Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JakeInJoisey (talk | contribs) at 19:28, 23 February 2013 (→‎Time to invoke BLPSE?: ce r@Lukeno94). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    MezzoMezzo's continuous disruptive editing and highly biased editing behavior with a certain agenda

    The case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Wikipedia:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Wikipedia:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

    He is editing a numbers of Articles with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.

    • He uses Wiki:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
    • See here [1] he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
    • See here[2] and
    • here [3]
    • here [4]
    • Inserted a biased source here [5] and
    • veiled criticism in the name of history section here [6] again
    • here [7].
    • This POV pushing based on single source [8] continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
    • Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive [9], *[10],[11]
    • Blatant accusations [12],
    • Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here [13]
    • Again accusations [14]
    • Blatant POV and lies [15]
    • Editing to prove a Point [16]
    • Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.[17]
    • Inserting his POV [18]
    • Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source [19]
    • Again tampering [20]
    • Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV [21]
    • This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
    • He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here [35]
    • Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day[36].
    • He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.
    • He is doing this since long-[37]
    • See a small example here [38] and here
    • reverted by other editors [39].
    • Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors [40]
    • Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi [41]
    • One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
    • If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Wikipedia as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Wikipedia a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: [43]. I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to the Ibn Arabi allegation, I can verify that Msoamu is the one causing the problem, as all MezzoMezzo did was remove a massive chunk of unverified information (or verified only by primary sources, which aren't sufficient in this case; the information was highly non-neutral. Even with the edit, the article still needs major improvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not discussed here just a single Article ′but continuous patterns and motives of him'.He is continuously engaged in proposing Sufi movement Articles for deletion.But he is facing failure in his attempts.Many editors have removed his Deletion Prod from various Sufi Articles see here [44] ,[45].Msoamu (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See here

    • Msoamu, a lot of your issue here is that you're presenting diffs from 2007 as if they're recent. They're not, and from mine, and other editor's, assessments of this dispute, you are by far the more disruptive. There are very few diffs you've presented that date from after your block for edit warring. I believe I requested that you'd stop trying to sully MezzoMezzo's name with half-baked accusations, sadly, you haven't. I can only see this being resolved by a WP:BOOMERANG and a topic and/or interaction ban being enforced on Msoamu, sadly. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Luken,Kindly read my above comments.There are major POV pushing and disruptive editing by MezzoMezzo with in a month.The time period from which he has started this years editing.I have given numbers of Pages and Articles as Proof which he has recommended for Deletion with in a month and reverted by various editors.All the Pages in past and in present he has recommended for deletion belong to Sufi movement ,for which he seems to have certain agenda.Even I have shown recent changes by him to reduce importance from various Articles so that later they can be suggested for Deletion.Most of the pages he has developed belong to Salafi movement which is in strong opposition of Sufi or Barelvi movement.This is not a case of half baked accusation or something else.Non salafi Islamic expert can easily identify his edits.He has been accused of doing this many times.
    • Your comments seem to suggest that sourcing doesn't matter a jot - if you disagree with an edit, it can have a thousand reliable sources backing it up, and still should be removed. That is totally incorrect, as are assertions that Mezzo has regularly gone against consensus - the opposite is true. Some of these complaints about AfDs are unfounded, as other editors have removed significant chunks of information (rightly or wrongly), and that is what Mezzo has based their arguments on. Also, you've confused speedy deletion and AfDs in your diffs - the two are very different. You also label things as "big accusations" when they're not, they're single sentences worded neutrally. Saying things like "Barelvis have begun mixing with Shi'ites more than before" is NOT an accusation, it's quite possibly a statement of fact (I don't know the source, so can't check), and it's blatantly absurd to claim that - I don't suppose you're anti-Shi'ite? In fact, you've even provided diffs here that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MezzoMezzo - try this one: [46] as an example. You're so blinkered by either your dislike of MezzoMezzo, his (fairly neutral) views, or these movements themselves that you're making a boatload of unfounded accusations, based on a mixture of old, dodgy or downright incorrect evidence. For what it's worth, I'll provide my talk page assessment of this dispute here, from the 9th of February:
    • Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi."here is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing).here I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not.here He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:
    • Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:[47]. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:[48].
    • Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
    • His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.
    Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Msoamu, I suggest you look at your actions, apologize, and move on, and join the discussions, otherwise the ONLY way I can see this age-old problem is for you to be topic banned from editing anything to do with Islam, broadly construed, and an interaction ban with MezzoMezzo. You were flagged as being disruptive on these articles in 2006: this needs to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Luken,I learnt a lot from this discussion here.I will try to be calm and cool.Many times third person can clearly tell us that what is really wrong.Hope to see your cooperation in editing,I regret my complaint.Thanks.Msoamu (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's unfortunate that you decided to go against the discussions I'd tried to have with the pair of you, as it's likely this will WP:BOOMERANG back at you, with your history of being involved in edit-warring on these topics as long ago as 2006. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Counter-claims

    Msoamu and two editors with whom he sometimes collaborates have launched what I feel are a number of personal attacks on me in the past few days or so.

    In the case of User:Msoamu:
    Accused me of supporting Salafism and Wahhabism here.
    Note that Msoamu was recently blocked for edit warring, POV-pushing and personal attacks (against me). This user has been blocked for vandalizing the same article in 2006.
    In the case of User:Hassanfarooqi:
    Accused me of engaging in a "Salafi jihad" and turning Wikipedia into a "jihad ground" here.
    Called me an "anti-Sufi bigot" and accused me of engaging in a "Jihad against Sufism" and brining a jihad to Wikipedia here.
    Accused me of being an "anti-sufi wahhabi" and on a "jihad to wipe them (Sufis) all out" when creating this page.
    Note that Msoamu seems to be egging Hassanfarooqi on here.
    This user was also blocked in 2006, but for personal attacks rather than vandalism.
    In the case of User:Shabiha:
    Changed one of my comments on a talk page, seemingly to portray me as a POV-pusher, here.
    Accused me of supporting Salafist jihadism here. Yes, it's there. Look all the way down at the very last sentence in his edit.
    This user was blocked in 2007 for edit warring and personal attacks.

    Especially troublesome are the accusations of me supposedly supporting holy war and violent extremism. I work for a reputable institution; should I ever be outed, such accusations can have personal ramifications for my family and I. I've tried both ignoring it and asking for it to stop, and multiple other users have tried reasoning with these three to no avail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I unintentionally deleted Your comments on a Talk page.I was para phrasing my own headings,in this process mistakenly done that.That was not motive which you understood.Next,the comment was not directed to you and was in good faith.Please avoid taking it personally. Shabiha (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First, disclosure: Mezzomezzo asked me on my talk page about this complaint and whether or not he should post here, and I advised him to post a short summary with diffs as he has done above. Having said that, now that I see the diffs, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha need to stop the attacks immediately. I am willing to AGF that Shabiha's comment was not intended as an attack and the deletion was in error; but the other two are totally unacceptable. The are evidence of a battleground mentality at best, and outright offensive at worst. Were these western users casually dropping the term "jihad" it might be vaguely understandable, but these editors (based upon the topics they contribute in) must certainly know how strong and aggressive and, ultimately, rude such a label is. Just because someone nominates a lot of articles in a particular subject matter for deletion does not mean that they are attempting to wage a holy war of violence and eradication. Having seen some of the content Msoamu was defending, this is very disruptive. I'm interested in hearing what sort of defense these two have for their attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to counter claims asked by Qwyrxian:-

    I am admitting that my wordings and behavior violated wiki policies and guidelines.For that I faced a blocked and I express my sincere apologies for the same.I am in discussion mode on Barelvi page.You can see my sincere discussions [49].But on the other hand would you like to examine these things.Sorry,If I wrote excessive points here but Don't this kind of behavior also needs some kind of action ?

    • User:MezzoMezzo accused me of POV Pushing[50] while i was just restoring a consensus version unchanged since months.
    • Trying to insult me and another editor Baboon43 [51]
    • Accused me of having some hidden reasons [52]
    • Claiming falsely that his edits have support of more than one editor which later on proved to be false [53]
    • He used the words, intentional disruption for other editors[54]
    • He was asked to refrain from making remarks about bias towards other editors[55]
    • Personal Attacks on more than one editors-
    • Accused Baboon of Racism [56]in these words, Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. and this [57]
    • Seems to be engaged in edit warnings [58]
    • Accused User:Sunnibarelvi to malign the Salafist movement by creating a Template on Salafism.[59].Msoamu (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some signs of tendentious editing on Mezzo's part but I'm not sure if it is intentional or unintentional as i have not really looked into it..based on my previous discussion with Mezzo on Talk:Barelvi he took the discussion to ani which leads me to believe he might have strong feelings about this barelvi article. Baboon43 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All 3 editors are definitely passionate about this topic area, however you look at it. Msoamu's edits have regularly been the more biased - some of Mezzo's are definitely a bit iffy, but it's rare that someone other than Msoamu or Shabiha has reverted them. Part of Msoamu's problem is with his grasp of the English language: due to him clearly not being fluent, he sees things as being insults when they're not - for example, the diffs about Mezzo insulting him and you are most definitely not insults, and the one saying he has the support of other editors is sort-of true, as GeorgeCustersSabre has reverted Msoamu's edits back to Mezzo's edits. Shabiha also may suffer from a similar issue, albeit to a lesser degree. Inadvertently, Msoamu has also pointed to an inappropriate comment by Baboon - "your either a wahabi or just lack knowledge of the subject", of which the first section is inappropriate - you should not be speculating about what religious beliefs an editor has if they haven't publicly stated them. (I can't comment on the last bit, I've used those sorts of comments myself) Mezzo's template comments start off a bit marginal, but then he does improve them with some relevant points. I would state that "Sunnibarelvi" would be advised to stay away from the groups that Barelvis are known for having disputes with, due to the COI problem (not just his own, which I believe he actually handles reasonably well, but that of other editors, which may provoke a battle). These are just my observations; I'm definitely not a Muslim (nor am I anti-Muslim), let alone a member of any of these groups, so I'm neutral :) Lukeno94 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the ANI thing with Baboon, I took it there mainly because, after 6+ years of seeing Barelvi editors create accounts solely for the purpose of rewriting that article to push their POV, I've come to expect that from any non-native English speakers adding overly-positive content or deleting any content which is remotely negative. In the case of Baboon, things were sorted out (and he's apparently not a Barelvi or even from South Asia to begin with). I don't have strong feelings about Barelvism and I've never met one; I freely admit, however, to having strong feelings about the article. For years, the fact that most English speakers (and this is English Wikipedia) don't know much about the movement has been capitalized upon by Barelvi editors (not all Barelvis, but all of these editors have been Barelvis) in order to push POV about which most English speakers are not aware. I was never even aware of it until I witnessed this editing behavior across 2006-2007; were it not for editing Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what Barelvis are.
    As for the attacks, then Hassanfarooqi has a history of attacking anybody who disagrees with him even on articles relating to sports. Without even scrolling down, I checked his last 20 edits and found two personal attacks on other editors in addition to the three on myself. I don't think his issue is disruptive editing (I don't have the experience with him to say that) so much as it is habitually making personal attacks, despite having once been blocked for it. From what I can tell, nobody else ever seems to complain so it's hard to say how often this has happened in the years since his last block.
    Msoamu has a combination of things. His editing has been described by disruptive by at least three or four editors other than Lukeno. He only seems to edit articles relating to Barelvism and the movement's opponents, and in all cases seems to present the beliefs of Barelvism as objective fact - Talk:Barelvi is testimony to that. He also has a tendency to call anyone who disagrees with him insulting names, usually relating to religious violence and extremism. I didn't know what a topic ban was before it was mentioned here but it seems to be the only way; as far as I know, he could still comment on talk pages but given his six years and going of POV-pushing followed by personal attacks and disruptive editing if he doesn't get his way, it seems to be the only solution. It seems that any article in which he takes interest never receives fair, productive attention or discussion.
    About Shabiha, then again, after six years of interacting with this editor and having previously been involved with content and conduct disputes with him, my good faith has about run out. To be fair, though, Shabiha engages in discussion regarding content in addition to occasional personal remarks, whereas Msoamu generally engages in personal remarks in addition to occasional discussion of actual content, while Hassanfarooqi seems (on both religion and the soccer articles I saw) to just engage in personal attacks.
    I would like to see some sort of repercussions at least for Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi. Not simply for attacking me personally, but also for the good of the articles on which they set their sights. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits of MezzoMezzo have been described by various editors as Non Neutral and it is not my view that his editing tendentious.Many Salafi editors also have tried in past to change the page according to their wishes.I have tried to maintain it neutral.I have supported in past criticism section and it is there.Msoamu's latest evidences are enough to prove that MezzoMezzo is not free from attacking editors Personally.No one is free from errors.We should try to be Neutral and objective as much as we can. Shabiha (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shabiha, there have been very few that have had major concerns with Mezzo, apart from those mentioned here (namely yourself, Msoamu, Sunnibarelvi and, apparently, Hassanfarooqi, whom I haven't come across, and haven't seen mentioned before). Most people have had issues with Msoamu. As I've said several times, you've all made mistakes, but Msoamu is probably the more aggressive, and part of the issue is the fact that you and Msoamu have a weaker understanding of English, and are less able to communicate than Mezzo, whom seems fairly fluent. All 3 of you have made allegations of personal attacks that have been completely incorrect, however (simply as English isn't your first language). This is coming from a native British English speaker, so I'm in some position to judge. No offence is meant by this, it's merely my observations. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nikola Smolenski

    User:Nikola Smolenski has been reverting several of my contributions. Has made no attempt to engage in discussion prior to this until I did. Claims I am "massively deleting information from articles without any reason", when in fact I am editing the layout and condensing/summarizing the information of the article without actually affecting the quality of the information itself, and stating my reasoning for it. Any information I do happen to remove is done so if a) it is unsourced and/or b) it is irrelevant or non-notable to the main nature of the article(s), the majority of which are either completely unsourced or lacking sufficient sources to verify content. Please advise. Buttons (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to have to do this, but Nikola is actually male not female! The name confuses speakers of west European languages but this is defintely a male editor with a male name! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. A terrible error on my part. Well, I shall correct my comment and proceed to trout myself. Please accept my sincerest apologies, Nikola. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Buttons is the only Wikipedian I have ever seen who has more red than green in his edits. His "condensing" IMO makes articles more difficult to read without adding any value. Furthermore when he removes content, he doesn't leave any explanation for his edits, so it is not possible to know whether he removed the content because he believed it is irrelevant or incorrect. I admit that there might be the possibility that I went overboard, but I do believe that his edits were detrimental in general. Examples:
    • Here he removes the infobox without any explanation; he rewrote the article so that it states that Yugoimport is a weapon manufacturer, while in fact it is an agency, and to my knowledge it doesn't have any manufacturing capabilities on its own, and furthermore this is written in the very reference that he has used; and all of this with the comment "Clean up".
    • Yugoimport's role and purpose is not clearly defined (as with most things in Serbia unfortunately), it appears to have some role in designing and producing weapons. The infobox was removed because of unsourced claims, eg. it states the company has 25,000 employees, when the entire defense industry in Serbia only employes roughly 10,000 people.
    • Here he removed Cyrillic spelling of the company(?); removed referenced fact that the company is the largest in Serbia by the number of employees, which is obviously relevant; removed referenced fact about plans to build a solar power plant which I believe is relevant; all of this with edit comment "No relation to company"(??).
    • True, however its not a third party source, which is why I removed it. As for the solar panels, nothing in the source indicates it had anything to do with said company.
    • Here he merged sections about flags despite the fact that the flags are a century apart and completely graphically unrelated; removed flag images from paragraphs that describe them, making the text more difficult to follow; reworded the text so that it is very terse and IMO difficult to read; removed some relevant information again without any explanation; merged references to specific articles of a law into a less precize single reference to the entire law... Nikola (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're both being a little nitpicky here. The page as it is (your way) is ugly, frankly IMO. My intent was to separate the modern section from the historical (medieval) section because honestly that section is plagued with issues, ranging from grammar to the reliability of the sources. As for the references, again really nitpicking here but my edits at least linked to an external source which could easily be verified by the reader. I find it odd you removed one of the cited flags, claiming it was somehow unreliable despite the fact it came from a well known source. Buttons (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Buttons, did you put your comments inside of Nikola's? Please do not do that, it's very confusing to read. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1) This is not true, but even if it were true, "agency" is more general term than "manufacturer", and anyway the reference says it's an agency, and if you doubted the reference, why including it in the first place? And anyway, this is the crux of the problem: if you remove an unsourced claim you should remove the unsourced claim, not remove the entire infobox because it has one unsourced claim, and on top of it, do it without any comment on why are you removing it.

    2) Self-referencing is OK for things that are not controversial, and that power company has the most employees in the country is not an unreasonable claim. The solar power plant would be a part of EPS' power transportation system.

    3) The article uses standard layout and can not be uglier than any other Wikipedia article. The sections were already separate and merging subsections can only make them seem less separate. The flag I removed is not cited and has several issues ranging from reliability to copyright. And finally, merging the references made them less precize, and we always strive to make references more precize. You should have added the link to every reference separately, or simply added it to the references section as a link. Nikola (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KuhnstylePro and persistent creation of WP:HOAX articles

    Over the past year, this user seems to have made a large number of what appear to be WP:HOAX, or at the very least, extremely speculative articles, most of which seem to have been speedy deleted or AFD'd, judging by his talk page. The user has been warned numerous times about this kind of behavior. Outside of editing in the mainspace, the user seems to spend a lot of time creating elaborate speculative articles about nonexistent future products/media in his userspace (User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/A Hero's Guide to Deadly Dragons, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Holy Cartoon!, User:KuhnstylePro/iMoonTelevision, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Wendy Wu: Year of the Dragon, User:KuhnstylePro/Disney Channel All Star House Party, User:KuhnstylePro/The Star Wars Show, User:KuhnstylePro/Drawn to Life: Boneheads Edition, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Kinect Q, User:KuhnstylePro/Xbox Portable, and many more), a hobby which represents over 40% of his edits. I'm a little bit at a loss for what to do with someone like this. He has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dirty socks

    Noodleki

    Noodleki (talk · contribs) has persisted in copyright violations after being warned. For example, his latest edits ([60] [61]) copy and paste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia without attribution. Please refer to User talk:Noodleki for numerous templated and personalized warnings about this—I count 19 of them, 8 of which were made in the past few weeks. We don't have time to check each and every one of his edits, determine which Wikipedia pages or external websites he copied from, and perform the appropriate reverts or {{copied}}/{{copyvio}} tags. (In fact, we're already doing that over at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki for all his edits up to 21 January 2013. We have no desire to check any further ones!) Could I suggest a block until such time as the user demonstrates a willingness and ability to comply with applicable copyright policies and laws?

    Incidentally, there are also a lot of recent warnings for edit warring and personal attacks. This edit appears to have triggered the latest warning. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The user was indeffed for copyright violations in September 2012 and unblocked a couple of weeks later per "reasonable unblock request", see log. Presumably an unblock request promising to do better? Anyway, I think it's time to reinstate. Indeffed. (Lovely response to Psychonaut here, too. Very combative user.) Bishonen | talk 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    P.S. I have asked Kim Dent-Brown, who did the unblock in October, to review. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    This was Noodleki's unblock request from last September, which stands in remarkable contrast to the combative form of words used elsewhere in his/her contribs. It seems to me that Noodleki knows what voice to assume when pleading for an unblock, but forgets that their editing history is viewable, warts and all, when it's time to make a judgement. Good block, I would caution any other admin to beware of honeyed words and leave the block in place. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly recommend that if an admin does decide to unblock this editor they do on the condition that Noodleki not copy any text from other Wikipedia articles for at least four months. In addition to all the articles to be investigated at the CCI which only go up to 21 January, Noodleki has since then copied huge chunks from multiple WP articles into multiple other ones [62] none of which they properly attributed. A few have been repaired, but it's going to take ages to check the rest, find the original article(s) that were copied into each article and repair the attribution. I do not want the list to get any longer, and the most recent exchanges at User talk:Noodleki, do not inspire confidence. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Wikipedia:Etiquette etc

    See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC, where I have been requested to file the following, as I now reluctantly do having wanted to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND, as previously noted on my talk page:

    In contravention of the usual and required policies of Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility; Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and following my considered outside opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by IZAK, here is a list of recent discussions that relate to me where at no point was I ever informed about them by the parties who commenced the discussions, primarily by User User:Danjel backed by User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs). Some of them were quite serious and had I known about them in a timely fashion I would have taken the time and effort to respond:

    1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK. (Fortunately I did manage to comment after a user not connected to the compliant brought it to my attention. The SPI "investigation" ended quickly and was also quickly deleted without any action taken and in effect rendering the spamming of a link to it on other forums that in effect rendered anything to do with that moot.)
    2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view.
    3. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view criticism of children's account.
    4. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK.
    5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

    Per WP:WIKIQUETTE, when commencing a discussion about another user, be it on any talk page and certainly on an official forum, and definitely when making serious allegations against that user, it is not just common decency but almost required to inform the user concerned or even any other interested parties. See for example Category:User warning templates, such as: Template {{ANI-notice}}: "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."; or Template {{SPIusernotice}}: "A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts... Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPIusernotice for evidence..." and others like this.

    While User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs) has had things to say about me lately, yet he has:

    1. Been suspected of sockpuppetry WP:SPI himself: User talk:Bob K31416#Sockpuppetry case; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416/Archive.
    2. Been criticized for accusing an established user of being a sockpuppet: User talk:Bob K31416#SlimVirgin that violates WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
    3. Accused an established user applying for adminship of being a sockpuppet User talk:Bob K31416#unsupported allegations in a request for admin; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/History2007#Oppose in violation of WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
    4. Forgets that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Constant focus on toughening WP policies, thereby making user contributions more difficult, and thus reducing the ability of new users to join (a constant lament at the present of the WP Foundation) and is takes his causes to Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) even coming up with an idea for a "WP Commission" that would have the "final veto" on policy (even as he freely edits away constantly in areas of WP:POLICY) that flies in the face of what WP is all about about which he is reminded and that was rejected: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Policy commission, as concluded by User Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs): "At the end of the day, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think we are in danger of thinking of wikipedia politically in terms of policies rather than focusing on what is most important, encyclopedic content. In fact if many on here cut the bureacratic/governor pretense and wrote articles instead the site would be massively better off.. And if much of the time spent discussing policies and wiki politics instead went into actual development planning and how to feasibly greatly improve overall content we would start meeting our real objectives...♦ Dr. Blofeld" [63].
    5. Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) disagrees with his "off-wiki" obsession: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125#Consensus and off-wiki canvassing: "I don't think it's a serious issue. I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" - it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Wikipedia is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying - they are - but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [64] and "I don't disagree with it (much) as written, but I think people tend to overstate the likelihood or importance of it, and tend to underestimate how often the real problem is people screaming 'canvassing' to prevent people from seeking outside voices. Many things on Wikipedia would benefit from more participation, more eyeballs, and the bias against recruitment means that decisions are made in obscure corners without relevant people being properly notified. This may suit the interests of a group that has a majority in that little corner, but knows that they are in the extreme minority in the broader community or world. But it doesn't suit the interests of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [65].

    See also related:

    1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Violation of WP:NOSHARE
    2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Role account used by User:Danjel the latter an extension of
    3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Short term block proposal:User:Danjel

    Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gee, if only there was a place where editors could go to deal with WP:ETIQUETTE problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, read the whole megila it's only the tip...IZAK (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I commented on the previous ANI, it does seem like you're forum shopping a bit here. Anyway, I'm not sure how Jimbo's comments support your viewpoints at all, and I also don't see an issue with a user who wants tougher policies. The comments about false sock allegations are definitely valid here, that I will admit - but that point also reflects that, just because someone's been accused of socking, doesn't mean they have - so why you reference a SPI that found nothing is beyond me. Your wikilawyering appears to have driven Danjel away (in addition to some personal reasons that, combined, you gleefully tried to gravedance on, with your ANI thread about his retirement). In addition, I see no need why he should need to notify you about specific threads at an RfC where you could reasonably have been expected to be watching - it is, after all, involving you, and you had contributed the day before. I'm not claiming Danjel and Bob are completely flawless and innocent: they're not. But you're no better. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading IZAK's message, I don't see that there is anything for me to respond to. FWIW, I think it's a very strange message to post here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • IZAK - As someone who has largely taken the same side as you in this issue, I just see nothing actionable. No body is perfect and that's what you've basically outlined. While I'd love to see Danjel trouted for his disruptive behavior lately, bringing back to back ANI threads against each other isn't going to settle the matter. The smart thing to do is be patience and the better person and let your opponent make an ass out of themselves without your help. Bob just hasn't done anything worth an ANI thread and I think you need to quit bringing him here. And Danjel's has been discussed plenty of times lately, there is nothing new to discuss. I agree with Bob that this is a strange message.--v/r - TP 14:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it incorrect calling "gravedancing" the most current dispute, seen just a couple sections above. Also, calling "disruptive" a person who tries to defend themselves against others' accusations is ..er.. disruptive? He was not the one who stirred the shit. And not even a trout's bladder for the opposite side? - Altenmann >t 03:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're as bad as each other, which I said earlier in this thread. This is the second ANI in just a couple of days opened by IZAK, both are which are disruptive as it's clear that nothing was actionable in either (the first was a "misuse of retirement template"), technically, this is defending themselves against other users defending themselves against IZAK's previous ANI. The previous dispute was gravedancing, and it's had the effect of forcing danjel to edit more, when they clearly no longer wanted to. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism at Wikimedia

    First of all, I'm not sure if this is the right place but I don't know where to report vandalism at Wikimedia, nor do I know how to undo it. Several articles link to this map [68], as do articles in about 50 different language Wikipedias. The map has been carefully discussed on the talkpage of Languages of Europe, as can be seen at Talk:Languages of Europe. This morning, a Turkish user replaced the map with a new version in which he had inserted a rather extreme Turkish POV. The Kurdish areas in South-Eastern Turkey had been colored Turkish. Even more bizarre, relatively large areas of Germany had been colored as Turkish-speaking!! While there are a fair number of Turkish immigrants in Germany, it's absurd to claim that Turkish is the main language in large parts of the country. To the best of my knowledge, no German city is majority Turkish, let alone a German region, and most second-generation Turks in Germany speak German. In addition to the imposing Turkish on the Kurdish areas and parts of Germany, the Turkish language areas of Bulgaria and Greece were also modified, but these changes are small. This is a rather clear case of a nationalist-driven POV-pushish made without even discussing the matter first, and if it had been an edit to the text, I would simply have reverted it. As I'm less sure about how to do with Wikimedia, I bring the matter here. As the map is featured on so many articles, I hope the matter can be dealt with quickly.Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more of an issue for Wikimedia Commons: try commons:COM:AN? --Rschen7754 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll go there as well. However, I now see that the user is heavily edit-warring with the same nationalist POV at Bulgaria [69], [70], [71]. One of the people he is edit-warring with is extremely uncivil and I'll report that user for violating WP:NPA but that does not excuse Maurice07's own own nationalist edit-warring. Maurice07 already has two blocks for disruptive editing only in 2013, and his user-page makes it clear that his agenda is one of extreme Turkish nationalism [72]. Given that he is clearly here to push a nationalist POV-agenda, and does so in a disruptive way, I'd say his behavior is relevant for ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I disagree with any of your accusations and allegations. Devoid of legal basis baseless according to me. Fistly, looking at the page of a user,you can not accuse him to be with nationalism. This is not acceptable. User pages are special pages in Wikipedia and users reflect the views and opinions there. I don't impose my views of any article!! Each user can make a mistake the first edits and I did. It is completely due to not knowing Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Secondly,about Languges of Europe map,..filled with contradictions. 1. It doesn't have any source. 2. PNG file created by a user. 3. User Athens 2004 made ​​a change on Greece. Vlachs removed from the map!! [73] and don't have any return. Can you explain to me User:Jeppiz? Do you think to question the credibility of this map? Maurice (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You make some valid points, but also some errors. I agree with your third points, the change by user Athens2004 is just as bad as your changes. I had not seen it. I also agree that new users can make mistakes, and that is no problem. That is why I did not suggest you should be blocked, I only suggested that the previous version of the map should be restored. Thus far I agree with you, not on the rest you write. Just because user-made maps don't have a specific source doesn't mean you can change them as you please. This map has been the subject of long discussions among several users to make it accurate as possible. If you want to challenge aspects of it, then discuss it. And yes, your nationalism is of relevance. Your userpage makes it clear that you have a strong POV on Turkish issues. Claims such as This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide. This user believes that islands of Imia/Kardak belong to Turkey. This user doesn't think that Turkey needs EU, but thinks EU needs Turkey. are all perfectly valid, but also makes it clear that you have a certain POV. That is not a problem, most people do. But when you edit war to impose that point of view, as you clearly did on Bulgaria, then it is relevant to point it out. What is more, are you aware of WP:ARBMAC. Edit warring on Balkans-related articles can land you a block very quickly.Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong violation of WP:NPA WP:CIVIL

    While filing a report on a heavily disruptive POV-pusher, Maurice, for vandalizing a map used by more than 50 articles and for edit-warring at Bulgaria (see above [74]), I came across this PA edit summar by Wikiisunbiased [75] that is completely inappropriate.Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, telling someone to "fuck off" is certainly uncivil in that case, it's not a personal attack. Now, referring to them by their ethnicity may also be very uncivil, but I'm not sure I'd call it a personal attack either (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right, I stand corrected and I correct myself above. Still, it's as much a violation of a policy. I had a quick look at the user's history and saw that this isn't the first time, though certainly the most serious that I found.Jeppiz (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked for the "Fuck off, Turk", because that's never acceptable, but quickly unblocked when I realized that they hadn't edited in the past 24 hours. Someone else can figure it out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really apporopriate to unblock as this is an ARBMAC area. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it ever inappropriate to self-revert? Legal matters are an exception, since you're re-enabling a copyvio if you undelete it, but unblocking someone whom you've blocked for this kind of behavior isn't inappropriate. Of course, it's also not inappropriate for someone else to reblock. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now issued a formal ARBMAC warning to Wikiisunbiased. Further disruption will result in an immediate block. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a uncivil activity.It's certainly true.These incivility against me! Fuck off Turk. It was pronounced against me, due to use of official data belonging to CIA World Factbook. Clearly,violation of WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL. I didn't do any destructive editing as alleged in article of Bulgaria. I shared my thoughts in talk page and I held open the negotiation process. I see Wikiisunbiased's activity as entirely ownership of article. In fact,I am meeting so reasonable just with the condition to be respectful to other users...albeit even if the not true. Maurice (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "Wikiunbiased"? WP:OWB #72... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of pending changes level 2

    tl;dr some sysops are using PC/2 even though WP:PC2012/RfC 1 (current consensus, correct me if I'm wrong) says they shouldn't

    Someone should go through [76] and fix this. (and also get that big trout back out)

    ⁓ Hello71 03:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty limited uses from that report, looks like mostly a few people who missed the memo. I fixed one PC2 use and have asked the admins who set the others to review in light of current consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And on further research, it looks like user:King of Hearts, who set the protection that I changed tonight, had previously declined to remove PC2 on the basis of local consensus overriding community consensus. This seems like an issue that needs to be discussed; I'm going to give him a pointer to this conversation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    PC2 was applied to 1948 Arab–Israeli War following a report at ANI due to the extensive sockpuppetry. Detailed reports that describe the extent of the sockpuppetry are available (see below and at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_29#data for further details)
    Requiring autoconfirmation will not prevent sockpuppets of topic banned/indefinitely blocked users from editing the article. Actually PC2 didn't provide 100% protection from sock edits either but it effectively eliminated the disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When a discussion is held at a public board, like ANI, it's not local consensus; a public discussion decided that IAR was properly applied here. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I observe that someone put PC2 on 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There is also an AN discussion thread that was moved to a subpage here: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets. That thread is awaiting formal closure. Some intrepid person should take care of that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To briefly come out of my isolation for a moment; I've got other things on my mind right now and no desire to handle any more PC discussions myself. That discussion should be closed, and whoever decides to do it should have look at the dulcet writings of Zhuangzi first, you'll get it when you read it. Best of luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, from the perspective of someone who wasn't involved in the local discussion about the Arab-Israeli article and is just analyzing this as a matter of policy application, I would say that given autoconfirmed sockpuppets and community consensus to not use PC2, the solution would have been either full-protection, a dedicated checkuser watching the article, or just playing whac-a-mole with the socks, rather than implementation of a protection level that wasn't supposed to be used. Yeah, full protection would suck, and yeah, socks suck, but in some situations you sort of just have to choose your poison. As a side note, I would also say that a thread like the Mangoeater one, as a wide-open community discussion, could probably overrule community consensus in a limited area if it reached that consensus; however, a consensus made by a few people on an article or editor's talk page is far more tenuous as far as being able to overrule the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. In the ANI discussion, the community came to a consensus that PC2 is preferred over full protection in this specific case. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that discussion that discussion, I think it was a very short and small discussion, not the sort of general consensus that would enable an admin to override a very clear community decision of a matter of policy. Even some of those who supported the use of PC2 thought such a discussion was not the way to do it. I think this was not an appropriate use of IAR, and the reason it was not was the slippery slope argument, which seems to apply, for one use has led to other uses. I think this needs to be continued where it will get a general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All that can be said about this is... power corrupts. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can say that the Transdev York article is now just a redirect so we can all agree that PC2 is no longer necessary there and it can be changed to no protection or even full protection just to be safe.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat to "go to the media"

    Too early in a new editor's career to invoke WP:NOTHERE. I have left some advice for the editor and will watch their talk page - everyone please assist this new contributor to navigate the tricky shoals that can upset expert new editors! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See User talk:Promotor Veritatis. This newish editor, who appears to believe himself to be someone of great importance in the outside world, has had several poorly-written edits removed from the article on Elizabeth Woodville by several other editors. He is now making a clear threat to make some unspecified attack on the project in the media. Is there a case for a permanent block? Deb (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the edits done by this user are poorly written, and I'd agree with your evaluation of the user as well. Still, I wouldn't worry. The media is not legal, so I don't see it violating any policy. Any media worth mentioning would laugh at a request to expose the "Scandal of the Wikipedia censorship of Elizabeth Woodville".Jeppiz (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The use of the word "truth" in any language (but especially in Latin!) in a username is always a bit of a red flag. But I don't see any case for a block on the present showing. I agree they're short of Wikiclue and don't seem desirous to learn, but media threats ain't legal threats. And could you link to these media threats..? On the talkpage I only see a threat to go tell a particular scholar, Professor Arlene Okerlund. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    I LOLed at this edit. Looks like an editor with attitude and competency problems in equal measure. I would just ignore it unless there is further disruption. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mention of the media here - also note the edit summary. GiantSnowman 11:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. They later changed "explain to the media" to "explain to Arlene Okerlund". I love the edit summary! ;-) But except for one single edit in 2012, they are in fact a very new editor. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    This is better than TV, I love it. While I feel sorry for the poor soul, I still don't see a reason to block him.Jeppiz (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a very good explanation for their threats and behaviour, I am inclined to indef Promotor Veritatis per WP:NOTHERE, as they are clearly not here to collobarate with other editors, and there appears to be a COI which is affecting their ability to work to our guidelines. GiantSnowman 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It looks like somebody needs to peruse WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTVAND, as well as possibly WP:EW, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. I'm personally puzzling over why a Word file titled "EW1437" would be so perilous... - The Bushranger One ping only 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a go at explaining simple Wikipedia policies to Promotor Veritatis, and why he's wound people up. Could I humbly suggest we wait for a response to that before wielding the banhammer? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A block does seem rather premature. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As others have noted, a threat to go to the media isn't a blockable threat. Lack of clue, if not eventually remedied, on the other hand…--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Richie, editor has 13 edits, far too early to be talking indef. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick comment, although not strictly legal in nature, this comment was intended with a Chilling effect. They said that to try to get us to do what they wanted, by threatening to 'expose' something (which to my knowledge doesn't exist) to the media. That's still, imo, a blockable offense until they understand that chilling effects won't be tolerated here. gwickwiretalkediting 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Chilling effect or not, the most appropriate way to deal with it is not to chuck blocks at the user but to talk to the user. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    24.135.84.89

    24.135.64.0/19 soft-blocked for two weeks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Per User talk:24.135.84.89, we need a range block, because in addition to the heaps of bizarre insults, this rather obnoxious person is promising to change IPs as soon as they are blocked. Sadly they're in a generic broadband ISP block 24.135.0.0/17, meaning 32K IP addresses. I don't have experience with this so I'm asking for someone else's help.

    BTW they claim they are not User:Oldhouse2012, but it doesn't matter, really. If anyone wants a translation to be able to verify my sentiment, please feel free let me know.

    --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oldhouse2012, my best guess would be to deaggregate 24.135.65.0 - 24.135.84.255:
    24.135.65.0/24
    24.135.66.0/23
    24.135.68.0/22
    24.135.72.0/21
    24.135.80.0/22
    24.135.84.0/24
    If we expand it a wee bit more, we get a more manageable: 24.135.64.0 - 24.135.87.255:
    24.135.64.0/20
    24.135.80.0/21
    --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is any checkuser-enabled admin watching this, can they check any of these combinations for actual collateral damage? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser analysis requested at the SPI discussion, presumably they congregate over there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I get a block on User:24.135.84.89 please? It's Oldhouse2012 again ( although he denies it, of course) and while the SPI admins are working out whether to go with a soft range block etc, he's just boring away. Refuses to accept the community verdict. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not just let the guy edit? He is not vandalising Wikipedia. In fact you(Peacemaker67) are reverting sourced materials and using his ban as an excuse, causing much disruption in the process. Btw, don't call me his sock, because I am in the United States!--Surfsbruce (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But he has been abusively using alternate accounts. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether the problem person is Oldhouse2012 or not, I stand by my assessment that the cannonade of insults and threats posted at 24.135.84.89's talk page is beyond help. Heck, I'm even being lax here: if they want a clean start, they can have it with a new named account. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Al-Ahbash

    i think its time McKhan (talk · contribs) gets an article ban..he has over 8 years of reversions on the ahbash article..before i appeared on the page it was a stub containing 3 lines due to his constant edit warring with other users..he removed RS material by using socks and ip's and only recently got caught because i put the article under spotlight..this has gone on for too long..i inserted a material today that was well referenced and he reverted it claiming that it is outdated…he then went to the talk page and included unreliable sources to back his claims..he is also a spa and only reverts edits from this article. its quite obvious he has deep hatred for the group which is evident by looking at the talk page archives Baboon43 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide evidence - diffs etc. - and if you believe they are using socks & IPs then that needs backing up with WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 09:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    reverting sourced input here [77] & proceeds to talk page to counter with unreliable source [78] ..mckhan highly dislikes this group its almost unhealthy for an editor [79] also spi [80] on the same article...he says here that once he gets his so called "NPOV" version he wants adimins to protect the page [81] he is back to his 8 straight years of wp:own behaviour as well by making this comment in a ahbash related talk page directed at me [82] this sort of tendentious comments will mislead newcomers seeing that he was told that being bold is encouraged & he still posts in this manner. Baboon43 (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Colon-el-Nuevo

    Colon-el-Nuevo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    This user has been a long term disruptive presence on articles related to Christopher Columbus, especially Christopher Columbus and Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. The user’s goal is to elevate the theories of amateur historian Manuel Silva de Rosa, who has argued that Columbus was actually the child of Polish royalty. Given her/his singular purpose, and the strength with which he pushes these theories, I believe that Colon is either closely personally connected with Rosa or is simply a super-fan.

    Colon was blocked twice for disruption on these article in 2011. While there have been no recent blocks, the editing has still certainly been disruptive/tendentious. There are two major problems.

    • Filling talk pages with arguments about the subject, not about the article itself . That is, Colon is using the talk pages as place to make academic arguments about the topic to push Rosa’s claims. See, for example, [83] , [84], and [85]. Sometimes other editors tell Colon to stop; in some occasions, she/he has even been reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. If people need more examples of tendentious/forum-like behavior, they can be provided…though simply looking at Colon’s contributions will tell the story as this is basically the only thing she/he does on WP.
    • Insertion of non-neutral information into articles. Thankfully, this is less common, but the most recent attempt was the back-breaking straw causing me to finally seek sanctions. See [86] and [87] from a few days ago. In these edits, Colon proves her/his inability to edit neutrally on this topic, instead inserting language that sounds as if the case for Columbus’ nobility is now proven, and there is nothing more to debate.

    A perusal of Colon’s talk page will show that in addition to the blocks, people have tried to communicate directly with her/him, but to no avail. The user is indefinitely blocked on Spanish Wikipedia, and has been blocked on Polish Wikipedia as well. A quick look at his global contributions shows that this is Colon’s only topic of interest in any language. I believe that the time has come for an indefinite block on en.wiki as well. I mean, theoretically we could topic ban him from any edits related to Christopher Columbus, broadly construed, in all namespaces, but since Colon seems to have no interest in any other topic on Wikipedia, I don’t see any difference. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    May as well indef. Further up the page another editor was indef'd for the same thing. Not that it should be a precedent but if all they do is harp on about one subject then topic ban, which can't be enforced by admin tools, isn't going to achieve much beyond a succession of violations leading to an indef anyway. Blackmane (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef - It's been years of his pushing Rosa's views into articles in a pov manner with dubious sources and/or sources that don't back his claims, and using talk pages as a forum. I've never blocked him only because I'm too involved. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And now Colon, editing as an IP, attempted to add one of his non-proof non-sources to the Origins article in this edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dougweller and I have been dealing with this editors shenanigans on Filipa Moniz Perestrelo for awhile as well. All of this is visible in the history and talk page. —Diiscool (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Filipa Moniz Perestrelo page is finally a page worthy of the wife of the Admiral Colon thanks to my efforts, despite the constant fight by Dougweller and others to dumb it down. Compare the current version with the fact that there was not even a page for her prior to my involvement. - Furthermore, the fact that I am a poor editor and can't write neutrally, should not be a reason for a ban. Nor should it be a reason for a ban, the fact that I support a writer who others call a dilettante or unreliable. I have done enough reading of both Rosa's work and many other authors to understand the problem of Columbus and I feel Rosa's contribution is worthy of mention. After all he has been invited to speak at many Universities in several countries as he listed in his Portuguese language blog, this is no small accomplishment. Even if I am unable to do the edits in the proper wikipedia "format" - It would be more productive and more beneficial for the Wikipedia, if instead of blanket deleting of all my edits, the interested editors would attempt to re-write them in the proper "neutral" format utilizing the sources that I present. Otherwise it would not be me who loses but the readers who come to this site looking for updated and worthy information.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Colon you have been told by many editors many times that you are wrong in your assessment of Rosa's notability as a Columbus scholar. The fact that you are bad at formatting your edits is not wehat makes you a poor editor, but the fact that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to accept that the information that you want to supply is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia because it is based on scholarship that is not considered valid by the academic community. Adding information that most scholars consider to be patently false to articles is not an improvement and removing it does not dumb down wikipedia, but raise its quality as a source of reliable information based on serious scholarship rather than layman's speculation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Few words... Colon-el-Nuevo spends his days, in a series of systematic violations of the rules... disruptive user. --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Colon el-Nuevo began with the assumption that all the Genoese documentation referring to Christopher Columbus has nothing to do with Colon. He found hints of Polish origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. To Colon el-Nuevo, even thenavigator's reminiscences on geography were proof of his Polish origins. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics.

    Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Nobody in the Admiral's lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace. There are hundreds of evidence. Colon el-Nuevo is a nightmare. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bogus IP addresses

    It seems that some anon are popping up where they appear as a series of random letters and numbers. Is this a glitch in the system or an effort to hide IP addresses from anon editors? –BuickCenturyDriver 09:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, they're IPv6. GiantSnowman 09:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever happened to that message that used to show up when you viewed an IPv6 users User contributions page? It was useful to let people know that it wasn't a glitch.--Auric talk 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sachikadam - self-promotion

    This user appears to have a similar editing pattern to User:116.72.255.201 (whose edits include damaging the ASA dab page, whether through incompetence or otherwise). Both have added nothing to the encyclopedia except claims that Sachin Kadam is a poet, loves Ketaki Mategaonkar and is president of the All Student Asociation (their spelling). This editor does not appear to be here to improve the encyclopedia. PamD 14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tagged the user page for G11 speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And your CSD template has been removed by User:Alexf (an admin), who offered no reason for the removal. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    Beg to differ. The reason is explained in the summary. I just removed the spamlinks. This is a user page, not an article. Users are allowed to talk a little about themselves. The requested G11 CSD on a user page in this particular case was overkill as the page was not overly promotional once you remove the links to his website which I did and said so. -- Alexf(talk) 19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    i must will do poet. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see how often All Student Asociation has been speedied and re-created, but from the look of the editor's talk page it's a lot. Could the title please be salted (and the other spelling of All Student Association too), to save us all a lot of time and protect the encyclopedia from this rubbish. Thanks. PamD 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there. I'm bringing this here for a more detailed look at a situation that is developing regarding apparent dialects of the Saraiki language. Over the last couple days, an IP editor (from two different IPs that I've found) has been redirecting several dialect articles to the Saraiki language without any discussion. Due to the large removal of developed content that this caused, I felt that the redirects were a bit too bold and I initially reverted these redirects and did my best to encourage the editor to seek consensus. Nevertheless, with very little discussion, the redirects have continued. There is now a semi-new account that is undoing these redirects, and removing the IP's attempts at discussion on talk pages.

    Since I am not knowledgeable in this area, I don't fancy stepping in the middle of this edit war more than I already have. Whether or not the encyclopedia would be best served by these mergers is outside of my area of expertise, and it seems that my plea for consensus has just served to fuel the beginnings of an edit war. Thanks to anyone who might be more knowledgeable in these topics who might like to look into this matter.

    182.186.77.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - First IP

    182.186.0.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Second IP

    Maria0333 (talk · contribs) - User account reverting the IP

    --Nick—Contact/Contribs 15:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bit tricky, from a linguistic perspective. The user(s) apparently want to strengthen the idea that Saraiki is in fact a variety of Punjani, not a language of its own. As a matter of fact, most linguists would agree. Saraiki is commonly classed as "just" a dialect of Punjabi and calling it South Punjabi is not wrong. Please see [88] for a 1305p long authoritative description of the Indo-Aryan languages. On the other hand, being right is not an excuse for edit-warring, not to mention edit-warring using sock-puppets. Had the user used the talk pages to argue for this change based on a linguistic consensus, I would have agreed. However, edit-warring in this way is certainly a blockable offense even when the edit happens to be correct.Jeppiz (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Confusing page moves and deletions

    I'm exceedingly confused as to what Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is up to with moving talkpage archivesuserspace pages around and deleting/undeleting them. I asked a while back what was up, but didn't get a useful answer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like he's just dumping everything from his own userspace. Perhaps with no intention of returning. Nothing, imo, to worry about. --regentspark (comment) 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I understand it, he's allowed to delete archives of his talk page (or anything else in his userspace) but not User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim itself. I don't see any need for admin actions here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ... unless he actually moves his usertalkpage to an archive, and then tries to have it deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking again, that is what happened. He moved it, deleted the moved page, then recreated his user talk without the history. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I get the history of my talk and user page deleted too? Volunteer Marek 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Me, too, please? Bielle (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of admin rights

    As an admin, Deacon would know as well as anyone else that user talkpages cannot be deleted; period. It appears that based on the logs, he has moved the contents and then deleted the new subpage more than once. This is a clear violation of the trust that the community provided him. "Retired" or not, this is an offensive and improper situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Since some of you idle dramaqueens insist on drawing attention to this, I'm streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out. There is actually no policy that prevents me deleting my talkpage if I want to contrary to the assertion above (and per WP:DELTALK), but as it happens all but a fraction of my talk page is undeleteable due to its high number of edits and will remain available to view until I get a crat to delete it some time in the future. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of usertalkpage cannot be done by the editor themself, and you know that. Only in very rare circumstances will the usertalkpage be deleted upon retirement, and you also know that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why I'm commenting, since the damage is already done, but he's not just moving his old talk page and then deleting it (which, if determined to be a bad idea, could be reverted by another admin); he's moved most of his subpages (one at a time) to the same page, deleted it, then moved another pages to that page, and deleted it again. As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle. That's not "streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out". There's no "vanishing" type rationale for doing this. I suppose it's too late to get upset about it as long as he's leaving soon and requesting a desysop, but if he's planning on staying, I stongly object. Didn't another admin do something like this a long time ago, causing a giant uproar? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle." And that, of course, is why he has done it. Why doesn't someone with the power take away his tools immediately, before he makes any more messes that are advantageous to him, and are difficult, if not impossible, to clean up? He had proven he cannot be trusted. Bureaucrats, where are you? Bielle (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They've got their own board ( Wikipedia:Bn#User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim ) but they can't do anything per constraints of policy. Can they be blocked, or would they be able to simply unblock themselves? NE Ent 01:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, he could unblock himself. And seeing as he's already broken policy, I see no reason he wouldn't. Regardless, this could be construed as an emergency situation, in which case either per some policy I don't wish to bother finding or IAR an emergency desysopping can and should be performed. gwickwiretalkediting 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Ive done some digging, there are 61 pages that have been combined in that one page, If an admin is interested in undeleting and restoring the individual pages I have some information that will be useful, and make it easier. Werieth (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't Deacon be blocked promptly to prevent any continuation of this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet with his admin-bit, if I remember right, he could just unblock himself.. gwickwiretalkediting 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bureaucrats don't seem to have any interest in stopping this misuse of the admin tools. In fact, they are downright patronizing about the complaint. I don't get it. I am quite sure the rest of us, admin or not, wouldn't be allowed any such privilege. Bielle (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bureaucrats idle. Should we notify Jimbo?

    Since it appears that the bureaucrats are failing to take any action, and it is clear that this is an emergenmcy situation (per gwickwire), perhaps we should inform Jimbo of the abuse? He might be able to do something. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm probably not going to pursue this, since (as I said above) the damage is done, and it appears he isn't going to stay active, and ArbCom is such a hassle. But if you want him desysopped, you're going to have to go to ArbCom. That is - literally - the only way to desysop someone against their will. Jimbo won't do it anymore, and Crats (even if they wanted to) are forbidden from involuntarily desysopping someone without direction from ArbCom. Whether ArbCom will desysop... or instead chastise/admonish/warn him... is an interesting question. I know what I'd do, not sure what they'll do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic edit reverts

    Kharon2 continues to revert my fixes to the references in this talk page; Social_market_economy and I feel an outside source may be able to convince him of the code markup error. He feels my edits are an attack on him i fear. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 20:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    These are "fixes" only you need to use this stupid {{Reflist}} Template. What do you think happens when a section with correctly formated references and no <references /> or your Reflist get archived by a bot? Did you read my comment "<references /> is buildin syntax for reason"? --Kharon2 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why in (insert deity)'s name are you using either on a talkpage at all ... or at least in that ridiculous quantity!?!??!?!?!? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know or care about what they do or say. The extra 
    <references/>
    code tag is breaking the references continuity and impeding proper usage, is it not?Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 22:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's no "proper usage" on a talk page. Having multiple <references/> surely just allows you to have each set of references in the appropriate places for the talk page comments rather than all at the end, doesn't it? And I think the point of avoiding a separate "References" section is so that a bot doesn't archive it while other sections that refer to it are still active. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've used the really cool {{reflist-talk}} template to referenize each section with references. NE Ent 23:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    CLOSURE! I am so happy I came here. Turns out we were both wrong in a sense and have been shown the right way. Bravo NE Ent.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 23:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ents: they're not just for carrying Hobbits or tearing down Isengard anymore :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont get how this is blown up to a problem at all nor why someone is building Templates for this and some other even use them. Using <references /> works perfectly unless you have no idea how references work at all in wikipedia in which case you should start learning. Whats next? {{Reflist}} Templates in Articles? --Kharon2 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, {{Reflist}} is the only template I use for references in articles. Considering that it's the same thing as <references />, but better, I don't understand why anybody would prefer the outdated HTML-ish syntax instead of the streamlined template. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too ... {{Reflist}} allows parameters, and is the only good way to create ref lists inside articles. All the hip kids are doing it these days. IMHO, <references /> was pretty much deprecated by it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This was about its use in talkpages (that get archived part by part) not in articles. because you can use <references /> multiple times, each one only grabbing "its refs" inbetween, the archivebot cannot mess up. Additionaly if you work in groups, discussing and proposing multiple textversions with partly same, partly different references, i dont want to sort out who used what where how from one big list all below nor do i want to check out what parameters i may or must or may not use. --Kharon2 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whats next? {{Reflist}} Templates in Articles?

    ~Kharon2, Problematic edit reverts, February 23, 2013

    (get's popcorn)Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have I entered kiddie patroller hell?

    Not an issue requiring direct admin intervention. Broader philosophical discussion is better handled in another venue, perhaps here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Usually I never even encounter these people that don't write but are obviously very young and into playing junior mall cop and defender of the Wiki and all (but can't write content for spit). Last few articles I did, I was actually disappointed that no one NPPed them and went and asked for it! I just do articles like Fluorine and Painted turtle and have a very low revert rate.

    Just now had the experience of starting a new article Mykayla Skinner. As usual, there was no NPP (I was bummed...maybe I should be happy instead). Then a day later I found out (web search) that there had been a rejected AFC for the article. Well OK. I looked at the content...and there was a lot more there to help build my article. So I noted that and cut and pasted it (as additional material). Still fine...

    Then I go and post a notice on the talk page of the fellow who had done the very good work for the rejected AFC...saying "good job". See I noticed that he had been turned off of Wiki and never contributed again after the reject. Nothing against the rejecter...they make mistakes and he was nice to the fellow...but still...I care about newbies and reached out the dude. WHAM...some patroller type (check out his talkpage for all the rejected speedies and PRODs) has my article in AFD.

    Now I have another one (not much writing, lots of tagging) who is doing things like putting "CN" when the ref is at the end of the para instead of sentence and the like.

    Have to wonder how it is for new editors encountering this stuff if this is what proven writers go through. Makes me wonder if it is worth contributing free content here (when I could earn money) and just not even have to deal with this sort of thing. Or even if the site is really about building content at all (and you all don't have it all built yet...lots of work to be done) or if it is just some sort of World of Warcraft game.

    TCO (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    P.s. I'm not asking for any "action". Just discussion or advice.

    I'm having trouble seeing the connection between AFC and the AFD. What is the significance of mentioning the editor who got rejected at AFC?--v/r - TP 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not get "noticed" until I gave an attaboy to the guy who had been rejected at AFC.TCO (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Got another one vectoring in now (check out the rejected speedies on the top of his talk page. Wonder what made that happen so fast...hmm.
    He's also just deleted several sentences of content with an edit summary of "ce". (I'm VERY capable of adding citations for all the CNs that got dropped in a few minutes ago...the refs are actually IN article, but wonder if I will bother with the article under attack and sentences getting chopped out.)TCO (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "ce" just means that he's copy-editing, I'm guessing that IShadowed is just removing a sentence that states that Skinner may be a future participant, since we may not know if she'll participate or not. ZappaOMati 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what "ce" means. Copyediting is not the same as removing sentences. It is a deceptive edit summary to say so. He removed that sentence and also one on the Amanar. Both sentences are easily sourceable (it is not my speculation that she will be in Worlds, but that of sources). The Amanar one is really clear and obviously sourceable (sourced actually).TCO (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I frequently remove sentences, or even paragraphs when copyediting. It's more accurately described as pruning, or cleanup, but it certainly isn't intentionally deceptive. Anyway, if the subject is definitely notable, then the AfD process should prevent the article from being deleted. If the nomination was entirely in error, then it wouldn't have much support. Just because somebody disagrees with you and doesn't have as much experience, doesn't mean they're incompetent, so don't get your panties in a wad over a deletion tag. —Rutebega (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which source is the Amanar one anyway? I thought it was this, but Ctrl+F couldn't really find "Amanar." ZappaOMati 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Several sources in article back up the "having" an Amanar claim. This one [91] backs up that it is 15th. (not being contentious...just there is the info.)TCO (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, TCO, it looks like Ishadowed has quite a lot of experience in gymnastics-related topics. I would hesitate to tar her with whatever color brush it is that you're using on the people you think have wronged you; it's more likely she's just, you know, working on an article in her topic of interest. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • TCO, I appreciate this is probably not particularly fun for you, but: yes, if new article creators are treated poorly it's unhelpful. It could drive them away. Can you explain to me how you think describing people as "kiddie patroller[s]" who "don't write but are obviously very young and into playing junior mall cop and defender of the Wiki and all (but can't write content for spit)" is going to encourage them to stick around? As someone who does a lot of patrolling, and can write for spit, I'd have made precisely the queries and tweaks IShadowed did. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing two sentences of content from a short article, minutes after a CN dump is neither appropriate nor covered by the edit summary of "ce".TCO (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to mention the actual copyediting in IS's edits, but I suppose that would ruin the narrative. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    exactly. Her edits fall under the broad banner of copyediting and general improving an article. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Refusal to sign

    somebody else try telling 70.44.58.168 (talk · contribs) to sign posts; consistently refuses to do so. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't even know what you're talking about. Wikipedia doesn't say I have to sign my posts to edit an article. I also don't know why you think you can tell me to do something. If you're going to ask me to do something because of a rule, then provide a link to the rule. Don't act like your the boss of someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SIGN: "Persistent failure to sign may become disruptive, and if it is persistent, despite the problems being pointed out to the user, doing so may be subject to sanctions." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:TPG#signature NE Ent 01:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Refusing to sign talk page posts will eventually be seen as disruptive and in bad faith. There's no good reason not to. —Rutebega (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Per Seb and Rutebega, we suggest that you use four tildes to sign and date your posts, before it is seen as disruptive and blocks are handed out. P.S. Technically, admins are our bosses. If they have something to say, it almost always has a good reason. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say admins are our bosses at all. They have earned the community's trust, and are to be respected (and listened to, as you said), but nobody serves anybody else on wikipedia; we're all here for the project's sake. And for selfish reasons. Oh, and if you were referring to Seb, he's an admin on the Navajo wikipedia, and doesn't have the tools here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there were not a rule, it's a good idea to follow widely-established conventions unless you have a good reason not to. Signatures help us to follow conversations. (Ideally we'd have a better forum system that would eliminate the need for signing, but we don't.) Dcoetzee 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We do, it's just not "ready" yet. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We're apparently dealing with someone who doesn't give a shit unless there's a rule. That rule has now been given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We've laid down...THE LAHW!. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, anonymous editor: respect our authoritah!--Shirt58 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With a new editor who doesn't understand how to sign, we ask nicely, and help if there's a problem. But if a user understands what signing is, and how to do it, but refuses to do it to prove that no one is the boss of her, that is bad manners, and counter to the spirit of cooperation which is the foundation of Wikipedia. I think it's reasonable to ask this person to sign her posts from now on, with a clear understanding that if she will not, she will be temporarily blocked from editing until she masters this simple but important Wikipedia coding skill. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c, but I agree with Fisher Queen.) I sometimes wish "attitude problem" was an official block reason, specifically in the sense of refusing to comply with polite common-sense requests unless a "rule" is supplied about it. It's more frustrating than a few cusswords, and is tremendously unpromising. @Shirt: What? Bishonen | talk 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Time to invoke BLPSE?

    I'm concerned with JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs)'s recent edits regarding John Kerry. Might it be time to invoke WP:BLPSE and counsel him to be much more careful with his edits regarding biographical information? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. Can you please provide some specific diffs of "edits regarding John Kerry" beyond this series which resulted in the re-instatement of my edit (subsequently reverted by a third editor and now the subject of an ongoing dispute resolution RfC) and the issuance of a block for edit-warring and disruptive editing in the original series of edits? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest a topic ban from all articles related to John Kerry may be the best way to prevent further occurrences of this particular timesink. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, JakeInJoisey has created a lot of anti-Kerry articles, and kept a copy of one of the attack articles in his userspace for about a year, which is currently up for MfD. His attitude to editors who wish for this userspace article to be removed also has left a lot to be desired. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created zero "anti-Kerry articles"...and specifically had zero involvement in the creation of the current MfD article, originally forked from John Kerry to John Kerry VVAW Controversy and now, apparently, about to be expunged from this project space. WP:NPOV notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned. Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules (as does you constant citing of them, despite the fact they actually disprove your points) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned.
    First, I didn't "create" this article. I've attempted to improve upon the original article based upon the objections noted in the prior AfD, the first of which were that it was a "non-controversy" and "unsourced and speculative".
    Second, whether or not you personally perceive it to be "anti-Kerry" is irrelevant to a consideration as to whether or not it currently satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Wikipedia policy criteria as I've amended it. This WP project is replete with ''Insert Name Here'' Controversy content...all in apparent satisfaction with WP:POLICY criteria.
    Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules...
    Specifically, which "rules" are you alleging that I don't understand? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hoder Compromised?

    Hoder (talk · contribs) is currently serving time in a Iranian prison, according to his Wikipedia article and Jimbo's blog. However, that didn't stop his account from editing as it started to make edits to Argo (2012 film). How does a prisoner in one of the most oppressed countries in the world able to get online? I doubt it's the real Hoder. Techman224Talk 06:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks a bit shady. Doc talk 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something strange going on here but I don't know if I'd call it definitely looking shady. The edits seem fairly innocuous but suggest someone with possible Iranian connections or at last an interest in Iran. Our article on the person notes there was some Facebook activity in 2011 where it's suggested he was released for a short time. Presuming the Facebook identity is correct, looking at his profile Facebook suggests to me there was some update 2 weeks ago possibly of the photos although not being his friend I can't see anything useful (it could just be confusing info from Facebook). It's possible he gave his passwords to a member of his family who's now using the account here. This would be a violation of policy but I wouldn't call it shady. Alternatively he could be on a short release (or even a longer one) but has to be careful what he does but he felt these edits would be okay.
    I'm not say it's definitely not shady. I agree there is a (slight IMO) possibility of a compromised account here. It seems a bit strange given how innocuous the edits are but perhaps someone is hoping the attention from them will be enough. Given how long he's been out of touch, it's likely any attempts to compromise his accounts (here and elsewhere) would have gone unnoticed including the possibility someone fooled someone else who wasn't aware of the background. The other shady business would be if he was forced to edit or give up his accounts to third parties unwillingly. But as said, the edits seem innocuous enough, neither pro or anti Iran or it's government so it doesn't seem that likely, unless it's part of a longer planned attempt.
    Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say for sure, but I will check up on it as best I can. However, I do know that in the past he's been given weekend leave to see his family and has therefore (though rarely) sometimes been online. I can easily imagine him watching that film and making some edits. Anyway, the only thing I can confirm at the moment is that "short leave from prison" is a likely explanation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to appear to be a huge WP:DICK, but isn't the cross-space redirect from User:Hoder to Hossein Derakhshan prohibited by policy? I don't like editing the user pages of others, but maybe a soft redirect should be there, to clarify that the userpage redirects to a mainspace article, not a user page. I'd be confused if I had clicked on his name, and then went to the talk page associated with it, which is the talkpage for the mainspace article, not the user talk page. Horologium (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    AN/EW

    Hi. Is anyone watching WP:AN/EW? I filed a report yesterday, but there has been no response so far: [92] There appears to be no response to other reports as well. I would appreciate if someone had a look. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent edit-warring

    Strangesad is involved in a rather disruptive edit-warring campaign against the expressed consensus at Resurrection of Jesus. The factual matter is simple. Strangesad insists on inserting a paragraph into the lead saying that resurrection is impossible. Other users have pointed out that while they agree, this is not relevant for the article. The article is where people come to read about the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection, not the article where people come to learn about Death.
    Whether to include the paragraph or not is of course a content-dispute and not the subject of this report. There is a broad consensus on the talk page not to include it [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]. No other user has supported Strangesad's proposed paragraph, but despite this, Strangesad insists on ignoring the consensus and imposing, with small, variations "his" paragraph all the same, [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104].
    While he is careful not to violate WP:3RR, inserting the same version six times in six days and against a consensus not to include it is clearly edit-warring. I have pointed this out to him [105] but obviously he doesn't care. Some other actions of his also seem odd, such as this reply when the consensus was against him [106], or his idea to strike out user comments on ANI that he disagreed with [107] even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate [108].Jeppiz (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This belongs on the edit-warring noticeboard. However, it is false that every other use opposes the information that the resurrection of Jesus is impossible in an article on the resurrection of Jesus.
    • Jeppiz's comment that this is where readers come to read "the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection" is specious. The Christian view is that the resurrection was possible--as Jeppiz's comment implies. Thus, whether it is possible is relevant.
    • The title of the article is not "The Christian View of...." It is, flatly, Resurrection of Jesus. The possibility of X is obviously relevant in an article devoted to X. Unicorn makes it clear that the subject is fictional in the first sentence.
    • The article has a section on the historicity of the resurrection. It quotes a source saying the majority of scholars consider the resurrection a biography not a myth. I am not the one trying to introduce the truth/fiction theme; I'm trying to keep Wikipedia secular by adding balance.
    • It is sort of ironic that I previously commented atheists don't win popularity contests, and now I find myself repeating the situation. Jeppiz has taken it upon himself to follow me around by getting his editing ideas from my contribs [[109]]. He had no prior interest in Resurrection of Jesus before I edited it, and the recent ANI on a related subject.
    • It seems obvious that Wikipedia's policy of secularism collides with its policy on consensus, in the case of Christianity (probably in the case of any dominant religion on any of the Wikipedias). How is Wikipedia going to resolve that problem? Most of the editors opposing this edit are plainly Xians, as seen on the Talk pages or edit history.
    • Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article. Jeppiz just seems to be a drama-seeker, finding controversies on ANI, and then showing up at the related article to take sides and "get people in trouble." That kind of thing is disruptive.
    I suppose this will go down as either a content-dispute, or I will be blocked. Wikipedia's secular principles are not a content dispute. The use of an easily-mustered Christian consensus to override the project's secular principles needs to be dealt with administratively. Strangesad (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out that there is no "secular" policy or principle as such on wikipedia, but a policy of neutrality, see WP:RNPOV.Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't belong on the edit-warring noticeboard, because there is some inappropriate behaviour in there. Strangesad, myself and others noted, during that ANI, that striking other's comments for the reasons you gave was horrendously inappropriate. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see Strangesad is trying what he always does, passing it off as a content-dispute. That is not the reason he is reported. He is reported for massive edit-warring [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116] despite a strong consensus against that version [117], [118], [119], [120], [121].
    Quite frankly, Strangesad's response only confirms my worries. Rather than addressing the topic, his edit warring, comments such as "Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article." shows that Strangesad is determined to insert the WP:TRUTH against a consensus to the contrary. Calling me a "dramaseaker" is also in line with his earlier comments [122]. As for me following him around, anyone is free to check my edit history and his. We've come across each other at two articles. On one we agree, on one we disagree. So much for the accusation, which of course also suits Strangesad's tactic of discussing anything except the topic of the report: his persistent edit-warring.Jeppiz (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't strike out anyone's comment (except my own). In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid that. When does deliberate distortion become a conduct issue? I struck the "votes," calling attention to the fact that they were from editors excluded by policy from the consensus process on that matter. I left the comments untouched.
    Jeppiz also misleads by saying: "...even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate." It implies I struck the votes after being warned, which is wrong.
    I also wasn't made of any particular authority in the person who gave me the "warning" Why should I consier a warning from a non-admin anything but an opinion? (Also, please stop referring to me as "he." Not everybody in the world is male, you know.) Strangesad (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    for the record, the story of the "edit-war" is that History2007 initially didn't oppose the statement that it's impossible to come back from the dead, he just disagreed on the right way to source it. The first 3 or so edits Jeppiz mentions above involve only History2007 and myself, and the consensus was different than it is now. I didn't realize History2007 had changed his mind when I made one of the reverts. Jeppiz mentions none of this. Maybe because he wasn't aware of it, because he came to the article only after the recent ANI.....
    • Comment As is clear to see, Strangesad is intent on changing the topic, mostly to talk about me. As I've made just one edit to the article, I'm a bit surprised by this. Even more surprised by his/her retaliatory suggestion below that I be topic-banned. The fact of the matter is that:
    • There was never a consensus for Strangesad's version.
    • Strangesad has edit-warred by inserting the same version six times in six days.
    • The latest two of those reverts were both made after being aware of a strong consensus (5-1) against that version.
    • Strangesad thinks I should be topic-banned after having made one edit in line with the consensus, but thinks s/he is right to revert over and over again against the consensus. How's that for irony?Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose Topic (or Interaction?) Ban for Jeppiz

    This editor just launched 2 ANI threads regarding Jesus articles, both concerning matters that just wound down after an exhaustive previous ANI thread in which he also launched an unfounded sock accusation. He seems to have only come to the Jesus articles as a result of seeing them on ANI threads. His characterizations of conduct are consistently distorted. There is sometimes some truth at the kernel--neither Humanpublic nor I have been perfect in every regard, but Jeppiz assumes bad faith averywhere and misrepresents the truth. I am tired of this drama, I suspect the community is too. He seems to have no interest in the articles themselves, never having added a single new source. (I'm willing to topic-ban myself as well, but its the folks who only get to articles from ANI threads, and only stir up muck, that really drive me crazy.)Strangesad (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Oppose - Strangesad is one of the least suitable people to propose this, also it is making a load of incorrect statements - "assumes bad faith everywhere"? That's completely false. You striking out people's comments in a terribly inappropriate manner, plus other misdemeanours, means it should be you who faces sanctions. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not strike anyone's comments, and when that accusation has been repeated 3 times, after corrections, I consider it dishonest. Strangesad (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether I should be topic-banned or not is for others to decide; I've contributed as best I can and if Strangesad have diffs to show why I should be topic-banned is for him to post them. Earlier today I reported him for edit-warring. In all his posts since then, he has consistently been coming after me, never bothering to explain his edit-warring, but instead focusing on me. It is absolutely true that I don't consider Strangesad and Humanpublic constructive users. It's not because I disagree with them (I disagree with a lot of other users, that's life and usually there's no problem) but because Strangesad consistently edit-wars and Humanpublic hurl insults like "turd", "drama-hound" and "zealot" on other users. That is the reason I have reported them, and I guess this proposed topic ban for me is Strangesad's retaliation. As for striking, I provided the diff so everyone could check for themselves.[123]Jeppiz (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non starter This sub-thread will go nowhere. There is no way on earth that it will lead to a ban on Jeppiz. Please just end it now. I an not going to say more on this. It is a non-starter. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose nonsensical proposal. Jeppiz is obviously a good-faith editor who's here to improve wikipedia. (Is there something missing in your post, Jeppiz? Your drift is unmistakable, but you don't "consider Strangesad and Humanpublic"… what?) Bishonen | talk 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    Inappropriate username?

    WP:UAA is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Per WP:USERNAME, I suspect that Jcunnnt (talk · contribs) is an inappropriate username in some variations of English --Senra (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please delete article per G5

    Mmm, mangoes. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies is the discussion of an article created by User:Surfsbruce, a sockpuppet of blocked user User:Mangoeater1000. Will an admin please delete the article per G5? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I actually brought it here just before it was tagged, but the important thing is it's gone. 72Dino (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again. That was the first time I requested a deletion per G5, so I will use that approach next time. Okay to close this request. 72Dino (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Long history of PA

    Humanpublic has a long history of uncivil behavior. Only in the last five days, several editors have urged him to stop this behavior [124], [125], [126], [127]. Clearly this does not concern him. When he received his final warning, his reply was [128]. Afterwards, he has only stepped up his uncivil behavior as in [129] and this latest attack on me [130]. Well, he urges me to take it to ANI so I oblige him. His statement I refuse DRN is erroneous, by the way, as I took full part in it. Humanpublic will probably reply to this that I once called him dishonest and that that was also a WP:PA. It is true that I called one edit of his dishonest, and I believed it justified as he appeared to me to contradict his source. Since then, he has called other users dishonest around ten times at least. Humanpublic has been reported several times for disruptive editing, so I'd like to clarify that this report is only about his continued personal attacks and uncivil behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, you've called me "dishonest" four times, and falsely accused me of vandalism once, and falsely accused me of sockpuppeting once, and probably some other stuff I haven't stored in short-term memory, but who's counting:
    • "What is more, his edit was intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as he took a source that states categorically that Jesus existed and used it to claim that there is no evidence for Jesus's existence. Given that Humanpublic has been informed about Wikipedia's policies time and time again, his edit appears to be clearly disruptive. Controversial changes are to be discussed on the talk page, and using sources to claim the opposite of the main message of the source is just dishonest. [131]
    • "Yes, I've rarely seen such a dishonest edit in so many ways. The proper way to edit is to discuss controversial changes first, then edit. ... And talking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing." [132]
    • False vandalism charge [133]

    The thread containing the sockpuppet accusation seems to have been moved or deleted..... Humanpublic (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    All those refer to same edit of yours. And yes, as I said then "taking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing". I stand by that, I don't consider it a personal attack. If you do, please file a report about it. If you consider it so serious, it's hard to understand why you hurl that charge at others several times a day. Nor do I consider it a PA to inform you about the policies when you deleted a sourced part of an article. And I have certainly never called you nor anyone else a "turd" [134], a "drama-hound" [135] or anything similar.Jeppiz (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so if you really believe someone is being dishonest, it's not a personal attack to say so. Thanks for making my point. (And I'm not the only one calling you a drama hound, I see.) Humanpublic (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would tend to agree with you. At least partly. Calling another editor dishonest is something I'd recommend avoiding. Calling a particular edit dishonest, if there is reason, is something I personally would judge on a case by case basis. None of that has any relevance to the present discussion, of course. Unless you want to give the basis for calling other users "turd" [136], or "drama-hound" [137] or anything similar. I also seem to recall you calling History2007 a "zealot" as well. All of those are uncivil edits of yours for which I find no reason whatsoever.Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that User:Humanpublic has been clearly informed that Wikipedia requires civility of its participants, and that he has gotten a final warning which states that he will be blocked if he continues to make personal attacks. The diffs provided by User:Jeppiz contain personal attacks that are made after that final warning. Is there a reason that we wouldn't block this user, at least temporarily? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're referring to as my final warning, but to my knowledge I've received a "warning" only from people breaking the same rules they're warning about. I could be slapping these warnings on their Talk pages, if that is considered relevant to evaluating their behavior. This entire matter was just reviewed in an extremely long discussion here less than a few days ago, and I received no warning from any uninvolved admin. What personal attacks have I made after the "final warning" anyway? Humanpublic (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little concerned about your question. "Turd" and "drama-hound" are both personal insults. Do you disagree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Turd" has already been examined, discussed, and dismissed for a week in this forum. Seems like something about double jeopardy applies. The editor, Seb, had already harassed me, deleted my comments from a Talk page, falsely called me a vandal, been warned here (now deleted or archived), called me self-important, told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then kept posting to my Talk page. In that context, "turd" doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you want to block me I guess you can. "Drama-hound" seems the same level as "disruptive" and "dishonest" to me. I'm not going to repeat everything that has already been said in a thread here that lasted a week and was just closed. Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I didn't see the thread here before, so clearly there is context I am missing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=539936187"