Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Insomesia (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 3 March 2013 (→‎Talk:Traditional marriage#RfC: postpone any action for now). 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.

    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]
    It seems that both Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi have had a minimal amount of activity, so they have logged in. I'm concerned that they might just be trying to dodge the discussion so that it conveniently "goes away." Still, a discussion is not enough and the pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks - again, especially ones relating to violence and radicalism - are something I would like to see administrators address. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Counter counter claims

    I do not know who Mosoamu is. Any accusation of collaberation between us is a fabrication by the person who goes by the fake name MezzoMezzo. All I know is that MezzoMezzo is a Salafi which can be seen on his page, and he is an anti-Sufi as evident from his edits against sufi bios. As for my getting banned, it is easy for a gang of editors (or one person with many fake names) to complain and ban temporarily. I have seen many crusades and jihads against sufi bios, and each time I expose their vandalism, they get me banned. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude, are you kidding me? You log in for less than two hours and already launch on more personal attacks against me? In about an hour and forty minutes, you just:
    Accused me of vandalism for nominating articles for AfD and made a clear threat of some unnamed retaliation,
    Accused me of being on a "jihad" again in this edit
    Implied that I'm a part of a terrorist organization here
    Accused me of nominating articles for AfD based on my personal beliefs instead of the stated content issues here
    Called me a bigot simply for nominating articles for AfD here
    Accused me of nominating articles for AfD due to personal beliefs one more time
    Did you even check what took place here? I brought you into this because Msoamu was clearly encouraging your behavior per the diff I showed above. Whether you know him in real life or not, you've clearly jumped onto this train.
    Can administrators please do something about this? I haven't seen blatant personal attacks like this in a few years here on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't seen any real accusations of a "collaboration", but bloody hell, that is a ridiculous comment to make, Hassan. I don't believe he is particularly anti-Sufi, or pro-Salafi, and certainly not to the degree you're accusing of him. Accusing him of being in a crusade, or a jihad, is a massive personal attack and this needs to be punished by a block, especially as you've made no attempt to provide evidence to back up your outlandish claims. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose some immediate action re Hassanfarooqi edits within last 2 hours as above. Among those edits "Why are you so afraid of revealing your name? Are you involved in a terror organization?" is not the only one totally unacceptable. Mezzo has already apologized for and withdrawn AfDs on the totally unsourced Sufi saints articles a week ago, it's evident that he didn't understand the AfD criteria (not alone there). In that week not a single source has been added, just more personal attacks on Mezzo. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Okay, my feeling is that this is all way too complex and long standing for ANI to solve; some of these complaints go back years, and it would probably take RfC/U's on everyone to really see if there are long term problems. As an alternative to that, I propose that we give Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and MezzoMezzo final warnings: any more personal attacks, incivility, or blatant POV pushing will result in escalating blocks, to be issued by any uninvolved admin. If any of them are in fact "innocent" (and note that I believe that MezzoMezzo is much more the victim here, possibly blameless), and are editing in the best interests of Wikipedia, then they aren't at risk. In a sense, what I'm recommending is that we place these three users on discretionary sanctions. Yes, I know that there is no such thing, but I think you can get my idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully accept and even welcome being put on discretionary sanction. I fully accept and welcome administrator scrutiny of any and all edits I make on Wikipedia indefinitely, and given the overly long nature of this conflict, a final warning after which no warnings shall come (Lovecraftian, no?) should solve this. I am confident that my editing here is merely to improve the site and thus I have no issue if my account remains under such scrutiny forever. I only ask that administrators follow through should personal attacks come from any of those involved, including myself. One question, will Shabiha be exempt from this? I feel that he has been involved in the same issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too feel that Shabiha should be placed on some kind of warning, although to my knowledge, he hasn't been involved in the dispute quite as long, so maybe it'll be a 3-strikes-rule or something for him. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Shabiha has also been at it on the Barelvi article. His block back in 2007 was for his personal attack on my talk page here due to the same POV/content disagrements. Similar comments about myself rather than relevant content can be found under his contributions during the past month or so. It's not limited to the original two examples I posted up there; while his comments are milder than those of the other two, the tendency for personal remarks is still there and has been for at least six years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the Shabiha and Msoamu are back to refactoring comment to a pro Barelvi POV, see here.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 12:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear all,I welcome any proposal given by Administrators.I am ready to cooperate with all respected editors of this nice site. Shabiha (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across a small part of this at AfD by accident. Both Msoamu and Mezzo requested I say something. But I'm not familiar enough with content aspect. All I can say is that first impression that Mezzo was the problem quickly (sorry Msoamu) were reversed to Qwryxian's view that Mezzo isn't the problem here. However if it is "too complex and too long" then pre-final not final warnings are called for. Also Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, you could avoid friction by reading WP:IRS and WP:PSTS and following it carefully with every byte added in article space. If content is sourced, even using Urdu Arabic or Farsi, then frictions and edit wars are much less likely. Also Msoamu, play the ball, not the man, okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments. I became aware of this discussion because of a message Mezzo left on my talk page. Some might consider it WP:CANVASSING, although I can see that Mezzo isn't the only editor asking for outside input. I was the admin who blocked Msoamu. I haven't read the long list of bullets Msoamu posted at the beginning, although I clicked on a few of the diffs. I belive Hassanfarooqi was added in the middle of all this by Mezzo. Hassan was properly notified by Mezzo of this discussion, but I note that they haven't edited since February 20, so they haven't had a chance to respond, even though they are included as part of Qwyrxian's proposal. Although Mezzo doesn't object to the imposition of "discretionary sanctions" (it's kind of an editing restriction with a discretionary sanction flavor), it's unclear to me why he's included except perhaps out of an abundance of caution to be "fair". I commend Luke for his tremendous efforts to mediate, and I commend Qwyrxian for his proposal to resolve the situation in a practical way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I was also asked to comment since I blocked Msoamu for six months in December 2006. Whilst that is old news, it appears from my review of some of the diffs and the comments above that there has been little improvement in his attitude to other users. I'm not sure why Mezzo merits a final warning, that appears to be intended to give an impression of even-handedness which is not justified. Msoamu clearly carries most of the responsibility here, and any sanctions should reflect that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the "warning" of MezzoMezzo was primarily a move towards even-handedness. My worry was that the previous discussion had bogged down and was overflowing with so many diffs (some ridiculously old) that I felt it likely that it was just going to end up archived without any action taken. My thinking is that if MezzoMezzo is, in fact, editing entirely in good faith (something I think very likely, though the large number of single subject AfD's can be a matter of concern), then the warning ultimately has no effect, as I'm trusting that future admins are smart enough to tell the difference between a real infraction and something trumped up by an adversary. My other thinking is this: I'm of the opinion that, in a certain sense, once a user has been here long enough, they shouldn't need civility warnings; that is, we should all be editing as if we were on a final warning for civility. I really don't want Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi to just be able to walk away thinking "It's okay to call someone a jihadist, as long as I make sure to be the one to file the complaint with dozens of diffs from the past 5 years". I want them to understand that this behavior stops now, or they stop editing. It's a risky move, but given that MezzoMezzo has indicated a willingness to accept the "warning", I'm even more comfortable with it. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins have worked hard to resolve this issue and I am really obliged to them all.I have always tried to improve the page with reliable sources and references.The continuous pushing of POV and nomination of one side's Articles for deletion,emphasizing on only negative/criticism proves that MezzoMezzo has really edited with a particular motives.He has been engaged in edit disputes with a number of editors.He has called them racist as in the case of 'Baboon and in case of other editors.It seems from his Canvassing and editing pattern on Sufi Articles that he don't want to allow other editors to edit these pages.You can find him on all Sufi Articles ,deleting genuine information while pushing negative/criticism.It is only he ,who has fight with so many editors.He will not allow any one to edit his favorite salafi Wahabi pages with neutral pint of view.see these pages how much POV has been supported and protected by him.I am not the only guilty here.ThanksMsoamu (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a serious accusation, racism, especially when you haven't provided a single diff to prove it. I suggest you provide a diff immediately, or retract the allegation. Or do you mean that Mezzo was accusing Baboon of racism? I've never seen Mezzo be racist, you canvass as much as they do, and I think you are WP:IDHT with regards to your issues - it's very, very rare that anyone other than you, Shabiha, Sunnibarelvi or Hassanfarooqi, has ever reverted MezzoMezzo, or even had serious issues with Mezzo's edits (the marginal AfDs aside), whereas several editors, many very experienced, have reverted you. It's utter rubbish to speculate that he doesn't want to allow other editors to edit the articles, if your allegation was true, he'd have edited Sufism much more recently than the 9th of February, for example. Likewise, he hasn't edited Wahhabi since the 9th of February. The "Terrorism" section, which you edit warred over, for example, was a severe violation of WP:NPOV and Mezzo was right to remove it, pending a discussion. You fail to participate in many of the discussions, which only makes things worse. I feel that this discussion proves that, Msoamu at least, needs a topic ban. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Msoamu is referring to when I said that one of Baboon43's comments - not Baboon, but his comments - bordered on racism - not were actually racist, but bordered on racism. Anyway, I can see this ending easily with permanent surveillance of all edits by Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, Shabiha and myself with all four of us being on "final warnings," though a topic ban in the case of Msoamu would also help the state of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia, the personal attacks aside. Hassanfarooqi's accusations of jihadi are more problematic and I really don't feel he should walk away from that without some sort of repercussions. He did engage in edits even after Msoamu notified him of this discussion on his (Hassanfarooqi's) talk page, so he obviously knows that this discussion at least began. The question is now: what solution will be implemented and how will it be implemented? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MezzoMezzo accused Baboon43 of Racism [60]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 [61]

    He seemed to be engaged in edit warnings [62].Baboon43 was editing various Articles and he was forced to say to MezzoMezzo this ,by the way it seems you like to confront editors by following them around..seeing i never seen you on this talk page until you started snooping around my contributions[63].There are more than other five editors with whom MezzoMezzo has history of engaging in edit disputes.The history of Mawlid Article tells that he is only interested in showing different movements in negative lights[64].This edit dispute lasted a long between him and other editors. Similarly he is always working on removing validity of different Islamic concept which Salafis don't like and is approved by Sufis see Tawassul he removed validity section [65] [66][67]Read this heading,it does not talk about validity but liked only criticism[68] supported by MezzoMezzo.He engaged in Sufi Wahabi disputes with various other editors here on Bidah Article [69].If he would have been so much neutral than multiple editors would not have accused him of pushing POV.He is also master in proposing Sufi related Articles for deletion.You will not find him doing same in the case of his favourite movement or supporting genuine criticism on wahabi/Salafi Articles.Even the scholars of Salafi movement will be untouched from criticism.What respected editors think ?Msoamu (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    His tendency of pushing his POV into various Articles and habit of engaging in edit disputes on Sufi related Articles [70]Added his POV [71],[72],[73][74].
    He is only interested in inserting Criticism ,was accused of Cherry Picking material for this purpose see in Al-Ghazali [[75]].Msoamu (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Your point has been made, Msoamu. This has been going on for what, a week and a half now? We've had trusted editors and several admins show support for Qwixrian's proposal and one editor suggest a topic ban. Just to keep things on point: what is the final decision, how will it be implemented, and who will do so? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We need an uninvolved editor (usually an admin) to decide if there is consensus for action of any type here. To be honest, the fact that Msoamu has gone back on the offensive rather than apologize for or even acknowledge the serious problems his/her editing has makes me think that we might even be warranted in skipping the warning. I'm of half a mind to do so myself, as I don't think I'm involved enough here to raise to the level of WP:INVOLVED...but I'd prefer another admin act, one way or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Respected administrators,I have already apologized here and I am in no mood of Offensive. MezzoMezzo's continuous offensive forced me to bring some proofs from his editing pattern.I respect your opinions and decisions.Msoamu (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either you're refusing to get the points people are making, or your English isn't good enough for you to understand that it is your editing style that is much more problematic than Mezzo's. Mezzo has made some marginal decisions, but so have I, whereas you have made a number of very bad edits, and then warred to try and keep them there. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments I usually avoid commenting on cheap attacks, but was dragged on into this holy war after MezzoMezzo went after my bios trying to get them deleted, and then reacted on my defence them by posting all over my page. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Interaction ban

    An interaction ban between Msoamu and MezzoMezzo is the only appropriate solution in this case.

    Support. Zaminamina (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong oppose - with respect, I don't think you've quite understood the issue. This ban would be unhelpful as it doesn't address any issues with biased editing, and as they both contribute primarily to the same articles, it makes things even worse with that regard. It also ignores any issues from Shabitha and other editors involved. The proposal above this is far better. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a ban would be impossible, since the two editors already co-edit a large number of articles...and there are ongoing AfD's and content disputes in which neither of them should necessarily gain precedence. Furthermore, from my reading of the situation (which is somewhat limited), MezzoMezzo is attempting to conduct wide ranging cleanup in topics that have been created and/or protected by Msoamu, and the encyclopedia would be significantly worse off to lose his editing in those topics. Again, returning to the key point that lead for my call for the above proposal: calling someone a "jihadist", repeatedly, is something that needs to stop, period. I cannot believe that using such a strong invective is uniquely caused by the relationship between these two. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While my opposition to such an unworkable solution goes without saying, the fact that I'm one of the subjects here might disqualify that comment. But to support what Qwyrxian said above, a big concern of mine here is the personal attacks which have already occured, and the pattern of continuous personal attacks and disruptive editing which have gone on with Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi and Shabiha for the past six years. While an interaction ban won't solve things, we still need something, as leaving the situation as it is will effectively prevent a large number of religion and Islam related articles on Wikipedia from ever receiving fair, objective discussion. I think the comments from multiple users here have demonstrated these concerns. How can we resolve this issue and implement a workable solution? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban for both MezzoMezzo and Msoamu seems to me relevant solution of this long lasting problem.The love of MezzoMezzo for Salafism and then his interest in editing Sufism related topics thereby creating and causing many disputes on various pages similarly love of Msomau for Barelvi topic and his interest in editing Salafism or Wahabi topics is the only reason of dispute.They both can utilize their editing experience on other topics.This is most neutral workable and solution of this continuous problem. Shabiha (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And...that makes me think you need to be lumped into the "final warning" category above. Mezzomezzo's edits seem to be not only acceptable, but really necessary and important. Why would we topic ban him from an area that clearly needs a lot of clean up, and that he's willing to do? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to not directly defend myself until now, but perhaps it's in order. Shabiha, I am not a Salafi nor do I love Salafism any more than Sufism, or have any more interest in editing one article more than the other. And the thing is, I've told you that. I've told Msoamu that. I've made it clear more than once that I want nothing to do with ideologies or movements; I just want an objective presentation of information for readers of English Wikipedia, most of whom ostensibly have little experience with Muslim movements. You and Msoamu are both Barelvis and have made that clear on past versions of your respective user pages. And that's ok. Belonging to any movement, religion or ideology doesn't disqualify one's opinion; as Stephen Jay Gould said, objectivity is fairness in spite of bias, not denying one's own bias. The problem is that the two of you seem to have accounts solely for editing the pages on the Barelvi movement and its opponents, and promoting this world view - which would have been shown through reliable sources in my disputed edits - in which Barelvis believe that all of their opponents are part of a conspiracy against them, and anyone who criticizes Barelvism must be a Wahhabi. Six years is long enough for me to say confidently that I have seen this attitude demonstrated.
    You want to make sure the movement isn't slandered, great. Wikipedia needs that. Shi'ite editors ensure that their sect isn't misrepresented. General Muslim editors ensure that anti-Muslim bigots can't misrepresent Islam, and objective non-Muslim editors ensure that Muslims can't paint an overly rosy picture of our religion. There are three areas which are lacking: people to keep Barelvism in check, Salafi editors to ensure they aren't defamed (most Salafi Wikipedians like Servant114 and DawudBeale left in 2009 when a major English-language Salafi website posted a polemical diatribe against Wikipedia), and Deobandi editors to ensure they aren't defamed (I have never, ever seen an open Deobandi on Wikipedia). There are some Ahl al-Hadith editors, but their English is awful and they aren't very active. So I positioned myself over both Barelvi and Salafi related topics simply because I saw a need for objective monitoring that wasn't being filled (in the case of Salafism articles for four years now, in the case of Barelvism articles, since I joined Wikipedia).
    I am not a Salafi. I am not a Sufi. I do not have some sort of love for Salafism, nor for Sufism. I really don't care about these movements as they don't affect my personal life. I just want objectivity on this site. I am not always successful or correct and all good Wikipedians will freely admit that about themselves. But your constant accusations and, lately, subtle insinuations that I'm some Salafi in disguise are unwelcome and, given my frequent clarifications on my position from the movement, unneeded. So please, stop hinting or otherwise insinuating that I'm some secret Salafi editor out to defame your movement and let's all try to focus on the issue at hand: how will this content-conduct dispute be resolved? I swear to God - and even for Wikipedians who don't believe in one, the fact that I do should make the weight which this swear carries apparent - that I have zero problems at all with permanent, unending administrative monitoring of any and all edits I make. I say that because any inappropriate edits on my part are mistakes and I'm open to those mistakes being corrected, as was the case with In coctu ilis and GorgeCuster'sSabre. I have absolutely nothing to hide and such monitoring could even serve as a good form of evidence should I ever be accused of things like this again - I would always have someone who could vouch for that. There could be other solutions to, but at nearly two weeks I would just like someone with the necessary responsibility to carry out the decision.
    I would prefer not to comment here again. I'm a long winded speaker and writer and however valid my comments might be, I know that merely reading them is a task. I just want this to be resolved soon so all concerned editors can move on and resume tending to Barelvi, Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi, Ahl al-Hadith, Sunni Tehreek etc. as normal. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits speaks themselves.I will not say any thing.You called me several times Barelvi I did not object,It is a terminology used by some to show entire South Asian Sunni Sufi movement in bad light.I respect your feelings but you should have avoided calling me names.I have always tried to contribute Wikipedia with positive intentions and objectives.I have always tried to contribute positively with an open mind.I am open to any corrections. Shabiha (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits speak for themselves...how? Are you claiming now that I'm lying when I tell you that I'm not Salafi (or part of any other movement for that matter)? And you're once again proving to me the lack of objectivity which brings me to these articles...Sunni Sufis in South Asia are composed of two groups: Deobandis and Barelvis. Once again, you seem unable to acknowledge what mainstream scholarship has accepted, and insist on claiming that Deobandism is excluded from Sufism and Sunni Islam...hence, the need for people like me who can ensure that Barelvi doctrine (or any other doctrine) is represented as subjective doctrine and not objective fact. In this case, yes, the edit does speak for itself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the value it might be, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism is fairly demonstrative of what ends up happening to what would otherwise be productive, objective discussions on improving Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear all, I was not willing to jump into arguments with any one here.I am not a party to this dispute despite that I was dragged here by MezzoMezzo.To tell the facts to Administrators and editors I am very humbly submitting this- MezzoMezzo claimed to disassociate himself from any movement.But he created and introduced majority of Articles belonging to Salafism or of a movement which is very close to it [76] it is known as Zahiri and is based on literal thought which has influenced Salafism[77].
    He edited following Articles[78] on wikipedia,which clearly established his area of interest.He has many times in sequence nominated Sufism related pages for deletion and has removed large stuff from only Sufism related pages.I may provide proofs from his edit history,also proved by other editors. Shabiha (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    <deindent>I rewrote most of the BTC Touring articles or wrote them from scratch: I have no connection with the BTCC. That's a ridiculous allegation to make, that MezzoMezzo must be connected with Salafism. Mezzo has every right to create whatever he wants, as long as it complies with the guidelines - which, 99% of the time, it does. Also, you're lying about not being a party to this dispute, as you've been involved in several disputes across several articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - they edit the same articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and comment A solution to intractable edit wars which I have very occasionally and reluctantly used (because it's hard and thankless work) is to warn everyone concerned that I will remove any edits that are not impeccably RS sourced or which do not accurately reflect the RS sources, and that I will block anyone who doesn't play nicely (not needed so far in practice). That works quite well with single articles where one "side" is clearly pushing pov more than the other, especially as I'm editing from a position of knowing nothing about the topic, so npov by definition. I'm not sure how it would play across a range of articles, but I can't see why we shouldn't warn all concerned that edits that aren't impeccably sourced and neutral will be reverted, and may be backed up by withdrawing editing rights. If we just pussyfoot around this, the problems will not go away Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm down with that too, as long as it's undertaken. I don't think it's far fetched to say that the time I put into neutralizing and sourcing Wikipedia entries on Islam-related articles has yielded good results for both the sites and the readers. Islamic legal terms like Qiyas and Ijma are good examples of my efforts bringing almost worthless, unclear stubs to the level of acceptable articles, while the biographies I created of Islamic studies academics such as Dawud al-Zahiri, Camilla Adang, Siddiq Hasan Khan and so forth have not only added to the encyclopedia in the way of info but also inter-Wiki links for cited persons/authors. That work has come to a standstill on anything which Msoamu and Shabiha (and to a lesser extent, Hassafarooqi) turn their eyes. The examples of this are numerous, but in this section at Talk:Barelvi, there is the most encompassing, telling example of what working with either of them on Sufism-related articles is like: Barelvis (90% of all Muslims, actually) believe that when people die, they will be raised again at judgment day and Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, will be able to intercede with God on the behalf of sinners. Msoamu doesn't seem to understand that stating "Muhammad intercedes" is presenting dogmatic religious belief as objective fact is wrong, and doesn't seem to get why I'm insisting on "Muhammad, who Barelvis believe intercedes," because this intercession is Muslim religious belief and not an objective fact by the standards of Wikipedia. This is even more of a stumbling block when it comes to Barelvi beliefs about other groups, which neither of them will accept as a matter of opinion but rather as objective fact.
    I'm using this as a telling example, not as some kind of slander; I'm trying to demonstrate that my efforts at neutralizing articles are simply not possible as it stands now, because I have other editors who seem to think that Wikipedia should represent their beliefs as objective facts. Running with what Jimbleak said above, this current situation is unworkable; the articles in which these editors have taken interest can not be improved, period, unless something is done. Maybe it needs a topic ban. Maybe it needs a final warning for all of us. Maybe it needs an admin to constantly monitor the pages in question and be ready to block any of us, them or me both, if we get out of line. I don't know, it's not up to me. But what I'm asking is for something to be done. Msoamu, for the past two weeks, has merely used this thread to make post after post about me, my beliefs (about which he knows almost nothing) and my edits; he has been entirely unrepentant and doesn't seem to possess any desire to move on. Now, given the comments above, Shabiha also seems content to simply sift through my old edits and created pages. Neither of them are looking for a solution, not here and not on the pages in question.
    We've had a lot of good suggestions, but one of them, or several of them - again, the selection isn't up to me since I'm involved in this case - really should be implemented, and enforced, as all four of us (Msoamu, Shabiha, Hassanfarooqi and myself) have been warned. Given the recent escalation of personal attacks and the continued comments (none of them valid) about me personally, I don't see this issue going anywhere and I don't see Wikipedia's entries receiving needed improvements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One block

    Yesterday Hassanfrooqi made this edit, yet again attacking MezzoMezzo. I warned him. Since his response repeated the attack, I have blocked for 3 days. This behavior has to stop. If people are unable to comment on edits and are instead obsessed with attacking the editor, then they can't edit here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The response to your warning went beyond the original attack. A 3-day block was conservative. If the behavior repeats itself after the block expires, the editor should be indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think that blockage was of any benefit, I wanted to invite all of you to calm down, and ask Qwyrxian to concentrate on investigating the case rather than blocking. Obviously, editors from both sides are frustrated and may accuse each other, but blocking is more damaging than constructive. My first impression is that Msoamu had concerns that another editor is making too much unfavorable edits to Barelvism page. Lack of investigation and useless comments on this page will only cause more frustration. Have you investigated Msoamu's complaint? Zakwp (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask if you've bothered to read any of this discussion, or any previous one? I investigated the situation before Msoamu's block (which is where 99% of the disputed things come from), and found it to be predominantly Msoamu who was POV pushing a biased view, whereas MezzoMezzo was generally neutral, bar a few AfD mistakes - that they apologized for. Also, I think Hassanfarooqi needs indeffing now, with talk page rights revoked - [79] they're basically asking to be indeffed, and they're continuing to slander MezzoMezzo and everyone involved. Msoamu's concerns are due to either marginal/poor English skills, a COI, or a difference of opinion about these articles than fits Wiki guidelines, if not a mixture of the above, and Shabiha suffers similar issues. This has been analysed to death, and action needs to be taken: indef for Hassanfarooqi, a short-term topic ban for Shabiha, a longer-term one for Msoamu, and a final warning for MezzoMezzo (as accepted by that user). Lukeno94 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He created his account less than an hour before making that comment and according to his contribs, only spent an hour and four minutes of actual editing. So I would guess no, he hasn't quite read everything.
    As for Lukeno's suggestion above, or any other suggestion, I'm down. Hell, as an olive branch, I'll submit to putting tougher sanctions on me. Put a big, unmovable template on my user page saying "this guy is under surveillance so take his comments with a grain of salt." Really, I have no problem with that because I know that my edits and comments are well-intentioned, even if sometimes mistaken, and I make them for the purposes of improving Wikipedia; thus I have no fear, and maybe the good will from suggesting even tougher repercussions for myself will get this sorted out sooner. That's my point: most of the suggestions here have been good. But until they're implemented, much needed improvements on multiple articles are on hold. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tea Party movement; looking for community input

    Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input
     – Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tea_Party_movement. RNealK (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they changed it. The sub-page here is still being edited, too. KillerChihuahua 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gaba p playing the race card in content dicussions

    [80] Third: your mention of Chavez's crass comments is borderland racist. Aside from the crude spelling, the accusation of racism is a clear attempt to chill the discussion. I've seen exactly the same tactic before, repeatedly accusing another editor of being racist, repeat often enough and mud sticks. He had a chance to apologise, [81] instead he simply repeated it. The only example of racism here is his presumption I'm white in making such an accusation. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like charges of near-racist comments (or charges of charging someone of near-racist comments) are the least of the problems going on at that talk page. Trench warfare appears to have broken out there, in fact, and the name-calling is just a symptom. Sounds like DRN didn't work for you guys - might I suggest mediation or an RfC to resolve the issue, rather than everyone continuing to throw grenades at each other? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No change is too trivial to [82] to revert war over [83] if I make it and he tries to start arguments over the most ridiculously trivial things [84], [85]. Yes I know its childish and no I don't intend to play his games but if you have someone going at you constantly it gets wearing and you snap. Why is no one prepared to do something about this guy hounding me constantly. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just an attempt at sidetracking the efforts at the talk page where we've been a month re-factoring a section after Wee deleted it with no consensus to do so. There are currently four editors over there agreeing to edit in a given version of the section and he just keeps introducing changes with neither source nor good reason[86][87] going directly against the wording present in the source used. I'll repeat what I said over there:
    • I do believe referring to the official statements by the president of a Latin American nation as crass comments is borderline racist, as I believe referring to the actions of a female president as a "hissy fit" (as you did not long ago[88][89]) is borderline misogynistic (and I told you that much at the time). I'd suggest striking that part of your comment.
    It would appear Wee has a distinctive contempt for presidents Chavez and Kirchner but it is definitely not ok for those feelings to permeate into his WP editing. Wee, your accusations of hounding and constant personal attacks ("disruptive", "childish", etc..) have gotten really old by now. It'd be nice if you could just drop them.
    Please note I did not call him a "racist" but he did call me a "dick" earlier today (not the first time by a long shot). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a volunteer at WP:DRN, and I tried to assist with this content dispute. There are nationalistic (UK vs Argentina) undertones permeating the dispute. The DRN case failed to reach a resolution. There is quite a bit of edit-warring happening, although I don't think the 3RR limit has been reached. The big problem here is the tendentious editing ... some of the editors are filibustering and refusing to work towards a consensus. My advice is for an admin to protect the page for 2 weeks or so; and to initiate an RfC. I'm trying to think of how to frame the RfC question, but dont have a great idea yet. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) With regard to "reciprocating" vs. "in return for": The two are basically synonymous in this context, and it is not identified as a quote, so I don't believe "stick[ing] to the wording of the source" is required. However, making such an edit during the middle of a content dispute seems like a bad idea, particularly if the other party is inclined to pick at it. I'd stick to editing only what absolutely has to be done in such cases, and leave the language "polishing" for a later time and perhaps editors uninvolved in the current controversy. To pick a grammar (not style) point, I believe the comma preceding "in return for" doesn't belong, or "reciprocating" needs "for" after it (i.e. it should be either "...sovereignty claim in return for Argentina's..." or "...sovereignty claim, reciprocating for Argentina's...").
    As far as calling a country's leader's comments "crass" (and without reference to or knowledge of the particular comments involved), I don't see anything inherently nationalistic or discriminatory about it – the leaders of many countries have made crass ("coarse, crude, not refined or sensible") comments at one time or another, and have likely had them described as such in mainstream reliable sources. "Hissy-fit" is more commonly gender-related and colloquial. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also refererred to Cameron as pretentious prick and I'm also on record as describing Gordon Brown's resignation as a hissy fit. Most former soldiers regard politicians with a healthy degree of contempt. None of which actually feeds through into content I suggest thats a complete red herring. I'd also comment the nationalistic undertones are very one sided ie come from one party.
    None of the above justify calling another editor a racist, this is purely about chilling discussion with unfounded and unsustainable allegations. I do however note the person making such an allegations is making presumptions that are of themselves racist in nature. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, everyone cool down. This seems all too familiar.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Before this degenerates much further, may I ask the small question of "what is the admin action being requested?" Blackmane (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you actually do something to stop Gaba P baiting me please.
    I am tired of the frivolous complaints here, I am tired of him going around telling everyone I am blocking things or alleging I am engaged in misconduct, I am tired of having to defend myself against frivolous allegations of misconduct by this guy but most of all I'm tired of this guy's constant personal attacks.
    This is entirely one sided and stems from the fact he was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Alex79818, for which he has conducted a vendetta against me ever since. As its one sided I would like a one way interaction ban please. Make it two way if I abuse it but you have my word that I won't. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I think this has gone far enough. Wee has been accusing me of being a sock puppet of user User:Alex79818 for over a year now. After Wee first accused me of this (Feb 2012) I was blocked by admin User:Nick-D. The block was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity to an admin (Wee knows the RLI of this user so the admin, User:JamesBWatson, could compare and see I was not that person) Wee was not convinced and since then his accusations have not stopped. Actually they have gotten worse. He doesn't imply it anymore, he is here now directly stating I am that user. This needs to stop.
    At every ANI we were involved in since early 2012 (~3-4) he repeated the same accusations and I repeated my good faith proposition to once again give away my right to anonymity to some willing admin so he/she could check that I was not that user. No admin (except from the first one who ended up lifting my block a year ago) ever took up on my offer; Wee's accusations were simply ignored and his vitriol eventually dissipated until a new event like this one emerged.
    He now is asking that I be banned accused of being such a sock puppet so I think it would be better if the matter could be put to rest once and for all. This is my proposal: I will do absolutely anything it is required from me to prove I am not the user Wee accuses me of. I am prepared to give any admin here access to my FB and G+ accounts and will submit myself to any test that might be necessary to determine I am not that person. If I can't convince the admin I am not the person Wee accuses me of being, I will retire from WP myself. If on the other hand, the admin can check for him/herself I am not that person then I ask that Wee be banned from interacting with me. I believe this to be the only way his accusations and constant attacks will ever stop.
    Finally: please stop by the talk page of the article to see where the personal attacks and disruptive editing were coming from. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order: Wee did not say you are that user in his above statement, merely that you were blocked as a sock of that user.
    That said, the current issue is your assertion that Wee's statement was "racist." That needs to be withdrawn, as it's well agreed his comment was not racist. Once that's out of the way, we can look into the rest, if necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. Although I can not change what I believe I hereby withdraw my comment about Wee's Chavez remark being "borderline racist". I'll be more careful next time about commenting on what I could perceive as being "borderline racist".
    Now regarding the issue of constant sock puppet accusations by Wee: here are the diffs where he accused me of being a sock puppet of said user since last year (there could be more lost in between): 22 Jun 2012, 21 Sep 2012, 23 Sep 2012, 17 Dec 2012, 16 Jan 2013, 16 Jan 2013, 29 Jan 2013, 30 Jan 2013. Not counting the times he casually brings it up like he did here today. So I repeat the proposal I made above. Wee can provide the RLI of that blocked user and I will submit myself to absolutely any test that a voluntary admin might believe to be necessary in order to confirm I am not that person. If I fail to convince him/her then I will voluntarily retire from WP. If it can be proven I am not that editor then I ask for Wee Curry Monster to be banned from interacting with me. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're saying you'll make that offer again then I'll make the same response as last time. Ignoring WP:OUTING concerns for a moment, it would be trivial for an editor minded to sockpuppetry to make up an identity and even if Curry Monster had got it wrong there is almost no chance that the name would be the same as that provided by a sockmaster.
    Unless they were really quite stupid, a sockmaster would not give the same name as Curry Monster. A non-sockmaster also would not give the same name as Curry Monster. That your claimed RL identity does not match one provided by Curry Monster proves nothing because there are no circumstances in which you would ever have both given the same name.
    Here's the facts. You were blocked as a sockpuppet of Alex79818. More than one admin at the time opined that the evidence that you were the same person was convincing. And we can drive a coach and horses through the logic that saw you unblocked.
    Finally, the best way for you to avoid Curry Monster would be to avoid areas where he is likely to be around. That would be the Falklands for a start. And if, as you propose, an editor is to be sanctioned, it seems to me rather more logical that it should be for the editor who has already been warned and then blocked for personal attacks in the present discussion (then it was accusations of lying), and who has been brought here because of yet more personal attacks. Kahastok talk 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So your solution for having Wee stop attacking and accusing me of sock-puppetry is that I stop editing? And that sounds reasonable to you? Gaba p (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For editors here not aware: Kahastok and Wee were topic-banned not long ago from editing Gibraltar related articles. Their team behaviour over there (defending each other's edits and actions) is a clear reflection of what goes on at Falkland related articles (clearly seen in Kahastok's comment above). They have both quite a distinctive pro-British position which they attempt to enforce in articles covering Gibraltar and the Falklands, both former British colonies.

    Kahastok: Wee Curry Monster knows the RLI of that user. It's not just a name, it's his true identity as a person. I am not offering to give just my name to any admin that volunteers, I am offering to submit myself to absolutely any test to assert my identity and confirm I am not that person. If, like Wee, you too believe I am that editor then I offer you the same deal: if I can prove I am not that editor by once again giving away my right to anonymity and submitting myself to any test considered necessary, then you get an interaction ban on me.

    Just to be clear: I am not looking for sanctions on anybody here; unlike Wee and Kahastok who have been trying to have me banned for quite some time now. I just don't want to leave yet another ANI knowing that whenever Wee feels like throwing mud at me, the sock puppetry accusations will resurface again. If Wee makes here a pledge to not accuse me of being a sock puppet of that editor again then this can be dropped instantly. Otherwise I see no other way around this. An editor can't possibly be allowed to accuse another editor of being a sock puppet time and again with no consequences whatsoever.
    If giving away my right to anonymity in WP and agreeing to submit myself to any test considered necessary are not enough to put an end to sock puppetry accusations then what is? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction, some time ago whilst in bad state mentally, as it happens I suffer from PTSD from my service in the British Army, I went through a period of being quite uncivil. It was uncharacteristic, I acknowledged my faults, accepted a topic ban and I've not repeated the same behaviour since. Constantly bringing up a case from the past, something that is painful for me to acknowledge but which is actually irrelevant is contrary to WP:CIVIL. Its trying to muddy the waters and its not the first time Gaba P has done it.
    Sadly it seems on wikipedia that once sanctioned for any reason, it can be dragged up with impunity purely to cause personal anguish. Pointing fingers at the mentally ill seems to be a common bloodsport on here.
    I just want to put Gaba P's comments into context his initial unblock request was refused, as the sock puppet case was compelling, he was later given the benefit of the doubt after assistance from me and later warned not to continue the personal attacks in the same vein. User:Alex79818 plagued me for years, despite that I gave Gaba P the benefit of the doubt and co-operated with having him unblocked, only for that to be repaid by Gaba P conducting a vendetta ever since trying to get me sanctioned. If he had left me alone, if he hadn't started the frivolous cases at ANI, then I would have felt no need to comment on the sock puppet case at all. As noted above he was recently blocked for personal attacks and has come back doing the same. That has to be the worst none apology I've seen here in a while. He managed to repeat the same allegation three times.
    And no I'm not after him banned, I just want the constant personal attacks stopped. I don't seek interaction with him, he seeks me out wherever I edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of corrections are needed after Wee's comment above.
    1. He never "cooperated" with my unblock. He didn't even bother stopping by my talk page after I was blocked following an accusation by him. This can easily be checked by going through my block archive. I searched and found by myself the information that he knew the RLI of this blocked user and Wee only provided it after I asked an admin to request it from him. Again, this can all be easily confirmed looking at my block archive.
    2. I've started only 2 cases at ANI: the first after Wee refused to stop re-factoring my comments (which ended up with him agreeing no to do it again) and the second one after he and Kahastok completely deleted a section from an article with no consensus. The section in question could only be re-installed a couple of days ago after a month of work by at least 6 editors and both these editors attempted to remove it on sight once again: [90][91][92][93].
    3. Wee is definitely after me being banned, at least from Falkland related articles. He even asked that much not long ago. When the admin suggested that he too be topic banned from Falkland related articles he said "fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here" (never really left)
    4. "he seeks me out wherever I edit", he edits (almost?) exclusively in Falkland and Gibraltar articles. If I edit on any Falkland related article he will be there. I am a part of the Falkland Islands work group just like Wee but unlike him I have other interests too. I have so far edited in no more than 4-5 Falkland related articles of the several dozens around, yet Wee still accuses me of following him around.
    Wee, I will not bother commenting on your accusations of "personal attacks" since they are simply a way to distract attention from the fact that you have still not agreed to stop accusing me of being a sock puppet. You either agree to stop your accusations or we look for admin to check whether I am or not the same person as that blocked user. If I have to once again give away my right to anonymity because of your constant accusations and once again an admin decides I am not that person then you get an interaction ban on me. You can't expect me to just sit down and take your "sock-puppet" accusations whenever you feel like throwing mud at me. One way or another this needs to stop. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, point of order re: your #1: If you had followed the diff, you'd have seen that the unblocking admin was convinced in part by an email from Wee. That he did not comment on your talk page is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see diffs are being abused again to paint a misleading picture, see [94], [95], I self-reverted shortly after the diffs presented above. I realised two wrongs don't make a right and fixed it, including an apology to the originating editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: that email from Wee was only issued after I asked admin JamesBWatson to check into it after I serendipitously found out that Wee knew this user's RLI by myself. Wee absolutely never bothered to stop by my talk page to make any kind of comment after making the accusation and getting me blocked and most certainly did not send that email out of the kindness of his heart. He did so because an administrator asked him to and only after I had revealed my RLI as a last resort to get my account back.
    Note that he still refuses to address the point of calling me a sock puppet which means he has no intention of dropping it. I can not accept that this editor has the privilege of accusing me of being a sock puppet every time he wishes to. How is that not a gross breach of WP:CIVIL? What else can I do to stop these accusations other than what I've already proposed? Gaba p (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As an outside comment with no interaction with any of the above, I can say that whenever I have seen Gaba p and WCM come up at noticeboards recently (this year) it ALWAYS ends up with WCM bringing up Gaba was blocked as a sockpuppet. (Erroneously as it turns out). Can an admin please tell WCM to stop doing this unless he actually thinks Gaba is a sockpuppet, and to take that accusation to SPI. Its getting very tiresome and serves no purpose other than to deliberately wind up Gaba as anyone can see above. And no hiding behind 'well I didnt say you WERE a sockpuppet'. Bringing it up at every opportunity is deliberately planting the idea. Its just as bad. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The block and unblock discussion is here User talk:Gaba p/Archive 1.
    A condition of his unblock was to stop personal attacks [96] to edit constructively and collaboratively. He has continued to be confrontational and aggressive and has pursued a vendetta against me ever since.
    The faux outrage about any mention of the sock puppet case is merely a distraction tactic from the issue of his battleground mentality. I bring it up because it is relevant, nothing more, nothing less. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that:
    1- this has been going for over a year now and Wee shows absolutely no intentions of dropping his constant accusations (even regarding my repeated requests that he stops doing so as "faux outrage") and
    2- he comments on my "battleground mentality" when he can't even bring himself to agree to stop attacking me with false accusations of being a sock puppet,
    I believe it is time to address this issue in an ANI report of its own. Unless an admin here proposes another solution I'll be opening a new ANI to deal specifically with this in the coming days. I refuse to accept that this user can simply decide not to stop calling me a sock puppet. Finally: please any editor reading this head on over to the talk page of the article where this started and see for yourselves who has the battleground mentality. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been warned before about threatening to take people to ANI as well. It very rarely helps.
    I don't believe that Curry Monster is accusing you of sockpuppetry here. But it is not unreasonable of him to point out that since being unblocked with a stern warning to stop personally attacking people, remove the POV from your edits and remove the battleground mentality. You have continued to personally attack people and continued with the battleground mentality, and continued to edit from a POV - to the extent that not so long ago, in our current discussion, you were actually citing Argentina's foreign minister as a neutral and reliable source. And let's remember which editor has already been blocked at ANI - when discussing the same point - for repeatedly accusing other editors of lying. It wasn't Curry Monster. And it wasn't me.
    Even when you were unblocked, your style was seen as "aggressive and confrontational", and it has not become significantly less so. The fact that it was a sockpuppetry block is irrelevant to this point - if it had been a 3RR block the point would be the same. You were told to change your style and you have not done so. Kahastok talk 14:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kahastok's continued attacks on me teaming with Wee are not unusual since he behaves the same way everywhere (just ask User:Michael_Glass[97], or User:Martinvl[98], or User:Ecemaml[99] who dealt with them in Gibraltar articles). Talk about abusing diffs, I used the Buenos Aires Herald as a source which happened to be quoting said minister. When that source was questioned I immediately (exactly 20 minutes later) changed the proposed wording and source used. Incidentally, notice Kahastok's completely random mud throwing.

    This is exactly why I'm proposing (notice the difference with "threatening" Kahastok?) to open a new ANI to deal specifically with this. Both Wee and Kahastok keep looking for ways to accuse me of anything instead of addressing the issue of repeated accusation of sock puppetry. I'll wait until tomorrow and, if nothing else is proposed, open a new report. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stone me. If there is going to be another war... I think we know where it's gonna start What you mean, it already has?!?!?! Basket Feudalist 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaba p and Langus txt, Lord knows I did not want to comment or interact with you again, but Gaba, your tactics never change and editors and administrators need to know the truth. You keep trying to "change the subject of your abusive attacks and comments" hoping they forget the real problem here. Well, I will never forget. I tried to make some edits on the "article", and to defend an obvious untruths against another editor, and this is what I got. [100] It should be noted that it was on YOUR talkpage, even though it is signed by Langus txt, that is strange enough, but then you left it there until I found it and removed it myself. You should be blocked for that alone, along with your "alter-ego?" Langus txt. Mugginsx (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, whilst I saw how you were treated by both, it has to be noted that Langus-TxT has made an effort to edit in a more collegial manner of late. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe it, perhaps he likes to play to both sides, I really do not know. One thing I do know, he is NOT sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the love of god Mugginsx, not again. User Mugginsx appears out of the blue every time to defend Wee and viciously attack me (and sometimes editor Langus too). This user does not take part of the discussions in any way but nevertheless shows up whenever Wee is in trouble. This is the third ANI this user has showed up to do the exact same thing: [101][102] always asking that I be sanctioned in one way or another. Your comment on editor Langus is so amazingly random I am lost for words. You appeared in my talk page accusing me of stalking Wee (just like he does, nevermind it is completely untrue) and Langus responded to you. I don't even want to consider that you might be accusing me and Langus of what I think you are accusing me and Langus, so I'll just leave it at that.
    Wee's replies just reinforce my idea to open a new ANI to deal with the constant accusations of sock puppetry. He's had the chance to either agree to not do it again or take me to SPI as Only in death does duty end suggested above but instead has chosen to continue attacking me aided by Kahastok and now apparently Mugginsx too. This needs to stop. Gaba p (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Gaba for proving my point. For heavens sakes, did you not even read what you linked here? Here we go again back to "changing the subject" Your characterization of my remark on your page does not have any similarity to the truth. My relationship with any editor you mention is true ONLY IN YOUR MIND. On the other hand, you believe you can make the seamy attack aimed at me [103] in the "first person" on YOUR page look just "innocent and random". For once you have made me laugh. Mugginsx (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mugginsx please stop for a second and think what exactly you are talking about. I characterized your uncalled for attack on my talk page that I was "stalking Wee" as nonsense and I have absolutely no problem saying it here too. It was and still is utter nonsense. If you want to take that as a "seamy attack" there's really nothing I can do about it. The ones changing the topic here are Wee, Kahastok and now yourself and nothing changes the fact that you appear out of the blue whenever Wee needs a hand throwing mud at either me or editor Langus or both. Your behaviour has gotten really old by now.
    Thank you for proving that attempting to discuss the matter of Wee's constant sock puppetry accusations at this ANI report will be near impossible. Unless an admin advises otherwise I'll open a new report tomorrow. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As you well know, I never mentioned any names in that link you gave here or anywhere else and you also know full well which remark I am talking about that I described as seamy. I have linked it here twice. Please do not try to act dumb with me. It does not become a physicist. Mugginsx (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were accusing me of "stalking" some other editor? Which editor was that? Considering that you had already accused me of stalking Wee previously (should I present links proving this?), I think we both now that is exactly what you were doing. The link you gave here twice is me calling your accusations of "stalking" in my talk page nonsense. Your accusation of "acting dumb" are just bizarre. Mugginsx I'll ask you to please stop disrupting the discussion. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we put the full disgusting message left for me on your talk page here for all to see Gaba? As for My message to you on your talkpage, it was a sincere suggestion that you might benefit from mentoring and my offer to help find you someone qualified to help you. I see you conveniently left that off the link you provided which no matter how many times you say it, does NOT mention any names. Do you think everyone here is a fool? Is that it? Do you think you are so clever that you can say anything and editors will believe you? If so, that is dillusional thinking my fellow editor and I advise you to stop playing this little, and I do mean little mind game of yours. Mugginsx (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mugginsx mate, I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I have a discussion with you.
    1- I know it is utterly disrupting the discussion at hand but for god's sake please put up the "full disgusting message" I left for you on my talk page because I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
    2- The link I provided is exactly the same link you provided here twice (!!)
    3- Finally: here's the proof that you had already falsely accused me of stalking Wee by the time you appeared on my talk page out of the blue three months later to accuse me of stalking "certain editors". If you are implying that in your accusation you meant some other editor then please say who because, once again, I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Gaba p (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I already did, more than once. Don't you pay attention? You seem to like to sound smug and superior Gaba but you come across as neither. If you do not think that message on your talk page was inappropriate and yes, disgusting, then there is something very wrong with your idea of propriety on Wikipedia. They were rude, insulting and sexist. Further, you seem to come to every discussion like it is a "game" to you and that you are the smartest player and everyone else just can't help but believe what you say. I agree with you that you must feel like you are in the Twilight Zone and I have no doubt you are confused when someone calls you to reality. You know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You seem to make a game out of this to amuse yourself - look at your edit count - under 20% of it is content editing - the rest is talk. It is almost as if you enjoy seeing yourself in print regardless of what you have to say to do it. I don't. I am through with you. Editors and Administrators can find the links and see the obvious if they want to. I am going back to content editing which is what I do. You can continue to attack, evade, change and widen the parameters of the discussion, and then to maintain ignorance and innocence when it suits you. You have already been blocked more than once. I fear if you do not change, you will be blocked again. Mugginsx (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please clearly link to the message you're referring to? So far the only message I've seen linked is [104]. While Gaba P's edit summary and subject title change was rude, as is the message by Langus-TxT, I don't see any anything sexist there and it definitely doesn't seem as bad as the message you seem to be referring to (I definetly wouldn't call it disgusting). I admit I may be missing some contex here as I have no idea who youknowho refers to. But if the message by Langus in my link is what you're referring to, then you may want to explain why it's so bad. All it seems to be is a rudely written accusation of possible meatpuppetry or inappropiate collobration combined with an accusation of stalking, hounding and fixation on certain editors, which is wrong particularly when nsupported. But unfortunately these sort of accusations and messages seem to be flying both ways here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a bit more digging and found out you are female. I see historically Gaba P referred to you as 'he', while I understand this can be offensive, it is common. When it was pointed out to them you self identified as female they said something like 'they'd seen no evidence but would call you she', this could be seen as offensive if the meaning is they don't believe you are female but I think our only option here is to AGF they actually meant they'd never seen where you self identified as female. There was also some kerfuffle over a case where Gaba P said something along the lines of you being fond of Wee. This would be highly inappropriate if they were suggesting you had some sort of romantic feelings or 'crush' on Wee but they have said this was not their intention and I would agree with others who commented at the time that I'm just not seeing it. Note that I don't see how their could be anything sexist about it since from what I can tell Gaba P wasn't even aware you were female at the time so even if your intepretation was correct, it seems clear they could not be making the assumption that was the case because of your sex. I'm not sure if the same problem arises here. If youknowho refers to Wee I can see how the remarks by Langus could be intepreted as suggesting you had some sort of romantic feelings or crush on Wee. But while it's slightly more possible here then the Gaba P case, I'm just not seeing it particularly given the comment on whether you are related. In any case, since the comments weren't written by Gaba P, I don't think you can blame them for not seeing the same ting you're seeing which as I've said is far from clear in my eyes. Note that even if Langus had meant it in they way I brought up, while the comments would be highly inapproriate, they aren't necessarily sexist. Are you even sure Langus is aware you are female or do you have any reason to think their suggestions arose because of you sex (or for that matter that they're thinking of it in a romantic or sexual sort of way as opposed to a more 'stalker fan' sort of way)? If you really feel that strongly about it, I'd suggest you seek clarification from Langus, hopefully this could be sufficiently resolved in the manner of Gaba P's comments of you being fond of Wee. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the love of god Mugginsx. Could you please tell me what comment of mine you are referring to as "nasty" and "vile"? This is seriously getting ridiculous.
    Nil Einne: I referred to her as a he in the beginning just by default. I commented that I had no "evidence" but would call her a "she" because it was Wee who pointed out I should refer to her as a female, not her. She never once told me she found my referring to her as "he" offensive (did she?). I commented on her (at the time I didn't even know she was a woman) being "fond" of Wee because she would come out of the blue to defend him ferociously (like she's doing here) I absolutely did not meant it in a romantic way but in the "having a liking or affection" way. I checked with an admin if that message could be interpreted as sexist and he came to the same conclusion you did. In any case I'm not even sure anymore if that is what she's talking about or if it is the comment by editor Langus that she linked here twice. If the case is the latter then again, I have absolutely no idea what she's talking about and it wasn't even me who made that comment. If you could explain it to me (given that she seems not willing to do so) I'd appreciate it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban

    After the above comments, it is clear that both parties have engaged in very uncivil behavior. Wee frequently makes sockpuppet accusations, while Gaba has made claims of racism (albeit, borderline), a violation of WP: NPA. The atrocious amount of manure flinging, as well as innumerable attempts to get each other's WP: GOAT, as well as the odd comments strawman by Mugginsx clearly establish that there is a problem in dire need of a solution. Ergo, I believe that a topic ban on Falklands-related articles, IMHO, on both editors would be an appropriate course of action. However, I will support an interaction ban if the community finds that a better solution to the problem. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 04:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No that is not a fair or accurate appreciation of the situation. Point of fact at every WP:ANI discussion it has been remarked that I have remained civil despite some very strong provocation. I have been called a liar, a racist, a POV pusher, a British nationalist and a hardcore Falklander. He even called me a liar at ANI and was encouraged to do so.
    Gaba P wants me to be topic banned that much is plain - you'll propose to give hime exactly what he wants. He creates the poisonous atmosphere, I don't.
    Further I don't make sock puppet allegations,I refer to the original unblocking for a good reason. We see a huge faux over-reaction claiming I am doing so but its a distraction tactic to draw attention away from the warnings on his uncivil behaviour and his battleground mentality. As User:Basalisk noted at the 2nd ANI case it is a case of one editor paralysing an entire topic - and its instructive to note that within hrs of Gaba p being blocked for 31 hrs for incivility the editors remaining agreed on a consensus that proved elusive with his presence.
    Gaba P constantly displays the kind of battleground mentality and uncivil demeanor that should have seen him blocked long ago. He covers it up very successfully by spraying around a lot of false accusations, throws in a couple of diffs (which don't support the accusation but they're not checked anyway) and he gets away with it time and agin. The message I'm getting quite loudly is that I am wasting my time expecting anyone at ANI to enforce civil and in reality I'm probably adding to my stress levels unnecessarily by remaining civil in the face of such provocation as I may as well vent back - it doesn't matter as I will be sanctioned for being the victim of his WP:HOUNDing. He has pursued a childish vendetta for a year to get revenge for being blocked and you're proposing to give him what he wants - to get someone with a great deal of knowledge about Falklands history topic banned. Absolutely brilliant.
    You want this to stop, make this a one way interaction ban - stop him hounding me. I don't seek him out and if I were to abuse it I would expect you to block me indefinitely. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And another thing, though he was blocked, I was convinced to give him a chance and help with his unblocking. My reward for that was to be hounded by the guy for a year and no one has stopped him doing so. You propose to reward my WP:AGF by topic banning me from an area where I have made a huge contribution. Gee thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have some sympathy to those who feel someone is a sockpuppet but for various reason it hasn't been firmly established e.g. a previous sockpuppetry case was inconclusive, ultimately there comes a point where you have to put up or shut up. Particularly when the aggrevied party is clearly annoyed by your accusations. In other words, if a user remains unblocked, either put together a successful SPI or stop making the accusations until such time you can. Except that unless I missed it, you have refused to undertake to stop making such accusations instead suggesting it's not an issue. In fact above you appear to be suggesting you do not make such allegations instead simply refer to original unblock. Except I've seen myself from links in this thread e.g. [105] [106] that you are or were very recently, so your comments in defence are actually reenforcing my view below. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, while I haven't looked that much at the articles and talk pages, I'm tempted to support based on the fact when doing some research I found most ANI discussions that I saw involving them seem to amount to large walls of text with those two and one or two other regular participants, and very little outside participation. If this sort of thing is going on at ANI, I can only imagine what's happening in he actual disputes and what I have seen and read seems to confirm it ain't pretty. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I deserve a topic ban, I remained civil throughout a discussion that came about after Wee edit-warred to remove a whole section form an article[107][108][109] not caring that the RfC that Wee himself opened in no way permitted him to do so. Just read the comments by the closing editor[110][111][112] on that RfC. Wee did not care and removed the section anyway. After this came a whole month of re-factoring the section where, contrary to what Wee says here, it was him and Kahastok who kept blocking the consensus. A simple look at the talk page con prove this, please go take a look. Wee even made an issue of a minor edit himself later called "too fucking trivial to argue about" but he made an issue out of it anyway[113]. That is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.
    Wee accuses me of hounding (one of many things he accuses me of), how about a single diff? How about when I edited an article Wee had not edited for a month and a half and he immediately started lobbying[114][115] accusing me of multiple things (much like he did in his comment above)? The answers he got[116][117] were not was he was expecting so he moved to attack me in the talk page of the article. My exchange in the talk page of that article with other editors had gone without a single issue, while Wee's first comment there was a direct attack on me accusing me of "soap-boxing".
    Is calling me a "dick" repeatedly[118][119] being civil? Is calling me a "filibuster" a dozen times in a ten day time span[120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131] being civil? Is calling me a "sock puppet" for over a year (and dismissing my repeated requests that he drops it as "faux outrage") [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139] being civil? The talk page history proves I have remained civil, again please take a look.
    A simple way for this to stop would be to block Wee from interacting with me. That takes care of the accusations (all of them) he has no intention of dropping, I'm spared having to give away my right to anonymity once again and we both can continue editing. I am not the first editor to have issues with Wee (and Kahastok) and his WP:OWN mentality, as can be easily proven[140][141][142]. He had an infinite amount of chances throughout the last year, and an enormous amount just here in this discussion, to agree to stop accusing me of being a sock puppet (or take me to SPI) and refused every time. Now it's being proposed that I be topic banned along with him. This is definitely not fair. Gaba p (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User: Der Kommisar, I think your characterization of my comments as "odd" is unfair. I think if you read the message that I linked which I had to remove from Gaba p's page, you would agree that it is not a message you would like your mother or sister to receive. I would ask that you strike-through your remark that characterizes my comments as "odd". They were a normal reaction to a very nasty message, especially to a woman. I could have requested to have him blocked but chose to give him a chance to apologize, which, of course, he never did. I did begin to edit on that article but chose to back away after seeing the hositility between editors and then vile comments made to me personally. Mugginsx (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In answer to Nil Einne. Yes I do still entertain a suspicion of sock puppetry. I deliberately did not bring it up here as its not the place. I agree I shouldn't have mentioned it previously; mea culpa. I am minded to go to SPI with the behavioural evidence but a two way interaction ban would be chilling in that respect.

    The reason I did mention the previous block was simply because it marks nearly a year of near constant personal attacks, confrontation and aggression from Gaba p, when a year ago he was warned to stop it. He never has, in fact as he has escaped two previous ANI episodes without sanction, he has merely got bolder and bolder in the way he does it.

    I see Gaba is making a great deal of me referring to WP:DICK as in to stop behaving like one. I am not calling him a DICK. Leave me alone Gaba, stop the constant personal attacks and guess what I'll not mention it again.

    Filibustering, yes he does that. I've provided evidence previously that demonstrates it completely. A common feature is to demand evidence in the form of sourcing, you do so, he then demands it again claiming it was never supplied. Repeat ad nauseum and you get the reason for those long tracts of text going back and forth.

    One of the more bizarre aspects of wikipedia is you expect me to discuss matters to achieve a consensu with a guy like Gaba P. In a parallel with Randy from Idaho and the skeleton theory, you expect editors used to neutral writing to discuss matters with extreme nationalists to find the neutral ground.

    I do that, then when it gets to ANI, those long tracts of text are evidence of me being a problem. I don't do it and I'll no doubt be accused of not co-operating to find a consensus.

    Either way you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't.

    Really even for wikipedia this is bizarre. Acting in good faith, I help an editor looking at whether there is room for reasonable doubt in a sock puppet case. Per WP:OUT I should not have revealed RLI of even a sock puppet. I took a risk, JamesBWatson took a risk, my reward for doing so has been for Gaba P to pursue a vendetta for vengeance for the original block ever since.

    Really I have reached the point where I am just about done with wikipedia.

    A topic ban in my case is purely punitive for being the brunt of Gaba P's obsessive behaviour that is really online stalking. The fact that as the victim of his aggression I now face being topic banned from an area where I have made a huge contribution is not only a huge slap in the face but also a monumental injustice.

    Gaba P has set out to get me sanctioned for over a year, even if it takes himself down. All I've asked is that he leaves me alone to get on with the editing I used to enjoy. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Without wanting to double-guess people's political opinions as such, I have little doubt that I would (probably strongly) disagree with WCM's on these matters; however I think a TB would be an outrageous affront to a current editor, and a deterent to future editors. No topic ban please, in the name of sanity. Basket Feudalist 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1- Wee still keeps accusing me of being a sock puppet even after I gave away my right to anonymity and after I have proposed here to do just about anything it takes to have him stop accusing me of such. This has been going one for a year now.
    2- You didn't call me a "dick"? "stop being a complete and utter WP:DICK"[143], "it really is about time you grew up and stop being a WP:DICK"[144]. People can follow and read diffs Wee.
    3- Filibustering is but one of the things Wee has accused me in the last year. "POV pusher", "disruptive editor", "sock puppet", "stalker", etc are among the other things he has accused me of. It only takes a brief look through the talk pages of the handful of articles I've tried to contribute and Wee has tried to run me off: Falkland Islands, Self-determination and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.
    4- Wee's bias when editing earned him a topic ban not long ago and as I've said, I am not nearly the only editor with whom he has had trouble in WP[145][146][147].
    5- He keeps telling how he "helped" with my unblock when he did not bother showing up once by my talk page after accusing me of being a sock puppet and getting my account blocked. He only presented evidence for the RLI of that other editor after I found that he knew who he was and after I asked an admin to please check it out as a last resort to have my account un-blocked. That Wee thinks he can claim here that he "helped" me in any way is laughable.
    6- He just keeps on accusing me of "hounding" him but has yet to present a single diff of me doing so. This is just another one of his non-stop unfounded personal attacks and, as I've proven above, he did follow me over to an article to attack me not two months ago.
    7- Again he accuses me of trying to "get him banned" (without a single diff to prove that much) when I can prove that exactly the contrary is true. He has asked that I be banned/blocked in one form or another since last September.
    Please stop by the talk page and see for yourselves how the interaction between me, Wee and other editors over there went about and decide which editor was being abrasive. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic banned. Lets make way (some breathing room) for other less confrontational editors to work on theses articles. These two have dominated the talk pages on this topic drowning out others with there walls of text ABOUT each other (as above). In the name of sanity - time for others to get a word in.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. Mugginsx (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    RE Muggins, I characterized your comment as "odd" as a courtesy. I won't argue that the comment was not a nice thing to say, but you deliberately turned it into a strawman, misinterpreting Langus' comment as Gaba's, which is another accusation of sockpuppetry (another factor to be considered, along with the unsupported !vote). However, if you wish me to strike out my comments, I shall. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Since their debut(s), most of the NYC area bus route articles have had each route terminal's locale (and associated rapid transit services) wikilinked no matter how many times the locale (and services) appears in a table. There are a few tables on each page.

    In the article: List of bus routes in the Bronx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), user: Other Side One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started undoing all the edits that I was making so the tables would "match" the other (at least six) articles that contain such tables. At that time, the tables in that specific article were a patchwork of locales' wikilinks and non-links (black text). User also stated on my talk page that I gave them a vague reason (yes, I did originally) why all the links should stay, but it appears the other editor never saw my post on their talk page (two days later) that gave a non-vague reason (since then, this editor has posted on my talk page). Recently, the other editor has edited the tables in List of bus routes in Queens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) accomplishing the same thing (reversing all the wikilinks under the edit summaries of "GOOD FAITH"), although the Bronx article has not been re-reversed at this time. I contend that the links should stay as they have generally always been there with no complaint and the links make for a better wiki experience for the reader (and the editor) by not having to search as many as (or more than) 100 entries in the tables to find a link (or not) to a locale. Also, in my opinion, the links make the table look cleaner.

    Diffs: (Bronx article)
    It started with one link here: [Feb 7, 2013]

    then this whole section: [Feb 9, 2013]

    and this section also: [Feb 9, 2013 (2)]

    then my reversals: [Feb 10, 2013]

    undo from other editor: [Feb 23, 2013]

    and my undo to the previous undo: [Feb 26, 2013]

    (Queens article)
    One time: [Feb 26, 2013]

    I will wait to do any further editing on the Queens article (or any further "undos") until there is a response/resolution to this dispute.

    Thank you for your time and attention with this matter.

      --SkipperRipper (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As per WP:OVERLINK, the first time something is mentioned in an article it can and should be wikilinked - future ones should not be. It doesn't matter if someone had failed to remove them a week ago or a year ago. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But here's the rub in regard to "overlinking", this "article" is more a collection of tables, as opposed to a regular "paragraphs" and "sentences" article. I agreed and even stated that in a "regular" article that over/repeating linking should never be done. Under WP:REPEATLINK it is stated: "Even within these general limits, the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." The linking here does not hurt the value of other links...
    Thanks for the expedient response. --SkipperRipper (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And that was the basis of my whole point in removing the redundant wikilinks...both this and plain ol' common sense. This is nothing personal against SkipperRipper and any other editor, I was only acting on good faith. Other Side One (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm tarnished because I think that "List of Bus routes..." articles are a brutal and non-encyclopedic topic. List-of's should only provide a table of contents to existing articles, not provide route schedules (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bwilkins! How refreshing to find that I am in perfect agreement with you! This is making a shitty day a lot better. One day we'll tackle the policy/guidelines for lists, one day... Drmies (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the question of whether we should have these pages...when something is not linked outside of a sortable table, it should either be linked nowhere in the table or everywhere — our tables are sortable many different ways, so it's going to be easy to make it so that the link appears in the middle or the bottom instead of the top. If you're a reader, you're going to be confused if you sort it multiple ways and then look for the link: "Where's that link? Why don't they just link it the other times?" Much better to make it so that readers can click the link every time or none of them, in order to spare them the time of looking for a link. Now...I must say that I agree with the idea of getting rid of these pages. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See you at AfD, Nyttend: I'll gladly follow. I'm not leading, since there's a million J-pop fans out for my balls already and I can't multitask that well. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are we building an encyclopedia or are we hosting bus schedules?  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm in the "more links are better" camp, particularly with tables, and especially those that are sortable (which are cited as exceptions to the one link "rule"). Having them all linked looks less messy than only some links, is certainly more user-friendly than making the reader search for a link (and wonder why some aren't linked), etc. In other sites, you would never see the "one link rule" used on a table (or most of the time, even in articles). I think additional links rarely diminish the value of existing links unless you start linking common words that are likely never to be followed. What's more, I think there are a significant number of editors, and even more readers, that agree. (Tangentially, I don't think WP is the place for rapidly changing things like big city bus schedules, airport destination tables, etc. It just doesn't seem practical to keep them accurate, nor are they likely to be used much unless they add a lot of value over the official sites, which seems unlikely). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – User blocked. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    This might be a genuine trademark/copyright violation issue, but it also seems like it could qualify as a legal threat, so I thought I'd bring it here just to make sure it gets seen.[148] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sockpuppetry risk (Not SPI ready)

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

    Resolved
     – by BWilkins' messages at User talk:Greysony11 and User talk:Pandalover-11.--Chaser (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings.

    23:36, 28 February 2013 User account Pandalover-11 (talk | contribs) was created by Greysony11 (talk | contribs)

    This caught my attention in the New Users log, both have RedLinks for user, talk and contributions. I'm not sure if this is a SockPuppetry risk or anything but wanted to bring it to the attention of the experienced. Thoughts? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That depends: alternate accounts are permitted under specific circumstances (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that these accounts were created four minutes apart screams sockpuppetry to me, although its probably somebody who is unaware that it is prohibited. Additionally, neither of them has edited yet, so after they have edited, I'd recommend contacting Pandalover-11. If this is an unintentional rule-breaking, the Pandalover account will ask to be shut down, correct? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask why the OP has not notified both accounts of this ANI filing, as is required? That might actually help with getting some clarification. How about welcoming new users? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for a strong reaction at this time. BWilkins' suggestion of welcoming and then trying to get clarification and understanding may be a better and friendlier first approach. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Madagascar

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

    Resolved

    Needs checked. Last edit cut a citation in half and left a mess, but can't edit it myself, protected page. LCS check (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor noticed the problem and has fixed it. Thanks for reporting -- Dianna (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Charsadda District, Pakistan, Charsadda

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

    Resolved
     – Both pages semi-protected for 3 months

    These pages were unprotected today after being semi-protected for a week[149] because IP editors were repeatedly re-adding a badly written, unsourced, irrelevant wall'o'text. Here's a sample:

    Shamozai, Sultan khel belong to Sultan Muhammad Khan. Famous personalities are Saddar Sarfaraz khan (late) is a president of Khudi Khidmatgar Tanzeem before Abdul Gaffar khan(Bacha khan),Nawab Shanawaz khan(late),Qazi Muhammad khan(salar sab)tha first president of all Muslim league, Ameer khesro khan (late) EX-MPA,Tila Muhammad Khan (late)Chief engr in PWD,Abdullah jan khan EX- MD Wapda, Haji Muhammad Yaqoob khan (late) Cherman MC Utmanzai,Haji saad ullah khan (late) is also a member o khudi khidmat gar tanzeem and a great business man

    The whole text is much longer, but this gives you an idea; there's no need for me to repost the whole thing here. After I removed the content from Charsadda this morning, one of the IPs left me a message on my talk page telling me to stop.[150] I had tried to engage on Talk:Charsadda District, Pakistan before the pages were protected, but to no avail. And some of the involved IPs have been warned on their talk pages and even blocked for edit-wars, but the edits continue under other IPs. I don't think this is going to stop on its own, is what I'm saying. I don't know if maybe another semi-protect or blocking a range of IPs would be appropriate, but I thought I'd bring it here to at least get some more sets of eyes on it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added both pages to my watchlist, notified the user of this discussion and left a 3RR warning on the IP's talk page. Looks like those pages may need protecting again, but we'll have to wait and see. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 07:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Our anonymous friend came back for another visit, so both pages have been semi-protected for 3 months by User:Black Kite. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 19:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP vios from IP

    110.174.34.129 (talk · contribs) seems to be on some sort of weird agenda, adding what appears to be BLP-violations as well as unsourced additions to various articles (see contribs). A second pair of eyes is requested, and judging from their talk page warnings doesn't work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 72 hours, hopefully he would stop. Yes it's radical POV pushing and WP:BLP violations. Secret account 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued misinformation vandalism by anonymous user

    User:94.55.149.54 has continued blatant misinformation vandalism after being given a final warning. Two of their four edits since that final warning have been definite vandalism; I don't know about the other two, but they don't get the benefit of the doubt IMHO. Evidence for blocking here. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong venue - persistent vandalism such as this should go to WP:AIV. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 07:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The notice on AIV states that vandalism must be ongoing or very recent (and I've been told previously that I should post elsewhere when this wasn't the case). However, I'll post there and cite your comment as backup. Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing on Buyid dynasty

    User:HistoryofIran has been repeatedly removing Kurdish, which is referenced, from the possible origins of the Buyid dynasty. HistoryofIran was reverted twice by Gomada,[151][152] then added more reference(s) for Dailamite while removing Kurdish again.[153]

    I restored, " or Kurdish origin"[154] and posted a warning to User:HistoryofIran,[155], stating that if he removed Kurdish again without consensus, I would report him. User:HistoryofIran's response was, "Then do it, i don't really care.. because im writing the truth, false edit summary? i even added two more sources that they were only Daylimites, now what are you going to say about that? im giving you this day to answer me back or else i will change it back.".[156] Whereupon, HistoryofIran removed Kurdish again adding some website by a ?Paul White? as a reference. I checked the website and found nothing that says, "Buyids were not Kurdish".[157]

    As of this moment, User:HistoryofIran has reverted Gomada and myself, 4 times:[158],[159],[160],[161]. It is only because of HistoryofIran's talking via edit summaries and not on the talk page, that this has been filed.
    It is clear this user either does not or will not use the talk page to work with other editors. I believe an Admin is needed to resolve this disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HistoryofIran has similar contributions in Zazas article. He/she is deleting all sources. You can check his/her last contribution. Many users reverted his contributions but he/she keeps to delete sources. I warned him 3 days ago to discuss on talk page before he deletes sources but he/she doesnt care.--Gomada (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Polllilur

    This user has created a number of articles about 'projected books' by 'Philip Timmins' who, according to the (deleted) article about him, is still at school (13). The other articles created by this user are very brief and about various wars and battles. I had blocked the user to prevent more 'novels', but then found the battles and have unblocked pending a review here. Some may be genuine, but I can't find the Burmese–Siamese War (1849–1855) for one, and have doubts about the others, despite there being work done by respected editors (categorising, etc). I'd be obliged if someone could look into these articles and see if there are any genuine refs for them. I'm not a frequenter of AN/I, but this is the only place I could think of to bring this to. I'm going offline now, and I hope someone can get to the bottom of this lot. Peridon (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See Military history of Burma#Siam (1849–1855). None of the other battles are hoaxes. The Burmese–Siamese series of wars come from redlinks at Burmese–Siamese wars. I suspect that the "nonexistant sites" are copying errors. Polllilur (talk · contribs) seems unaware of the hyphen.--Auric talk 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For example the article Battle of Wuchale was originally sourced from the url "www.traveloxi.com/city.phd?location.--e/n/wuchale", a corrupted version of http://www.traveloxi.com/city.php?location=/en/wuchale, using wikipedia information. Battle of Madab had "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_battles_1400_1800". The proper article is List of battles 1401–1800 (note the hyphen in the correct link).--Auric talk 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I can't speak for the Timmins books and associated articles, Auric is dead on about the method to the madness. S/he started by creating articles from redlinks at Wand Bewossen. Then went to List of battles 1401–1800. Battle of Qlobaa was not a hoax, but a misspelling of Battle of Qolobaa, also spelled Qoloba. Not sure if the editor understands English. Several msgs were posted to his talk page letting him know that using Wikipedia as a citation was not acceptable; the editor never responded, but rather kept creating inappropriately sourced articles. Cindy(talk to me) 00:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lesson learned: The "battle of fagetta" with characters that sound out of a Batman movie is not necessarily a hoax. Must read more about the history of Ethiopia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Timmins article gave a DoB indicating 13 as the age. As I can't see anyone else writing about his planned novels, I assume that this is him himself. From the name, I would assume a knowledge of English. The description included 'child historian'... Peridon (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a suspicion that the editor was young (WP:CHILD).--Auric talk 15:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is now editing as User:Baeer. A new Timmins article and the Battle of Qolobaa - both deleted as hoaxes by different admins (not me). Peridon (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "I created a page" edit summary he uses reminds me of someone. Any ideas? Peridon (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Battle of Qolobaa (that I deleted) isn't a hoax? Are you sure? My reasoning for the "blatant" in the blatant hoax was the claim that one of the commanders was an American Revolution veteran in 1781; considering that Yorktown was in 1781 (a month after the date proposed for Qolobaa) and the American Revolution itself didn't end until 1783, that seemed pretty implausible to me (though not impossible). I did do a sanity check before I deleted; Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR all turned up completely blank; the only source in the article was the decidedly unhelpful http://allafrica.com/somalia/. The "I created a new page" does sound familiar to me, but I'm not sure where I've seen it before. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeffed Baeer because of the hoaxes. I don't have time to figure all this out now. If someone else thinks I acted too hastily, feel free to do whatever. From glancing at the above, it looks like a block is warranted for one reason or for another, particularly if the editor refuses to respond. (Polllilur has created a whole bunch of battle articles. I think they're real battles but doubt that they all deserve separate articles.) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure...I'm not finding any sources for them either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should rephrase and expand on my earlier comment. I didn't see the article Writ Keeper deleted, but can see it through the cache provided by Auric. In the initial creation, I meant to say that I would not have deleted it as an outright hoax, based on the fact that (the correct spelling of) Qolobaa/Qoloba exists (is not a hoax) and other "battle" or "xarbi" articles have been shown to be valid. I would have offered (another) comment to the editor about creating unverifiable articles and then sent it to AFD to request input from others (primarily editors with knowledge of Arabic or Somali languages). That said, after seeing the second creation of the article and the username now being used by the editor (Baeer) and seeing how that name was used in the first article (but not the second), I'm inclined to agree with Writ and see the article as a hoax. As far as "I created a page", the editor also uses an edit summary "I made a page", which rang a bell with me too. Somewhere in the back of my brain, I'm thinking that there was an editor doing something similar when creating numerous articles about some wineries and a bunch of wines, which were all copyvios. Cindy(talk to me) 21:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This version google cache copy is longer and more detailed than the first. google cache copy Probably a synthesis or misreading of history.--Auric talk 18:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I got the edit summary wrong - it's "I made a page". Peridon (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Graham comment

    At most a rap on the knuckles from the school nun is called for here. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    While this edit was appropriate per WP:NPOV, the edit summary is not appropriate for the article of major religious leader. May we strike the edit summary please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm assuming that it's the word asshole you're objecting to. I'm not even sure who it's referring to. You presumably think it refers to Graham. Would it be OK if it referred to someone else? HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's referring to an editor, and it's not about who it it's referring to but its presence on that particular page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it an issue that it's "the article of major religious leader"? Would it be OK associated with another article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the morality of some of the people who read the article and edit the history. Obviously yo don't agree so why not ignore the request and let someone who does agree deal with it instead? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo makes a good point; meanwhile, you should notify the editor as you're required to do... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifications are usually for blocking. Is it also required for removing of a comment? I've seen entire edits removed here and the editors were not removed, but I can do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I see that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 also commented there. Am only asking for the visibility to be changed, not for the edit to be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Walter Görlitz - You ask me to ignore the request. I ask you why you think some articles deserve different treatment from others. Either asshole is completely unacceptable in Edit summaries, or it's acceptable for every article. Far too many people want religious articles treated differently from others on Wikipedia, and they must not be. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. I insisted on notification 'cause the guy needs to be told to cool it down in general; otherwise, we'd be revdelling a lot here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone wrote that as an edit summary on an article about a children's television programme it would be unacceptable knowing the audience most likely to see it. If it was on an edit summary for a football team it would be less likely to offend. If it were left on an article about abattoirs, it may be entirely acceptable, in the right context. The context in which the word is used, in this case, does make a difference not only for how it is used but where. While I would never use profanity like this, I do understand that some editors may use it. The question is not about use, which you seem to think is the case, the issue is about the location of the use and its intention to provoke a reaction. It should be hidden. If you want to offend people, then leave it be. If you don't, then hide it, but don't pretend that you don't understand what I'm saying. It's insulting to my intelligence and worse, it doesn't reflect well on you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored and the reference to "asshole" was a question in regards to who made the remark or statement that made the text a quote in the reference. In other words they were referring to the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea. Religious leaders, whether they be major or minor do not get special treatment or consideration in this manner. I'm not even sure this is a BLP concern as it is not calling aperson an asshole but refers to a position as being an asshole.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)So, (1) the pious readers of a page on a "major religious leader" must have special protection from having their "morality" disturbed by the word "asshole" and (2) only "someone who does agree" with the request should deal with it. Ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Help:Edit summary:

    * Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.

    This is not an absolute and is not actual policy or guidelines. The most that would be appropriate here is a possible warning for an uncivil summary that might (and obviously has) offended someone, but it was not aimed at a contributer but at the figure from the reference and not a named person.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something? It seems to me based on the link and the change that the asshole bit was likely directed at the contributor who called Kim Jong-Il a dictator, rather then using a more neutral and encyclopaedic term as the person who left the edit summar substituted with. I don't see how a ref is involved, the only ref doesn't even use the term dictator [162] so why would the person who left the edit summary be calling someone from the reference an 'asshole' over something the did not do? Anyway, while the describing Kim Jong-Il as a dictator in that context was probably not ideal, I don't think calling the person who added it an asshole was a good idea. I do agree the fact the subject of the article of the edit summary is a major religious figure is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly who it was aimed at, and interestingly enough it had been there for many months, at least, so it's not like it popped in there yesterday. On the other hand, Kim was a dictator, so Guto2003 (talk · contribs)'s insult to the other editor was not appropriate. In fact, Guto2003 is openly a Communist, so it's no surprise he would bristle at a Commie dictator being called a dictator. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The target of Guto's wrath would be the IP who added the term "dictator" about 6 1/2 years ago.[163] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the beginning was The Word, eh...? In the interests of being able to dish it out and take it as well it should be used in far more religion articles. Basket Feudalist 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It had nothing to do with Billy Graham or with religion. It had to do with a Communist-supporting user who objected to the Kims being called "dictators". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was incorrect. That was not a reference. It was late and I saw the ref tag next to it. If the editor is name calling at another contributer than that isn't right, espeially in the edit summary.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although none of that was the point of this thread. The OP is concerned that those of high moral character are, naturally, drawn to this article on this "major religious leader" and they would be affronted to see such profanity as "asshole". Therefore, it must be plucked out, i.e. revdel is called for! DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be what they are asking for but we did need to determine exactly what was being done that was innappropriate. I assumed it was directed at a public figure, but it appears it was directed at another user. As for the rest, we don't know anybodys actual moral character and we don't edit, revert or delete contents to keep from offending a select group of individuals based entirely on a their own moral standards.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I'm a preacher's kid who has served in ministry for over 20 years, but when I come to Wikipedia, I put on my hat of neutrality. I have the utmost respect for Walter, but merely requesting that the edit summary be stricken based on the subject of the article as a "major religious leader" or that "those of high moral character" might be offended is simply inserting our own personal opinion into our editing practices. Although DeCausa was being sarcastic, the point was valid. There are people of high moral character creating, editing, and reading all kinds of pages around here. Even people that focus on porn stars and drugs and dirty dancing. Editors on Billy Graham's article or those within the Category:Christian Wikipedians don't have a lock on morality. Like Walter, I don't use profanity. I've come to expect to see it on Wikipedia. "Don't be a dick" is highly offensive to me as a woman. But it truly is an old boys club around here. I've come to realize that boys will be boys. (Warning: Putting on my ministry hat.) This is where grace comes into play: Wikipedia is not censored. There was no personal attack in the edit summary. "Who is the asshole" is very different from "You are an asshole". Oversighting is not necessary here. Just leave a warning for Guto about inappropriate edit summaries and move on. The world won't end and Jesus won't come back any sooner just because someone said a bad word on Wikipedia. Cindy(talk to me) 21:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like HiLo48, I'm mystified as to why it would be an issue because it's on the article about Billy Graham. We should always keep WP:CIVIL, but we should certainly not have special rule for articles about religious topics or persons. A warning to the user about his/her use of language, that's all.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP who was the target of Guto's wrath has not edited in 5 years, so it's just Guto shooting off his mouth about an edit he doesn't agree with. The original poster's complaint here is, at best, "right, but for the wrong reason". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Editor final-warned that a topic ban does actually mean a ban on that topic, and further infractions will lead to an extended block. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    LittleBenW (talk · contribs) has yet again violated the editing restrictions placed on him as a result of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again, by posting this rant at User talk:Sandstein. Sandstein then warned LittleBenW [164][165] per WP:ARBATC and its discretionary sanctions about personalizing style disputes, whereupon LittleBenW promptly deleted his post with the odd edit summary of "Reverted, intended to be private". Sandstein's warning perhaps makes sense, depending on ARBATC's actual scope, but if so, only addresses the ARBATC problem with LittleBenW's post, not the ANI problem, that it violated his topic ban: "LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." No exception is made for an admin's talk pages, nor for self-reverting after being chastised. If the post had only tangentially or incidentally touched on diacritics-related inter-editor disputes, "no harm, no foul", but it overwhelmingly dwells on them, despite them being entirely tangential to his legitimate ostensible purpose of simply asking for advice on how to appeal his ban. The rant also clearly consists primarily of violations of WP:NPA/WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL, by making a stream of hyperbolic accusations ("canvassing of a mob", "intimidate", "threats", etc.) without sufficient evidence (the diffs are all old news, and don't support his claims, but are actually evidence that he's already been warned against such behavior repeatedly). LittleBenW was very recently 1-day-blocked for multiple violations of the diacritics topic ban in mainspace and article talk pages.[166] (ANI discussion). Clearly refusing to get the point. User was also recently blocked for NPA violations.[167]. [Full disclosure: I am one of the two targets of LittleBenW's hostility in the post at issue here, the other being User:In ictu oculi, who has also had dealings with LittleBenW's behavior patterns. I brought the most recent of various AN/ANI actions against LittleBenW for style warring, namely the one that resulted in the diacritics topic ban and another that nearly resulted in Apteva's hyphens-vs.-dashes topic ban from being extended to restrict LittleBenW as well. He subsequently supported a now-concluded AGF-related WP:AE request against me, which his rant on Sandstein's talk page was intended to provide ammunition for, somehow.] — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 11:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    His removal of the post you are upset with "cured" the defect - just as a self-revert "cures" 3RR. I fear you are now an archetype of an "involved person" with regard to him, and likely should see what others independently arrive at. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't be half pregnant. He either broke his topic ban, or he didn't. A self-revert doesn't cure a 3RR but makes admins more predisposed to believing it was an error and thus exercise leniency because a subsequent block could be seen as 'punitive'. Anyone should be able to work out from the evidence, and judge for him/herself whether any violation actually occurred. Let's face it, most of these complaints are made by people with issues against the people they complain about. Maybe it took an "involved" party to raise the red flag as the admin himself was too mired in controversy, and thus too distracted to see it. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's also currently planning to violate his topic ban again [168]. Not to mention that diff is actually another violation in itself. I don't understand which part of the topic ban is so difficult for him to understand. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it's not an appeal of a topic ban, which that isn't - it's a suggestion to take two issues to ArbCom, at least one of which you are completely banned from editing about. Even if you did wish to appeal a topic ban, the correct venue would be that where it was imposed, in this case WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "self-reverting after being chastised" is surely a blatant lie, as anyone can see from the timestamps.
    • As you can see, the post was intended as a private message. It (1) provided links to your abusive behavior on my own talk page, to make the point that your continuing threats and insults are not just limited to the MOS space, and also (2) stated that I had prepared an appeal of the previous topic ban—which a number of people had protested as lacking due process—and said that I plan to submit an appeal soon.
    • As for (1), here you see even pro-diacritic Bob Raynor telling you that your threats and insults are not appropriate. Also here SMC says In particular, I have suggested that you be included in the topic bad that will most likely be applied to Apteva, because you exhibit precisely the same tendentious editing pattern on this issue. You have clearly simply substituted dashes for diacritics as something to WP:BATTLEGROUND about, after being topic-banned from diacritis and are behaving as if you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but simply engage in trolling and sport argument to entertain yourself. That is not what Wikipedia is for; try Usenet newsgroups. Such a blanket stream of insults and false accusations is just as unacceptable on a user talk page as on a MOS talk page. And he even tried to get me banned by falsely accusing me of a legal threat. Such abusive behavior, smear campaigns, and lies are surely not acceptable on Wikipedia.  LittleBen (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of topic bans is minimize disruption, not provide ammunition in a continuing saga. Dredging up two day old reverted edits of user talk pages to file ANI reports is not consistent with minimizing disruption, nor is documenting past sins of the thread originator. We simply do not exist to provide a battleground for MOS warriors. See we can't beam them down to Planet Cheron, could someone perhaps mercy kill this thread? NE Ent 14:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not going to action anything here, but I will leave LittleBen a warning that the next infraction of his ban will result in a block. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I heard my ears burning. My stance then, as now, is that the diacritics wars are dramatic enough already; grudges between editors make it a lot worse, for no good reason. I think it would be helpful if SMcCandlish backed off a bit, but that does not mean that SMcCandlish is the one to blame here, or even that blame should be shared 50:50. Disruptive editing that was severe enough to earn editing restrictions despite having support from other editors on your "side", then repeatedly going back to that area, is the root cause and it's a bigger problem than the fact that another participant in the diacritics wars keeps on finding and pointing out violations. Even now, LittleBenW frames it as a partisan thing where SMcCandlish is so bad that even people on the "pro diacritics" side are revolted; this is neither accurate nor helpful nor good-faith. If SMcCandlish were to stop (or be forcibly stopped from) pointing out the breaches of editing restrictions and the flaunting of community decisions, that wouldn't solve the underlying problem; let's not shoot the messenger. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    please delete my account.

    Accounts cannot be deleted. However, WP:RTV and WikiBreak Enforcer are thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No I won't. Basket Feudalist 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The first respondant's rudeness aside, it's not technically possible to delete accounts on Wikipedia. However, you can simply walk away and stop using it. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing (which isn't really just walking away) NE Ent 15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you just find another area of interest in wikipedia and stay away from the religion stuff? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanishing often sounds like a good idea to frustrated users, but it's supposed to be permanent and most people eventually decide to return. WikiBreak Enforcer or clean start are (in my opinion) usually better options for frustrated users. And note that while accounts can't technically be deleted, most userpages can be deleted at any time under WP:U1. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The second respondant's incapability of recognising WP:Humor and his general WP:Incivility aside, and notwithstanding that it could be taken as a little bit unprofessional for a so-called Administrator it's not technically possible to take that sort of request seriously on Wikipedia. "LOL" etc. Basket Feudalist 19:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Change name?

    Resolved

    Where can I change my username; if possible. Merci Username talkpage (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    NOT

    ...staying off WP:ANI. But thanks for the the threats. Basket Feudalist 22:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm...seeing as he called us a bunch of cretins, perhaps a 72 hour block for disruption should have been indef for disruption/NPA/general jerkosity. I won't be offended if someone extends (but I'd be surprised if someone reduces) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Impressive talk page, especially the first section (attempted Arbcom candidacy after <100 edits). Interesting early edit history. [169] [170] (Apparently, "Paul Barlow eats it" was the user's signature at the time.) [171] ('better' signature) [172] (frivolous BLP vio).
    Wikipedia – the encyclopedia that every juvenile troll can edit. Hans Adler 23:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also [173] and [174]. I see far more heat than light from this editor. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone might want to swing through their recent contributions and see if the AfC articles they promoted are good enough for mainspace. I moved one back earlier, because there was no credible assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary City is a collection of quotes and closely paraphrased texts, making the whole thing a copyvio. But look at the histories of it and of other AFC's he's promoted: Covered California, Swiss Lanka Hotel School, George Fuller Miller Sr., and The Fralin Museum of Art at least - all created by users with zero history but an uncanny grasp of reference syntax, templates, and complex infoboxes (e.g.) on their first or second ever edit. These users are evidently not new to Wikipedia. 31.185.196.159 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone please block me indef for a sec

    Use a non-templated reason. Apparently we can't do that anymore. I am refreshing my memory on what it looks like from the blockee's side. ViridaeDON'T PANIC 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken this request. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You could just look at MediaWiki:Blockedtext SpitfireTally-ho! 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    humorous note:indef for a sec is redundantSerious note: There's also the MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext and MediaWiki:Autoblocker messages :) gwickwiretalkediting 01:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I think the word you're looking for is "contradictory" rather than "redundant" — Ched :  ?  01:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, i was looking for oxymoronic. regardless, i should c/e my comments first clearly. gwickwiretalkediting 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=541849551"