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 Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 11 March 2013 (→‎User:Canoe1967: for info). 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

    Uninvolved admin needed at SPI, PROUT.

    1) There's been a bit of a backlog at SPI, and while it's getting better this one is still awaiting resolution. The canvassing has started up again. I'd appreciate an admin taking a look. SPI closed by NativeForeigner. Thanks! Garamond Lethet
    c     07:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)     Reopened by NativeForeigner. Discussion continuing there. Garamond Lethet[reply]
    c     17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)    [reply]

    SPI closed, this portion now resolved. NativeForeigner Talk 01:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    2) The same group of editors discussed an RFC at the PROUT article here. Would an admin drop by to close it officially?

    3) Finally, I think we're ready to have the page protection lifted on the PROUT article (although there's no harm in letting the protection expire as scheduled on the 18th).

    Thanks,

    Garamond Lethet
    c     08:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not Canvassing but asking other's opinions: As I've already said in my talk page your assertion is not correct. I never ask support to anybody. I ask users previously involved in the same topic to express their opinions on a talk. Abhidevananda f.e. didn't support my opinion, you and CK had already expressed your views. Sorry but it seems to me you're trying to find the "casus belli" to then turn to an administrator all your possible complaints. Please try to be more constructive. I have already expressed my strong complaints on the same page of this SPI. On this regard I have compiled a table to show the persistence of a group of users in requesting the deletion (with tens of AFDS) of all articles related with the same topic. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You know that's not true; I know that's not true; but I have to point out some facts here just in case any uninvolved editor believes what Cornelius383 says. Cornelius383 has clearly contacted people who had previously agreed on related issues. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Most of those accounts are sockpuppets anyway. Cornelius383 did not contact people who had opposed, even though there are more of them. That is canvassing. It's not the first time: [7] [8] Like WP:V and WP:NPOV, Cornelius383 seems unable to comply with WP:CANVAS despite it being explained, repeatedly, on multiple pages; sadly these policies are obstacles to Cornelius383's crusade. bobrayner (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I know the problems I can't be the admin you need, as what I intend to do is edit the article. It wouldn't be fair to others if I did it through full protection. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the OP. The background here is that a concern was raised in an Rfc on WP:FTN that the article has an overabundance of primary and/or proponent sources, previously uninvolved editors responded to the Rfc, and three proposals were eventually presented by various editors to address this concern (see Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta, Proposal 2 authored by myself, and Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). I believe that the consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3). Specific action requested: If an administrator agrees with the above assessment of those three proposals, I would like Progressive Utilization Theory to be unprotected and replaced with the draft noted in Proposal 2. Location (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the SPI was overrun by socks, and got closed, but... no socks (or sock-owners) blocked. No action at all. That's not entirely helpful. Just another day in the Sarkarverse, alas. bobrayner (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I just went through all the history on PROUT stuff, all the accounts. There is sock or meat going on of some sort, it's hard to tell exactly what. The reason I closed was because discussion was straying significantly from the sock issue to issues about PROUT well outside the scope of SPI. If people can focus the debate and clarify evidence we can probably get it dealt with. I went ahead and re-opened on the basis there is extremely suspicious sock/meat, but those fighting the socks need to keep on topic: to socks and meat rather than content. NativeForeigner Talk 12:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the over-expansion and defense of this and related articles is being done in a way that is highly promotional for the movement and serves no informative or encyclopedic purpose. It's not a particularly effective way or promoting it, but that's clearly the intent, and I think it might be time to consider sanctions about the editor on that basis. Of course, if we can deal with some or all of the editor's incarnations first by SPI that is always helpful. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree. It would be appreciated if we kept that discussion out of SPI though. NativeForeigner Talk 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry NativeForeigner but I had to put my complaints again in the SPI talk. My gripes against some of these editors are strong and I had to answer somehow. Please thake a look. Tanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have provided your gripes and complaints, at length, on multiple pages. Having derailed an SPI agains another editor with walls of text, you're trying again...? I'm beginning to think that this is a deliberate tactic. If you can't explain why several new accounts suddenly appear to !vote "Keep" on AfDs of articles that you wrote, stand back. bobrayner (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. Your behaviours are under review. Now my suspicions are more strong. Please keep a more constructive behavior. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't explain why several new accounts suddenly appear to !vote "Keep" on AfDs of articles that you wrote, stand back. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed my mind and kept open on the hope things would stay focused on SPI, but Cornelius383 has continued to add walls of text which are distracting from the key issue. It's not a good position for me to be policing an SPI, but SPI is not grounds for a content dispute or the raising of extraordinarily complex and verbose concerns that seem to have a tenuous connection at best to SPI. There are key issues with how the series of articles is being expanded, and I would agree with DGG that sanctions might be a possibility. It would be ideal to get the SPI sorted first, but it's so long, convoluted, and oftentimes irrelevant to the sockpuppetry at hand, as somebody who has significant experience with SPI I can't make heads or tails of it, despite the fact there are clearly either sock or meat issues. I'm not sure of the best way to proceed. I am not confident in the ability of the current SPI to be processed effectively (evidence has been obfuscated in walls of text, and I don't want to spend the next 3-4 hours picking through it, and still not be sure of what has occurred.) I'm not sure if this is the best way, but I am inclined to deal with the clear issue in the way that the subject is being edited, and then come back to SPI once those other NPOV/expansion issues have been addressed and debate can be focused. Then again, I am not sure this will actually focus debate, and potential socking would have a large impact on the outcome and type of any sanctions applied.

    Specific to the topic of the SPI, there is something highly fishy. Something is being hidden, you just don't get accounts this similar editing in ways that would so well mask their editing behaviors at random. Knight of Infinity and Soroboro specifically have really odd editing habits, and would seem to be related, but I'm not sure enough to block, and any evidence that would lead me to do so has been obfuscated. While I am trying to AGF with all users involved, there is something really fishy going on, and my gut would tell me that Cornelius has some role to play, even if the socks are not directly his. Any assistance from anybody on how to resolve this issue would be appreciated. NativeForeigner Talk 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry NativeForeigner but I never partecipate on a SPI talk: 1)Although I knew that the discussion should be focused on SPI I realized that the user Garamond Lethe accused me of canvassing on that SPI talk. I thought that I could defend myself there because the accusations were there. But I didn't. 2)I noted after that a "keep table" was published on that SPI talk quoting me Abhidevananda, Universal Life and some new users voting keep on all the 21 AfDs on the same topic launced from bobrayner/Garamond Lethe (almost all the AfDs were won and the articles have been deleted..). 3)At this point I simply decided to defend myself and I created my tables to show that, on the contrary, there was another interesting "delete table" were I pointed out that there was one group of publishers who only moved to delete all the articles related with the same topic. Since this table was significantly larger than the "keep table", and since my complaints against this users were a lot, I have been accused of doing "walls of text". Of course I understand and I agree that the text was much. But what I do not understand is: why all the users that voted keep on my articles (loosing quite all the AfDs) have to be accused of canvassing, meatpuppets, sockpupetts etc while those who voted "delete" are not? I do not consider this right.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI has concluded. You were however mentioned in the SPI. The other side did all tend to vote in tandem, and with the majority. The other users were established, edited outside of this specific topic area, and were all drawn to the AfDs via a noticeboard, not unknown other factors. The SPI aspect has been resolved. Some users that !voted against deletion used arguments that required some familiarity with wikipedia on their first edits: definitely not something that was relevant to the other group. NativeForeigner Talk 21:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "used arguments that required some familiarity with wikipedia on their first edits": Sorry I do not want to create a controversy about that, but can you please tell me exactly what you mean?--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DezDeMona (but not you) cited Assume Good Faith, and posted in a article for deletion discussion on their first edit. NativeForeigner Talk 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense for me too, although it certainly is not a proof. F.e. it could be just an old editor who has returned to write after a certain period. But what if somebody (a very clever and presumably old editor) is doing this to create problems to some articles? I'm not a "single-verse" editor. I started to edit on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI has been resolved. There were odd patterns, but no point arguing now. NativeForeigner Talk 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thank you.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Keithstanton after being blocked

    Keithstanton (talk · contribs), after second block expired continues with nationalistic editing, in violation of NPOV. He started new AfD, only per article subject, and PLEASE, just read that explanation why it should be deleted. Then, he obviously canvassed only INVOLVED editors, while this one was purposlly added to the "opposing side" in conflict, so he can do revert of canvassing with this edit summary:

    Therefor, i ask for instant reaction, as this is obvious violation of WP:ARBMAC final decision, and he is also obviously NOTHERE, and he barely missed block for this sockpuppet investigation. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    His activities were unacceptable but your conduct hasn't been appropriate too. Accusing users that he notified about the AfD that they "vote per national interest" is plainly disruptive given that bobrayner, whom you've systematically accused of sockpuppetry without any shred of evidence[9] left him a very reasonable message discouraging him from canvassing as did I[10] and from the conclusion of that discussion I think that he realized the gross flaws of his conduct. If you want ARBMAC enforcement, report him on WP:AE, where both your decorum and editing will be judged. Btw you should mention that you and him are involved in the same edit-wars and that you just recreated a deleted article[11], which you failed to restore on DRV[12] as a redirect to an article that he listed on AfD[13], which itself is disruptive action. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, i never mention anyone by name, and your wast comment about me is, as usually, totally out of place and time. I dont see any real reason for now to report anyone at WP:AE, but your comment speak for your self. At the end, i may expect vast attacks on me, with 6 months + old edits, but this user, Keithstanton, is not here to edit normally and neutrally. For a user that is obviously not new user, as concluded at SPI, i am sure that he knows what canvassing is. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobrayner and I had a very reasonable discussion with him and he agreed to stop[14]. After the conclusion of that discussion you started this thread and made some very disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I may imagine that this user may be "useful", but lets see what admins think about it. We maybe will not canvass anymore onwiki, but what about the attitude? Also, lets face it. He is quite involved in sockpuppetry, among other things, so... --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent)Well, the AfD was speedily closed as it was very badly written and he realized the issue of canvassing.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Which AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment is still running, although the last two people to comment have asked for a speedy close. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right, it's still open. I thought that it was formally closed too.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish to state that this contribution is highly disruptive and consistent with the accusation of this thread. Looking at the full catalogue of this new user, it is evident that he is WP:NOTHERE. If ZjarriRrethues disagrees with this, has any evidence to the contrary, can site an edit by Mr.Stanton that has benfited the Wikipedia community, then perhaps he can grace this discussion with that finding rather than point the finger at editors whose edits disagree with his. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, his edit was disruptive as his conduct for which he was notified and warned.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not considering any of the source complaintsArbitration Remedy Enforcement is over there. If the user has already recieved their ARBMAC warning it should be easy. If not, procedurally we're supposed to give them a warning prior to applying sanctions. If it can be domestrated outside the AE route, that's something different... Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It might be relevant to note that at least 10-20 of Keithstanton's most disruptive diffs no longer show up in his edit history as the article was since deleted. Keithstanton is a user who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but only to push his relentless nationalist POV, he constantly vandalizes articles, is disruptive and downright rude to other editors. This is the third or fourth time in less than a month that he is discussed here. Already in the first discussion, it was suggested that he is a sock. Whatever the case, Keithstanton should not edit any article related to Balkans. Ever.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Sandstein, what is final conclusion? --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope this one doesn't go archived unclosed, as Keithstanton is one of the most disruptive users I've ever seen broght to ANI. It's "unfortunate" that 80% of his vandalism before his block was at a now deleted article, but the diffs provided here shows he has not changed. This is a user with a strong POV and here only to push that POV, usually through extensive vandalism and in flagrant breach of WP:ARBMAC. That is why I think a topic ban on him is needed. (I've never had any conflict with him myself, my opinion is based solely on seeing him on ANI).Jeppiz (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The conclusion is that he has been warned, and has not edited since. In the event of continued topic-related problems, please report them to WP:AE.  Sandstein  20:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated use of derogatory racial epithets in edit summaries by User:Calton

    For at least the eighth time on record (see the outcome of an edit summary search here [15]), User:Calton has directed a derogatory racial epithet at another editor. (See this edit summary [16].) From the first time he was called out on this behavior by User:Sjakkalle [17] to the most recent use of the epithet against User:Yworo [18], Calton refuses to even acknowledge that he is being uncivil, no less using a racially offsensive epithet. The term is hardly obscure (see, for example [19].
    I therefore call on any uninvolved administrator to indefinitely block User:Calton until he acknowledges the gross misconduct involved and publicly commits to the community that he will not commit such misbehaviour again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as a person of mixed-race parentage...if someone called me "Buckwheat" to my face, that person would shortly require medical attention. There is no wiggle room here as to the connotation. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No excuse for such verbiage. It's astonishing he's been allowed to get away with it repeatedly. An appropriate edit summary for his indef could be, "You're done here, Alfalfa." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have indeffed - his block log shows a long history of this kind of behaviour, which he just refuses to acknowledge or change, and I do not feel he has a place here because of that. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) GiantSnowman got in there just before I could; there's no place for this sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, and I see from Calton's history that he's been on the receiving end of this sort of block before. A productive editor he may be, but such attacks go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's operation; good call by the Snowman. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calton has been here since 2004 and done untold good work for the encyclopedia, especially in areas that many of us more sensitive souls are reluctant to enter; as he says on his talkpage, "mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical". He's an impatient guy, and has gone too far in his wording quite a few times. Many times I've been able to understand him, considering the aggressive SPI's he mostly deals with. But with the "buckwheat" issue, you've lost me completely, Calton. What the hell? I've never seen you be racist before (obviously I must have missed the other uses of "buckwheat"). If Calton has some kind of idea that it's not offensive, he should still have deferred to the people who told him it was — as soon as Sjakalle told him to stop it in 2005, he should have done so. I agree with GiantSnowman's indefblock for the impenitent use of "buckwheat".
    But I protest against GiantSnowman's hasty conclusion that Calton "doesn't have a place here". As soon as he undertakes to keep a civil tongue in his head, specifically with regard to the offensive term Buckwheat, I for one am willing to unblock him. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    I think I would tend to agree with your comments here Bishonen. Calton's positive contributions far outweigh the occasional lapse in his temperament that we see. I think a block is clearly needed here to give Calton time to calm down and reevaluate how he interacts with editors. My experience is that he generally does edit more productively post-block. I would suggest that we knock the block down to one week and see how he is after this. No need for an indef in my opinion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we go with what the OP suggested and keep it as indef until he acknowledges that his behaviour is unacceptable. He's been blocked before for this sort of behaviour, and ultimately it has changed nothing. If we promise to unblock him after he has acknowledged his error, then it shows that he has learnt not to do this again. Having the block expire after a week teaches him nothing. – Richard BB 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing Calton, he will never admit he is wrong and we'll lose an editor who is productive most of the time. If we set it to a week, he will return after his block in a better frame of mind for editing (but of course, he still won't admit he was wrong!) and we don't lose him from the project. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure that's the case. He's been blocked before, and even if he is a bit more productive when he comes back, he'll ultimately end up back here again, as history has shown. I suspect that the threat of having eight years' worth of work ending with an indef will force him to admit his error — and even if it doesn't, I'd rather a good editor blocked if he's going to be racist. – Richard BB 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to defend the racism - That was bad, but we have to look at it in the grand scheme of things and see what's better for the project. As I said, he'll never admit he was wrong. I'll also suggest that he'll be blocked again at some point in the future. Looking at his block log, he hasn't been blocked for 3 1/2 years - That's not too bad a recent record if you ask me. However bad the edit summaries were, I would prefer to keep Calton on the project and reduce the block. That said Richard, I obviously respect your opinion given the severity of the misconduct. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take a week to realise and accept that dishing out racial slurs isn't acceptable. There is no fixed time limit in which an apology and assurance is no longer needed. Fixing the block to a week achieves nothing if no change in behaviour is offered. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The change in behaviour won't be offered expressly, but it will happen. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Any editor can be replaced. He doesn't have to "admit he's wrong", but he has to pledge never, ever to use racist insults again, especially in edit summaries where they remain permanently visible. That's not a ticket to being un-indef'd, but just one requirement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) If he will never admit that using racial slurs is wrong, then I fully agree with GiantSnowman that he has no place here, regardless of the number of good edits he may have done. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, he doesn't have to "admit" anything, he just has to pledge to stop doing it. There's always a meager chance that he may honestly not know that calling someone "Buckwheat" is one step away from calling them the "N-word". If so, he needs to be eddycated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a good content producer should never outweigh someone's lack of civility and fondness for personal attacks, and it should never be used as an excuse for keeping them around. We probably lose many more potential replacements, scared off by the bully boys who think they are above the law, an opinion which is encouraged by the actions of those who defend them. GiantSnowman 15:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend we be firm. Keep the block indef, and make it very clear that he can be unblocked immediately if he simply acknowledges it is a racial slur and agrees to stop using it. I expect he will eventually do so. But if we are wishy-washy about it and reduce it to a week, he has no reason to do anything but wait it out. Yworo (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. No reason to reduce it from indef before he even comments on the matter, as that sends the wrong message. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here,[20] Calton indicates he thinks the claim of personal attack is "nonsense". He's either truly ignorant of what "Buckwheat" implies, or he doesn't care. Either way, he needs to stay on ice until or if he gets the point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But as the OP pointed out, one has to keep in mind that it was way back in 2005 that he was first made aware that it could be interpreted as an racial slur. And since then have been made aware of that fact by numerous editors. The chances of him being completely unaware of it thus seems very meager indeed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Colonel ought to be thrown out of the hotel!!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be inclined to keep the indef in place, but to lift it immediately if Calton gives a simple undertaking not to use the term "Buckwheat" again. I'm not looking for an apology or an admission of guilt relating to past conduct - just an assurance about the future. I'm uneasy about the "good content producer" defence. I don't think making some/many/thousands of good edits gives anyone licence to behave in ways that less productive users would be sanctioned for. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Any editor, with absolutely no regards to any merits they may have, should be immediately and indefinitely blocked if they insult others with racial epithets (or, arguably, any epithet, but I may be in a minority in that regard). They should be unblocked, once, only if they credibly promise not to do this again. (But can someone explain how "Buckwheat" is an insult? I'm unfamiliar with this meaning of the word.)  Sandstein  15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was reading this thread completely mystified; for once what a joy to find Sandstein, he and I must have led similarly protected and sheltered lives - what does it mean?  Giano  15:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only vaguely recall somebody using it, it isn't used in the UK I don't think, urban dictionary says "a lowly term for a black person". Either way, you'd think a long-standing editor would know not to call people racist names! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Billie Thomas.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [21] has an entry for it. Fram (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in general. Buckwheat was also the name of one of the black characters in the Little Rascals series. Eddie Murphy used to parody Buckwheat as one of his Saturday Night Live characters. ("O-tay!") Neither the black kid Buckwheat nor the white kid Alfalfa could be described as the brightest bulbs in the Little Rascals tree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like most derogatory terms for Black people, it's an Americanism. The name has connotations of low intelligence, use of African American Vernacular English, and poverty - the character of Buckwheat is a variant of the pickaninny stereotype. Eddie Murphy's parody, which is well known to Americans of a certain age, was intended to mock this stereotype. Skinwalker (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The use of Buckwheat implies stupidity as well; I remember the movies on TV when I was very young, and how we were always supposed to laugh at how the character just never got it. Hal Roach attempted to integrate the "Our Gang" (later "Little Rascals") series in the 1930's, when America simply wasn't ready for it, so the non-white characters, notably but not exclusively Buckwheat, were played as a series of very gross stereotypes to make them palatable. Over time, Buckwheat has come to take on the connotation of the slow-witted African-American stereotype that flourished in entertainment until comparatively recently. You basically couldn't be any more insulting unless you used a certain word that starts with an 'n'. I applaud the admin who took a stand and indeff'd. --Drmargi (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The "net positive" standard that people often mention is a reasonable guide, but you need to use it with caution. The "net positive" calculation is not simply the value of all the good edits minus the disruptive edits. If the disruptive edits are driving away other good content contributors, so that we lose all their efforts in the future, then the person who drove them off is almost certainly a net negative. For while the visible effects of a driven off editor may be a mere entry on WP:MISSING, or nothing at all if the editor driven away was a newbie, the contributions that we lost may be a very significant loss indeed. (RE Sandstein: My objection to Calton's use of the term eight years ago is listed in the original posting of this thread. It's origin is an easily frightened black character of the Little Rascals.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree completely, hence my disagreement with any argument of the sort of "but he's a good content contributor". Thanks for the etymological information. (I added it to Buckwheat (disambiguation)).  Sandstein  16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is how Calton used the word, and the meaning of "Buckwheat" nowadays. For 99.9% of Wikipedians they probably don't even know what that word means unless they look it up, and if they do, people tend to have different standards of its meaning, especially as a powerful term such as "racial epithet". It doesn't seem he was using it on that rationale but more of calling the user an idiot. We can all agree that the word is uncivil, and bordering on a personal attack, and he shouldn't have used the word in a edit summary, but an indef block is going way too far here. Secret account 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Way too far? It could be lifted in hours if he does the right thing. Maybe you are confusing indefinite with permanent. Leaky Caldron 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't wait to start slipping "schwoogie" into edit summaries then, since I'm sure not many people know what it means... Tarc (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the blocked editor could say "sorry if you were offended by it, wasn't intended as racist, won't use it again on here" and resume editing... Buckwheat (character) anybody?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking

    I see that he was unblocked, and claims to be utterly clueless about the offensiveness of that word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have unblocked although Calton's appeal was hardly fulsome. Nevertheless I assume there will be many more eyes on Calton's future edits and I don't doubt that further problems, should they arise, will be reported here quickly. Let's hope they don't arise. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised at all he didn't know. In 30+years I have never known the term "buckwheat" (as in "back off, buckwheat") had any racial connotations whatsoever. I guess you learn something new every day. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    His attitude is that if an insult is used by a character in a movie, it's OK to use here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody should tell John Crichton to stop calling Rygel that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim, seriously ... you unblocked based on that unblock request? To be WP:GAB-compliant there has to be both an acknowledgement that the behaviour was improper and assurance that it won't recur. I'm not even sure I see the latter, but definitely not the former. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Buckwheat was re-popularized by Eddie Murphy in the 80's on S.N.L. with his portrayal of "grown up" Buckwheat. The usage here was obviously derogatory. Now that that has been cleared up, I hope the offender does not respond to OP with affirmatives in the form of "O-Tay!"  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          05:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with Bwilkins, and I feel that the decision to unblock at this point seems like very poor judgement. Calton's unblock request isn't merely "not the most gracious"; it is incivil to the point that posting it anywhere would be a blockable breach of civility by itself. In it he says of the action "This is beyond stupid", of the complaint he says "no matter how bullshit the complaint is", and finally he minimizes the offensiveness by saying "some (emphasis mine) people find it offensive". The problem is not limited to just one word, it is to name-calling in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I know people that use the term to refer to someone pejoratively, even directly to their face, but absolutely without any racist connotation. I think children of the 70s are more inclined to remember that the character was kind of goofy (like most of the other kids on the show), and not just that he was black, unaware that some of his dialogue and actions were based on old stereotypes with which we were not familiar. As adults, we probably should be more sensitive to those connotations (and I just wrote one friend an email on the subject), but it's not unreasonable to think that there are those who don't know its specifically racial connotations. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't actually matter greatly whether Calton knew the epithet he was slinging around so freely was racist or not; he was told it was unacceptable seven years ago, condescendingly dismissed the complaint, and continued regardless. He knew the term was deeply offensive to at least part of the community, so his decision to persist with its use was indicative of a dismissive attitude towards Wikipedia's editors and towards collaboration in general. Frankly, I find it all but impossible to believe that someone could bandy about the same term for that length of time without knowing that it was, at best, racially insensitive. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd never even heard of the character before this discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poor unblock - and not just because it was my block that was overturned ;) - the unblock request was as half-hearted as they come, and we should have pushed for more concrete assurances. GiantSnowman 09:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think we need ArbCom's involvement - there is increasing consensus that the unblock was poor, and therefore an uninvolved admin should be able to restore the indef without any issues. GiantSnowman 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And who's going to do that? Aside from anything else, for all the drama that was generated last Christmas you'd hope that the average bleeding heart admin would stop for one nanonsecond to consider the community reaction before undoing an indef civility block these days, but apparently that's still not the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reblocking

    This is unfortunate, but I expect it to be temporary. I also expect that any unblock is now going to include some form of civility parole. It clearly is protective in nature - especially when the editor refuses to accept the racial terms they're using, and the potential impact on editors. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I admire your guts, but the potential shitstorm that will be unleashed as a result of reblocking may well eclipse the original issue. It might have been more sensible to wait for a better-established consensus here - to that (retrospective) end, I regarded Kim's unblock as ill-advised, and would have Endorsed overturning it. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, if Calton goes WP:DIVA because he was rightly reblocked, it would actually say a lot about his character, wouldn't it? The consensus above was pretty clear, IMHO and further delays in re-implementing the block would have made the re-block stray into punitive instead of protective territory (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good re-block. In the discussion above I saw a good consensus that Kim's unblock was hasty, so I don't see the re-block as controversial. For my part, I was also unconvinced by Calton's unblock request, particularly given the warning in 2005. For a successful unblock I would like to see, at the minimum, a recognition that using the slur wasn't acceptable, and a plausible guarantee that similar behaviour won't continue in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2)The editor met the terms that had been suggested; the unblock should have remained per unblocks are cheap. Simply because an editor didn't sufficiently grovel is not a reason not to unblock. If they repeated the behavior they could have been simply quickly reblocked. Moving forward, if ya'll really don't like what they said, draft a copy of the specific words you need to see before resolving this issue with a minimum of fuss. NE Ent 11:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having "promise to never use the term buckwheat again" be a sufficient condition for unblock was a proposal by a small handful of editors, not the view of the majority in the discussion. The underlying issue is civility and personal attacks, and an unblock request calling the complaints "beyond stupid" and "bullshit" is more of the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Per Yunshui, I agree it was a very poor unblock request, but also foresee possible 3rd mover issues. You should at least drop a note on Kim's page. He's not usually the sort to get his knickers in a twist, and a courtesy note might help keep things a little cooler. (Although I do note that BWilkins did mention a revisit to this discussion) — Ched :  ?  11:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my intent of advising Mr Kim :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just left a note for Kim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)The blocking statement -- you need need to demonstrate an abandonment of the battleground mentality is vague and counterproductive. What kind of mentality would any editor have after been subject of this thread? Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion above is a much more preferable tack to take. NE Ent 11:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NE, 99% of the time I'm in full agreement with you, but "This is beyond stupid. All right, I will not use the word "Buckwheat" -- no matter how bullshit the complaint is" seems to be quite a distance from "Battlefields" in this case. — Ched :  ?  11:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse re-block per my comments above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse re-block - as per my comments earlier in thread. GiantSnowman 11:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • About racism I don't want to wade into the wheel-drama that this has become, but as kids in the early 70s when we called each other "Buckwheat", it wasn't about race at all, it was used when someone did something dumb, like the Little Rascals character. ("Way to go, Buckwheat" when someone spilled something, etc.) We didn't think the color of his skin is what made him foolish. We also called each other Alfalfa or Spanky for various reasons. It is who we grew up with on the 5 TV channels of the time, something that 20-somethings aren't familiar with. Granted, WP:BIAS tells us to avoid terms like this, but to automatically say it must be a racist comment intended is folly, and is presumptuous. I don't know Calton, but to insist he must have racist intent is taking political correctness too far. I think that needs to be factored in when contemplating the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calton already knew that the term is sometimes used as a racist insult, and that it may be perceived that way.
        In any case, why is an experienced editor ignoring WP:REVTALK by using edit summaries to make attacks on the character of other editors? This is fairly basic stuff, and it's unacceptable whether the insult refers to race or perceived stupidity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I agree that it isn't an acceptable term in a global community. My call is only to put it in a proper perspective when dealing with the situation and not assume he was using it as a racial insult, but rather, as simple racial insensitivity. There is a difference, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. As stated above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The goal here should be to return editors to editing in compliance with community norms as quickly as possible.

    Most people's superficial notion of "teamwork" is that it is equivalent to some namby-pamby consensus and bogus good cheer.
    The only consensus worth having is a creative one achieved in the combat of fully engaged intellects.
    — Jim McCarthy, Dynamics of Software Development (1995)

    If a battleground mentality is reason to block someone, we'd have to block many active administrators, some arbitrators and at least one Ent, along with large swaths of some various wikiprojects. People fight for what they care about, and that is a good thing. The issue isn't simply battleground mentality, it's not engaging appropriately -- not fighting fair, if you will.

    When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
    — Sun Tzu,The Art of War

    The way we treat editors in situations is counterproductive; indeffing an editor and then excessively bashing them is wiki bear baiting, the normal and logical outcome will be the editor replies with intemperate language -- so we can then say -- See? We were right! There are uncivilized!

    If the goal is to ban Calton because they are a bad person, then open the appropriate ban discussion at AN. Otherwise, let's treat them with respect and, instead of vague terms like "battleground" and "awful attitude" provide specific, concrete expectations. Whether or not "buckwheat" is racist isn't a useful debate -- it's clearly inappropriate. Editors should only be addressed by their account name or reasonable abbreviation thereof: for example, Bish for Bishonen (talk · contribs) or "puppy" for LethalPekingnese, or KDB or DB. So all Calton should have to do is make a simple declarative statement they will only address editors by their account names. They they're unblocked and we go back to what they're doing.NE Ent 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with the conclusion but would note that the fact that the term is racist or racially insensitive highlights why your conclusion (and policy) regarding the appropriate narrower terms of address is a sensible one. (Also Users are still responsible for their own comments). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether he used the name in a racist manner (and the evidence is that he was previously told it was perceived that way), he clearly used it pejoratively, so the question of racism is not a necessary factor in the re-block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good decision; I agree with Mr. Stradivarius above. A collaborative project can have no use for people who persist in insulting their colleagues, especially (but not limited to) with racial insults.  Sandstein  20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with the reblocking, which clearly had consensus support. There's no wheel war here as far as I'm concerned and I certainly won't be unblocking Calton myself. The way I saw it when I unblocked, there was a feeling that Calton was unlikely to offend again having had this very public warning. I felt it was important to respond to Calton's appeal with some speed and so probably misjudged the consensus which then quickly solidified after my unblock. As it stands now I am a little uncertain about what Calton needs to do or say to make an unblock request stick - but as I'm not going to be the one to make that call I can skip that puzzle! Apologies for not replying here sooner, I've been away for the last 24 hours on family business. Now back and will keep looking at this conversation. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I think the racial issue needs to be separated from the incivility. Had he written "jerk" instead, the result would have likely been a severe warning or short block, with reinstatement simply requiring a statement that he won't do it in the future. It's clear that there are people that do not know the racial component of "Buckwheat", and that Calton is one of them. Just because someone tells you something 7 years ago in the heat of an argument, and someone else says it years (and many thousands of conversations) later under similar heated circumstances, doesn't mean you should necessarily believe it, particularly if you are generally "anti-PC" (though you probably should investigate). It's clear from the block appeal that Calton did not acknowledge the seriousness of the racial component of the term (though I'll bet he does now, or at least understands it's more widespread than he thought), but also that he clearly stated he wouldn't use it again – all that should have been required. Procedurally, the re-block is pretty ridiculous, like a court overturning a case on appeal and then changing their minds and throwing you back in jail a day later. He should be unblocked and everyone should move on with their lives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's more like a nice cop releasing the guy on his own recognizance before the court even had a chance to discuss it, and when they did, they remanded the guy into custody (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review Caltons block log. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who thinks that Calton is "productive" should subtract the amount of time wasted by other Wikipedians in RFCs, threads on AN/I, arbitration, arguments on his talk page, and arguments on article pages. They should also take into account the damage he has caused to the reputation of Wikipedia. Many of the people Calton insults are new to the project. Their first human interaction is often with Calton. He is one editor, but how many people has he chased away? How many people are commenting on this thread right now? How does Wikipedia appear to observers when someone is allowed to ignore one of it's five pillars for so many years while other users are blocked without review? The damage to our reputation is deep and will last many years. I can only hope that this is a sign that Wikipedia now takes our civility policy seriously and not just a sign that Calton's patrons have left the project.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reblock. I've looked through the block log of this user, and I see FIVE prior blocks for incivility, since 2006. If a user is still doing the same things 7 years on (even if it is 3 and a half years since they were last blocked), then being unblocked from an indef that quickly, after such a dodgy unblock request, is not the right move, to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah, pitchforks down, people

    While Calton's unblock request was flippant, there was something in there that everybody seems to have missed: he was making a reference to the TV show Wiseguy. Yes, that was inadvisable for all sorts of reasons, but pretty clearly not intended as racist. This is ridiculous. Can anyone give me a valid reason how the encyclopedia would be harmed if we unblock him and take him at his word that we won't use it again? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the very specific education about this particular insult Calton received and flippantly dismissed very nearly eight years ago, his lengthy block log since then suggests that this is not, as so depressingly frequently asserted at ANI, a witchhunt over a specific naughty word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But, again, would the encyclopedia be harmed if we unblocked, with the agreement of all parties that if the word is used again he'll be re-blocked, this time for good? It can't be understated that the supposed racist meaning of the word is far from commonly understood--I'm a native English speaker from the US and have never heard it used as a racist insult, though I've heard plenty of other ones. It's normally a character name and a plant used to make noodles. It really says something that we've had to use Urbandictionary to even find the insult definition. Urbandictionary is about as trustworthy and accurate as a drug-induced fever dream and would never fly as a reliable source in any article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the problem with Calton isn't the use of a single word ("buckwheat") but his consistent use, year after year, of insults: [22]. He cannot edit Wikipedia without making personal attacks. Making him agree to not use the word "buckwheat" is meaningless because there are so many other insults he can use (and has used) against other users. He will be back here again if you unblock him. He should promise to not make arguments personal at all. Even then, I would not take him at his word, because previous blocks have not persuaded him to change at all. So, yes, the encyclopedia would be harmed gravely by unblocking him. See my comment right above this sub-section for an explanation why.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, that diff is from 2007(!!!) and his block log shows before this debacle he hadn't been blocked since 2009. He's not the Wikipedia Boogeyman some in this thread have desperately tried to portray him as. Stuff he may have done half a decade ago is of little bearing to the current issue. This is at worst a minor civility breach, he should apologise for it, agree not to do it again, and everyone should move on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a now long-running battle going on over articles about Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and his theories and related organizations. The subject first came to my attention in a FT/N notice back on 10 January concerning Progressive utilization theory (also called PROUT), which appears to be Sarkar's central socio-economic theory. This quickly ballooned into concern over other pages, and I set up a page listing all articles relating to Sarkar simply to make it easier to keep track of things without having to re-search constantly.

    My personal assessment of these articles is complex. Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga and a few related articles are plainly notable on their own due to involvement in Indian politics and a couple of incidents abroad; there is also an economist at SMU who published a bestselling and spectacularly wrong book. These articles suffer greatly from being written by Sarkar's followers from primary sources, and they tend to be promotional in large part. What has really kicked up the conflict, however, is the constellation of minor articles surrounding these. For instance, Sarkar wrote lots of books and pamphlets, many of which had articles and none of which has any significant footprint outside of the movements. These have been put up for deletion and all have either been deleted or redirected back to Sarkar's article. These deletions have been fought doggedly by a group of editors, all of whom apparently have some connection to Sarkar.

    We very quickly fell into two camps. First, there was FT/N camp:

    and possibly others. These were opposed by the second camp:

    Joining these, however, were a group of SPAs, all with almost no edits outside these articles and especially the AFDs for the various books. Not surprisingly this raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, and that led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda, which was preceded by an earlier check. Both of these were technically inconclusive, but that didn't stop a lot of people from raising meatpuppetry and canvassing accusations all around. My index of articles has been accused of being a hit list aimed at deleting all of these articles.

    As I said above, I don't intend to have everything deleted, and I've largely stayed out of the AFDs to try to lessen the ganging up impression. For the same reason I haven't gone after the various articles with a machete as by rights I could have. But it seems clear to me that there's some sort of canvassing going on to get more votes on the deletion discussions, and the pro-Sarkar camp has buried us in walls of text and other "policy is not going to get in the way of delivering The Truth to the world" tactics. This needs to be brought to some sort of resolution that doesn't involve so much Wikidrama. A simple RFC isn't going to do it because the scope of the problem isn't one well-bounded issue. Eventually someone is going to have to go after all the extensive primary sourcing in the articles which we all agree ought to stay. And behind all of this is a huge navbox template which promises the creation of many more articles which are also likely to be considered for deletion or merger. We need to stop the madness. At a minimum the SPI needs to be closed and archived, but from my point of view the pro-Sarkar side needs to be made aware that the articles are going to have to be brought into line no matter how true his teachings may be. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This seems like an obvious question, but what are they trying to accomplish by creating all these articles on WP, at best rewording all the info from their own publications and websites? Do they just like the wiki style of editing and presentation? If so, is it possible that is hasn't occurred to them that they could establish their own wiki installation? It's free and they would have complete control over its policies and presentation, versus trying constantly to work around and defeat WP's policies (which are necessary to keep it from becoming a pile of crap). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe, how do we get to awareness "that the articles are going to have to be brought into line"? As I'm very sure you're aware, we're tripping over really basic levels of policy: what is and is not an independent, reliable, secondary source, the idea that articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources, that canvassing is bad and so is removing talk page comments written by others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is this the time and place to propose bans? Are you looking for 1RR on the remaining Sarkar-related articles? What, specifically, do we need to do to move forward? Garamond Lethet
    c     17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment & complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I repeat here what I've repeatedly said even here. I created the two tables below (the 1st is on a collapse box) to show the "persecution" of one group of users against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. These users are user:Mangoe,user:bobrayner, user:Garamond Lethe, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:DGG and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints. As everyone can see from the summary table (the second below) they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic in about a month. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author on a sandbox of user:Mangoe. We have an evidence of the strong connection of these users' follow-up in the revision history of their "agenda" here and in some of their thalks.

    1st Table: all the 21 AfDs on the same topic proposed by the same users. (Click on "Show" to display it)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Date bobrayner Garamond Lethe DGG Location Mangoe CorrectKnowledge Zananiri Dougweller North8000
    Current edit counts 36575 4145 109627 11183 18657 5281 719 96754 29836
    Neohumanism in a Nutshell‎ 6 January 2013 AfD proposal merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete or merge Delete or merge
    Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) 6 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete Delete Delete or merge
    Shabda Cayanika 10 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Delete or merge Delete Delete or merge
    Namah Shivaya Shantaya‎ 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Merge Delete
    Discourses on PROUT 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete
    Problems of the Day 21 January 2013 AfD proposal Strong delete Delete Delete
    Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy‎ 24 January 2013 Delete Strong delete AfD proposal Delete
    Microvitum in a Nutshell 25 January 2013 Delete Delete AfD proposal Delete or merge
    PROUT in a Nutshell 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal
    The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism 29 January 2013 Delete Delete Delete or merge and redirect Delete
    Prabhat Samgiita 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Redirect
    Subhasita Samgraha 29 January 2013 Delete or redirect AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete or redirect -
    Idea and Ideology 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete -
    Ananda Vacanamrtam 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete
    Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) 6 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete
    Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete
    A Guide to Human Conduct) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete
    To the Patriots 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete
    Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete
    Yoga Psychology 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete
    Namami Krsnasundaram 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete

    2nd Summary table: Total number of AFDS and deletions proposed by these users on 21 articles

    bobrayner Garamond Lethe DGG Location Mangoe CorrectKnowledge Zananiri Dougweller North8000
    AfD proposals (successful) 4 (4) 12 (9) (one undecided) 2 (2) 2 (2) 0 0 0 0 0
    Delete/merge or redirect 17 5 8 11 8 11 7 5 4
    Keep 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect". Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:

    • Examples of disruptive deletions
    1. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
    2. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.
    • Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting
    1. On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.
    1. User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.
    • Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks
    1. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet.
    2. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: ..on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"

    I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop, Cornelius383. The walls of text are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Ditto for the misquotes and the distortion of other people's comments. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the only interpreation any reasonable person would make. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a "single-verse" user. I started editing on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact. Of course I understand and I agree that the text I had to produce in order to defend myself was much. Of course it was not my intention to create a "Text wall" but sometimes the tank is full and the water comes out! What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? And if a group of users (almost always the same) had always voted compactly "Delete" or "Redirect" in all the AfDs? And if those group even created a "Deleting Agenda" on a sandbox that they are strictly following to delete all? And what if some of those users have an improper behaviour as I said in the three points I have outlined above? Please try to understand!--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV is an editing policy I follow regardless of personal POV. There's many editors here with personal positions I find distateful, perhaps even repulsive at times - but their opinions are theirs to hold freely, and as long as we all edit neutrally, we're one big, happy, dysfunctional Wikifamily. I honestly find it more than a bit dissapointing that you would decide that, based on my personal opinions, I would choose to suggest that articles be deleted regarding other practices. Policy is policy regardless of spiritual path. As for the dates, as clearly stated and disclosed, User:Aerobird is my legitimate alternate account. I established it in 2005, when I first joined Wikipedia; in 2007, being a bit burned out for personal reasons, I went on a lenghty Wikibreak. When I returned, I simply abandoned the old account, and created a new one, using the new identity I preferred using for things online, while clearly establishing and disclosing my previous Wikipediaing. When I became an admin (at which point the previous account was disclosed, as required), I re-adopted it as a legitimate alternate account as allowed under policy, as using my main account, which has the tools, on a public computer is potentially risky due to the possibility of password keylogging and such. That said, however, if you cannot trust my neutrality on this position, I can accept that, and will bow out of this debate. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    C383, All of us have long and more or less uninvolved careers here. As far as I know, the only common link is through FT/N, except that DGG and I run across each other because we are both active in category maintenance and AFDs. All of us except GL have at least 10k edits. If there's any "conspiracy" between us, it's simply the common objective of preventing fringe crusaders from using Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their causes. Other than the list of articles, there has been no coordination with me and anyone else, and I haven't sought out other people who were not already participants in the issue. It's obvious that someone among Sarkar's supporters here has fetched up more participants: five new accounts are registered as the AFDs begin, and all of them quickly settle into voting on these AFDs, with two making such votes as their first edits. Given the course of these thus far, this tactic isn't working. But we are going to have to deal with the main articles themselves, and the policy-ignoring obstruction will be a much more severe problem there. Already Progressive utilization theory is full-protected because of this.
    I want to repeat what I've said every time something like this has come up: I think that in-movement editors can be very helpful in this kind of article, because they potentially are more aware of secondary sources about their movement than us outsiders are. But the price they have to pay for participation is letting go of the crusade to bring their important knowledge to the world. We are not here to evangelize Anandamurti's teachings. To the degree that they are presented, that presentation must be neutral, and we certainly are required to present what the world thinks of those same teachings. If they are going to treat these requirements as persecution, it will go badly. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put a collapse box around the table. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my view of this was best expressed in my question at the afd on Prabhat Samgiita. I will support reasonable articles for which there is good evidence, and even make allowances for the difficulty of finding conventional sources for esoteric material. But I do not support unreasonably detailed articles on multiple books of an individual thinker that in the whole serve the interest of promotion of their views, and I think the introduction of such articles even foolish viewed as promotion, for nobody not already in the group of supporters will read them. I've said this consistently for the 6 years I've been here.
    I don't approve of promotional editing--I is the biggest threat to the encyclopedic for if it is full of advertising nobody will take us seriously. Paid editors we can cope with: since they work for money, if we reject their improper editing consistently they will decide it's not worth the money. Zealous promoters of a cause do not stop, because they have a message. The sensible ones stop after they've achieved a reasonable article, and will take advice on how to get it. If we can turn attempted promotion into encyclopedic articles on notable topics, I will work hard and long with an article or an editor to get there. If they are not sensible, they will not take advice, and they will continue defending their material until we force them to leave, and even then it has sometimes been a problem.
    I have repeatedly urged Abhidevananda to let me help him condense this material; he has politely but consistently declined. If a person will not accept help, nobody can help him. It's hard to be patient with such an editor. Still, it is possible, and we can politely but firmly edit and delete the material without insulting him or his cause. On the whole, I think we have done that, though I would not have used the word "sarkarspam" however I may have thought it.
    In short, I approve of what Mangoe has said and done. He has made every possible effort to help, and he has done this with great courtesy. Perhaps even with too great courtesy--I would have taken a much shorter route with some of the articles, and I would not oppose a neutral editor making careful use of speedy deletion. With the PROUT article, if we cannot get a shorter reasonable article when protection expires, we shall have to consider whether we can do a redirect, which would be a shame. I do not think we need take any admin action on the editors, provided they do not try to reintroduce the articles, but it always helps to clear away any sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have made the page [User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles]; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please DGG read my answer to The Bushranger above (the one that starts with: "I'm not a single-verse user.."). This is my reply to you too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitive proof that Garamond Lethe and DGG aren't socks comes from one of the AfDs linked above: I don't think the DGG I know would have ever made this categorical statement. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, suggesting DGG is a sock (or a master) is beyond silly, so much so that I can't even come up with a witty simile. Second, the comment was "References (still) don't count towards notability." Perhaps this is shorthand for "these references (still) don't count towards notability", but having looked at the references I doubt that DGG, who knows academic publishing like few other people here, would have said that. So--have you taken back those suggestions yet? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatantly reversion by User:The tampan

    The tampan (talk · contribs) blatantly revert the fixes i had made during the past few days without any reasons. [23][24][25][26][27]. Is this consider as uncivil and already crossed the 3RR rule? --Aleenf1 02:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is a problem; new account (January), editing against consensus, 2000 edits, only one to article talk, needs to use the preview button (but I'm not sure we really enforce that particular guideline very much). Probably need big scary warning from admin or temporary block to get them to start talking. NE Ent 14:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided that big scary warning, cause it's Saturday morning and I'm in a fairly nice mood. This editor should be blocked the moment they continue their edit war, but note that I've listed some additional offenses in the big scary warning. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aleen, while you're at it, you can also remove all those flags: this is not the Olympics, this isn't national representation in that sense. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an IP editor at work there as well, whom I suspect of being the same editor. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the IP (111.68.25.66) and Tampan are the same--look at how they dis-disambiguate Robert Blair (badminton) here and here. I'm going to block the account temporarily for ongoing unexplained editing to the point of (past) disruption and evading scrutiny by editing while not being logged in. Note also how the IP edits on 9 March between 14:23 and 16:35, while Tampan is logged out. The general charge is ongoing edits that disrupt the articles they're working on and refusal to communicate. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw, anyway i will tidy it. --Aleenf1 03:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CsDix

    Hello, this isn't a major issue but one that seems to be growing in scale of changes being made. CsDix (talk · contribs) has been making wholesale changes to multiple templates today. Several users have brought up issues regarding the changes he has made, and I have one as well. My main issue is in regards to this is regarding the categories he has been creating. I seem to recall a change to the categories names from Xxx navbox templates to Xxx navigational templates some time ago; CsDix has been going around redirecting said categories from the former form and redirecting to newly created categories in the latter form.

    There is no detectable malicious intent that I can detect, but the scale of changes he has made could make this difficult to correct, if he is in error that is. Input would be nice, thanks. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think I was here if / when there was a change from "X navbox templates" to "X navigational templates" (or is it "X navigational boxes"?), but the rationale is to maintain a consistent naming format across the the three most common kinds of (relatively large and/or not-inline) templates that appear in articles: navboxes, sidebars and infoboxes. Any templates in the category "X templates" are then unsorted (i.e. "X templates" is a holding category) until they are put in "X navbox templates", "X sidebar templates" or "X infobox templates", otherwise "X [type] templates" (e.g. "X inline templates", "X timeline templates" – see Template:Template category) if they aren't one of the three most common types. A bit wordy, but I hope that clarifies the clarification I'm trying to make. CsDix (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The first time someone asks you to stop, you need to stop and discuss before doing any more. WP:CONSENSUS rules (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, please stop, and see requested moves (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • RM isn't the right place. WP:CFDS is, if "navigational templates" really is the standard then you can nominate them for renaming under C2C. It should also save you a fair bit of work as once you've nominated (assuming no one objects) admins and bots will do the rest. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP messing with Succession to Muhammad

    It's not quite vandalism, but a tenacious IP, 67.167.137.24 (talk · contribs) keeps POV pushing at Succession to Muhammad. (I think it's either a Sunni or Shia POV.) See the recent page history. I've issued multiple warnings already, and I don't want to BITE, but this is problematic behavior. If it were an established editor, I'd say it was IDIDNTHEARTHAT for sure. --BDD (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • It seems to have died down, if I am reading my time stamps correctly. Another user issued a final warning, which was more than appropriate; future disruption (it clearly is disruptive behavior) should result in a temporary block. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block vandal 2.67.27.80

    Please block the reocurring problem user 2.67.27.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for what I believe would be obvious reasons. - Tournesol (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tournesol, you should use proper, templated warnings, instead of a rather assholish comment, "What is your problem?" Then, report them to WP:AIV. In this case, those edits were disruptive enough to warrant a block, but come on, start using standard procedure please. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your feedback. Is the tone typical for how you normally respond to requests, or were you just trying to make a point?

    I'm not a frequent contributor to ENWP (I just came over here after we blocked this guy at SVWP) so I'm rather unlikely to ever to learn the standard procedure here by heart. The next time, I guess the best thing I can do is to just stay out of the way and not get involved at all. - Tournesol (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I call 'em as I see 'em, Tournesol. There is no Wikipedia in the world where "What is your problem?" is a proper way to go about it. There are, no doubt, Wikipedias where such comments warrant a warning. If you don't wish to play nice, don't feel the need to comment any further. In the meantime, thank you for having reverted that disruptive editor, and I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tournesol, I would recommend activating Twinkle if you feel like reverting vandals here. It's a helpful tool that generates a lot of warning and welcome templates automatically, as well as a lot of other stuff. That way a repeat of this can be avoided. –TCN7JM 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that was a helpful piece of advice. - Tournesol (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal account

    Editor blocked, in the future, please report at the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. TBrandley (what's up) 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pizzaofverduke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Appears to be a vandalism-only account, making edits every 60 seconds causing damage. They're up to 30 or so at this point. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    They're indefinitely blocked now, by JohnCD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Demiurge1000

    In November, Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) was blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. He was shortly thereafter unblocked with the understanding that he would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated."

    Yet just three days ago, Demiurge1000 falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Their comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and Demiurge1000 was given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn them a block.

    Demiurge1000 has made many, many negative comments over the last few months about the participants in an external website, labelling them "the boxcutter crew" and the like. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after making another such comment yesterday, I left a note explaining that his constant on-wiki taunting of these people is unhelpful and likely to backfire.

    He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which he then followed by trolling my talk page.

    As I told Demiurge1000, this is completely unacceptable behavior, and as such I have restored and extended the NPA block to 1 month.

    Normally, I would not feel the need to bring such obvious NPA and trolling block to AN/I for review, but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about, I am requesting community input. As far as I'm aware, I've never had any disputes with Demiurge1000 before, but when it comes to WP:INVOLVED it's better to err on the side of caution, which is why I'm bringing it here. Any admin is welcome to adjust the block as they see fit, and as I told Demiurge1000, if he makes a credible commitment not to repeat the behavior, I would support a unblock. I believe it would be unwise to unblock absent such a commitment from the editor, but as always I defer to community consensus.

    I have notified Demiurge1000 of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    28bytes, as you put it, "but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about...", perhaps a neutral third party should have done the block. Your block seems harsh (a month) and punitive.--MONGO 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Demiurge should be unblocked without consensus here. Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that I think he should have been blocked. I'm not especially up to speed on all the ins-and-outs of that ArbCom situation, although it looks like a fiasco to me, so I won't pretend to know who should or should not be blocked. However, let's keep in mind that blocking and unblocking without consensus has caused significant unpleasantness in the not-so-distant past. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Righteous block, would have preferred another admin make it, in context. NE Ent 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you provoked him a tad, though Demiurge needed little provoking. The most unsettling thing for me were his constant references to members of WO as the "boxcutter crew", but he seems to have committed to not using that term again. My thought is that it could be shortened to a week.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boxcutter crew" What does that mean? The Admin should have discussed with the User, why the User thought he was being personally attacked. Did he think you were impugning his motives? Also, someone else should have done the block. But there may well be an argument for a block of some length, but this is not clearly justified here, if you were arguably provoking him in the view of TDA, who was also involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    TDA, when you say a moderator said that inappropriate comment, are you saying a Wikipedia Sysop said that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this [28] is correct, "boxcutter" refers to some threat made on an external website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a reasonable explanation, but most many readers seeing the term "boxcutter crew" are going to associate it with 9/11. NE Ent 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original context of Demiurge's famous box-cutter quote is here. Now, that comment was inappropriate. It was removed from the forum as a result a few hours after it was made, and the moderator who made it got a royal bollocking from the rest of us. Having said that, to describe it as a "threat" is nonsense. You only need to look at the context. It's a figure of speech. Lizzy Caplan e.g. once said in the New York Post, "I don't think you should be allowed to eat in a restaurant if you haven't waited tables at least once. It's so irritating when I see people being rude to waiters, like, it makes me want to slit their throats! Like, really? You're really this inconsiderate?" So the whole thing is overblown, just like the fuss that was made about the comments that sparked the Twitter joke trial. Not nice, not to be repeated, but not worth the fuss Demiurge has made over it. Andreas JN466 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    .

    • I'm not a fan of Demiurge1000, but this seems like a rather long block handed out because their response to the warning, not because of the incident itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opinions of the IP above notwithstanding (and it's rather curios to see an IP posting here), it appears that making personal attacks against some of the people at Wikipediocracy probably should not be a sanctionable offense. As for the IP, he does not seem to know what he is talking about, as boxcutter is almost certainly a reference to an inappropriate comment made by a sociopath on another site. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I agree with Demiurge when he says, "On a minor technical note, I'm not at all convinced that when one "resets" a 24 hour block that would have expired nearly four months ago, a proportionate extension of it can sensibly be said to reach the region of one month." Therefore, I support an unblock. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully endorse block This editor has been politely given advice on multiple occasions by multiple editors. The continuous postings across multiple venues, from arbitration related pages to the village pump, complaining about "people talking about me" and all the drama that ensues in a mature environment is a bit of a mystery to me. Frankly I would have considered an "indef" until the user could display that they understood the reasons that this project exists. — Ched :  ?  19:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: Being unfamiliar with the term being tossed around, a bit of researching the meaning of "boxcutter", I was unable to find anything positive; but plenty of negative and derogatory explanations. — Ched :  ?  19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Month long block is sort of excessive (as have been almost all sanctions related to this recent wikipediocracy mess). Perhaps reduce it to one week?--Staberinde (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think the period of the block (at least a couple of users have suggested reducing it) is of any significance. The issue is what kind of "credible commitment" (28bytes's phrase) must Demiurge make to be unblocked? As usual, I'm unfamiliar with the background mess, but even in trying to follow the latest mess, I see little clarity. As a procedural aside, I don't believe 28bytes is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • additional note I see that the blocked editor is now hosting a picture of some rather young people who are said to already be the targets of internet harassment. Considering the already mounting concerns over WP:OUT; I have to wonder if that is a particularly wise idea. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we are using bolds, here's some more. Now, in all seriousness. 28bytes is just mad that we removed a comment he made on my talkpage, which is fully within guidelines. Furthermore, he's now told me that I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances, which means that tons more users deserve a block as well. This block was inappropriate, especially because Demiurge had never attacked anyone directly (afaik), and I feel that this may be an attempt to just cool down the ArbCom case before it explodes. Regardless, Demiurge does not deserve this block, as everything they've said so far is completely founded, and we both offered to provide evidence in private if asked to. Nobody's asked us for evidence. Therefore, you can't say this is unfounded and personal attacky, because it's all deserved. Block should be overturned and the blocking administrator should be seriously admonished. Oh, p.s., for those of you who want to know, the comments in question were by the blocking admin themselves, making them extremely WP:INVOLVED. gwickwiretalkediting 20:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment in question[29] looks to me like good advice, not a personal attack, and I don't see that it makes 28bytes involved to the extent he couldn't block. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, given the situation, I hope you understand that seeing him come and tell us to basically "stop sniping" when it's fully warranted seemed a bit bad, given the concerns me and others have raised about the attempted silencing going on. Looking now, I don't think anyone made a personal attack, not demi, not me, not the blocking administrator. I think we should just unblock, all say sorry to each other, and move on (and I won't say fuck so much anymore, oh fuck I just fuck I'm still fucking saying it! Ugh! So hard!) Humor for those who didn't catch that. gwickwiretalkediting 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support-ish - While long overdue...the boxcutter jibes were getting a bit overdone and tiring...perhaps there is wiggle room here. Perhaps a length reduction pending agreement of a topic-ban from all Wikipediaocracy/Wikipedia Review related discussions, broadly construed? Tarc (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about that? A Wikipediocracy contributor trying to silence someone from talking about the major issue here by proposing (implied) a topic ban? That's a great tactic, but everyone can see through it. Nice try. gwickwiretalkediting 21:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    gwickwire, you're doing yourself and others no favors here. Wikipedia is not the "Internet Police Task Force". If you have a problem with WO, then take it up with them. Quite frankly, with all the fuss you've been making about this - I think that they (WO) could not have held a better membership drive if they had tried. Nobody here cares where Tarc spends his time on the internet (no offense Tarc), as long as he abides by the rules here when he is here. If you feel that WO is doing something shady, have your parents contact a local law enforcement agency - or do so yourself if you are of age. We are simply not equipped to take the kind of action you're looking for. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that users are not abiding by our rules regarding editor conduct, and it's okay because they're not strictly on Wikipedia. We are equipped to stop this by blocking editors who choose to violate our rules, here or elsewhere. If you don't remember, I specifically said this would only apply to a Wikipedia editor who violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor. Regardless, this is not the place to have that discussion. I was only pointing out that this editor is a bit too COIy to be trusted with a neutral opinion on Wikipediocracy and Demiurge. gwickwiretalkediting 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "they're not strictly on Wikipedia" implies that they are in some way on Wikipedia. They are not. Twitter is not Wikipedia, Amazon is not Wikipedia, IMDB is not Wikipedia, and Wikipediocracy is not Wikipedia. For someone who claims not to like Wikipediocracy, you seem to be doing a great job of advertising that site here. I'm sure many people have gone there just to see what all the fuss is about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly don't hang out in the right places and am always the last to know. Until these last few comments, I had no idea the background of this was another website. I just assumed that wikipediocracy was a coined word to refer to the bureaucracy at Wikipedia, i.e., 28bytes being a 'crat and all. Obviously, I spend too much time in my own little admin hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    gwickwire, we do not block people who "violate our rules...elsewhere". That's elsewhere, and has precisely bupkis to do whether they get blocked here. Criminal conduct excepted in some cases, I believe. If somebody "violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor" somewhere that isn't Wikipedia, but remains within policy on Wikipedia itself, any block would be strictly punitive, and blocks like that go over like lead balloons. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for gwickwire (or anyone else): You claim that 28bytes said something along the lines of " I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances," - could someone please provide a diff for that? I know some people get rattled when people use "big boy" words, but I can't find where he's made that requirement of you. — Ched :  ?  01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's still on my talkpage, he told me I was being incivil somehow, the only thing I came close with was saying fuck, I guess I assumed. If he meant something else, fine. Regardless, Demiurge has apologized and has said they won't use the (imo not that bad compared to some other peoples words recently) word they used which got them blocked. Unblock is fine now. gwickwiretalkediting 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduce duration or unblock. Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock until there is a policy requiring editors to be nice to WO. I do not see a problem that requires a block of any length in what appear to be the important diffs from the OP ("after making another such comment yesterday" ∙ "I left a note" ∙ "He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks" ∙ "he then followed by trolling my talk page"). The boxcutter reference is to an extremely offensive remark made at WO, and presumably "boxcutter crew" refers to the people who encourage such offensiveness by making participation at WO appear to be a normal procedure. Has Demiurge1000 made a personal attack against a specific editor? The "trolling my talk page" remark was certainly aggressive, but an admin should not block someone for a pointed yet civil rejoinder. If Demiurge1000 had violated a policy like WP:BLP and followed a warning with that rejoinder, a long block would be very appropriate as the rejoinder would show a disregard for the policy. However, I see no policy breaches. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock or reduction So, the drama-inducing external website (WP:DIEW?) rears its ugly head once again. As much poison as that website creates, one would think we as editors would learn just to ignore what appears to be just a gigantic a) timesink and b) trolling board. Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia. Here's the real reality: with sock accusations, either file the SPI or STFU; period - it's uncivil otherwise. Also, any further reference to boxcutters should be met with instant and final site ban; again period. As Demi has said it won't recur, this should not be an issue. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reduced to 1 week

    There seems to be a fair amount of support for (at least) a reduction in the block length, and I take Demiurge1000's and others' point that going from a 1 day block to 1 month isn't the usual block escalation pattern, so I've dropped it down to 1 week. And as I said at the top of this thread, if any admin is convinced that Demiurge1000 is going to cease making false or unsubstantiated accusations, they have my blessing to unblock. Judging from what I've read on Demiurge1000's talk page, I don't (yet) see such a commitment; instead, I mostly see defenses of why it's necessary for him to keep stoking the flames of the us vs. them battle. So the options now, I suppose, are for him to:

    1. make an honest commitment to avoid making stuff up about people, and get unblocked immediately,
    2. wait it out for a week, or
    3. hope someone unblocks him without any commitment to stop the problematic behavior.

    I sincerely hope he will come to realize why making false statements about other people is such a corrosive thing to do in a collaborate environment and make a sincere commitment to stop doing that, but judging from the comments here so far, I think there's a decent chance he'll get unblocked without making such a commitment, in which case I suppose we'll be back here soon enough. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Demiurge1000

    I'm creating a subsection for any comments Demiurge wants to make here. This is the first:

    I'd like to make anyone who's not seen it aware that I've posted an explanation in this section of why I (and another editor) initially perceived 28bytes' comments as a personal attack.

    --Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather ridiculous

    I feel like no one was paying attention at all. First off, i'll start with Gwickwire, since that will be shorter. They were blocked by saying that personal attacks had been made against them by Kevin. This is true, I saw them too before they were oversighted (they were oversighted for several reasons, really). So, it's kind of ridiculous to say that the claims are unfounded and ask for evidence when the evidence has been oversighted.

    Onto Demiurge, let's start with the warning. Now, I don't know who it was they accused of contributing to the outing of a minor. Sure, User:Vigilant was the one who very clearly did the outing on the site, but there were indeed several other editors that were involved in the berating of Gwickwire and contributing to the general attacks on them that led to Vigilant doing that. Now, whether that's considered contributing to the outing directly or not, I don't know. That's rather subjective.

    Next, the "boxcutter" comment. This is a jab at Ericbarbour, who used that comment to refer to Wikipedians in the past. Sure, not a nice thing to say, but if you're just quoting the terms they used, essentially, it seems silly to get that upset over it.

    Last is 28bytes' comments. I don't know about any of you, but being accussed of "constant sniping" sounds like a personal attack to me. Also, isn't saying "egging on other folks to taunt them" an unfounded attack? Demiurge had nothing to do with Gwickwire and 28bytes was accusing him of egging them on.

    So, please, do tell me why blocks were handed out for both of them here? If it's based on the recent 28bytes stuff, it seems to me that they are the one in the wrong, not Demiurge. SilverserenC 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really care about 28bytes, I just think that unblocking Demiurge and Gwickwire is appropriate. SilverserenC 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Silver seren, if you think that my comment was in any way, shape or form a personal attack, then your understanding of our policy on personal attacks is so poor that you really have no business commenting in a discussion about personal attacks until you gain a better understanding of what one is. 28bytes (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't a large one, but it is quite easy to see how someone could consider being accused of "constant sniping" would consider that a personal attack. Furthermore, why did you accuse Demiurge of "egging on" Gwickwire to "taunt them"? SilverserenC 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I have to agree with 28bytes on this one. I really do not see how a reasonable person could consider that a personal attack. That was clearly and obviously a comment about 28bytes' perception of Demiurge's actions not their person. Resolute 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support block of 28bytes for abuse of admin tools in violating WP:INVOLVED by blocking Gwickwire (his block of D1000 might also have violated said policy, making the second block even worse). I'm very disappointed, as I previously had a lot of respect for 28bytes. Otherwise, I would probably say he should be desysoped. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? In what way am I "involved" with Gwickwire? Prior to blocking this editor, my only edits having anything to do with this person were to [ask another editor not to pester them and to warn them for repeatedly making stuff up about people, which they continued to do, which is why they are now blocked. Are you seeing some other edits I am not aware of? 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    28, may I ask if you consulted an OS before blocking Gwick? He claims that the comments in question have been oversighted. Considering that this whole mess started with an admin using their tools in a situation where they didn't have access to all the information, I think this would be a logical thing to do. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really a strange section to read. No, warning an editor does not make an admin involved, and even if it did, the response to that would not be to block the admin in retaliation. I see that PinkAmpersand has said he's in communication with Gwickwire - can I ask that if anyone else is here because they were asked to comment or urged toward a particular position, they say so here? The level of vitriol being directed at 28bytes here seems disproportionate for uninvolved users to be putting out, and I know gwickwire was expressing his distaste for the block on IRC earlier today, though he says he has not asked anyone to comment here besides PA (as PA discloses above). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the vitriol is also distracting from the simple fact that I don't think all the facts were properly explained in Demiurge and Gwickwire's blocks and that, with this information, it shows that they shouldn't have been blocked. It really has little to do with 28bytes beyond the fact that he introduced the section in the first place. SilverserenC 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I'd like to thank you, Fluff, for not jumping to any conclusions about my motives outside of what I've already said. To be clear, anything I say for Gwickwire is his opinion, and anything else I say is mine. I consider him a good friend, but I think that in times like this Wikipedians have a habit to rally around users who they've had positive past experiences with, without considering the circumstances. I'm not fully informed about everything that's happened here, and I wouldn't pretend to be. That's why I asked 28bytes the question about Oversight – I legitimately want to know who's in the right here, and to me that seemed a crucial question. If I feel confident that I fully understand the situation, I'll voice my opinion then, but I, for one, definitely don't plan on being part of any IRCCabal plot to sway opinion one way or the other. (I don't think such a plot exists, of course.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been in contact with Gwickwire through IRC, in what I'm trying to make a helpful and friendly conversation (but YMMV), but I am not here as a result of his request, and in fact have a substantially different opinion about this from his. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)On Wikipedia, civility is ... some vague notion that we seem to be unable to come to agreement on. Last year's arbcom and over a hundred editors spent months on it to come up with the not very helpful:

    Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
    — English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

    Demiurge and gwickwire have legitimate concerns about websites outside Wikipedia; although a significant number of Wikipedia editors believe that participation on such sites is inconsistent with collaborative editing here. They are entitled to that opinion but it is not policy and not the consensus viewpoint, and it does not entitle them to attack other editors. 28bytes, doing the job the community elected him to do, made a judgement that they had crossed that nebulous line. It's okay to disagree with that, it's okay to ask him to reconsider, but it's not okay to turn around and attack him or make ridiculous comments about desysoping and the like. NE Ent 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think 28 was involved on this matter. Admins occasionally warn people in a less than genteel manner, but I do not think this necessarily makes them involved. Demiurge was "egging on" gwick, by saying things to him such as "The small but very important mistake the boxcutter people made, is that they didn't realise that you aren't ever going to give in to harassment." He was certainly engaged in "constant sniping" during this dispute. Gwick has also been unnecessarily combative towards numerous users, such as in the VPP discussion where he is posting links to some blogposts of his that simply list alleged "personal attacks" by editors.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked over every last incident, but many were being presented out of a context or otherwise misquoted. For instance, another quote is presented with "He's being . . . a douche". Those dots are called an ellipsis for those not in the now and indicate excised material. In this case the full comment was "He's being a bit of a douche now, yea, but meh" and the comment in the post was preceded with "Btw, I'm not sure I buy the 'returning editor' idea. Yea he was a bit familiar with the syntax out of the gate, but the editing history is just so terribly milquetoast that I cannot imagine this person ever being in a confrontational/adversarial situation that would warrant a ban or a need to invoke right-to-vanish." Hardly as bad when presented in full and in context right? The references to "lying" noted in gwick's blog were because of comments gwick made such as "A majority of the users on Wikipediocracy seem to have a view that is on one side of the Eastern Europe issue, and one side of the Arbitration decision there. This commonality allows them to effectively coordinate and perform harassment and outing." Another comment cited was "scumbag keed", which was in response to gwick's claim: "The site moderators, some of which hold advanced permissions with access to private information here on Wikipedia, fail to do anything to stop this outing/doxing and harassment, when it is obviously in their power to remove the posts and reprimand the users posting the material." The "scumbag keed" comment was made by Zoloft/Stanistani because he had actually removed the comments Vigilant made about gwick after gwick asked and was thus annoyed. It was redacted when gwick clarified that he had not been referring to Zoloft. Gwick made this blog post after that comment had been redacted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by repeating your claims about Gwickwire being a returning editor. Believe it or not, as much as some of our help pages suck here, it's possible to figure out things pretty fast. The epitome of driving editors away is thinking that all new users must be completely clueless, and therefore any user who isn't a bumbling idiot their first few weeks here must in fact be up to no good. Basically, we'll force you off Wikipedia for not getting our arcane policies, and if you do get them, you're obviously a troll. In my opinion, it should be a blockable offense to accuse an editor of lying about their past once they've answered your questions satisfactorily; here, of course, you're just quoting yourself, but it seems like a rather gratuitous reference to an unhelpful accusation you made in the past. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Gwickwire

    I'm creating a subsection for any comments Gwickwire wants to make here. This is the first:

    First of all, I've promised multiple times to not do this again without evidence. That means that now this block is punitive, as it's not preventing anything (except my opinion) bad. Second of all, I feel that since there was an ongoing discussion about the validity of 28bytes' block of Demiurge1000, which I expressed my extreme dissatisfaction with, he was too involved in that matter to use the block tool on me at the time. Thirdly, when responding to my unblock request, he acknowledged that "I have no intention of lifting this block early.", which means he isn't going to lift it after all standard unblock conditions are met. This is an issue, that's happened twice now in the past 24 hours. Something needs to be done about the two blocks in place, which are hampering the discussions at ANI and VPP, possibly unintentionally. gwickwiretalkediting 21:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    -- Cheers, Riley 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @TDA:

    Even in context, the comments I've compiled are still rude and incivil. The reason I removed some context is to make it less tl;dr for those who don't have 10 hours a day to spend on this.

    —gwickwiretalkediting, as communicated on IRC to PinkAmpersand (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's my understanding that blocking means you get to post to your talk page but nowhere else. Why then does Gwickwire seem to have special license to comment here through proxy editors? — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not uncommon that when a blocked editor is being discussed at a noticeboard (here, sockpuppet investigation, etc.) that their comments are allowed to be entered into the record, so to speak, of the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness

    Please investigate this "project" which seems to be extremely dubious and has attracted several devotees with redlink usernames and few contributions. One of them has already made inroads into a cricket article with out of context stuff based on questionable sources. Could be some kind of hoax being perpetrated. ----Jack | talk page 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's members of a college course. The instructor has just misunderstood the purpose of WikiProjects.  davidiad { t } 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Simon1252 (talk · contribs) is the course instructor, so I suppose the "WikiProject" should be moved into his user space. Am I wrong in remembering that we have people or some task force for working with these class groups?  davidiad { t } 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Richardbrason

    I think it's time he's just blocked indefinitely and we kill his sockpuppets on sight, which some admins have already picked up on. He constantly re-creates overly-promotional articles (Extreme Secure Layer - AFD, Suleman Malik - AFD), and actually re-created both of them immediately after his block for sock-puppetry expired. His talk page is repeatedly blanked by him to flush the warnings that he racks up, but are still visible in the page's history.

    He's down to 13 contributions with all of the deleted contributions that he's racked up, and just got off a 72 hour block. We need to stop entertaining him and just block him and all of his sockpuppets as they appear. Alan(E) 18:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evlekis

    Mutual agreement to close. Props to both editors. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. User:Evlekis removed 9 valid references from the article on Bajram Curri. To further make fun of the contributors of that page, he placed on the top that the article is not referenced, when it was himself removing those references. When I reverted that, he edit warred and brought it to where it was. When I warned him, he said he'd get to it later, meaning that he'd leave the references out for the moment. This is the typical laziness of someone who has little care for the readers of wikipedia.

    2. He insists in placing Serbian names to Albanian individuals who were born in Yugoslavia. Agnesa Vuthaj, Miss Albania, according to him should have the name in Serbian. I don't know why he says that this mediation had such conclusion: he fails to point to the conclusion itself. He is doing the same for other Albanians who were born in Yugoslavia and they all seem as if they are Serbian people now, which they aren't. On top of that he is edit-warring.

    3. He uses racist comments such as this pointing to the fact that Bardhyl Caushi's parents decided to give birth to their son in Yugoslavia, when they were living in their own land. When I point that out instead of apologizing, he is ironic [30]. On top of that he is calling me a rat, pointing out to whatever user he has had frictions in the past. I am a new user in the English wikipedia, but I've had lots of experience in the Albanian wikipedia. Guzhinjeri (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    4. He follows every single contribution of mine. User:IJA had questioned the tags on the article Behgjet Pacolli a month ago, and when I removed them and explained that in the talk page, he comes in and undoes my edit with no explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guzhinjeri (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what to do. Please help. This individual is all over the place and is not letting me fix wikipedia. Guzhinjeri (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the user for you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend a speedy closure to this discussion whilst a WP:CHECKUSER must surely be in order for an editor to have been live for less than three hours yet knows WP policy better than the admins. The comment in which I am accused of racism confounds me as much as everybody else. Guzhinjeri boldly removes the Serbo-Croat name from Agnesa Vuthaj (there to represent name according to official language of birth and childhood) with the comment that it is "not relevant". I merely replied that it was evidently relevant to her parents when choosing to give birth to her in a land where her name would be rendered that way - much like if you are born in an Arab state, your name will have an official Arabic form which is relevant to your relationship to that country (jus soli). This has actually been discussed many times and the policy is far-reaching across the site, I attempted to explain much of the detail here. Please note that the user admits having had "plenty of Wikipedia experience" and in just in case the admin to deal with this does not speak English as a first language, to "smell a rat" is a turn of phrase in which I see patterns emerging between the "new" user and accounts to constitute a disruptive franchise. It does not mean that I refer to the other editor by that label. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser may be used on me, although I find it harassing. I know wiki policies because I have translated many of the into the Albanian wikipedia. If Evlekis thinks I know the policies better than the admins, he is welcome to nominate me for admin work, but I have to accept that nomination first. The comparison of former Yugoslavia with an Arab state is completely irrelevant for the naming of people in Wikipedia. This is a content issue, I came to this board for the behavior of Evlekis who is offensive and also an edit warrior. I saw no comments of him about edit-warring, by the way. Guzhinjeri (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stick to the subject, this is AN/I. You assert that my English is poor yet claim "racism" without citing the nation which is the supposed target of the accusation and something has given you the impression that I nominate you as an admin. I have not made (yet) made a formal request for a CHECKUSER but you certainly know a lot about harassment given that 50% of your contributions have targeted my edits and you also introduced this inquiry. As for the remark, The comparison of former Yugoslavia with an Arab state is completely irrelevant for the naming of people in Wikipedia, perhaps you would like to throw light on what makes people in one culture different from another - and by that I refer to the article talk pages where we have spoken, NOT here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize if I offended you, but in English this sentence "Albanian in 1936 has no status in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Serbo-Croat was the official language" doesn't make sense, so I could not follow your logic. After discussing with you, I realized that your English is probably better than mine, but at the moment I was frustrated (and I still am), because you point to several things, but never to the wikipolicies, so I don't know what you are talking about. For the naming of Albanian ethnics in Serbian you name a slew of reasons behind which they should be written in Serbian, but the mediation had no conclusion, and there is no wikipolicy that you can point to to support your assertions of those names in Serbian. Guzhinjeri (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgive you, why don't we come away from here and start discussing the whole thing from top to bottom in a calm manner on a separate page. My own talk page for example, I'd be more than happy. Agreed? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, we have an agreement. This request can be closed. Guzhinjeri (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ExclusiveAgent

    Ted Cruz Talk Page-- I posted a comment on the Ted Cruz article talk page earlier today calling into question an view that was being presented. I only did so to raise the point that the issue is not clear cut. One of the editors User:ExclusiveAgent immediately attacked me, suggesting that I was attempting to insert POV into the article. I only raised a question, never inserting the questioned material in the actual article. Since then he has continued to hurl accusations at me and other editors accusing me of vandalism. He is clearly confusing my posts with those of an IP editor, yet he won't take the time to review the posts. I invite an Admin to read the history at Talk:Ted Cruz, User talk:ExclusiveAgent and User talk:Revmqo to see the history of comments. I have asked User:ExclusiveAgent to take a step back, but he continues to post accusations of vandalism and other offenses. I bring the issue here because he has a clear history of failing to assume good faith. Revmqo (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Revmqo has been vandalizing my talk page. So let's begin there. He has become upset that I have asked him to provide a reliable source to support his wild speculations about what will happen if Ted Cruz someday might run for President. I stated over and over again that he needed to provide a reliable source. He did not like that apparently, so he started to vandalize my talk page. Now, he is bring the topic here. I have not attacked him. That is a falsehood. Please ask him to provide an example of where I attacked him. I have only asked him, repeatedly, to provide a reliable source for his wild speculation. I invite an admin to tell him to stop vandalizing my talk page and I would invite an admin to ask him provide a reliable source for his wild speculation about a situation that has not happened yet and might not even happen.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Immediately after my first post, I provided a source. And yet ExclusiveAgent replied with a personal attack saying that I was introducing POV and "unsupported wild speculation." I placed a good faith warning on his page and asked him to reread my posts. It seems that he is upset with IP User 197.136.42.3, but is replying to me. When I attempted to calmly discuss this with him via his talk page rather than in the open space, he is now making the claim that I am vandalizing him. If you read his history of interactions with 197.136.42.3 and now with me, he is bullying rather than attempting to build consensus. He is arguably exhibiting ownership of the Ted Cruz page, and seems to be interested in pushing his own political agenda. He has been challenged on this before, as evidenced on his talk page. I have asked him to stop, take a deep breath and re-read my comments. If he does, then he will see that his issues were with 197.136.42.3 not me. Revmqo (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @ ExclusiveAgent: There's been no WP:vandalism of your talk page. Here on Wikipedia vandalism has a specific meaning, and these posts do not meet the definition. The point at which the talk page discussion started to deteriorate is when the phrase "wild speculation" was used. Revmqo replied with an assertion that perhaps you did not know how to do a simple Google search, and things deteriorated from there. Here's some suggestions:
    • tone down the language a bit, even when talking about the content. For example, instead of saying "you have not provided a reliable source for any of your wild speculation" just say simply "you have not provided a reliable source".
    • Keep the discussion on the talk page of the article and keep it focused on the content, not on your assumptions of the motives or intelligence level of any other editors on the page.
    • Quit throwing templated warnings on one another's talk pages; that's not helping the discussion move forward in a civil collegial manner. You've both been editing here long enough not to need the information contained in a templated warning.
    • @ Revmqo: If someone removes a post from their own user talk post, please don't re-post it. People can manage their own talk page however they see fit. If a post has been removed, we assume it has been read, and it is always available in the page history for future reference if it's needed later. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protecting user talk pages

    I am not sure whether or not this is a problem, so please consider this to be raising a question, not making a complaint.

    I was under the impression that semi-protection of user talk pages is used only in cases of ongoing vandalism by IP editors, and even then usually not indefinitely. I noticed that User talk:Yworo is semi-protected with the stated purpose of not allowing any IP editors to post just because they are IP editors. User:Yworo is not protected, which seems unusual. Also, I am having trouble finding any significant IP vandalism in the period leading up to either of the semis. Is any of this a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you had a word with the responsible admin? He will presumably be able to throw some light on his decision. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's just a quirk of mine, but when I have no idea whether something is a problem or not, confronting the person who made the decision seems really premature, and asking him whether the decision was a problem is also problematical; of course he will say it was a good decision. Otherwise he wouldn't have made it. I realize that nobody wants to step on another admin's toes, but this has to be balanced against the many times where the answer is telling me "Guy, you misunderstood the policy" without any unneeded drama or confrontation. I was going to say "maybe I am weird", but of course we all know that I am weird... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've yet to encounter an admin who would take issue with a polite inquiry about a page protection over a year old. The question isn't whether it was a good decision, the question is whether protection is still necessary. In fact, I can't recall any polite statement I've made inquiring about an admin's action that received a "confrontational" response. NE Ent 00:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim in the log is persistent vandalism. That is acceptable. Not allowing IP editors to comment because they're IP editors is, in my opinion, not acceptable--but I'm willing to bet that the protection preceded the particular phrasing of that notification on the top of Yworo's talk page. I think Guy Macon has a valid point here, but let's wait and see what HJMitchell has to say--have they been invited to comment? Drmies (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified they are. NE Ent 22:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a long-term IP stalker who has been banned, but kept harassing me nonetheless. It didn't mess with my user page. The comment was specifically intended to speak to that dynamic IP user without mentioning it by IP(s), though it does seem to be a generally applicable observation about IPs who abuse the fact that their IP is dynamic. Okay? Yworo (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Looks like you really got put through the wringer. You have my sympathy; that shouldn't happen to anyone. Is the abuse still going on, or would lifting the semiprotection be appropriate? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather keep the protection on my user talk page, but I'd be willing to make a subpage for IPs to comment on. Would that be satisfactory? I've seen other editors do it that way. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the harassment continued since it was protected? NE Ent 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd assume not, as the protection had a reason... The real question is: Is there still a risk of the harassment resuming if protection is lifted? gwickwiretalkediting 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's seems possible that the harassment could have continued on other pages that Yworo edited, which is why I'm asking. NE Ent 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in any obvious way lately, though my watchlist changes a lot, and I'm no longer watching a lot of the articles on which it occurred. Having my talk page protected diminished it quite a bit, I feel that unprotecting it would likely make me a target again. Yworo (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the difficulties newbies have in getting around the site -- they're lucky to find an editor's talk page, let alone understand semi protection, I'd encourage you to support trying unprotection -- I'm sure a friendly neighborhood admin would instantly put it back to semi if the harassment resumed. NE Ent 00:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editors != newbies in my experience. At least the ones likely to post on my talk page have a much higher probability of being IP socks or banned users, or both. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a separate, non-protected page is the way to go. In fact, it might be a rule, or at least a recommendation, if your regular talk page is protected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's right there in WP:PP#User talk pages: "Users whose talk page regularly must be semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gutting an article while AfD is underway

    Article in question: Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Question: is it okay for people !voting delete to gut the article while an AfD is in progress? I'm not asking for anyone to be sanctioned or reprimanded. But it seems at least potentially like an inappropriate tactic designed to slant the AfD: someone looking at the article in its current state might think, hmm not many references there, only a brief paragraph or two, doesn't look all that notable, think I'll !vote delete. The editors doing the deletion of text no doubt think their editing is proper -- but there is room for good faith disagreement on that, and it just seems wrong to have an article chopped down like that (with a whole host of references removed) during an AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If there's massive problems with NPOV/Copyvio/advertising that are the reason that it's up for AfD, then I'm all for (and the template says) they may edit it while it's in progress. If it slants it to keep, then maybe it should've been kept, just gutted, even before the gutting. If it's not notable, go ahead and still !vote delete, but imo there's nothing wrong with making an article fit policy before it's deleted, as it's more work to go through DelRev to get it undeleted than it is to just gut it and build it up after an AfD. gwickwiretalkediting 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compare this to this -- the latter version resulting from cuts by an editor who wants the article itself deleted. Removal of sources from the "Derivatives" section (and addition of CN tags) then led another editor to delete that section for being "unreferenced". This sort of editing during an AfD seems shady to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. Those edits are perfectly alright. If an article will be kept on the basis of a list of fairly trivial mentions of when the term was applied, whether in earnest or not, that's a pretty sad situation. There is nothing wrong with normal editing while an AfD is going on and Yworo notes on the talk page, "it's a coatrack for political name-calling and mudslinging"--I think they're right. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the particulars of this specific article, I've seen lots of articles at AFD where they appear at first glance to be extensively sourced and thus notable because there is an extensive list of footnotes. Then, you look at what the footnotes actually consist of and they turn out to be exclusively self-published sources, blogs, internet forums, newsgroups, wikis and the like. I've got no problem whatsoever with someone commenting at the AFD that none of the sources qualify as Reliable Sources and then demonstrating the pitiful unsourced and unsourceable excuse for an article is left when you remove the non-compliant references. It actually tends to focus the discussion, and makes the process cleaner and faster, in my opinion. Fladrif (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing WP:BOMBARDMENT is always a good thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's junk in an article, it can go at any time. If people wanna go back and see what junk used to be in an article, they can do that with relative ease pbp 01:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the contrary, true, then, that if someone is removing "non-junk" from an article during an AfD, then that is inherently disruptive, perhaps WP:TE or WP:BATTLEGROUND, behavior? Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that most, perhaps all, of the deleted stuff was compliant with Wikipedia rules and useful in explaining the topic. (See the talk page for one possible exception.) Could editors have behaved better? Yes (as always). Has anyone done anything worth formal disciplinary procedures? Not as far as I can see. CWC 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) who has more to say immediately below[reply]
    • A little investigation before opining is always a good idea. IIRC, the article did get "bombarded" several years ago, but I fixed that ... as anyone who bothered to look at the talk page archive would know. The recently-deleted "junk" was picked with the aim of both illustrating the meaning of the term and linking to prominent usages of it. For instance, the fact that the term is used on both sides of politics says something important about it.
      In fact, I say the article no longer provides enough context for new readers to understand the meaning or significance of the term (as can be seen in many of the recent on-WP comments about the article.)
      Yworo's complaint about "name-calling and mudslinging" is deeply, sadly ironic: BDS is precisely about over-the-top name-calling and mudslinging. (The term is in fact a tongue-in-cheek explanation of that over-the-top stuff). Nevertheless, the article was not a coatrack for "mudslinging": it simply reported a few uses of the term by prominent journalists on both sides of US politics.
      PS: I have been very disappointed to see so many people editing and/or criticising the article without bothering to understand what it is about. CWC 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    can we use wikipedia to promote self intesest groups like school hospital

    Spam removed, in the future, please warn the editor appropriately and if they continue, report them at the administrator intervention against vandalism because of this. TBrandley (review) 04:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    i have seen schools like Watson madhubani school. rose public school promoting their school. i thought i should report to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.116.101 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the blatantly promotional content added to Watson High School, Madhubani, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with Rose Public School or Rose Public School, Madhubani (although I have redirected the latter to the former as they seem to be about the same subject)--Jac16888 Talk 23:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Collingwood26: concerns about POV-driven editing and extreme talk page posts

    Collingwood26 (talk · contribs) has a long history of editing motivated by an extreme Australian nationalist POV, including some occasional edit warring. They were blocked last September for this extreme talk page comment and were blocked earlier in the year for similar abuse of myself ([31]), but this conduct continues to occur in articles concerning Australian history or race and religion. Post-block examples include:

    • Sustained edit warring to include a special claim that 15,000 Australian soldiers were "enslaved" following the Battle of Singapore (in January: [32] (edit summary of "How dare you try to erase it from history, you seem to be extremely anti-Australian Nick-D!"; I'm actually Australian), [33] (edit summary includes "over 15 thousand of us were enslaved, people like you just want to cover it up"), [34]) and this has just re-started without any talk page discussion [35]. Almost all the 80,000 Allied soldiers captured at Singapore were used as forced labourers by the Japanese, with Australians not relieving different treatment to the other national groups.
    • Accusations of Anti-Australian 'racism' when criticised: [36] ("Your going to have me banned just because I write articles about Australian battles? Racist much?" in response to a well-founded complaint about a clear copyright violation),
    • A claim that Asians somehow can't be Australian at Talk:Asian Australian as only people descended from the original fleet of British convicts are 'Australian': [37]
    • An obviously related removal of old talk page posts discussing the claimed presence of black convicts in the First Fleet [38]
    • Clearly anti-semitic trolling [39]

    Overall, it seems to me that Collingwood26 is mainly here to push his views and the blocks imposed last year have not been successful in getting him to change his ways. Can an univolved admin please look into this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Collingwood26 does seem to be pushing a nationalistic POV. The talk page trolling and personal attacks are completely unacceptable. They have made a number of good contributions though, so perhaps they just need a serious attitude adjustment. I would be interested hearing how they explain these interactions. - MrX 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What a load of bull I have been nothing but harrassed on this site by Nick D and his cohort who want nothing more than to remove Australia's roles in wars from the history books.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are those not your diffs up ^ there? Did you not write "White Race / Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race? Aren't they white themselves?" What harassment have you received that you thinks justifies this? - MrX 03:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...or this?
    No comment on anything else, but this last link would be reasonable if there weren't sub-articles such as the ones linked in the response. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment? NickD has continually denied the truth throughout Australian military history articles. He has deleted articles in which I have said "15,000 Australians were enslaved", BUT if you look at the REAL history 15,000 Australians WERE enslaved. NickD is nothing more than a conartist, a lier, and a manipulative theif who seeks to impose his own viewpoints abusing the authority he has.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is nothing more than blatent discrimination of Australian wikipedia members. This witchhunt you seem so keen on to ban any Australian members is outrageous!--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop the personal attacks. They're a violation of our policies and they're not helping your argument. Content issues can be resolved by discussion on article talk pages, starting with reliable sources and calm, rational arguments. - MrX 05:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The funny side of this is that I'm Australian and have written about a dozen FAs on Australian military history. But this illustrates how Collingwood operates. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight, Nick-D (an Australian) raises some, in my opinion, very legitimate concerns about Collingwood (also Australian) and Collingwood's response is that it is a witchhunt to "ban any" Australian member? Sorry, what did i miss? I (also an Australian) am suggesting a chill pill needs to be taken. --Merbabu (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I see your point, but even if NickD is Australian then why does he revert my edit about 15 thousand Australians being enslaved? Do you dispute these facts because I can show you reliable sources for these!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mate, then show him those sources and have a civilised chat on the talk page, rather than suggesting there's some giant conspiracy theory about censoring the figures you've found. He saw a problem and reverted the edit - that's pretty stock-standard stuff. The next step is to talk about it, not to accuse someone of censorship or a "cover-up". My suggestion - say you're sorry, start a discussion on the talk page and move the f**k on. (By the way; also Australian). Stalwart111 08:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if 15,000 Australians were "enslaved", I'd want that noted somewhere too. But the way to do that is to present such a claim in a reasonable manner, with sources, and discuss it if someone disputes it (it's a big claim, so expect there to be some questions at least). But trying to spam it into articles then screaming CENSORSHIP! when someone removes it is about the worst possible way of trying to get that done. Stalwart111 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read some of the books by/about those POWs, albeit decades ago. The POWs were treated very badly, but not enslaved. Another Australian -- CWC 10:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m the editor (NOT Nick-D) who reverted the most recent of Collingwood26s “enslaved” edits, with a repeated request that the author take their ideas to the talk page. They failed to do this. The hysterical response that accompanies these edits is so irrational I have occasionally wondered if it’s genuine. However, other editors probably choose to ignore these outbursts, as I generally do. In my opinion there is no doubt they breach WP standards and at best they are tiresome and disruptive. (Yet another Aussie)Nickm57 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well he can show you, I don't really care as long as he shows someone instead of claiming "racism" or "censorship" when someone reverts an edit. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of crap. Stalwart111 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the concerns raised by Nick-D here (and others). Like several other Australian editors I have also found cause to revert some of his recent edits at Battle of Singapore. Whilst Collingwood26 has made some valuable contributions in the past, more recently his behaviour has only been disruptive. When he first appeared I had hoped that with some help from more experienced editors he might develop into a valuable contributor but this doesn't seem to have occurred. Claims of conspiracies against Australian editors are nothing short of embarrassing, and accusations that Nick-D is somehow trying to lessen recognition of Australian wartime involvement ignore his numerous high quality articles in this area. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the observation above, I've interacted with Collingwood26 on more than one occasion in the past and found him to be quite polite and understanding of the decisions reached by others, however his recent comments are quite provocative in nature, not only do the comments violate WP:AGF, they also breach WP:NPA and obviously WP:CIVIL. I suggest he take a short Wikibreak to calm his nerves. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well there is not much point in me arguing with all of you, do what you want whether you ban me or not.Nothing I say cn change your minds anyhow.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    True, continued arguing is counterproductive. The question is whether Collingwood is willing to commit forgoing the comments about other editors and disruptive behavior, such as removing sections of talk pages. If they believe being right about Australian history justifies behavior contrary to Wikipedians practices and norms they are not going to find Wikipedia enjoyable and should find another pastime. NE Ent 11:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sockpuppet: Silviabe333 / Topfin

    Both accounts indeffed by DeltaQuad. Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I think these 2 users might be the same person. He/she is making changes against consensus to articles such as Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola. Would you please be able to take a look? Thanks, Azylber (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The accounts were both recently created, edit the same articles, with very similar edit summaries and are engaged in edit-warring. Why not make a report at WP:SPI for the first created account (Silviabe333), setting "yes" for checkuser? Mathsci (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Done. I've reported it there. But I'm also worried about the articles - what's going to happen with all the articles that this person is modifying? Azylber (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles like Cuthbert, Guthlac of Crowland, do not have "Saint" in the bolded title. Their editing is purely disruptive. More detail is required when making an WP:SPI report and I will provide it. Wait until there is a response at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Thanks for your help! Azylber (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Aeusetereleiea

    Would like to report a case of constant disruptive editing and vandalism against Aeusetereleiea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has constantly added unsourced material to The Mentalist (season 5) page (as can be seen in their history) and has launched several personal attacks against myself when I reverted the edits. The user has demonstrated on several occasions that they are unable (or unwilling) to learn the rules and work alongside editors and now seems to just want to cause trouble. Their latest edits here and here demonstrate that this user has now taken to vandalising both my user page and talk page. I'm not sure exactly what steps should be taken, but I have a feeling that this is the kind of user who is just going to keep on going and going with their disruptions. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected the article from editing, as there was a clear edit war going on there. Please be aware that this is not the only course of action to be justified by the editing history, see WP:BOOMERANG. Remember that next time, you should not get drawn into an edit war, even if you believe you are in the right. Remember, the other person believes that too, and you can both be blocked even if you believe you are correct. You both could have been blocked here, but I think this is the best way to handle this. Discuss the matter civilly on the article talk page, and when consensus develops, protection can be lifted. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's what I am trying to say, there is no way to discuss the matter civilly with this editor. I have tried a number of times to discuss the addition of unsourced material to the page but have gotten no response and they simply continue to add it. This has been going on for months. The editor blatantly and knowingly flaunts the rules, having said that learning them is a waste of time and has on numerous occasions verbally abused me, having called me retarded, a fucker, a loser, a control freak and once asked if I was being medicated. I take responsibility for being drawn into an edit war this time, but only because I have had enough dealing with an arrogant, self-righteous editor who flat-out refuses to co-operate or even consider familiarising themselves with the rules. That is what I am hoping to have some help with, because this is just going to go on and on. When you un-protect the page, they'll start up again with exactly the same disruptive edits. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Canoe1967

    After a string of personal attacks and incivility Canoe1967 was blocked by Riana. He proceeded to edit war to call her a cunt history revdelete log. His talk page access was revoked, so he chose to continue slinging personal attacks at her from a different project where he stated that "she acted like a total cunt". This is completely unacceptable, and I would like to see Canoe banned from this project, but am willing to take suggestions. Ryan Vesey 06:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Support indef community ban for continued incivility, rudeness, and revert wars of block notices (!!). More to follow in the morning maybe. gwickwiretalkediting 06:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Commons is commons not enwiki, and we cannot use actions outside of enwiki to enforce anything. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment says "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh - there are good arguments on both side of that coin. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 16:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, my talkpage protection seems to have been somewhat controversial. Old habits die hard and I wasn't aware of the blocking with talkpage access removed option, it wasn't around when I was last here. I'm absolutely fine with anyone who wants to reblock with talkpage access removed instead of the full prot I've placed, although it seems much of a muchness to me. For what it's worth, the talkpage prot is 3 days long and the block is 1 week, so he'll be able to edit again once he's in a calmer frame of mind (one hopes).
    • No comment as to the above proposal from me as of yet, I haven't reviewed the user's contributions sufficiently to make a judgement call - I was blocking based on most immediate recent behaviour.
    • Any admin should feel free to undo my protection/block for a different duration/unblock if deemed necessary. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I see Jayron32 has changed the terms of the block anyway, so I'm cool with that. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Protecting the page instead of following current practice of removing talk page access due to being a bit admin rusty isn't a big deal, but there's no legitimate reason for keeping it protected now, so Riana should remove the protection. NE Ent 8:01 am, Today (UTC−4)
      Fair call. Unprotected [40] ~ Riana ⁂ 13:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extend block to indef. Need a commitment from editor not to repeat this behavior (personal attacks on other editors). NE Ent 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this editor has been brought to ANI (at least) three times before - in July 2012 for disruptive editing; in February 2013 for incivilty, which resulted in a block; and later in February 2013, again for incivility. I have had my own interactions with this editor, both positive and negative, and feel that it is time the Wikipedia community started taking incivility seriously. "They do good work" is never an excuse for a crummy attitude and attacking other editors. I would therefore support an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 12:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with indefinite. As I noted at the time, my own 48hr block was lenient in the extreme (especially for me), and Canoe was extremely fortunate not to have had it extended for his response at the time (messing with the block notice). I've pinged Jayron with a note to this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Do not ban or indef. I don't like how little groups here permaban people. It is railroading with less time and consideration than an RFC. And with a pretty self-selected (and odd) group of people. So he sounded off. Big deal. He's firey. But he also does a lot to help people. Give him a week or two off and then move on. That is what normal places do and it works way better than this nest of intrigue.TCO (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The legendary hypothetical beachside pub aside, "normal places" would have readily instituted a lifetime ban over Canoe over his post-block actions. Contrary to the assertions of some ANI bleeding hearts, there is no statutory immunity afforded editors for post-block meltdowns, especially repeat events. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling other editors bleeding hearts isn't appropriate, either. NE Ent 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The consequences at many of the normal places I've observed over the years for calling someone a cunt would range to firing to more immediate, physical feedback. NE Ent 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indefinite block for personal attacks, harassment, and disruptive editing in the past as well. TBrandley (review) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In regards to the other actions of this user, in my experience I've found a majority of his helpful edits at least mildly disruptive. I've also seen him go on a number of these tirades, but you'd have to take my word for it or limit yourself to the three ANI incidents because I can't remember them. Even for those who do take a stance that people who do good work are allowed to repeatedly call other editors a cunt, Canoe couldn't possibly be in that category of editors. In addition, the action preceeding the most recent block was certainly inappropriate. He created User:Gwickwire, threatened to have Gwickwire put into a "deep, brown hole", called him a "gutless, whining piece of shit" while pretending that he wasn't by stating that he new better, called him a coward, asked "why the fuck can't you clue in", and said "Clue in before your balls are in a place where you can't extract them". This is all at User talk:Canoe1967#Warning. Examining the rest of his talk page in its current state shows a lot of battleground behavior. Ryan Vesey 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block. This isn't the first time he's been blocked for this, and if he's going to act like this any time he doesn't get his way, then he shouldn't be welcome here. Wizardman 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose After his last outburst, Canoe did express a desire to play by the rules: [41]. Clearly he's having trouble with that. He does seem to be drawn to controversy, and not able to comport himself very well once he's found it. This is pretty much his third strike, but - let's give him one last chance to repent. I'm biased here, indeffing him would reduce the editors in my subject area by about one third ;(. And I think we should discuss these behavioural indefs with the user a bit before dropping the guillotine, isn't his talk page blocked? The Interior (Talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a rush to judgment. Give him a day or two to settle down. It's almost like you all are trying to speed things up so you can get your way. First you take a short ban, then the guy mouths off and then you spin it into forever. Seen this done to other people. Nasty, nasty business. Before you know it, you can delete his talk page and just flush him like a turd. Chill out and see how he does after the week sabbatical. He's not posting on Wiki right now, so you have nothing to complain about.TCO (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • A rush to judgement? He was calling an editor a cunt and continued doing it after his talk page access was revoked. (He eventually had to be blocked without talk page access on commons as well). Ryan Vesey 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a rush. The fellow is not even a couple days into his original week long timeout and you all are trying to spin it into an indef (with a very tiny group of self selected people who would even want to be at this board...blech...and the criminal not being able to defend himself). OK, so he mouthed off after getting the block...but is that really so uncommon? And his talk page access is removed so there is no imminent danger. The Commons stuff happened in the same time as the immediate reaction to the block and besides has been handled and besides is not our concern. There is no preventative reason for making an indef out of a week and for having to decide all that after a fellow got mad at the block in the first day or so.TCO (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Having made a review of Canoe1967's contributions, I am uncomfortable with the idea of an indefinite block at this stage. It seems he is given to largely productive editing, with the occasional lapse into mouthing off when stressed. I would at least like him to be able to return to plead his case, make amends if necessary, and let the current block (much longer than any of his previous blocks) act as a reasonable cooling-off period for him to consider the consequences of failing to play well with others. An indefinite block will only serve to embitter someone who has been mostly helpful. I would seriously caution him to watch his language; the knee-jerk reaction of any admin would be to block for a long period. I'm really not bothered by his comments directed at me as I'm sure they were delivered in the heat of the moment, but he needs to be able to get along with people he's editing alongside. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For info, I note he has been blocked for 24hrs at Commons [42], and has announced his intention to retire. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably disruptive RfC behavior on Talk:Rape culture

    Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asked me to look at the behavior of Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Talk:Rape culture. In short, there was an RfC about including some material in early February, which resulted in a non-"closed" but pretty clear consensus that the material should not be included. On February 27, Darkness Shines opened a new RfC, which basically just re-asked the same question as RfC #1. Involved editors attempted to close that, which they probably shouldn't have done, and eventually DS closed it her/himself and then reopened a third RfC with the same question. To me, this looks like WP:DEADHORSE behavior, and I very nearly closed the third RfC as being an abuse of process. While consensus can change, it doesn't magically change in a few days, and opening a new RfC weeks after the last one in an attempt to luckily get a different result is not an appropriate step forward. Then I decided that the matter isn't absolutely clear cut, and that it would help to have other's input. So, should the RfC be closed? Additionally, Mrt3366 and some of the other editors have stated or implied that is part of a larger pattern of poor behavior on DS's part, but I don't recall interacting with him much except for recently on one article, so I can't comment on whether or not that is the case. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This was the wording of the first RFC "I would like to file an official Request for comment on this section. There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by User:Media-hound- thethird[1], an obvious political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE [2]. The section focusses exclusively on three countries, India,South Africa and the United States, which, to my reading, seems like WP:UNDUE, as well as a WP:SYN implication that rape is exclusive to these countries. Furthermore, the sections are essentially a POV fork of three other wikipedia articles, Rape in India, Sexual violence in South Africa, and Rape in the United States, violating WP:POVSPLIT. It seems to me that an article on rape culture should focus on general discussions on the subject, rather than become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Handyunits (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013" Hardly a neutral way to set one out is it? Also the first RFC dealt with their being sections for different countries, the one I started is over a small paragraph. It was closed disruptively three times, once by APL[43] and twice[44][45] by Mrt who was warned by an admin over this disruptive behaviour. I has little option after this highly disruptive behaviour but to reboot the RFC. I have never pretended to be an admin, and Mrt really should stop with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    General Behaviour

    • Caveat Lector: editors whose quotes are presented here may not retain/endorse the same views now. This is not to indicate the current pattern but an overall impression of his general modus operandi. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?)
    I thank you Qwyrxian for this effort. Like I have told Qwyrxian I have interacted with him for quite some time (sometimes productively and other times just wasted my time) and I can tell everyone reading this that DS is very passionate (often a good thing) but his passion borders on dogmatism. He also has a habit of harassing his opponents (others also, not just me) with needless discretionary sanctions notice (while pretending to be an uninvolved administrator) as well as redundant and occasionally invalid warnings (he landed one just recently). He has huge issues coping with any degree of opposition. FWIW, also see
    1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness_Shines.
    2. User_talk:Crtew#DarknessShines
    3. User_talk:Crtew#Notification
    4. User_talk:CarrieVS#Thank_you
    5. last ANI comments
    6. DS might be heading towards an indef block
    Thank you all.

    P.S. I didn't even begin to talk about his not-so-polite way of asserting his views. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I informed APL and Handyunits. And DS, you may frame it as a "warning" against me. I think it was an advise (I don't know how valid or useful it was though). Besides I don't see you complain about the RFC1 when it first started nor did you attempt to strive against the early closure when a pretty clear consensus was reached. You're making issues up as you go along.

    You closed one RFC merely to start another, others should take a note of that. Your current RFC wants to assert that Indian culture is a "rape culture". That too based not on peer-reviewed sociology articles, but very personal opinions (perhaps with a COI). I will let others respond as they deem fit.

    P.S. the issue about your general mode of operating is larger than just this RFC-episode (this is just one in the series of various episodes with numerous well-meaning editors). We must put it in correct perspective. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's an awful lot here to look at so I'm not going to give a view on the totality yet. But I did notice one complaint that seems justified: this edit from DS used a template which includes the words "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system." I'm willing to believe this was unintentional and that it has not been repeated. But it does amount to DS placing a notice describing him/herself as an uninvolved administrator. If DS would acknowledge this and assure us the mistake won't be repeated, that would be one complaint dealt with. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What you?!?!  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That probably has a different meaning the the UK than in the US. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No I have not, this was discussed and no arbitration warnings have been given by myself since, so indef yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "...warnings have been given by myself since, so indef yourself." ← (emphasis my own) This is exactly the sort of tone I am fed up with. He is talking to an Admin on ANI (highly exposed page) after being accused of some serious contravention and notice his acrimonious tone. He doesn't have any interest in being polite. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing, the issue is not when he was told what. The issues are
    1. his battleground mentality, vindictive and dogmatic behavior. (see "last ANI comments" link I posted above)
    2. his proneness to edit-war over things he doesn't like (I too have been dragged into some of them but it's not just me)
    3. a perennial disregard towards what others are requesting him to do.
    ..to name a few.
    Please understand the issue. It's not just about the RFC episode here. His long-term pattern of incivility and disruption should be taken into account also. Let RFC run but stop this person at least. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Qwyrxian states the issue clearly and accurately. I did attempt to close RFCII, because I felt it was an obvious abuse of process. If that was improper I apologize. (Afterwards, Darkness Shines reverted not only my closure, but my comment explaining why I had done it. I'm certain that's also improper.)
    Darkness Shines is one of two editors (The other is now perma-suspended.) who have repeatedly attempted to add large amounts of India related content to the article despite other editors explaining why the content wasn't appropriate.
    His current RFC is pertaining to only a single paragraph, if that represents a desire for compromise, then it's a good sign.
    As it's now clear that the RFC will continue, I hope that it can be expanded to decide the issue in a way that doesn't leave it open for other closely related content to be immediately debated, RFCed, or forum-shopped. (By either 'side'.) APL (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't believe he has quite understood his contravention. See this conversation. Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case against me and then he will use the travesty of a 'sanction warning' he gave me (the warning he gave me while being involved in an issue and pretending to be an uninvolved administrator without clearly explaining to me the reason for leaving the warning). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bollocks, you know full well that I asked Sal, an admin, which template was to be used in the topic area, that was the one he said to use. So stop misrepresenting what I did OK. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "you know full well that I asked Sal" — another allegation. You know that I know it full well? Your truculent attitude is the major problem. Who is Sal? Stop throwing names around! I don't need to be dictated by you when to stop. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you know, [46] you commented in the thread when I mentioned that an admin told me to use that template. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen such blatant misreprestnation in my fucking life. I have never filed an AE against you, so how could there be a "next time"? I never said I was going to file an AE agaisnt you, anyone can read the fucking diff and see that. I am done with this waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)(edit conflict)

    DS, did you give me diff here or there or anywhere about Sal? And who cares if you think I know? I never saw that page where an Admin gave you the impression to pretend to be an administrator and that too an uninvolved one. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Note: there is currently some ambiguity in placement of discretionary sanction notices (should non-admins place them, are they appealable, et. al.) and at least part of the arbitration committee is working on clarifying that for us. Therefore I suggest we put aside discussions of the appropriateness of Darkness Shine's use of the template and focus on the remaining issues. Sorry for not linking to the discussion, can't locate it right now but I'm pretty sure it was on AE recently. NE Ent 13:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We are talking about the pretense of being an uninvolved administrator and the COI DS likely had while doling out sanction warnings. Is it also confusing? I don't think so. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I habe never pretended to be a fucking admin so stop saying I did OK. Per your "Did I say you have filed an AE against me?" Yes you did Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case against me Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    Never? DS pretended to be uninvolved admin :[47], [48], [49], [50], [51], etc.
    Should Do I need to give more?

    But notice that, instead of apologizing for his pretentious behavior he is claiming that he never pretended to be uninvolved admin. Now what to call that? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not about the Arbitration motion. It is about the misleading language he repeatedly used while warning his opponents (which is all the more reason to think he might have had COI). What's worse is he is still defending that. The template is clear enough. And one-time mistake would have been tolerable but he did it over and over again. He didn't even try to explain to me that he is not giving this as an administrator. He could have waited. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If a non-admin can issue the warning, and at least some of the arbs appear to think they can, and the there is no separate warning for non-admins to use, and your supposed to use the "official" version of the warning I can totally see why someone would use the approved warning that misidentified them as an admin. Thus the confusion over the issue is relevant. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 14:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "I can totally see why someone would use the approved warning that misidentified them as an admin." — I don't see how it is so obvious all of a sudden. Please read what I wrote below. .....{{Uw-sanctions}} also clearly says: "If this template is used by an editor who is not an 'uninvolved administrator', include the parameter |admin=no in the template to individualise 'This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be...'." ..Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment would an administrator please advise me of the scope of this ANI (since some material involving DS's interaction with me has come up in quotes -- see above). Is it just about the rape culture article that I never contributed to, is it about DS's behavior in general, or both. Crtew (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When under scrutiny here it's not advisable to respond with "fucking this" and "fucking that" comments. Blocked 1 week for disruption. And that's before we consider any of the main issues at hand here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a terrible justification for a block. Regardless of the underlying merits of the case, getting dragged to AN/I can be rather stressful for editors. Blocking them for a minor expression of frustration, just because they said "fucking" is totally lacking in compassion, and is exactly the sort of thing that leads editors to despise AN/I. Its not preventative, and will just inflame the situation, certainly its not disruptive enough to justify a block. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 14:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but I don't think you're seeing the issue in right perspective here. His pattern shows he has problems on multiple level(ie. incivility, edit-warring, obduracy, etc), and in multiple places, instead of accepting his flaws he aggressively defends them. Don't know about what a 'right reason' might be but a block was required, I guess. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now he might pretend that he was out of options but he had a lot of options. He could have asked an Admin to do sanction me and others.
      He could have added "additional text" to explain he is not an admin.
      The page also clearly says: "If this template is used by an editor who is not an 'uninvolved administrator', include the parameter |admin=no in the template to individualise 'This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be...'."
      He went right ahead and gave the sanctions anyway. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to Kim, I essentially agree with Monty. I believe the block should be lifted and allow DS to continue to participate in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, should we just bend the definition of WP:CIVIL / WP:ETIQUETTE as we see convenient? Should I start expressing my frustration in vulgar language too? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MrT, can I suggest that you step back a bit and resist the urge to comment on every single contribution here? It's beginning to feel like badgering and to be quite honest, both you and DS are very poor advocates of your own case. DS can make a case on his/her talk page which can be pasted here and the delay and cooling off this brings about will be no bad thing. I'd suggest MrT that you drop back as well and let some previously uninvolved editors review the situation without being egged on by you. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DS has appealed the block (with the edit summary "more bollocks"). I have replied to say that I'll unblock if s/he is willing to discuss here more calmly. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a fan of the language DS has used in this thread. However, its use doesn't warrant a block. As MrT said somewhere above, DS is passionate and he is prone to strong language. I don't think saying "fuck this" and "fuck that" is constructive or helpful to his position, but he shouldn't have been blocked, and he shouldn't need to change his unblock request to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If any other admin feels my original block was unjustified, please do unblock them. I don't feel strongly attached to the block although on balance I think it was justified. But I certainly won't argue with anyone who undoes it. I'm AFK for a few hours anyway now so am happy to leave this in the hands of others. I'll check in later. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Kim. Unfortunately, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED, not based on this thread, but on previous interaction with DS. Therefore, much as I'd like to unblock, I don't feel comfortable doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked. While I advised DS that using strong language like that is probably a bad idea, I don't think it's inherently disruptive, and certainly not enough to be immediately block-worthy. Basically, I read it as a (good-faith) cooldown block, which, for better or worse, we don't do. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, this unblock was without prejudice towards the problem being reported or the outcome of any discussion in this thread, just as the block was. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block is good DS has been impersonating an admin in order to create a chilling effect. As noted, he's been told before to stop. This really cannot be permitted to continue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Instead of admitting his incivility, he says: "So no. If I want to swear I will, there are no policy against it. You have made a bad block and are now trying to get me to agree to something "you want" and only you before unblocking me. I will not be blackmailed." - Is this the sort of behavior you guys think will help this discussion? He starts derogating the admin who blocked simply because he blocked him. This always happens with DS. That is another issue with DS he never accepts he was at fault. And never moves on. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ANd he is unblocked. WoW! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MrT, Kim's advice to you was excellent. You should heed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I see now that this section is clearly about general behavior (above). I only intend to make one comment here and that's all.

    1) I applaud Kim Dent-Brown for blocking DS for his foul language. I've regularly told him and complained to others that this language is unnecessary and unacceptable and he continues to spout this type of language without any self-control. DS's editing history is chockfull of rudeness, cuss words, and other comments that go against WP:Civil. And he does it with the same hot-tempered attitude that Kim Dent-Brown identified. Moreover, somebody always (in the instances where I have been involved) comes along to say he shouldn't be told that he can't act this way. Finally, somebody did the right thing and right off the bat, too! Bravo.

    2) More serious is the issue about the warnings DS issued to me and others: DS issued me a warning on my talk page that looked very official like it came from an admin, it said I had already been disruptive (I paraphrase) and I'll be blocked if I do whatever I did again, and he put me on a warning list in the process. I felt and still do that he was trying to intimidate me and move me away from his area of interest, which is Bangladesh. I was editing in that area on the David Bergman (journalist) article, on my interest in journalists/people who were involved in the Skype scandal that brought charges against The Economist and Amar Desh, and on a married journalist couple who were murdered, and so I had entered into his terrain. From what everybody told the admins, and I agree, he did this to get back at people. So what did I do to deserve a warning? I had copyedited an article (commas and such) and made no content changes whatsoever. For that I was warned! The preposterous nature of this warning led me to investigate, find out that others were involved like I was (we all had somehow created content that went against DS's POV). I only found out later that DS didn't like Bergman because the journalist had made statements that were negative about Bangladesh's International Criminal Court, which I didn't know at the time that I saved it from AfD last year (DS's nomination) and started editing it. And when I popped up again, I was warned! That shouldn't happen on Wikipedia. I will admit that I went on a mission to get my name off this list and to tell any other person on that list what had happened to me, which led to a mini-revolt of sorts and also several admins telling DS to cease warning people and many names being removed. DS was coding the warning template incorrectly to make it look as if he was an administrator and he was issuing it as an involved editor. So he was told to back off. Now people in Abitration are currently looking at the wisdom of giving people like this this kind of power (See User:Sandstein's work there). Just like Mr T said, he threatening to use it again even after he was warned and was told again that he couldn't.

    3) Since I've started editing on Bangladesh-related articles (not my area of specialty but intersects with a number of journalists I'm looking at), I've had nothing but grief from DS. He's regularly accused me of stalking him at User:RegentsPark because I have made edits in this area where he overlaps with me. He seems to want to know what is on my watchlist. This is uncivil and aggressive behavior.

    4) From what I've seen, DS has a POV (pro-Awami League and pro-ICT as far as I can tell) and he will use any strategy available from a misuse of policy (AfD, merge, revert, limiting reverts on articles, BLP, warnings, false charges of sock puppetry, etc.) , and if that doesn't work, to just burying your edits later as a rewrite or for some other unnamed reason, in order to get content to skew toward his POV. It's almost impossible to add fairness and balance to articles where he is working with others who share his POV. (I won't make the case of Tag Teaming here because it's difficult to prove as the intent of multiple people are involved.) None of the policies I mentioned above are wrong when used for the purposes of improvement (whatever that may or may not mean for people), but when used for the purpose of inserting POV as a regular pattern of behavior, it violates the spirit of WP. For me should be the ultimate issue here in this AN/I. It's a pattern of behavior to misuse policy, intimidate others, and to insert POV that runs all the way through his editing history. And, I would suggest, it's at the very top of this AN/I in the RFC issue that started this process.Crtew (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. (That may have only "one comment", Chad, but it was longer than ten.) I'm getting lost in all the issues here (not unusual for me). I'll address just the issue of DS issuing warnings of discretionary sanctions. There are really two subissues. The first is whether only an admin can issue the warning. To me and to others, that is unclear, so it seems to me that DS can't be faulted for "violating" an unclear policy. Second is whether DS should use the template. In my view, he should not. If he wants to issue a warning, he should personalize it so he doesn't represent that he's an admin. See, e.g., WP:ARBPIA ("For convenience, the template {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information."). Unfortunately, I think the original basis of Qwyxrian's post here is being lost in what is transforming itself into an RfC/U. This is the wrong forum for a discussion of such breadth about a user's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    View from uninvolved outsider I have been on discussion groups going back to FidoNet and USENET, including Reddit and Slashdot. Everywhere but Wikipedia, there is one unspoken rule: Figure out who is a Sysop/Moderator/Admin/Bohf, and don't disagree with him lest he LART you with a banhammer. On Wikipedia I know that even if I piss off Jimbo or Sue, it will be an uninvolved admin who looks at my behavior and blocks me, and I know that if I have a valid argument that the block was bogus, I can get another uninvolved admin to review the block. Any involved administrator making even veiled threats violates that trust. Any involved non-admin coming close to impersonating an admin and making veiled threats violates that trust. This needs to be stopped to protect the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uninvolved outsider I fail to see the issue. Darkness Shines has not pretended to be an admin, and no diff indicates he has. He did use templates which include that message; and that may have been accidental on his part. I'm willing to assume good faith there; I think a request that he doesn't use it again would be fine. I think the block by Kim was overzealous. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also bad block. What was highlighted by Kim for the block included this sentence by DS (presumably the one the block was over): "I habe never pretended to be a fucking admin so stop saying I did OK". DS is not attacking Mr T here. The underlying statement is; I have never pretended to be an admin, so do not say I did, but the language is more emotive, but not an attack. Let's not forget that the very next reply, by Mr T, to the message DS was blocked for, was to say he was acting pretentious; that is an attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • BWilkins, what part of since it was discussed on my talk page no notifications have been given out by myself did you not understand? Useing the wrong template was a misunderstanding on my part, I was not pretendiong to be an admin, an admin told me that was the template to use, so no it was in fact a shite block. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is the right place to bring this to administrative attention, but Darkness Shines has been engaged in a pretty extensive edit war at Hindu Taliban over what he perceives as content that should not belong in the article. For reference, here is the talk page section in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu_Taliban#Failed_verification As you can see, the dispute started when Darkness Shines started removing content which he claimed failed verification. I pointed out that the links were, in fact, valid, which he disagreed with prima facie since they did not specifically mention the phrase "Hindu Taliban", and therefore the articles were not valid sources because Hindu Taliban was what he viewed as a 'neo'. At this point, Eduemoni stepped in later to address a potential 3RR by him and I, so I backed off and tried to set up a process by which we could reach consensus, but Darkness Shines deliberately flouted the process. He then resorted to foul language and personal attacks against Eduemoni and I on his own talk page and deleted Eduemoni's arguments off said talk page in an attempt to make himself seem more reasonable. I'm not sure which policy or set of policies such actions violate, but to me, they clearly seem to be an indication that some administrative action should be taken against Darkness Shines. Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't mind if Darkness Shine's overall behavior is evaluated here, but I would also appreciate discussion on the RfCs. I strongly believe this third RfC should be closed and DS should be admonished not to try to win a content dispute by simply repeating discussions until he gets the result he wants. Rather, he should avail himself of other aspects of dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If the RFC had not been closed disruptively three times then I would not have had to restart it would I? The bot which invites uninvolved editors would have missed it due to the closures. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. An editor shouldn't "close" an RFC and then immediately start a new one. Recommend 30 day topic ban from article for Darkness Shines. NE Ent 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You recommend a 30 day topic ban on me because two other editors closed an RFC which I had started? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no say here whatsoever or any authority at all, but given the scope of what editors are saying here, wouldn't a topic wide ban on anything related to the subcontinent region be more appropriate? Crtew (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What, the scope of all the editors who I have had editing conflicts with? Yep, I am sure they are real neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    closure of second RFC by DS. opening of third RFC bys DS. NE Ent 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Toddst1 refusing to deal with vandalism

    No admin action is necessary and, in fact, any sanctions against Toddst1 for choosing to not block an account, which didn't need blocking anyway, would be entirely inappropriate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    For whatever reason Kristijh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blanked this user page[53] three times[54][55][56] in less than one hour. Either using his main account, or from an IP with a long history[57] of edits that confirm that it is the same editor. Editor User:Anna Frodesiak posted warnings, here[58] and here[59], after both the first and second blankings of Renzoy16's user page. Kristijh then blanked[60] the Anna's two warnings BEFORE doing the third blanking[61] of Renzoy16's user page.

    The IP of Kristijh has blanked a user page[62] in the past. So the behavior is not a one-time happening.

    Anna Frodesiak made a report[63] to The Administrator intervention against vandalism board. Toddst1 responded[64] less than 1 hour later.

    No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.

    This is a clear cut case of vandalism and Toddst1 refusal to do anything in response to it I think is a serious violation of his duties as an administrator....William 15:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So you are complaining that 5 days ago he didn't block someone who last blanked the page 5 days ago. Anna made the report to AIV at 13:46, 5 March 2013 and the last time anyone blanked that page was 13:35, 5 March 2013‎ or 11 minutes before Anna reported it. The person stopped before Anna reported it, how would blocking have protected the encyclopedia? GB fan 15:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an uninvolved editor who just came aware of this. AGF for a minute, ok?
    Kristijh's third blanking came after two warnings had been issued by Anna. That's the important part, and Kristijh went ahead and did it a 3rd. Toddst1 couldn't be bothered to block Kristijh in response to his disruptive behavior. Editors have been blocked for past harm to the encyclopedia and based on the presumption they may do it again....William 15:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The important point is that the blanking stopped and 5 days later hasn't started back up. A block was not needed to stop the disruption from continuing. Toddst1 made the right call at the time. GB fan 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No administrator is under any obligation to take any administrative or editorial action at any time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Serisously a administrator can't be sanctioned[65] for serious violations and lesser problems see the posts closed almost immediately....William 16:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    William, no admin action was required to stop Kristijh's blanking of Renzoy16's user page, Kristijh did it all on their own. Toddst1 did nothing wrong at the time and you should assume good faith about that. GB fan 17:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He did it 3 times, twice after warnings, and nothing is done and you're advocating that action was correct. Vandals can get away with the behavior without penalty in other words and doing nothing about it is ok. That's a fine and dandy policy but tell that the next time to a editor appeals a block for vandalism and why he shouldn't be unblocked when here a no block is fine....William 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude. Chill out. Read this, the instructions of WP:AIV, and/or this page. The standard operating procedure for dealing with vandals is to give them a series of escalating warnings, one fore each time they vandalize. The warnings go from level 1 to level 4. If they vandalize after getting the 4th level warning, that's usually when blocks usually start happening. Yes, sometimes this sequence is overruled, but what Toddst1 decided was that this wasn't bad enough to warrant overruling the sequence. That was a perfectly reasonable decision to make, and nothing to take umbrage at. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The goal is to build an encyclopedia, not run a justice system. (See no justice). Toddst1 made a decision that a block wasn't necessary -- history since that decision has validated it. Had he been "wrong" -- I'm sure he or another admin would have corrected the situation. NE Ent 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is it just me?

    Since this isn't directly related, I'll break it off a bit from the above. Am I the only one that has been sensing a "youngish" sort of drama theme lately? From blinking sigs., to "I'm being harassed by xyz website", to "Admin. ABC won't block this guy". There just seems to be an awfully lot of "Everybody's just picking on me/him/her/us" with a side of WP:IDHT added in type of thing going on lately. Kinda smacks of some old 4chan style tactics, although I'd think by now that those particular ones would have outgrown this type of thing. I'm just asking - am I the only one seeing this? — Ched :  ?  18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There does seem to be an acceleration lately, of that kind of stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just recently, I think two days ago, watchlisted this noticeboard and I've seen a lot of this childish drama you're talking about. –TCN7JM 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just you. my sordid past indicates I've been around 7 years; (7??? How'd that happen?) outside of some statistical variation I think the level of nonsense is about constant. One difference is we used to have WP:WQA to act a drama sink (see heat sink) to suck some of the lower level stuff off ANI, but "the community" made the boneheaded move to shut that down because it "didn't work." NE Ent 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to agree. It's always been like this! Deb (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it has. But the crud-level has got slightly worse since WP:WQA closed. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a 7 years (I guess) non-admin, I must agree that admins are too much involved in doing "the right thing" and don't differentiate between the editor who is trying to disrupt the project and the editor who is trying to save the project just that he did it in an unlucky way. If you get my point... Debresser (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behaviour by User:ConnorLax101

    User:ConnorLax101 has a consistent pattern of disrupting airport articles, particularly Logan Airport and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. Primarily, he has added KLM as an operator of flights between the two airports many times in a few different ways, despite being asked for sources many times. He has added references a few times, but the references have never actually stated that KLM serves Boston-Amsterdam (because they don't). He seemed to understand that this is a problem at one point (his talk page), but then resumed similar disruptive behaviour. He has added this similar content well more than 10 times, by my count. Here are a subset of the diffs:

    He has also been warned on his talk page to cease this pattern of behaviour several times and acknowledged the warnings both by responding at the talk page and by deleting them from his talk page (saying "stop trying to destroy my account").

    He has also twice added copyrighted images, claiming they're in the public domain: File:Logan Airport Terminal E at night.jpg (talk page warning; I'll flag the image itself shortly if someone doesn't beat me to it) and File:Air France A380 Boston.jpg (talk page warning).

    He is editing these pages, particularly Logan Airport, fast enough that it is quite difficult at times, including right now, to keep up with all of his unsourced and unencyclopedic edits.

    —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for distruptive editing. I was only trying to help. I'm sorry, ASHill. But, I am kind of new to Wikipedia and am not 100% aware of the guidelines.

    -Connor (User:ConnorLax101) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's those Armenians again"!

    The unregistered editor in question has been blocked for a day. dci | TALK 21:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can we stop the Armenian rampage of Special:Contributions/62.235.191.110 who is adding the same sentence to numerous articles without any regard for context (viz: "The Armenian Apostolic Church is the world's oldest and the most ancient Christian communities. Armenia was the world's first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion in AD 301.")? Paul B (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've rolled back several of the edits, as has User:Deor. I also gave him a 4im warning at his talk page; I'd let things go at that, and would suggest a block only if he starts up again within the next few hours. dci | TALK 20:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's still at it! [66] Paul B (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people just don't stop, do they? A block sounds fine given his persistence. dci | TALK 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inappropriate article feedback

    The feedback is unrelated to the article and may be an attack against a person. Normally, I would tag something like this with {{db-g10}}, but I don't know how to tag article feedback. Does anyone know of a way to tag it? Also, can someone remove the feedback? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=543306647"