to good faith requests for evidence" and "This discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct* ..."[141] I seek a authoritative finding(s) that: 1a) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning and dispositive responses to good faith questions are correct and; 1b) many parties to the dispute have *conspicuously failed* to comply with same; OR 2) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning are *incorrect*. With a clear and authoritative finding of either #1 or #2 I will know how to proceed with my attempts to edit Paul Krugman and I can stop banging my head against the wall. I have not yet notified the subjects of this complaint. If, indeed, I am posting this in the correct location would someone let me know? I will then notify the subjects of this complaint. I accept and acknowledge that the conduct accusations that I am making, should they be found to be without basis, could result in me being sanctioned (Nb. comments[ht: tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#No_rational_argumentation_at_Talk:Paul_Krugman_.22Consensus_on_inclusion_on_the_Gary_Becker_quote.22] "WP:BOOMERANG" from User:Insomesia] and [User:Mangoe]). Deicas (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) WP:Administrators have the ability to protect pages and block users. The Paul Krugman page is already fully protected. So who do you want blocked? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Per my comments above and in [142] the issues are good deal more complicated than just blocking a few users. By way of example of "more complicated": I seek a authoritative finding(s) that: 1a) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning and dispositive responses to good faith questions are correct and; 1b) many parties to the dispute have *conspicuously failed* to comply with same; OR 2) my expectations for the use of logical reasoning are *incorrect*. With a clear and authoritative finding of either #1 or #2 I will know how to proceed with my attempts to edit Paul Krugman and I can stop banging my head against the wall. Deicas (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid you're going to have to keep banging away. You aren't going to get a broad endorsement of any of that. If you have a specific behavior issue that you believe merits an administrator to use one of their administrator tools (to block someone, protect an article, or delete something) then this is where you get that done. If you're looking for resolution to a conflict, then please go somewhere like WP:DRN and start a discussion there asking for outside input. However, if I were you, I would change the way that you expressed the dispute; the above explanation of the dispute is almost impossible to parse in a way that allows outside people to contribute to it. What you've essentially done is posted a mildly incivil critique of people who disagree with you, couched in as a fake set of questions. You're not asking for input, you're making accusations against those who disagree with you, but hedging it as a question so it doesn't look like you are. Instead, explain what you would like the text of the article to state, show your sources, and sit back and let others evaluate your case. If others present alternate versions, present a dispassionate reasoning as to why their version is incorrect. However, do this at WP:DRN, not here. This is not the place to get a broad, nonspecific endorsement of your editing approach. --Jayron32 23:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC) The user:Deicas has already tried his hand at DRN, yet another forum where he didn't get the answer(s) he wants. His obtuse verbiage is a serious impediment to talkpage discussion, especially that sort of false-choice phrasing you see above ("#1 or #2"). I'm not quite sure if it's intentional, but I agree with Amadscientist (below) and I suggest that user:Deicas needs to work on other, less contentious pages while cutting his teeth so to speak. El duderino (abides) 06:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) That's not a straight question. 1) has about five different sub-sections and you could agree with some parts and disagree with others. Tigerboy1966  23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think it takes a crystal ball to see article probation in the future for this article. Is it possible that the behavior of this editor warrents some warning? I am not sure, but clearly they don't seem able to understand the policies and procedures even after they are explained to them. Seems like clear WP:ICANTHEARYOU. They seem to wikilawyer at every turn and I have found it nearly impossible to discuss any subject at length with the editor. They are quickly becoming very disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Deicas, it is always reasonable to want "logical and dispositive responses to good faith questions" but you need to consider the possibility that questions may need be seen as asked in good faith and that reasoning may be logical but go unrecognised because of clarity problems, unrecognised / unadmitted biases, etc. I make no comment on whether these caveats apply here, but I do note that your phrasing carries the unstated assumptions that your responses are always logical and dispositive and that your questions are always expressed in good faith and those assumptions may be open to challenge. IF you presented evidence that an editor was violating behavioural norms by deliberately avoiding reason, ignoring logical expressionm obfuscating, etc, then you could ask for a warning or block for disruption. However, asking for admins to act means making a case that this needs evaluation in a specific case, preferably with diffs and evidence and a minimum of unsupported assertion and generalised complaints. Perhaps you are correct - I haven't checked, I'm talking abstractly - that there is a behavioural rather than a content issue here, but the presentation so far does not clearly express that view and certainly does not concisely present it in an evidence-based manner. If this is really a content issue and behaviour is not at issue then this is not the place to discuss it. By the way, though you might not like my suggestions, continuing the way you are going without altering your approach is potentially evidence of disruption, so I strongly advise urgent reflection and reconsideration. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC) EdChem: thank you for your response. 1) I believe that in [143] I provided the evidence speaks to your concern regarding "...preferably with diffs and evidence and a minimum of unsupported assertion and generalised complaints" 1b) If someone want to claim deficiencies in the specific evidence that I've presented and say "Insufficient! Prove more!" -- that is a challenge I can and will respond to. 2) I am disinclined to go into more detail, right here, and right now, until the prerequisite procedural question, below, is answered. I hope this is understandable. Once that *is* answered I'm ready to have at the topic in what ever forum is determined to be correct. Deicas (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Does no one here want to address my procedural question? I contend that an answer to this procedural question is a prerequisite to the discussion of the substance of my complaint. Procedural question as quoted from above: I filed the now-closed AN/I item[[144] with a view toward trying to solve the persistent problem of some parties to the dispute(s) failing to use logical reasoning and respond dispositively to good faith questions. I am confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: "Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". It should be *clear* to anyone reading the AN/I that my concern was *conduct*. Quoting myself therefrom: "The discussion, that is the subject of this AN/I, is riven with failures to respond dispositively to good faith requests for evidence" and "This discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct* ..."[145] Deicas (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I have no idea why you insist on making your comments in small print, but whatever. The reason the dispute was closed is because you have not indicated which Wikipedia rules of conduct or behavior requires administrators to intervene in the form of blocks. This board really serves no other purpose. This is not the place to accuse others of being illogical or whatever you are trying to do here. Instead, what you need to do is to do exactly what I explained above: indicate exactly what you want the text of the article in question to say, and provide rationales and sources for what that text should say. Anything else is needless distraction from improving Wikipedia. We aren't here to mediate your personality disputes with other editors, and if you can't keep from personalizing this, then perhaps you misunderstand the mission of Wikipedia. If you are in a dispute with other editors over what you want the text of an article to say, the correct venue to resolve that dispute is WP:DRN. And I recommend that you do so in the manner and tone that I have recommended here and above, and not by making odd arguments about "failure to use logical reasoning", whatever that means. Instead of worrying about that, instead make your argument entirely and solely about the text of the article, and the sources that back up the text. Anything else is needless distraction. --Jayron32 00:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC) User:Jayron32: 1a) You say, above, "The reason the dispute was closed is because you [Deicas] have not indicated which Wikipedia rules of conduct or behavior requires administrators to intervene in the form of blocks". I have difficulty reconciling your statement with the closure block on the prior AN/I[146]: "NO ACTION: Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum User_talk:NE_Ent" 1b) I will contact User_talk:NE_Ent and see if he can cast some light on this matter. 2) Per you objection: "I have no idea why you insist on making your comments in small print" -- I was using small text for chunks of quoted text, to make it easier to see what was new text and what was quoted. As you find this objectionable I will stop the practice. Deicas (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I have no idea what the this editor's complaint or issue is. I have no idea what administrative action is being asked for. I ask the editor to state, plainly, succinctly, with extreme brevity, and with as informal a wording and prose as possible, what he/she is asking of this board. If this is not at all within their ability, it may well be that they lack competence to edit at Wikipedia. This does not mean they lack intellegence, just that they are not showing any ability to work in a collaborative manner, lack the ability to understand our policies and procedures and seem to ignore the advice being given.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Disclaimer: I prefer to not quote such big chunks of text below but I see no other choice. Sorry. In deference to User:Jayron32 concerns I'm not using small text for the quotes User:Amadscientist: If it is your good faith understanding that "I [Amadscientist] have no idea what the this editor's [Deicas's] complaint or issue is": then suggest that you write something to the effect of: Deicas says that "a prerequisite to the discussion of the substance of my [Deicas's] complaint" is that he is "confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: 'Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum'. It should be *clear* to anyone reading the AN/I that my [Deicas's] concern was *conduct*. Quoting myself [Deicas] therefrom: 'The discussion, that is the subject of this AN/I, is riven with failures to respond dispositively to good faith requests for evidence' and 'This discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct*'" What? I don't see what Deicas is confused about! What is the difference between his stated concerns and the AN/I closure reason? Why is he asking a "[p]rocedural question"? Deicas (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Per Amadscientist, the reason that you aren't getting satisfaction Deicas is we aren't here to engage in silly debates over who is or isn't being logical or anything like that. The prior discussion was closed because no admin is going to take any action based on it. Period. That's the end of it. Administrators only have the tools to block and editor, protect an article from editing, or delete an article, so unless you can show clear evidence in the form of diffs and simple explanations that one of those actions is required, you are not going to get any satisfactory resolution in this forum based on what you show is the nature of the dispute. The prior discussion was closed because it was clear that none of those actions was needed. This is not a hard concept to understand, so please stop being so obtuse about it. Now, just because no one needs to be blocked etc. doesn't mean that there isn't a dispute. There may be. But this forum is not the appropriate one to solve it, and till now the methods you have attempted to solve the dispute are not productive methods. I'll try one more time to explain how to solve this: explain how you want the text of the article to read, and show sources which support your text. Allow others the opportunity to evaluate your requests. But do that in other venues than here. This is not the venue for the problems you are having. --Jayron32 07:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC) User:Jayron32: You assert above that "[t]he prior discussion [the prior AN/I] was closed because no admin is going to take any action based on it. Period." I am having a good faith difficulty in reconciling your assertion with the with the AN/I closure disposition of: "Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". Would you please explain your reasoning? If, indeed, this was a case of a admin deciding not to take any action wouldn't the disposition have been something like "Not proved"? Does my good faith assertion that "[t]his discussion, at the AN/I, is in regard to *conduct*" count for nothing? Deicas (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Deicas, you are laboring under a misapprehension: Admins do not "rule" on content disputes, that's not their purpose or function. They deal with behavioral problems. An admin has no more or less authority in regard to content than any other editor of similiar experience. So when Jayron32 says that no admin was going to take any action, it was because what had been presented was a content dispute, and these are handled by discussion on the article take page or by dispute resolution, not by admin action. Now you may have thought it was a conduct issue, but apparently nobody else agreed, leaving a simple content dispute and therefore the close of the thread. There is, however, a potential conduct issue here, and to avoid it, I suggest you read WP:IDHT, which will describe a type of disruptive behavior called "I didn't hear that". which you are beginning to display. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Beyond My Ken...Deicas knows all of this. They are just not listening. He has been to DR/N (I was the volunteer that took the case) and advised the editor on the process. Before me, others have explained as well, including Steven Zhang. If you notice on the post to Zhang, there is no wikilawyering and is a straight forward, albeit slightly confused set of questions that were defered back to the volunteers. It is my belief that Deicas is no longer working in GF. He seems to have become an SPA account begining in January of 2011, centering in on the Krugman article. He has become disruptive at DR/N to the point that he had to be warned. I am thinking it is time for a topic ban from the Krugman article for Deicas and a mentor.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Wow! Looking into Deicas' contributions and comments, I'd say that you are correct. (And I find it interesting that someone who is so concerned about "clarity" and "logic" writes in such an unclear and illogical manner.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I'm about ready to !vote on such a proposal as well. Anybody feel like starting it? Zad68 14:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Deicas, from my reading of what you wrote, I think you are asking for a more rational discussion on Talk:Paul Krugman. I agree that it is a legitimate concern. But it something that admins in their admin role cannot enforce. In answer to some questions and contentions you wrote: Does no one here want to address my procedural question? Yes, it appears no one here wants to address your procedural question. I contend that an answer to this procedural question is a prerequisite to the discussion of the substance of my complaint. If a condition of addressing the substance of your complaint is addressing a unilateral ultimatum, then it is doubly going nowhere. See Wikipedia:Consensus --Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC) At this point, it's clear that the OP has been advised how to proceed by multiple people, consistently. There's no further point in keeping this open. As a suggestion, the OP would be well advised to follow the advise of several people, to drop this specific line of questioning, and instead work towards more constructive means of dispute resolution. I'm closing this. --Jayron32 14:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dunkmack9 on a fringe theory tear

Dunkmack9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been a problem for a while now and I'm surprised he hasn't come up earlier. He has a long history of inserting material that is unsourced, or is personal opinion and analysis, or which comes from well-known fringe sources which are rejected by the mainstream. For example, he has done a lot of editing of Rudolf Hess, partly inserting his own analysis, sometimes pushing the theory that the Hess at the Nuremberg trials was an imposter substituted by the allies. Pretty much everything he adds eventually gets rolled back. He marks every edit as minor (with occasional lapses), even though most of his additions are hundreds to thousands of characters long. He is not particularly communicative, and there are several attempts recorded on his talk page to dissuade him from his campaign of fringey editing, to which he hasn't replied. He has become particularly active of late. I don't know that a short-term block would get through to him but it would be nice not to have to revert everything he does. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, has already been given multiple warnings by Dianna NE Ent 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion from what I saw on the Hess article is that he's more interested in inserting a fringe conspiracy theory into the article than undertaking actual improvements to the page. He wants to contribute, but I am concerned, because he seems unable to identify and make use of reliable sources, choosing only the material that's the most far-fetched, and in Hess's case, most certainly incorrect. -- Dianna (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If he had persisted in editing the Hess article in spite of the warnings, he might have been blocked at that point. But because he moved on elsewhere, he was not. But being disruptive over a number of articles rather than persisting in the one place is just as disruptive, maybe even more so, and it has allowed him to fly under the radar for some time. I'm not convinced it's severe enough to warrant a block at this point, but adding opinions (Diff of Rudolf Hess; note especially the very last sentence) and editorialising about the quality of the articles in the articles themselves certainly has to stop. I welcome him to this discussion and hope he is prepared to improve his editing skills. -- Dianna (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

He has moved on to the Day of Deceit article from the Hess article, but the editing pattern has remained; should he further ignore the warnings given, from this point forward, I would say a block is in order. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse block  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Harassing, island-hopping IP editor

This individual, who seems to hop IPs every few edits was blocked for similar (although more aggressive) behaviour in November and has long been back with a vengeance. Although this person's editorial mishaps extend beyond mere edit-warring to harassing, I felt it would be easier to single out a single behavioural issue. Also, at Tainan this editor showed his/her true intent of tracking me down by reverting in a non-politically contentious content area. The questionable conduct extends to the 111.243.45.* and 61.219.36.* ranges as well, including outright vandalising of other user's talk pages. It is high time that this person's ranges are executed Wiki-style. GotR ^Talk 23:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed in search results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASteven_Spielberg/archive

I looked up Spielberg in relation to Aspergers and was greeted with several totally unscholarly diatribes justifying AS as being "normal" and ok This is not what I looked for.I just wanted information

Very very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.187.45 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi 2.222.187.45. The page you linked to is a "Talk page", a place for discussing Wikipedia articles. It should not be considered content like Wikipedia articles, and it is not required to be accurate, unbiased, or helpful. You can tell this page is not an article because it starts with "Talk:" in the title. Prodego ^talk 23:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't all talk pages be no-indexed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I took this as being a search in the internal searchbar on Wikipeddia, not from Google or another engine. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(another non-admin observation) I don't think so. When I google for Spielberg Aspergers, that talk page archive is the second result. Deor (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I no indexed that page - but, really, shouldn't they all be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just remember that if all talk pages are no-indexed, they won't show up on a google search of "site:en.wikipedia.org", which can be useful. Prodego ^talk 06:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe all talk pages are supposed to be automatically noindexed, Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing doesn't mention it. BLP talk pages with a BLP template are noindexed. So I guess we have a problem in that BLP talk pages are noindexed but once the stuff moves to the archive it's no longer so. I'll probably bring this up in BLP/N Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that current protocol requires talk pages to be no-indexed, I meant that it might be a good idea if they were. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A user unaware of the distinction between Talk and Mainspace knows how to find this board... ah, the mysteries of life. PhnomPencil (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

New user edit warring on Youreallycan‎ talk page

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

---

user:Smugs999 seems to be trolling YRC and is edit warring and being very sarcastic with it. I posted on his talk page to stop but he has not. Would an admin give him a warning please. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by Fut. Perf. 28bytes (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Thanks - I have also reported the user to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User:Smugs999 - Youreallycan 00:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Gossip may need revdel

Resolved

 – Rev-deleted and blocked.  Sandstein  08:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Antwerg (talk · contribs) has just added another link to gossip associated with a BLP subject despite advice from several editors at their talk. Previous edits have recently been revision deleted. Would someone please check the latest contribution (which I reverted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• The user has again posted a link in an attempt to force a BLP violation onto at least the article talk page, and that is after some clear explanations and warnings at User talk:Antwerg#Enough. Here is a diff of the most recent addition (previous additions have been revision deleted).

  Would an admin please take the necessary action.

  Feel free to delete this message if you like (although the gossip is all over the Internet, and is near the top of Google searches for the subject's name). Because it's all over the Internet, the issue can be viewed as minor—however, it is a clear violation of WP:BLP and WP:DUE to use Wikipedia to highlight that the police have interviewed someone who worked with a person responsible for very serious abuses (with the obvious yet false implication that the BLP subject is suspected of abuse). Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User repeatedly removed speedy deletion tags

Despite the warnings that I posted on Livelaughlovehi5's talk page, the user continues to remove speedy deletion templates from an article that he/she has created, which clearly meets the speedy deletion criteria. Not sure if this is the right place to report the user. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, not really, but that's OK. I'm going to give them a final warning, and on top of that I will delete that article for you. The way to go is to give them (vandalism) warnings and when they continue after a fourth warning, you report them to WP:AIV. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I didn't know removing relevant tags constitutes vandalism, thought it was just considered disruptive. Cheers! YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a twinkle message for that. FYI Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100 adding unsourced material / original research

Back in December, Earth100 was brought to AN/I by myself for disruptive editing, consisting mainly of original research and adding unsourced material ([147]). At the end of December, he was blocked for personal attacks ([148]), and after that, his edits became very productive again. Unfortunately, tonight he has started again adding unreferenced material ([149], this one I showed my edit, where I put in a citation needed tag, as it makes it more clear what was unreferenced). I have tried explaining to him again why this is not allowed ([150]), but he has responded by saying that apparently, while he has a source for the information (that he did not add to the article when he added the information), he is engaging in original research, which he continues to deny. It's just getting a little bit ridiculous how many times people in the project have to tell him that he cannot simply engage in editing like this. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Inks just being too aggressive on me, on just wants to make a report on me, and there's no significant problem with me. Just ignore the message, Thank You.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 11:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth100, that isn't a response to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem--you aren't even acknowledging that you're doing anything wrong. Multiple users have tried multiple times to explain why you cannot add unsourced material or original research, but you continue to do it anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Today, I proposed one of his articles for deletion 2013 North Pacific Super Storm, as it failed WP:GNG, and we've already had an increase in desire to make articles for non-noteworthy winter storms since The Weather Channel started naming them (but that's a whole other issue that has nothing to do with this), and he removed the PROD tag (which is fine), with the edit summary, "Only STUPID users like INKS don't find any thing likes news and true information." He then apparently changed his mind and re-added the prod tag back, but this is not his first time making personal attacks. This has to stop; I have tried to be helpful and explain what needs to be done to properly source things, but Earth100 has refused to take my advice and has only resulted in being hostile. I didn't bother putting a warning on his talk page for the attack, as he already knows personal attacks are not allowed (as that was the reason for his last block), and it will probably just end with him deleting the warning anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN/WP:HARASSMENT, and childish name-calling by User:JoshuSasori

For about a month now User:JoshuSasori has been making it very difficult for me to make any edits to articles on Japanese cinema. Virtually all of my edits to Kuroneko, Tadao Sato, Double Suicide of Sonezaki and numerous other articles have been subjected to excessive scrutiny, and if not blankly reverted have been gradually whitewashed out. He has been generally unwilling to compromise on issues where we disagree, and when I don't let him have the articles exactly his way he starts calling me names like "hound"[151], "orientalist"[152][153][154], "troll"[155][156][157] and "insane loon"[158]. (Those are just the ones that he wrote in his edit summaries and the most recent one. There are plenty more on the various talk pages.)

I would very much appreciate some administrative oversight, preferably someone giving the user in question a good talking to and explaining to him that he doesn't "own" articles he has created or contributed to on Wikipedia, and he shouldn't treat he should call talk page comments by his fellow Wikipedians "troll droppings".

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• User:JoshuSasori does indeed seem to be consistent in his personal attacks. I especially enjoy his dodging attitude at WP:DRN. He is pulling a classic WP:NOTTHEM behavior. Comments like "I strongly advise you to look through Elvenscout742's edit history." and "I'd like to emphasize here that I warned the person trying to resolve this conflict to carefully read Elvenscout742's edit history before attempting a resolution." display a pattern of blaming others for their incivility. Not once does JoshuSasori offer a single diff, instead expecting the DRN volunteer to comb through the OP's edits and determine what's wrong.--v/r - TP 14:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to deal with it? elvenscout742 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

On the dispute resolution page, we are asked not to discuss user conduct. Thus lengthy descriptions of Elvenscout742's behaviour would not be appropriate: "It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct." JoshuSasori (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour". Whether he provided detailed examples is really beside the point, because he focused on ad hominem attacks against my supposedly harassing behaviour. Note, though, that I never called JoshuSasori a hound, or a troll, or an insane loon, or referred to his talk page comments as fecal matter.[159] elvenscout742 (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori failed to present a reasonable argument on DRN, and focused exclusively on "my behaviour - This quite simply is not true, I didn't say a word about your behaviour. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm - what difference would Elvenscout's behavior make? Diffs presented show pretty clearly JoshuSasori's incivil behavior bordering on personal attacks. NE Ent 02:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 has been following me for the last month. Do you want details? JoshuSasori (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

JoshuSasori above claims I have been following him. In reality, I have been simply trying to edit Wikipedia articles on Japanese films that I am interested in. Some of them, I already edited before JoshuSasori even registered on Wikipedia, which I pointed out in my peace offering to him on December 24.[160] He is the one who has been following me around these articles. Most of my recent edits to articles on Japanese cinema (too many to list) have been either reverted or followed closely by JoshuSasori. He has also showed up at several unrelated discussions (1, 2, 3) I was involved in and opposed my point of view, apparently just because. One of his recent comments also resembles a professional threat.[161] elvenscout742 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 initially interacted with me via the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan talk page where I initiated a discussion about macron usage in MOS:JAPAN. He then followed me to the talk page of Ryo Kase. After that, he began a campaign of multiple article moves of fairly obscure articles which I had created: Reiko, Ryoko Nakano, Sonezaki Shinju, Kindai Eiga Kyokai. I have been watching virtually all Japanese cinema articles for eight months, and he had not edited any prior to these moves, I had never seen him before that. Following this, and further disputes about WP:HOUNDING, he started "editing" these articles with minor edits, often WP:OR. When asked to provide a citation or corrected in a minor way, he immediately posts long screeds on the talk page of the articles. I do not know of any substantial edits by this user on any cinema articles, instead he makes gigantic contributions to talk pages only. However, I can understand the above about his work may have caused him distress. I have no intention of professionally threatening this person and will remove those remarks. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for calling him "an insane loon". If someone called me an insane loon, certainly I would think it was a humorous joke, but perhaps he did not take it that way. The context of this remark was that he told me that I had not seen a film called "The Hidden Fortress". Since I have seen the film, and since Elvenscout742 does not know anything about me or what films I might have seen or not seen, his comment struck me as being extremely odd, as if he had some kind of paranormal knowledge about me, which is why I made that crack about him. Frankly I don't think "orientalist" is very insulting but I apologize for that too. Also I called him a "hound dog", in the style of Elvis Presley. So I will apologize, once again. I've recently been looking through the edit history and noticed that when I told Elvenscout742 that he was being ridiculous or being absurd he took that as a personal attack. What I'll do from now on is to try to avoid this kind of talk with him. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I happened accidentally upon a move request JoshuSasori had participated in on 15 December[162] and he responded to me 20 minutes later.[163] The WikiProject Japan discussion to which he is referring does indeed seem to have been going on between him and my WikiProject Japan colleagues at that time, but my involvement in it began on 21 December[164], almost a week later. After this, I did indeed notice that he had created several articles based on his POV that Japanese names on Wikipedia should not have macrons: a number of these had no real justifications (Kindai Eiga Kyokai, for instance, was based on unrelated third party DVD covers[165], even though their official website[166] uses "Kyoukai" to mark the long vowel). I was not "hounding" JoshuSasori by moving these pages, I was merely doing what I believe is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. JoshuSasori's apparently taking personal offense at my moving articles he "created", and immediately moving to undo all of these edits, indicates a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia collaboration is all about. It is completely false to claim that I had never edited any articles on Japanese cinema prior to moving "his" pages: I pointed out to him early on[167] several specific examples of articles I had edited years before he arrived on them, and several more articles (mostly the animated films of Studio Ghibli) have been edited by me and never touched by him. He seems to continue to believe that my interest in Japanese cinema is a fabrication that I use to undermine his edits, despite this overwhelming evidence. His above accusation of OR is entirely disingenuous: I made a minor note on the Japanese title of Kuroneko, and provided numerous sources. He also reverted my addition of a Wikilink to the article on a historical person who is mentioned in the film, based on a ridiculous assertion that the Minamoto no Raikō who appeared in the film is different from the Minamoto no Raikō of Japanese legend, despite the character's dialogue specifically alluding to said legends in the first person. It is difficult for me to make "substantial edits" to cinema articles when he has been working to undermine most of my edits, however minor. However, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that I was the one who started the articles Twenty-Four Eyes and Ukare Gitsune Senbon Zakura. (I will assume by "cinema" above he means "Japanese cinema" -- Musa (film) and Bichunmoo are just two other articles I started.)

I would like to acknowledge my appreciation for JoshuSasori's removal of the above-mentioned comment and retraction of "insane loon". It was difficult to take the latter as a joke, given the other names. Honestly, though, "orientalist" is far more offensive to me personally, because I majored in Japanese translation in university, I have written critiques of orientalism in general. One of my only four edits in 2010[168] was to alter a slightly POV statement that had previously been biased in favour of the orientalist Arthur Waley. (I am not proud of my pre-revival failure to understand Wikipedia's sourcing rules, but my edit summary provided justification.) "Orientalist", to me and to other scholars, implies a lack of serious acquaintance with the so-called "cultures of the east", and a Poundish dismissal of scholarly research into these areas. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, my above response sounds kind of confrontational. I of course did not mean it that way. If I can take JoshuSasori's above inaccurate representation of history (paragraph 1) as merely the good-faith misunderstanding I initially took it to be,[169][170][171][172][173][174] and his apology for the name-calling (paragraph 2) as an indication that from now on we can work on collaborating on Japanese cinema articles peaceably, I will go back to my initial state of offering peace.[175] JoshuSasori, are we on the same page here? I am willing to believe that JoshuSasori's move of Double Suicide of Sonezaki to an unofficial/inaccurate title was just good-faith ribbing if he accepts that my interest in Japanese cinema is genuine and that I am only WP:HERE to help build Wikipedia. (And that my DVD collection is bigger than his is!フフフ) elvenscout742 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found a funny precedent for my being bold in moving articles relating to Japanese cinema.[176] And I think I was probably right, since the move request that later reverted this move neglected whether the film was the primary topic or not. elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Elvenscout742. The above is a mere sample of what I have been putting up with, every day, for the last month since he started hounding me. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what?? I just gave you yet another peace offering, despite your continued false assertions that I am the one who is doing the "hounding". elvenscout742 (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Abusive emails (Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis)

I received three emails this morning from User:Nero1990, an account with no contributions. There is no clear place to report an incident like this, so I'm posting here to receive administrator assistance. They are all identical, and read as follows (email addresses redacted):

from: Nero1990 <XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com> via wikimedia.org
to: Siafu <XXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com>
date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:22 PM
subject: GAS THE ANTI-SEMITES!
mailed-by: wikimedia.org

LONG LIVE ISRAEL! DEATH TO THE ENEMY!


--
This e-mail was sent by user "Nero1990" on the English Wikipedia to user "Siafu". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

As per this you should not paste an email on-wiki, not sure whether we can do it on ANI also an admin will be able to help you. --sarvajna (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the email addresses, so no outing is occurring. As for not posting emails, I find this to be a strange thing to say to me, as I'm receiving weird offensive emails from someone I don't know, being delivered by wikimedia.org; the inappropriate behavior is not mine. There's no copyright violation in posting this, either. siafu (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had similar in the past - it's someone who creates accounts just to send email abuse. I expect the answer will be to block with email access removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently a lot of editors who participated in the discussion at talk:Germans andthe ANI discussion surrounding the block of User:Guitar hero on the roof received this kind of abuse yesterday. I received 20 death threats myself. They were not from the same account who sent the email to Siafu. Blocking these throw-away accounts is not really an effective solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This sort of crap has been going on for at least a year and a half with many prior discussions, see User talk:RolandR#Hundreds of threatening messages for example. RolandR is a frequent victim. It sounds like some progress has been made in that a throttle has been implemented of 100 emails per hour [177] but there's still no proposal to better stop the problem. There is a plan bto allow emails to be controlled by the abusefilter [178], but if people have other suggestions, they may want to make them in an appropriate place. (I don't think discussions at ANI are likely to achieve a solution since the prior 10 or so haven't really.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I received several this morning from User:Liandarnody. It's obviously JarlaxleArtemis again, using an extremely offensive hmamail account name. The subject line of my messages was "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, CommuNazi scum". Account now blocked. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Did any of the other accounts start with "Nero"? In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given (WP:BEANS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps I should clarify when I say there's still no proposal I mean there's still no proposal that seems likely to be implemented. There have been some other proposals which don't look likely to be implemented for a variety of reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I recieved the same mails as quoted by the OP this morning sent by a User:Nero1990. And yes I also (briefly) participated in the discussion at Talk:Germans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a message (happens to me quite often but I just delete automatically) from the some idiot this morning, only it read 'Gas all Arabs' to judge from the heading, since I didn't open it (probably also telling me I'm euroscum). Wouldn't have mentioned it had it not been raised here.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. I just deleted them and moved on. Although I can understand that the possibilites in the present system for constant email harrasment by trolls needs to be curtailed. I support the idea of removing the email function for editors with no edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the one I got in December, from User:Enemy of the Jihadis was titled "GAS THE ARABS!". I reported the abuse to hmamail and they quickly blocked the account, but that doesn't stop the creation of lots of throwaway ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems I got more of these than anybody else. :-) In analogy to WP:DENY I originally decided not to mention them on-wiki, but simply notified the email address given at WP:Functionaries. It think this is the preferred reaction; if not, maybe one of the functionaries can let us know. Hans Adler 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one liked to know I wasnt the only person to receive these. Email disabled now though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its rare that I see a good idea on ANI, but disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution qualifies. I would raise it to a minimum of 50 or 100 edits though, or maybe only autoconfirmed accounts. nableezy - 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its user:grawp and I agree with user:nableezy--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that must be the first time I have seen the above comment! It is indeed a good proposal, and one I have raised before. However, I have been told that this is impractical, and reasons have been given for not introducing this. In particular, it has been argued that victims of BLP violations sometimes need to contact an editor for changes to be made. I'm not convinced that this therefore requires a facility which enables a serial abuser to send thousands of racist death threat emails to scores of editors. Nor why a user is allowed to send via Wiki mail emails from an address threatening to kill another editor. This really needs to be addressed urgently: I have received more than 1500 of these in the past 18 months. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it naive of me to suggest that the sending of so many abusive and malicious messages and death threats is a police matter? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the subject line and Wikimedia Foundation well knows: This is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. One editor reported he received an email in my name which doubtless is from JarlaxleArtemis who has been making up offensive User names with my name in it on various Wikimedia projects. (Is this the email people are referring to here?? Feel free to send me a copy if so.) So he WILL escalate his behavior when he decides to really come and get you. If he finds out you live near him in Southern California, you might really be in trouble.

As you can see, he's been at it a long time and Wikimedia Foundation has made efforts to stop him, including contacting his family. Please add your complaints to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis under current activites, favorite pages, or anywhere else you feel it is necessary.

Obviously if anyone bothered to go to the feds (and this is not a threat since I won't), a whole case could be opened. The stupid kid probably would face decades in prison under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Threatening the government officials of the United States, Terrorism or any of the zillions of other laws there are out there. Instead of getting the psychological help he obviously needs. But he's no Aaron Swartz so it's not like Wikimedia Foundation has a duty to protect him. CarolMooreDC 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll dig out one of mine and send it to you, I've been meaning to do something about it since I saw your name on it. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

New policy proposal?

(Non-administrator comment) I completely agree with the proposal that Arthur Rubin made. The addition of that new rule would prevent most of these throwaway accounts from spamming admins. However, I do wonder where the new policy request will be made? Perhaps WP: ARBCOM can pass it? I will message one of their members informing them of this discussion. Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is generally accepted that arbcom doesn't have the authority to make policy like this, and we wouldn't need their involvement for this. I would support a policy like this, though I don't know how useful it will be because this LTA tends to do the vandalism before sending emails.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we actively try to avoid doing that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should note, though, that the Committee (and the rest of the Functionaries) are aware of this guy and are working with the Foundation to try and find some more effective ways of stopping him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an option to opt-out from receiving mails from new-accounts.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's one solution though I do not understand why accounts (new or otherwise) need the ability to send unlimited numbers of emails or why editors who have never edited need to be allowed to send emails at all.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a rule change to prevent accounts sending emails until they have made at least one edit (or perhaps Autoconfirmed?). However, we do need to bear in mind the fact that some people with few edits do feel a legitimate need to email - you don't have to be an active editor to try reporting a problem, and every so often a person with near-zero editing experience will turn up at a noticeboard to say "your article about me / my family / my business is a hatchet job, how do I get it fixed?" - I'd be amazed if some didn't try using email for that. Anyway, back to the point: If you need a bunch of people to agree before changing the rules, and it's not an incident or specific to administrators, wouldn't the village pump be a better place to discuss it? bobrayner (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How much leeway do we give editors who send abusive emails? I just got one from a new editor that I'm trying to persuade to stop doing original research. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• One clear thing, in my opinion, is that those who make death threats can have their contact details released to the proper authorities, should the recipient inform Wikimedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs.[179] Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.[180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188]
He has been warned about this various times,[189][190][191][192] but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Wikipedia. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's analysis of the situation. Classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT that has gone on for far too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..

It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I also support Cuchullain's proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem in supporting a ban per David Fuchs. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jprw/Stephen Leather

Hi, I'm not too sure whether this should actually be posted on the BLP noticeboard, the sock puppet noticeboard or something under paid editing, so my apologies if it is entirely inappropriate to post it here. User:Jprw appears to be insinuating I am either a paid editor, a sock puppet or I'm undertaking 'dubious goings on' by his recent comment here [193] on Talk:Stephen Leather as the only previous comments he highlights were mine. Anyone is welcome to check any editing I have done as I completely refute all of these accusations.

Jprw has asked for an editor who has not been involved with the article for 12 months to comment but I don't know if he has brought it to anyone's attention.

I did not post my comment on January 17 twice, so I think he has inadvertently pasted it again. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a serious violation of BLP to make unfounded accusations against a living person. It is also a personal attack to accuse other editors of being sockpuppets. I suggest that an administrator strike out these comments and Jprw refrain from repeating them. TFD (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe somebody is a sockpuppet, take to WP:SPI - simple. You do not make unfounded accusations. GiantSnowman 17:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover and Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

User:Tagremover has been using Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner to push his/her POV on the Boeing 787. He/she even resorts to accusing us editors of being biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda. I personally think some action should be taken here, since he/she is abusing the talk page for a reason that is not allowed. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Its true i used some clear, bold language (bleedless > bleed, nightmare) but also newer sources like the established Time magazine use the same. Just to give a short scientific result. Seemed to be too "emotional", although it will get clear if it is read fully it wasn´t meant so.

biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters: I did not mention anyone personally, but this article is somewhat "pro-Boeing". But:

Other Aircraft articles (Airbus) are somewhat biased, too. Its IMHO a common problem in Wikipedia product articles. Losers are articles like TU-144, which have less (russian?) editors. I think this "fight" to mainly write positive about products is NOT good and is not what is meant by Wikipedia:Assume good faith (about the products, of course good faith for editors). I just think it should not even allowed, but it MUST be allowed in Wikipedia to call an article or statement biased. And i wanted to share info to improve this. Tagremover (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Did User:Andros 1337 respect that related to me? Tagremover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note I collapsed one forum-type discussion and left a note reminding users that continuing to add commentary, speculation and the like may be disruptive before I was aware of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My reasonable small inline tags: [194] were removed: [195], my critical comments and suggestions were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor of the article, and i was taken to ANI. Remarkable. Please could we stop at least this ? Tagremover (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I must say, Tagremover's edits are very WP: FILIBUSTER-ish, to say the least. Tagemover claims he is adding a "short scientific result", but is instead loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV. When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage, along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters". In my opinion, MilborneOne has every right to collapse that section. It was completely redundant and disruptive. Sadaam Insane (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Sadaam Insane makes wrong statements:

• "loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV": Wrong: What, when? Diffs?
• "When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage" I feel insulted. What, when? Diffs?
• "along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters": A user answered;

• "Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it." I answered:
• "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine." [196] Clearly meaning no one personal.

Tagremover (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying our editorial effort on the article suffers from "Too many biased 'America the beautiful' Dreamwriters here." smears the editorial pool for the article in general. Your complaint would have more validity and perhaps be accepted if you were to provide diffs instead of simply making a nebulous, non-specific claim. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

continuance. Regarding the instance you cited above, where you tagged "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as and objected to your "dubious" tag being reverted as evidence of a bias, the fact that Boeing indeed said that is indisputable and is cited. This clearly is an objective, non-biased revert. Marteau (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I apologize for that earlier outburst. It doesn't take much for me to go off like Joseph Goebbels. I will strike out that section as soon as I remember how to strike out comments (hopefully one of the kind admins will refresh my memory). Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike MilborneOne (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at DGM

URL references from the good-article Discipline Global Mobile are being removed, because they comply with DGM's terms of service, which prohibit links to internal pages. Apparently DGM's ToS has no weight on Wikipedia, alas.

A WP-compliant action would be for editors to add url information, if they wish.

Unfortunately, apart from one edit by Pigsonthewing, editors who advocate complete urls to internal DGM pages are not inserting such urls. Rather, they are disrupting the article with improperly used dead-link tags, messed-up formatting with misplaced plain-text urls, stray [], etc.

At least they should be required to use the preview function before inflicting their edits on the world. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As the unnamed editor who damaged the article in an attempt to remove clearly incorrect links claiming to source information about living people; after failing to comment out the offending material, I removed it entirely. I thought it would be less disruptive to comment it out than to delete it. Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the editor adding material to supply a source. If a URL is to be included, it should not be misleading.

This being the fourth or fifth place he's commented on this, perhaps something should be done.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 India–Pakistan border incident & proxy servers

Being used to edit the article in a very disruptive fashion. I have reported the proxies[197] but can we get semi protection on the article please? I have asked at RPP but it looks a bit backlogged. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please link to articles you want us to do something about? See also WP:GRA.  Sandstein  23:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is in the title of the section 2013 India–Pakistan border incident Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I just protected it for a week. Let me know if socking issues resume there when that expires. BTW, please be careful about your edit summaries when you're reverting other editors. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting re-hatting of off-topic digression on VPP

I asked a policy-based question on WP:Village pump (policy), using as an example an article related to an Arb case I'm involved in. Two editors, instead of addressing my question, are yelling at me to keep it in the Arb case. I hatted the digression, but was reverted by one of the editors. I would prefer to keep the policy discussion on track, and that if anyone has an issue with it to raise it here or at the case, instead of derailing a legitimate policy question with personalities. Could someone re-hat the digression, please? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate policy question? ROFL!

It's a work on progress. We've had enough editors leave because of jerks tagging their drafts rather than leaving them to work in peace.

And the article just happens to be by Doncram.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a work in progress.

This is a godawful mess. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented out the unformatted unreadable raw data on the George Hancock article. There's no way that was an acceptable way to leave an article. Doncram created it in 2010 and last edited it in August 2012, there's been plenty of time for him to get it into better shape. The long gap argues against it being an active "work-in-progress", it is rather an unfinished article which has been abandoned by the creator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that I was mistaken and thought link that Sarek provided was the current state of the article, so I've reverted my edit back to the previous version, where the raw data has been formatted into a Wiki-acceptable list. My mistake, my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No, my fault -- I should have made it much clearer that I was only referring to the initial creation state, rather than the way the articles looked now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty stupid to use an example related to the case, wasn't it? If, in fact, it's a sufficiently widespread problem worth discussing at VPP there must be examples from editors that are not parties to the same AC case SoV is involved in, right? NE Ent 03:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that SoV try to ignore peripheral problems relating to Doncram while the Arbitration is underway, and if egregious problemns arise, the ArbCom case is the correct venue to raise them. The policy issue he raised at VPP will still be relevant after the case is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Being that he is heavily involved in the Doncram case I think opening up 2 different discussion relating to an ongoing Arbcom case is a pretty dirty tactic. I would expect an admin with as much experience as SoV to be better than that. You thought my other note was forum shopping, this is nothing more than a subversive way to do the same thing. Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, it's no "dirtier" than your canvassing on AN and VP to get more people over to AE to help out Rich Farmbrough. Your hands are hardly clean here, so I think it's best that you back off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This grievance re the conduct of Editor Alexbrn concerns the main tenet of WP, NPOV. NPOV is clear & unambiguous, yet Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, & has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English, advised me on the Talk page: "You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 1:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)". This grievance covers posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013 which are listed below. Please note that the links contain posts by others, unrelated to this grievance. I've worked in the legal industry for over 22 years & in my humble opinion, if you have a PhD in English like Alexbrn claims on their User page, & you don't understand WP:NPOV, maybe you shouldn't be a WP Editor. [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

• Uh...would you mind actually explaining what your grievance is? It's clear that you're upset with Alexbrn, but you haven't said why you're upset, or what the issue you're upset over is, or what administrator intervention you're asking for. By the way, the unresolved tag isn't necessary here, so I've removed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Fluffernutter, Ummm...I'm not upset with Alexbrn; I'm too old to get upset, because Alexbrn is biased, so I know what I'm dealing with. My grievance is clearly explained in the links provided but I am happy to repeat it here as well. I requested that information be included in the referenced Article & Alexbrn proceeded to advise me that: "It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources." (1/15/2013) AND "The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus." (1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.). In my humble opinion, Alexbrn & other volunteer editors are biased and are attempting to only present their biased viewpoint in the Article in question, instead of FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Therefor, I'm simply requesting that if Alexbrn & some of the other voluntary editors are going to be allowed to continue to be the gatekeepers of what information is published in this Article, that they be required to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies & publish the information I requested be published unless they are able to cite a valid WP policy that supersedes WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.49 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

(edit conflict) Didymus Judas Thomas is asked not to use all caps; (use two single quotes for italics e.g. ''italics''. NPOV is one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four; specifically consensus, which is fairly clear on the talk page. If they wish to pursue the matter further I'd recommend rfc. NE Ent 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue; use dispute resolution as you yourself suggested (5th diff). No admin action needed here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seb az86556 archived this thread with the above archive message. I hate to unarchive it, but I believe this may be rather premature. There are behavioural issues to deal with here, and we shouldn't just dismiss them with telling people to shoot off through the DR process: recently, Didymus Judas Thomas and Alexbrn appeared at DRN, and nothing substantive happened. Delegating this stuff out won't solve it, we need to have a look at the behavioural issues here.

If you peruse the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, it's quite apparent to see that User:Didymus Judas Thomas has a real problem with communicating with other editors and there seem to be repeated problems of WP:IDHT, appeal to irrelevant policies and other behavioural issues. On the talk page, a topic ban has been suggested. If such a thing is to be done, we should probably discuss it here. I am not an expert on medical matters, nor on the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS, so I shall not offer any opinion other than "there seem to be some plausible complaints about DJT's behaviour, let's have a chat about them". (Of course, I shall now probably have everything from my birthday to my alma mater to my shoe size repeated back to me when addressed.)

Perhaps adding to the motivation for this discussion, if you Google for "Didymus Judas Thomas" burzynski you will find that someone with the same name spends quite a lot of time posting on a lot of blog comment sections defending Burzynski and his treatment. This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lords of the New Church

I don't have a lot of experience with BLPs but does this qualify as a BLP violation removal, is it a legal threat or something else? Qualified input would be appreciated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the user's contribs, it sounds like they've been in contact with WMF legal/community departments and are perhaps confused about how to act on whatever response the WMF gave them. Their behavior is a bit weird, but I suspect they're fumbling around in an effort to do things by the book. Saddhiyama, it doesn't look like you've notified the IP editor of this ANI thread yet. When you do, hopefully they will come here and we can help them sort out what it is they want to see done, and why. IP, if you do decide to participate in this thread, please remember that while we're happy to help you, if you make any threats of legal action against Wikipedia or its editors, you will be blocked per our policy until the legal action is over or the threat is withdrawn, whichever comes first. It's nothing personal, it's just for the protection of all parties that if someone wants to use a lawsuit, they have to pursue matters through the lawsuit rather than on-wiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)IP notified. The section doesn't seem to be in violation of WP: BLPGROUP. I don't think they are particularly insinuating legal action, but, looking at their talkpage, it's possible they may have their own anti-LOTNC WP: AGENDA. Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm here and I'm trying to protect the band brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a stakeholder in the band and I'm only concerned over ommitted historical information and new misinformation that may cause harm to the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Still trying to participate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.78.24 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot "protect the brand band name" here. If there is information that is valid and properly sourced, it's going to be in the article whether or not the band approves of it. Our restrictions on BLP aren't an excuse for censoring information you don't approve of.

I suggest that you have a serious conflict of interest in regard to this subject, and need to follow the most stringent requirements of the COI policy: that is, please cease to edit the article directly, and instead make editing suggestion on the article talk page, to be acted upon by neutral editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Starship9000 Constant disruptive editing

OP came here 5 mins after posting on S9000's talk page, did not wait for a response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Starship 9000 has been blocked from editing twice this week, and he is right back to his disruptive editing ways. He is constantly vandalizing articles on Wikipedia and he clearly still does not get the point, even after two blocks. There was also a previous discussion regarding him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Can you please provide diffs and a link to the previous discussion? Or at least a link to their talkpage? Sadaam Insane (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica

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

---

I cannot help but wonder why User:Xerographica would add this section to User_talk:Xerographica#Removal_of_Relevant_Sourced_Content (See: [206]) and title the section "Removal of Relevant Sourced Content". S/he is referring to another specific user. While I am unfamiliar with the various aspects of Trolling, this seems to qualify. Xerographica has been blocked in the past (for a total of over 4 weeks, 96 hours) for PA related comments. This latest edit, in my own opinion, is another effort to be disruptive. Why should such a note be posted? It does not indicate willingness to cooperate with the community. --S. Rich (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you ask them? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

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

When content of article isnt about title of article

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed an article that is supposed to be about a certain historical song, but once you enter to read about it, there is only 1 sentence about the actual song, and even this single sentence does not include any information about the date, context and reason it was composed, but a claim that is missing a citation. Following this is a header about a recent event from 2 days ago, and a whole paragraph about that citing newspapers. This of course is related to the song in question, but seeing that the song has an 80 year old history, it would seem that this paragraph (if at all) should find its place at the end of an article under controversies, after content about the actual song.

In addition, the article has been locked for editing 2 days ago, right after the event in question took place. I have posted on the conversation page a number of times to inform that the page is biased, as well as that it contains a number of falsities that can easily be checked, and the article still remains as it was. In addition, one editor's answer to my post raised my nationality into question.

I would like to know what to do in this case.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centarpsr (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment):

A good start would have been to include the name of the article . It is presumably March on the Drina.

After reading the article, your description above does not seem correct. The article describes the event about which the song was written, its history, includes lyrics in 3 languages (!), and cites many versions that have been produced. It seems to flow well as written.

I don't see any posting by you to the talk page, unless you are the 212.* IP editor (you should make sure to log in always, and to sign talk page posts with ~~~~), and I see no responses by anyone else to that editor's posts. The page does not seem to be edit-protected in any way. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Centarpsr Thanks for the quick reply! The English version is ok, and yes, I also contributed to it. I am referring to the Croatian version of the article. I didn't name it initially since I wanted to be sure I was on the right track first. —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's an article on a different language of Wikipedia, there's nothing we can do here - each language has its own processes, administrators, and discussion pages (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas at Talk:Burrito

In an ongoing discussion regarding bold changes to content restructuring, content removal, and re-reversions (1, 2), at the article Burrito, Viriditas has indirectly accused myself of sock-puppetry, with this edit. In the edit he/she claims that Biancles is an SPA. This is the latest reply, in what I have considered a series of uncivil replies made by Viriditas (please see the candidate page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1 (which still requires an additional certifier) for further information). This discussion, already had a third opinion (by Go Phightins!), and RfC to receive additional editors opinions in an attempt to build a consensus. Up until this (what I believe is) NPA, I had repeatedly asked for civility, and was attempting to start an RfC/UC; however, due to the NPA. I am beginning this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)