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 LesLein (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 16 March 2013 (2nd LesLein response). 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

    Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles

    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]
    It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be better that you did it. Frankly you seem to be the most suitable person for such suggestions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving forward

    Garamond Lethe asked above what I wanted moving forward, and looking at the direction the discussion is taking that is a question which really does need to be addressed. I suppose my first step is going to be to end my tolerance for the use of primary sources, so I expect to cut down most of the major articles drastically based on their reliance on Sarkar's own writings. I don't know that we've gotten to the point of 1RR-style protection, but it would be nice to get some assurance from uninvolved admins that they aren't going to protect this material from the deletion/redaction it most roundly deserves. I notice that Abhidevananda hasn't responded at all here, which is a problem. I personally am not so concerned about the puppetry/canvassing issues since in the end they don't seem to be having much of an effect on the outcome of the AFDs where they figured most strongly, but I would really like to see some responses from the pro-Sarkar side that show they understand the rules and are willing to play by them. Otherwise I don't see how we are going to avoid arbcom. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory I've made a few attempts at a modest proposal that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV in future, but the article's defenders have avoided the question completely. This is quite frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, this is my statement on moving forward:
    Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. 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 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR.
    The weight of consensus favors one side, so I think 1RR-style protection would be very useful in moving forward. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's a request for 1RR at Progressive Utilization Theory, Ananda Marga, Neohumanism... anything else? Garamond Lethet
    c     03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
    c     05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
    c     15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been advised to ask for WP:ARBIND protection, which may take a day or so to make the request. Don't wait for me to do it if you have the time and patience to make the filing. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda

    I did notify Abhidevananda of this discussion, and as you can see he hasn't responded. Instead, over at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory he has simply been reduced to complaining about User:bobrayner's admittedly less-than-tactful edit summaries, as in these edits: [1] [2] [3]. This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: [4], a proposal which the pro-Sarkar side utterly ignored. Instead, Abhidevananda dropped a huge and essentially irrelevant 8kbyte wall of text (including a gratuitous image) on us: [5]. In the period leading up to the article being locked, he made almost no forward edits, instead repeatedly reverting bobrayner's attempts to cull the article of primary-sourced material (too many examples to list them all, but for example there's [6]). I can only conclude that he is intent on protecting an advocacy-laiden version of the article against any attempt to force it to conform to policy, and will bury us in walls of platitudinous text and nuisance quibbles about the behavior of now-frustrated editors in order to delay the inevitable. He is absolutely uncooperative and shows all the signs of being an irredeemable POV-warrior. I ask therefore that he be topic-banned from anything having to do with Sarkar including all articles about PROUT and Ananda Marga. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to concur with this. Although Abhidevananda has always been polite, he has never been willing to edit cooperatively, and has blocked essentially every attempt to compromise on a more reasonable article. Thinking correctly I would be sympathetic to anyone adding information about small religious or related groups, he asked for my assistance, but has not been willing to follow it--he has not yet seemed to realize I am sympathetic to reasonable articles about such groups, but only reasonable articles. Others here are also sympathetic, but not to the sort of redundant articles he insists on writing. I am always reluctant to remove the principal editor for a specialized topic, but in this case I think the rest of the editors involved can do it justice without him. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also concur. After 20 AfDs I don't have any reason to think that Abhidevananda understands the notability guidelines, and after weeks of page protection I don't have any confidence he understand that articles need to be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Sarkar-related articles might be improved despite him, but I think the question here is whether a topic ban will happen now or after another two months of obstruction. Garamond Lethet
    c     21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to agree with the above editors. Would the implementation of 1RR – rather than topic ban – bring this under control yet allow him to contribute to the subject matter? Location (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The PROUT article has already been protected twice due to editwarring (and there has also been a little light editwarring on related articles); I don't see how 1RR would stop it getting locked up a third time, other than taking a few steps out of the revert-war. 1RR is not the answer because editors on both sides are still determined to revert edits that are "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there is canvassing etc. to consider, 1RR would be very easy to game. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sarkar-promoters are outweighed by the neutral editors at this point. A revert-war would be very brief in that Sarkar-promoters will quickly find themselves blocked in violation of 1RR if the neutral editors collectively take steps to enforce the consensus that has formed. That's my take on what should specifically be done right now. Alternatively, shit or get off the pot... there is lot of bitching about the Sarkar-promoters' editing behaviors but no one wants to open a WP:RFC/U or take it to WP:ARB/R. I responded to your initial Rfc but I don't intent to muddle through this indefinitely. Location (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't count on numerical superiority of neutral editors. None of the SPIs about suspicious editing patterns have been conclusive, which means we can't rule out similar behaviour in the future. Besides, Abhidevananda's position regarding the use of primary sources hasn't changed much since last November. Note the similarities between this discussion with an editor who has a vast experience of cleaning up Indian related articles and the ongoing discussion at Progressive Utilization Theory. In all likelihood 1RR won't help, we can of course try it. Before deciding to file a WP:ARB/R, taking a look at WP:ARBIND might help. These issues are not new to India related articles and standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIND might be an effective tool to deal with them. I am not sure whether they would apply to all Sarkar related articles though. Only an Arb can answer that. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't familiar with WP:ARBIND, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Do we need to file at WP:ARCA to find out if it would apply? Location (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think so. An informal query on an Arbcom member's talk page would do. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note with User:Risker but I'm doubtful that WP:INDIA applies, since it was set up to deal with India/Pakistan conflicts. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ARBIND is no longer restricted to India/Pakistan conflicts. It was amended in July 2012 to include "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW: What part of WP:ARBIND is relevant to Abhidevananda's actions? I see that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 which appear to be similar to what we are dealing with here. Location (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Sarkar problem is very similar to the Prem Rawat problem; but of course the outcomes of that arbcom case are specific to Prem Rawat and associated editors, they don't really apply here except as a sad lesson of what can happen. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe may have already seen this, but it appears that "conduct at Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the scope of discretionary sanctions" authorized by WP:ARBIND and that we "can reasonably bring an enforcement request against Abhidevananda". (See User talk:Risker#Need a quick Arb opinion.) Location (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Turning Wikipedia into Spamapedia

    Causeandedit has been community banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Causeandedit seems to be misusing Wikipedia to promote numerous record labels, artists, and turning articles into link farms with bogus references, consistently ignoring polite requests to follow WP's rules. An occasional good reference is swamped by junk. It creates a huge amount of work for others here to undo; Hoopla Worldwide is just the tip of the iceberg.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice that User:Causeandedit is vengefully putting up a satisfactory Nat Gertler article for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I think it's time some other admin has a look at this. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some interesting comments have been made at User talk:AGK#Harrasment By User and someone with time to work out what this all about should study the situation because it looks like it will get ugly quite soon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that in the history Causeandedit's interesting comments from 8:04 12 March are struck and not accessible yet they still appear at User_talk:AGK#Harrasment_By_User. Oversight gone not quite right? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • General comment. We are all volunteers. We help in various ways of our own choosing. Some fix typos. Some add content. Others delete content. Some fix grammar. Some add photos. Some settle disputes. The only way different agendas can cooperate is if we try to follow Wikipedia's self-made rules. The result is an incredible source of information, a powerful first for humankind, widely read, and has such a powerful web presence that it is highly tempting to misuse it for promotional purposes. Spam, advertising, and other promotional junk can undermine the entire project, reducing our encyclopedia into one big sales blurb, so the community has decided, wisely, to keep spam out. Most contributors who look into this matter will agree that User:Causeandedit is a prolific spammer who is bombarding "articles" with bogus references. When challenged, Causeandedit complains of harassment or strikes back; for example, a Wikipedian and notable author Nat Gertler voted to delete some of the spam, prompting User:Causeandedit to slap a spurious AfD tag on apparently from spite. In my view, Causeandedit is a nuisance to the community, is not following Wikipedia's rules, is not acting in good faith, is harming the project, and should be blocked, hopefully permanently.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Somebody had indeed tried to suppress that content but not quite did it right. I've fixed the mess. AGK [•] 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I !voted "not sure yet" for Sabrina (pop singer) but I can assure I will shed no tears if you speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G11 right here and now if you so wish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left that one sitting for now but !voted for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm speedying by G11 what I can find, except for some of the musicians , because I lack confidence in that area--I see they are now being taken care of also. It is conceivable that some might be notable, but it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose formal ban of Causeandedit and any socks

    Per unanimous consensus of the community, Causeandedit (talk · contribs) is community banned from editing Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Are there any objections to a formal ban of Causeandedit and his socks, if any? It looks at first glance like typical advertising activity but I totally lost any good faith in this user after they were called out on falsely claiming Sabrina had been certified gold in the United Kingdom and then, with all the eloquence of a toddler claiming Darth Vader had raided the cookie jar, they tried to claim that by UK they meant "University of Kentucky". If that isn't silly enough on the surface, the article said "United Kingdom" (not just UK), linked to the BPI site, and gold records are certified by industry groups like the RIAA and IFPI, not by colleges. But that's a once-in-a-lifetime wackiness, right? Wrong. He did it again on the Audio Stepchild AFD. Not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The assertion of gold status in the UK by Causeandedit for Sabrina (pop singer) appears to be an obvious falsification. Perhaps the editor was hoping to benefit from the confusion with Sabrina Salerno, who does have a Silver certification in the UK and is a much better known performer. Sabrina Salerno has sold 10 million records worldwide. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support a formal ban. Amongst so much deception the claim of accidently mistaking "United Kingdom" for "University of Kentucky" show that this editor has no respect for the truth, this project, everyone here. If claims of Mr Hay talking to this editor are to be believed (source redacted for other reasons) then Mr Hay should express issue with how bad CaE is making him look. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a possible sock of User:Causeandedit here? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when does an IP account erase a deletion discussion? Another sock?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP-based abuse

    There has been a long-term IP-based abuser active on Syncopy Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the past several months. The IPs include 98.67.161.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.67.168.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.81.14.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.67.162.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This individual has been warned on multiple occasions, and has even been blocked at one point. Discussions about this user's edits, which are not always overtly vandalism, are nonetheless disruptive as they are constantly made despite objections by other editors and their good faith attempts at discussing the issue on the talk page. Such discussions go nowhere as the person behind the IPs resorts to ad hominem attacks, red herring arguments, baseless accusations, and other methods that fail to actually address the topic of discussion. I am not too sure what course of action should be taken, but I do believe some form of blocking and page protection are in order. – Zntrip 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The most recent thing is a somewhat ridiculous edit war. I've warned both participants; the IP is just as guilty there as their opponent. I will grant you that the IP's contributions appear to be much more combative than necessary, and their refusal to sign their messages is more than irritating. What helps is establishing a consensus on the talk page so there is something to fall back on. But that talk page, and the rest of the history, reveals that there is dispute among other editors as well, so I don't know how easy it is to come by consensus on individual issues. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell you one thing--this sort of stuff is just stupid and disruptive, and was warred over as well. It warrants semi-protection on the one hand and a block on the other, but blocking a changing IP is useless, and that particular idiocy was a few months ago, so semi-protection now isn't necessarily warranted. I don't see anything in the article history from those other two IPs, so I cannot argue there has been constant disruption over the last couple of months. If it continues, then semi-protection is warranted. Right now, I don't see what I could do. Is there an admin with a shorter fuse and bigger balls around, and does that admin disagree? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In response, users such as Zntrip act as a pack of wolves whose only purpose on Wikipedia ppears to be to tear apart every common user on Wikipedia. Look at this horrible page and think about their behaviors. They play by rules they don't even keep themselves (calling people delusional then sending repeated warnings to the other users over lesser implied comments) and they repeatedly bully or group bully anyone they disagree with by abusing the warning mechanisms and admin mechanisms. I think if someone at Wikipedia looked at their behavior closely as shown on this page that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. They do not own Wikipedia and they discourage people from using Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.110.153 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This rant, left also on the article talk page (unsigned, of course), is sufficient indication of the editor's disruptive intentions and lack of good faith. I'll lock the article; that much seems fair now, and I've blocked the IP after also looking at User:98.67.162.21. Is the range too big for a range block? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So speaking reasonable language is now a rant? Wow, do you make this stuff up as you go along? Obviously there is a group of regular users who now cyber bully common users, ban for rules they don't follow themselves and show absolutely zero good faith. Never seen anything like it. Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.157.46 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, IP User needs to back off. He raised his point/proposed addition. It was rejected due to lack of evidence/reliable sources supporting it and yet he still insists on beating the dead horse in the hopes it will come alive. Secondly, Drmies also needs to take a step back and perhaps should review his block decisions as he is an involved admin. I would also strongly suggest he stops feeding the troll. Forgive me I can't link the relevant humorous essay as I am on my mobile. MisterShiney ✉ 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is what I mean, disagree with Znip or Mister Shiney you get insulted, threatened, and reported. Neither user shows any ability to reason ans seems to be on self appointed admin power trips, they will cyber bully, and never treat a common user with any respect. If getting your way and insulting users is what Wikipedia is all about then Wikipedia should rethink these users who want to wield power instead of information. Is this what Wikipedia really is all about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.157.46 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • MisterShiney, you should probably explain to the non-clairvoyant how I am involved, but I'm not really that interested since you are wrong. To the IP: nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh sorry I miss read who made the report. My mistake. So sorry. I withdraw my previous comment. Except for the IP user needing to drop the stick MisterShiney ✉ 06:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See Drmies? You have been Shineyed! He shoots his opinions at you first, and asks questions later. If you would take the time to read all of his comments he likes to speak as a Wiki-dictator. Any reasonable person could see that this is all a sham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.10.112 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please mind WP:NPA, even if you have been wronged, two of them don't make a right. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet ten pages of nothing that resembles dialogue with all the banning and bullying never solves the real problem -- absolute power corrupts absolutely. Funny how comments like these always favor the bully and never present anything truthful. Is Wikipedia now a playground with no adult supervision given these juvenile behaviors? Ten pages of no solutions says "yes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.10.112 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200

    Non admin close. Editors referred to WP:RSN and WP:3O Blackmane (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I had some discussions with Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200 (see his/hers recent contributions). It seems to me that he/she is a combination of WP:LISTEN with WP:COMPETENCE. It seems to me that he/she is a troll who wants to harass editors. He/she produces some preposterous arguments from the fringe of the fringe, like that there would be historical proof for Jesus's resurrection and in general that historians should seek to falsify supernatural causation. Such arguments should not be expected from anyone with a minimal scientific education, this is why I said he/she is a case of lacking editorial competence. I have explained what historians do and that history has a naturalistic methodology because historians of all faiths have consensually agreed upon it, but he/she refuses such arguments, which shows that he/she is a case of failing to get the point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a red herring, it was a distraction from my main point. While I know that you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus resurrected, I was just explaining that some people like me believe that and thus "the strong scientific evidence" that is an exception in Wikipedia's FRINGE policy would be satisfied.
    All I wanted to do was make some edits to the extremely biased material on the History and the Bible Wikipedia page as it exists right now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we agree that proving miracles isn't, cannot be and will never be part of any empirical science, we can smoke the pipe of peace. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Google gives the definition of empirical as:
    • Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
    I think miracles fit this definition. We can observe things in the present that would have happened if a certain miracle occurred. The Shroud of Turin is a very interesting archaeological discovery that atheists aren't quite sure about.
    Obviously we can't "prove" that something happened, supernatural or not.
    So no, I disagree with you. While miracles themselves can't be explained by natural laws since some of them are temporarily withheld, the events that follow afterwards are definitely part of empirical science.
    And that is still a distraction from my main point of removing the horrendously biased statements that are present on the article now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And now I have a username and have created an account! JasperTech (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I had already admitted that I got irritated by your claim that historians could prove the occurrence of miracles and that I was vitriolic about it. But please don't pour gas on the fire. You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever or you have unlearned what you learned in it, otherwise I see no possibility to deviate from the idea that empirical sciences are by definition naturalistic. E.g. name one science (but not a pseudoscience) which studies the supernatural. There is a contradiction between the idea of arbitrary divine intervention and the idea of empirical science. The Age of Enlightenment has taught us what is admissible as fact and what should be relegated to the realm of mere faith. It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia editors have respect for science and your mockery of the scientific method could irritate them. I hope you do understand that attempting to pass supernatural claims through peer-review is extremely ill-advised for anyone who wants his studies published in a respectable scientific journal. Wikipedia can only take the side of the reviewers, they are the gatekeepers who forbid the entrance of pseudoscience in respectable scientific publications. I don't attack your right to believe in miracles, I just say that by definition sciences could never attest the existence of miracles: physics has naturalistic methodology, chemistry has naturalistic methodology, biology has naturalistic methodology, psychology has naturalistic methodology, sociology has naturalistic methodology, anthropology has naturalistic methodology, history has naturalistic methodology, religious studies have naturalistic methodology and so on. I would advise you to watch the short movie at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cweYRarq664 , wherein Bart D. Ehrman makes it expressly clear that claims that miracles have really happened are not historical claims, but they are theological claims. Any historian worth his salt would agree with Ehrman, except practitioners of pseudoscience, who conflate history with theology. Historical facts should be valid for people regardless of their faith and of their theological persuasion. What you want is eat your cake and still have it. You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method. As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK sure, I won't pour any gas on the fire! I'm definitely hoping to get a consensus that everyone is happy with.
    "You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever...."
    You just finished speaking about not pouring gas on the fire, and then you say that. Very interesting. I'm just a high school student, and if you classify that as "no scientific instruction whatsoever" then, well, OK.
    "It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia...."
    Let's consider the scientific method. It's all about why does this happen? People try to explain things with laws. These laws are mostly consistent, but not always. For example, virtual particles pop in and out of existence without any cause. These are quantum fluctuations and the first law of thermodynamics is temporarily withheld. Are miracles any different?
    I watched your recommended video and it is not "expressly clear" to me that a supernatural claim is not historical, but theological. I know it's theological, but how would it not be historical? It depends on what you define as historical, but I think that would be determined according to one's biases. I'll explain. Take the Shroud of Turin. Historians, like with all other archaeological discoveries, are interested in an explanation of how it got there. They want to know if it could have been forged, the person that rested inside the shroud if it wasn't forged, and so on. There is no consensus as to where it came from. Some Christians think that the Resurrection could explain how it came about. That's their hypothesis. It's definitely a theological claim, but since it's explaining archaeological evidence wouldn't it also be a historical one?
    You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method.
    You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method, but a miracle could be set forth as a hypothesis to explain some evidence. Whatever hypothesis best explains the evidence.
    On the other hand, a miracle is by definition something that can't be explained by natural laws. But then again, virtual particles are one example of something that can't be explained either. It just "happens." In fact, since laws are immaterial, then you could say everything just "happens." How do we determine a scientific law? From things that consistently "happen." But then we could also define laws as things that we observe to happen, rather than the cause of why things happen. Some Christians argue that God is the basis for the scientific method and for natural laws.
    "As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals."
    So to sum it up, I know that empirical science can't prove miracles, but a supernatural causation hypothesis could be used to explain some evidence. Obviously this shouldn't be overused like some Christians, but we also shouldn't avoid all the evidence if it points to this conclusion.
    As for the "serious scientific journals," I noticed you used the word "serious." I guess that must be because I referenced some theological journals that are considered academic. But your word "serious" excludes these journals. Apparently they aren't "serious" journals. But you only determine that according to your bias, so it doesn't mean anything.
    I guess now you might be really ticked off with me, but I was just saying what I think.
    Oh, and why are you so against having other (i.e., Christian) opinions expressed on Wikipedia? Why are you so against a neutral point of view? It's not like any of the existing opinions will be removed. JasperTech (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This user abuses this encyclopedia in order to mock the scientific method, the academia and the system of peer-review through advocating pseudo-scientific (supernatural) explanations for historical events as if they would constitute science. I was inclined to believe that I was my mistake of being so harsh on him and recurring to vitriolic condemnations of pseudoscience, but this user simply refuses to get the point. As he persists in bashing whatever is relevant for the historical articles inside Wikipedia, he is a case of WP:COMPETENCE: he does not understand how history works, yet he pretends to correct bias in articles edited by many competent editors. He has to submit to the idea that history has a naturalistic methodology and that this is not something open for discussion. Even if the issue were open to discussion, Wikipedia would not be the place to discuss it, but such discussion would have to take place in peer-reviewed scientific journals, among the most prominent scholars in historical research. This user simply ignores Occam's razor and with it most of the scientific method. Furthermore, he does not admit that this is his problem, but has accused me of bias and violating WP:NPOV and attempting to silence Christians, and together with me he has accused the many editors of The Bible and history of having an anti-biblical bias. My sincere recommendation to him is to take science classes and come back an edit Wikipedia when he has at least basic understanding of how science works.
    Since he is not able to understand abstract ideas, like having a scientific consensus upon methodology, I will give him an example of what historical research could establish in respect to relics. I saw a Discovery Channel show, advertised at http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/john-baptist-bones-120615.htm . Discovery has gathered a team of scientists who tried to establish if some bones (relics) found in Bulgaria would be the bones of John the Baptist.

    "The result from the metacarpal hand bone is clearly consistent with someone who lived in the early first century AD," Oxford University professor Tom Higham said of the new study. "Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will."

    To the best ability of those scientists, it could not be proven that the bones belong to John the Baptist, since we don't have his DNA nor his dental X-Ray. It was not disproved either, since the data could not demonstrate that the relics were a forgery. So, the relics has been relegated to the limbo of neither proven genuine nor proven false. Remember that this does not mean falsifying a miracle, it simply means attempting to establish if some real bones belonged to a real person mentioned by the Bible. That's all history could do. It cannot be used to prove supernatural claims like the resurrection of Jesus and the divinity of Vespasian. I recommend him not to waste our time with such rubbish. He just takes for granted pseudohistory published in fringey fundamentalist magazines and conflates theological arguments with historical research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I get it. Tgeorgescue is showing that I'm a fraud by letting me post all my "crazy ideas" over here. I know that I'm not supposed to fill the talk pages with debates about something, but about their content. I'm very sorry for getting off topic, but in the original "Bible and history" talk page was where it began. I recommend that any other person who is wondering about me look into that discussion over there and the points I raised about the bias of the article.
    From now on I won't go into debates over beliefs in talk pages. But it seemed almost inevitable since Tgeorgescu was discussing the nature of pseudoscience and claiming that supernatural causation fits into that category. I know that many scientists consider supernatural explanations as pseudoscience, but according to WP:FRINGE the weight given to a certain view should be relevant to the number of people who hold it (it's acceptance). Since there is a large number of Christians who do not hold that view, and since the creation/evolution debate is one that is continuing today, I don't think Wikipedia should call miracles "pseudoscience," although it's perfectly fine to explain who believes that they are pseudoscience. I think all opinions should be allowed on Wikipedia (although we have to of course give them their due weight). Christianity seems to have a lot of weight to me.
    Anyway, back to my main point. My main point was the bias in the Wikipedia page "The Bible and History." Tgeorgescue seems to think that the bias is perfectly acceptable, but to me it seems like an unambiguous contradiction of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
    And just so all the viewers know, in response to the example provided by Tgeorgescue, I must say I absolutely agree. He seems to have set up a straw man argument against me, because I never said that miracles can be "proven" (actually, nothing can be proven with absolute confidence).
    Looking forward to what others think! But I definitely want to comply with Wikipedia standards and I don't want to break the rules of competence. As for his charge that I refuse to get the point, I must ask, what point? The page he referenced talked about accepting the "consensus," although right now I see no consensus with just him arguing against me. There were in fact two other people who took my side who responded in the discussion on "The Bible and History," but that's not very many people. So I don't see how I broke that Wikipedia policy. JasperTech (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you stop. This is not a forum for discussing scientific method versus religion. In fact, Wikipedia is not a forum for this sort of discussion. JasperTech, the first thing you should go do is read a veritable alphabet soup of policy pages. WP:V and WP:RS are the two most important ones. Also, consider WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. If you are seeking to discuss the merits of this versus that, then WP is not the place for you. We are not here to discuss validating one person's view over another, but to report the views of reliable sources. If you find that something is missing or slanted in the article, find a reliable source that says the contrary and most importantly discuss the source on the talk page not the material in the source. Whether you think Christianity has a lot of weight is irrelevant, since you are not a reliable source. Tgeorgescu, please refrain from dismissing a new editor's misunderstanding of how to edit here as rubbish as it's not civil. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment. JasperTech, please also read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Blackmane! I think I remember reading those before, and yes, I do have a secondary source for my proposed change. What I would add would be based off of an Apologetics Press article, but since I'm not sure if those kinds of sources are allowed I would quote the first sources that the Apologetics Press article in turn cites. The paragraph or sentences I proposed adding onto the existing text to express a variety of opinions were cited from an academic journal called The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, and since Tgeorgescue said that it must be academic, I think this journal would qualify. But apparently he still doesn't think that the source qualifies because it's not a "serious" academic journal. But I don't know what that means since it seems to me he defines what a "serious" journal is according to his particular bias.
    And yes, I promise I will no longer make Wikipedia into a forum. JasperTech (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you take it to WP:RS/N the reliable sources noticeboard. A number of more experienced editors will be able to help you there. That noticeboard is a very good way to widen the discussion. On one hand you be editing a very obscure article which is only frequented by 1 or 2 editors with opposing views making consensus difficult, but on the other you might be editing an article which has many editors who are divided in any number of ways. In such cases, WP:RSN or perhaps WP:3O a third opinion is what you are seeking. Another source of help is the Wikiproject that the article is associated with. This can be found towards the top of the talk page. In any case, I believe that this may be closed as no admin action required merely guidance to the appropriate locations for help. Blackmane (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I did not pass judgment on the seriousness of The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, what I said that apologetic articles should be used with utmost caution, since they don't give an objective view of research, e.g. through ignoring evidence to the contrary, giving undue weight and even using cherry-picked quotations which may give a false idea of the claims made in peer-reviewed journals. I said that I do not know if the purported fact got widely accepted by scholars or if it is a fringe/minority view, but there are surely other Wikipedia editors who are more informed about that and could pass a reliable judgment upon the acceptance of such claim by the academic community. Without referring to your personal views but simply evaluating the reliability of sources, any journal which claims there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus falls into WP:FRINGE/PS and therefore should be ignored by Wikipedia as pseudohistory. I don't know if the discussed journal published anything like that, that's why I don't dismiss it yet as unreliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And on that note I'm going to NAC this as resolved and redirected to the appropriate venues. Unless I'm mistaken, this could have been hammered out on a talk page and sent to WP:RSN rather than drama central and no admin action is really called for. Blackmane (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:BlackJack: issues with WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:AGF, among other things

    Further I guess to this ANI report, in which User:BlackJack came to ANI declaring that an ongoing educational project was a "hoax," this editor has been increasingly problematic over the past few days. As I am now an involved admin (and fear I may have broken WP:3RR myself in the process), I'm reluctantly bringing this here. The last straw is User:BlackJack's moving the project page from Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket to Wikipedia:Englishness and Cricket, over two previous moves. I believe that this is the first time I've ever initiated a discussion in this venue.

    Anyhow, here are some highlights. Plenty more diffs could be provided:

    Beyond multiple discussions on the Education Noticeboard (also here), on the project talk page (also here and here), plus on the various article talk pages, I also opened up a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

    User:BlackJack seems to think that the underlying problem is with the use of a source he regards as unreliable. But he hasn't bothered to comment at the relevant venue. Throughout, moreover, his tone has been unwelcoming and hostile.

    Please note that I agree that User:BlackJack has raised some relevant issues of detail about the information that students have been adding to a number of pages dealing with cricket. But in my view the way he has been going about things is unhelpful and repeatedly contrary to due process.

    Advice and thoughts most welcome. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me say one more thing: I agree with many of BlackJack's specific points, and as I have said I think that (so far; the project is far from over) the students' contributions have had mixed results: some articles have definitely improved, in at least once case thanks to BlackJack's rewriting them in response to their interventions. At least one other has ended up rather askew, with undue weight put on (here) the importance of cricket on Englishness. But this is not a content dispute that I am raising here. The point is that Wikipedia articles improve thanks to good faith edits to which regular editors then respond with equal good faith, indeed correcting any errors that may have crept in, but taking into account new information, new sources, and so on. For a short while there may be some instability in an article before a new consensus is established. But this is the Wikipedia process. Sadly, User:BlackJack is not respecting it. I would have expected better of a long-term editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, responsibility for the 3RR rests with Murray who has repeatedly undone a bone fide reversion to remove false information introduced by the "Cricket and Englishness" group from the dubious source which he continues to defend. Please note that I am a subject expert re early cricket history and have written widely about it in and outside WP. Murray objects to the source being denounced (not only by me) and is intent on making a WP:POINT about the whole thing. During Murray's edit war, I twice spelled out to him that I am removing false information but he just ignores it so what can I do?
    If there is one thing that is unwelcome and hostile it is Murray's attitude. I have the support of two other CRIC members at least and these two are both subject experts also. Murray arrogantly insists he is right about this source even though we have in numerous forums and citing the work of several recognised authorities proved that references taken from this book are false and misleading. No matter what we write, he ignores and reverts. By taking the view that we are attempting to subvert the work done by the students he is breaching WP:AGF because we have not removed anything done by them that is useful, only that which we as experts know to be false or misleading. Our view in CRIC is that our articles are there for the benefit of the readers and so must be credible and as accurate as possible. Murray just cannot see this and his behaviour throughout this dispute has been reprehensible. He simply will not communicate with anyone who doesn't agree with him. His attempts above and at the 3RR page to discredit are sad and pathetic.
    The issue here is ensuring that long-standing articles, including one that is WP:GA remain credible and of use to the readers. ----Jack | talk page 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen the two ANI threads by BlackJack. I've not really understood his issue with this Wikiproject, and, having been told twice that this is not an appropriate venue for his complaints, and that there is no issue with this project, it is flat-out wrong of him to move it from the Wikiproject namespace. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. That is a separate issue and my contention is that an exercise of that kind should not intrude on established articles: they should use sandboxes. I repeat that the issue here is protecting the credibility and accuracy of long-standing articles by preventing addition of dubious or false information. ----Jack | talk page 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely relevant - this ANI thread mentions your moving of the Wikiproject, which is therefore not a separate issue. As is the fact you've opened two ANIs here - also relevant. Don't try and pawn it off as irrelevant. Lukeno94 (talk)
    I would ask whether or not User:BlackJack has read Dominic Malcom's book Globalizing Cricket and, if not, under what grounds he is able to judge its credibility. I believe that he certainly had not read it upon the first reversion of contributions made citing Malcom, and therefore his stating of credibility as the main, principle issue seems rather strange. Furthermore, to echo others, why has he not expressed his proof of its lack of credibility on the reliable sources page? In addition, as a student in the Englishness and Cricket project, User:BlackJack began his comments and suggestions regarding our project in an incredibly rude and condescending manner. Although I realized that it is not the job of Wikipedia or its users to provide a pleasant experience for contributors, his reaction to our project has been completely anti-academic in its stifling of education/learning. While I understand that as a newcomer to WP, my input in this subject "may be disregarded" (as mentioned on this page), I just thought I'd share my opinion and experience. Aependleton29 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a Campus Ambassador involved in this project, I wanted to weigh in by saying that the last thing any of us want is controversy. We are simply trying to enrich the student experience by constructing knowledge and we fully expected push back and debate about student edits. The students are making every attempt to be conscientious. They are doing quality research, defending their facts with cited sources and behaving in a way that reflects well on our university, especially in the face of the enumerated violations of WP:BITE, WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Regardless of whether our project name was too similar to theirs, the hostility is uncalled for and violates the fundamental idea behind a wiki in general and Wikipedia specifically. I directly addressed this issue with BlackJack more than once in the last week, and as of our last exchange the WP:BITE issue hasn't resurfaced yet but the WP:OWN issue is unresolved. All we are asking is that our students are treated with civility and respect, as per the 5 pillars, and that our contributions are welcome even if they are removed after consensus has been reached through sourced evidence to the contrary. Discussion of sources should be a valuable learning experience and should improve the article for readers and project admins alike. Combative, insulting comments and misperceived ownership of a public wiki is out of bounds however and should not be tolerated in this community. I'd also add that this is an isolated incident for the most part and many of the other admins have been helpful and supportive, jbmurray being one shining example. --Oline73 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No you are not a Campus Ambassador, are you? You can't just call yourself one, you have to apply. I'd wait until you've been editing for more than a month. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am. I agree that you can't just call yourself one. I agree you have to apply first. I've been editing for years on and off, both anonymously and with this account. Please refrain from posting inaccurate statements. Ironically, much of this debate is about credible sources and you're not helping your cause with that last post. Maybe delete it and we can start over? Oline73 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you're not on the list, and your one-month-old user page doesn't say so. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That list is no longer maintained. (I'll mark it historical right now.) The current list of active Campus Ambassadors is Special:CampusAmbassadors. Oline73 is indeed one. Sorry for the confusion.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No class project is exempt form the WP rules, but if there are only minor problems, such as the acceptability of one particular source, and the matter is disputed, and the argument looks like it may be bitter or disruptive, it might well be deferred until the project is over. Courses are intended to teach students how to write Wikipedia articles, not how to engage in Wikipedia disputes. Obvious this does not apply to things like copyvio and the like. I remind BlackJack that nobody here is treated as an expert-- not the instructor, the students, or himself DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG has it. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, DGG makes a fair point but it says somewhere in amongst all the pedantic rules that WP welcomes subject matter experts. In terms of early cricket, I am an SME and have written widely about the subject outside WP. The way things are going with people like Murray who know everything and understand nothing, I will soon be writing exclusively outside WP. Whether you treat anyone as an expert or not doesn't address the fundamental issue here that Murray, Oline & Co. are trying to introduce material into long-standing articles, one of which is GA, that is false or misleading or, in one case, dangerous nonsense based on a single book that is outside the consensus view formed by numerous other works written by people who are acknowledged authorities. Whether I am an expert or not, I am trying to ensure that the early cricket histories contain information that is correct and will not misinform or confuse the readers, which should be what this discussion is about. The ball is in your court now as I am becoming sick and tired of pedantic, self-important admins who think they know more about articles than the people who write them do. I can quote numerous SMEs who have quit WP because they were undermined in that way and I am seriously thinking I should join them. Murray is not fit to be admin. He ignores anyone who doesn't agree with him and then makes a great big WP:POINT about it all not just here but also on the 3RR page. Absolutely pathetic. I think I will pack this in, actually, and you can rewrite all the cricket articles based on the definitive authority Malcolm and remove everything by crackpots like Arlott, Birley and Wisden who clearly didn't know what they were talking about. Absolute block-headed stupidity. ----Jack | talk page 08:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BlackJack, I am quite up for a proper discussion of the issues. The problem is that your attitude militates against it: for you, it is your way or the highway. As I've repeatedly said, I agree with many of your specific points. The issue is how to deal with them, in such a way that the encyclopedia (and these particular articles) benefit. Intransigence and insults don't seem to me to be the best way forward. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just add by way of comment and context, and perhaps slightly to the one side of the specific issue raised in this thread, that there are some problems here, which it is not surprising Jack has reacted to and which are similar to those that came up with the last college wikiproject that I came across. While they are no doubt well intentioned, and indeed it is probably a good way of getting people involved here, the upshot is that a whole group of very enthusiastic people suddenly arrive en masse at existing pages (or create new ones) and start inputting some very analytical, comment-heavy and discursive essay-style content. That is happening here, eg on the Cricket in England page and also on the English national identity page, where it is not clear that the additions are an improvement from an encyclopedic perspective. The problem with this project is compounded by the fact that they seem to have at best a single-track and at worst a borderline-POV outlook from the start, in terms of being about the assumed relationship between cricket and Englishness, and also that they're focused on the one book, which leads to undue weight and further POV issues, even if it is an accurate and reliable source. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't doubt that - so our role is to educate them but more specifically, educate their instructor on how to prevent such encroachment on the Wikipedia norms ... and not to call them vandals (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c with Bwilkins) For what it's worth, I largely agree with N-HH's points here. I've repeatedly said that the issue is not with whether or not this text is a reliable source, but with questions of undue weight. It is also true that they have a particular perspective (I wouldn't call it a POV), in that they are specifically interested in one dimension of cricket--an important one, but not necessarily the one that interests BlackJack. So I quite agree that it's not at all a question of simply accepting the edits that they are making: some negotiation, refinement, and (well) education is in order. For which purpose subject-matter experts are invaluable! (There is nowhere here any attack on subject-matter experts.) But negotiation, refinement, and education are a far cry from the hostility that BlackJack has shown the project. What I'm asking here is for BlackJack to reign in that hostility; and if he refuses to do so (his responses on his user page suggest that in fact he prefers to lash out more widely still), I'm asking admins to intervene. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'll just add that, as a result of negotiation and compromise, the page on English national identity is now improved. It's rather a good example of how things should go. Yes, for a while the enthusiastic efforts of the students meant that far too much emphasis was placed on the role of cricket. Now, as N-HH notes, it's much more reasonable. Again, this is the kind of to-and-fro that Wikipedia editing involves. Nobody is suggesting that the student edits (or anyone else's) are sacrosanct and can't be touched. The problem is when an experienced editor above all simply shows hostility and reverts wholesale. This is the issue with Jack's attitude. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't be intervening as I'm a member of the cricket project and can quite understand where Jack's coming from, even if he should have expressed himself better. I will give a few thoughts, though. First, I'd suggest that maybe a WikiProject isn't the best way to set up a class project/course any more, seeing as they have made Wikipedia:Course pages recently (apologies to Oline, I'd meant to tell him about this several days ago, but it slipped my mind). Second, Jack you need to cool down mate. I get that it can be frustrating when a whole bunch of people come in out of nowhere and start making what you feel to be edits that make the articles worse off, but if you keep going you'll end up blocked and, honestly, no one wants that. Just leave the articles in question for a bit – if the absolute worst comes to worst, the edits can always be reverted even in a month's time. Last, I think it would be positive move if we could just leave Jack's talk page alone for a while – telling him that it's his "job" and so on to educate these students is probably only going to make matters worse at this time. P.S. Bwilkins, has going to an editor's talk page who you don't already have positive relationship with and telling them they're being a "WP:DICK" ever made someone calm down? Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa there - first, I have no idea that I "don't have a positive relationship" with the individual - as an uninvolved, totally 3rd party, I was taking it upon myself to pull them out of the void and communicate positively. I at no point called them a WP:DICK - please read the context of the statement a lot more carefully before making ridiculous accusations - honestly, based on your history on this project Jenks, I expected better from you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably could have worded that better, I didn't mean to imply you have a negative relationship with him, just that as you say, you have never been involved with him before. In my experience, editors being told they're acting or being a "WP:DICK" will only react poorly to being told that unless they have some sort of past friendship/positive communications with the person telling them that. And come on, surely if you write "they're complaining because you're being a WP:DICK to members of a class project" it's accurate to summarise that as "telling them they're being a 'WP:DICK'". It was never meant to be an accusation. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On that as a side, side point, I really think people ought to stop the regular references to WP:DICK, let alone accusing people – as indeed was done here – of "being a WP:DICK". Regardless of what the page/essay actually says, and whatever people aim to mean by it, it comes across, to me at least, as a pretty direct and deliberately offensive insult. Maybe it's a North American vs British thing, but to these ears/eyes it's certainly not something that's going to help an already difficult situation calm down. It seems an especially odd phrase to use in discussions at ANI, all the more so in the context of any existing personal attacks. N-HH talk/edits 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,Jenks24, and thanks for the level-headed contribution to this discussion. I agree that it isn't Jack's job to educate anyone, except in the broad sense of the word. Meaning, everyone on Wikipedia is expected to "educate" people when they disagree with their edits by presenting proof that the source is bad for specific reasons and then reasoning out the continuing construction of the knowledge delivered in the article. I also agree that name calling or personal attacks from anyone for any reason are unacceptable. With regard to your suggestion to using course pages in the future, I think that is a good suggestion but somewhat tangential to this issue. It wouldn't have made a difference if the students were part of a certain kind of project or connected to no project at all. The debate is centered around 2 basic questions- 1) Does someone who spends a lot of time and effort editing an article have ownership of the article? and 2) Is it important to be civil and respectful when disputing edits to articles on Wikipedia? I feel it is clear that claiming "ownership" violates the fundamental principles of wikis and specifically Wikipedia (see WP:OWN), and that civil, respectful discussion is also a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia's process, especially toward newer editors, (see WP:BITE). I doubt anyone would disagree with those two statements, but I would appreciate confirmation that they are indeed accurate. If they are accurate, then I'd say we've reached consensus and this issue is settled. --Oline73 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree course page/WikiProject thing is relatively tangential, just thought I'd throw it out there. In response to your two basic questions, the second is easiest to answer: yes, it is important to be respectful and Jack went over the line – he could have made the same points without being as attacking. All I'm saying is that a block would probably make things worse. The first question, "ownership", is a bit harder. Yes, it's a wiki and anyone can edit, but sometimes you (just saying that sort of generally, not specifically at "you", Oline) need to understand how frustrating it can be to see an article you've spent a significant amount of time on and really invested in suddenly get changed in a way that you think makes the article worse off. And we need to give some leeway there. So I'm not saying the language or tone Jack used was OK, but his heart was in the right place and, from a relatively quick glance, some of the concerns he had were valid. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was essentially rash for a group of American undergraduates to be asked to start editing articles on cricket - have any of them actually ever put bat to ball I wonder? If a group of English students had started major edits to major articles on baseball I'm sure the reaction of local editors would have been at least as intemperate. If the group had followed more closely the advice of the Education Program, and had actually had experienced advice from a Campus Ambassador or other editors, this rather common problem should have been avoided. I would advise the cricket editors to be a little patient. Sadly students doing WP editing as part of their course very rarely return to look at the pages after the assignment is finished. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod understands it the way I do. First, there are a few topic areas I have learned never to touch, and cricket is one of them--it is much too easy to make really foolish errors when the subject is totally unfamiliar. Many things I never previously knew about I've learned enough about here to have some degree of confidence with minor edits, but this topic has defeated me--as it has most Americans. Even if the instructor and the ambassador are knowledgable, the students presumably aren't.
    But a Wikiproject was not the way to do it, and those involved with the class should have realized this also. We have done several years of experimentation to find a class structure that works fairly well both in permitting the students to work on the subject and also in not disrupting other areas of the project. Further experimentation is always needed--there almost certainly will be better ways in some circumstances, as not all classes have been successful. And anyone has the right to work here as they see fit, or organize a class as they see fit, if they can do it within the usual guidelines. But if someone does experiment, they need to be particularly aware of the possibility of unexpected effects, and understand how to respond to them: experimentation on complicated live machinery in the RW that people depend on is inherently risky, and those taking responsible for the routine operation must protect against its disruption.
    With regard to expertise, the way I have worded it is that any true expert should be in sufficient command of the sources to be able to prove their position without having to rely on credentials because they will have sufficient command of the subject and the sources to clearly justify their positions. Any true expert well-suited for work in a cooperative project should be very glad of the opportunity to do so. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have expressed this in the previous ANI report but since the previous one was merged with this and didn't keep a record of my opinion. I also agree that BlackJack failed to uphold AGF and have bitten some new users. A seven-year veteran user should know better about those policies, so I can safely assume that he knowingly violates these policies and treat them with disregard. Furthermore, after a few days since the previous report, I think BlackJack calling it "hoax" is more than just violating AGF. It's more towards being incivil. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the drift of this discussion seemed to be in the direction of WP:COMMONSENSE, especially where Jenks was involved, until User:OhanaUnited got involved. I was the first regular editor to notice the impact of the student class and when I initially wrote to ANI about it I genuinely did not know what was going on. My impression was of a host of redlink userids seemingly investing a long-term GA with preposterous "theories" and I really thought it might be some elaborate hoax. I asked ANI to investigate and accepted the "class study" finding and that particular thread was closed. Then, after trying to stem the flow of these incursions and being ignored by Oline as a "pain in the arse" because I wanted to protect articles that had veracity and credibility, I came to ANI a second time with the suggestion that class studies of this kind should be restricted to sandbox or userspace where they can edit dev versions of articles to there heart's content without impacting the "live versions". But then we get the nonsensical attitude of jbmurray which is that the live articles must be used for what is essentially experimentation. I try to protect the articles, Murray starts an edit war and here we all are.
    The issues here are, first, the protection by (sorry if I seem arrogant) a subject matter expert of longstanding articles including one that is GA, working almost singlehandely against a swarm of incomers using a single reference point which has been denonstrated to contain falsehoods and misleading information; secondly, the attitude and behaviour of jbmurray who is pursuing a WP:POINT and is acting in a way unbefitting an admin. I don't know what processes may be in place to vet and if necessary censure and sack admins but that is where he should be. Finally, why is this being discussed both here and at the 3RR page? Surely it should only be at 3RR where, incidentally, I have already demonstrated that jbmurray is the responsible party.
    Finally, I apologise if I have overstepped in some of my responses but, as the subject of early cricket has only limited interest even at WP:CRIC, I felt I was fighting alone against a group of people who will not listen and who persist in citing a source that my colleague User:CDTPP (new to WP but nevertheless an expert like myself) has read and dismissed as "risible". I have made clear in History of cricket to 1725 what the consensus view among recognised authorities is about the theory of origin but still we have Oline and Murray insisting that this book is credible and must be used in the articles. Am I supposed to just sit back and wave them through so that the readers are presented with wild speculation and falsehoods? Wikipedia depends on articles, especially developed articles, having veracity and credibility. Murray just doesn't seem to get that where early cricket is concerned, hence this fine mess he has caused. ----Jack | talk page 19:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're supposed to engage with them in the same way that you would engage with any new editor on Wikipedia. If there are problems with their edits, they can be dealt with in the same way that problems with anyone's edits can be dealt with. It's drastically inappropriate to accuse new editors of being malicious hoaxers conducting incursions in to your territory not here to improve the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one who is missing the point. If you would like to look at the initial enquiry you will see that it was an enquiry and a request for investigation. I was told that ot was a class study and I did not dispute the finding. Later, having tried and failed to convince their teacher that he is using a single dubious (indeed "risible") source and that his students were, perforce, disrupting established articles with false and misleasding information, I cam eback here with a second enquiry which was a suggestion that such study classes be confined to userspace. The two things are unconnected. Before you start using phrases like "drastically inappropriate" you should consider the fact that is even more drastically inappropriate to jump to conclusions without getting your facts right. How many times must I advise so-called admins that WP depends on its articles being accirate and credible? And isn't there somewhere a policy around all these rules that there are in fact no rules. May one advise that WP:COMMONSENSE is called for and the integrity of developed articles is paramount? ----Jack | talk page 20:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not doubting you know a lot about cricket, but the fact that you are a subject matter expert doesn't give you carte blanche to attack new editors, and neither does IAR. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose again that this should be restricted to the discussion on the 3RR page. It is ridiculous toing and froing when there is essentially one complaint which is the edit war started by jbmurray who is wasting everyone's time bringing his dispute here as well as 3RR. Please close this and let the 3RR thread sort things out. ----Jack | talk page 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    BlackJack, there is not one complaint. I pointed out at least four: WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:AGF. Meanwhile, you go on about WP:RS but continue to ignore the relevant venue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to close the report at WP:ANEW as soon as I finish writing this comment. Both BlackJack and Jbmurray edit-warred on the article. They can think of this as a warning not to do so again. Neither has edited the article since March 13; therefore, any blocks, in my view, would be punitive. Kevin Gorman, has taken it upon himself to revert the article back to the pre-edit-warring version. I have no comment on that action other than to accord Kevin good faith for his attempts to assist. I have not studied the posts above here. I'm going to leave that to others to sort out. However, I will not permit any more posts to the 3RR report once it's closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's fair enough from Bbb23 but the final explanation I put into the 3RR page needs to be here now so I've added it below. I'm sure Kevin Gorman means well but he must be the first to admit that he knows nothing about early cricket and the article in question now has a very unsatisactory status as it contains content that is false and misleading, content that is extremely dubious subject to a thorough check by someone who knows the subject, and content that is completely out of scope. All of this has been brought about by Jbmurray who should be censured and removed from adminship. I'll go through the 3RR history as follows:

    First off, History of cricket (1726–1740), unlike History of cricket to 1725, is nowhere near complete and I subsequently decided to reduce its scope by moving it from 1726–1763 to 1726–1740. On 11 March, about five members of the Cricket and Englishness course introduced numerous changes all based on their single source which is a new book written by one Dominic Malcolm. I found these changes two days later and immediately, given my extensive knowledge of the subject matter, realised that this statement is false and misleading: "Articles of Laws from 1727 first prohibited the questioning of umpires decisions and therefore decreed them as the final source on conflict resolution and dispute settlement. One such law decreed that "umpires were to be the judges of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended". Obviously, I could just have removed that or revised it somehow but I had serious doubts about several other inputs too, including some outside the scope of the article (e.g., events occurring in the 1770s). I decided, therefore, that the best thing to do was revert and make a note to review and improve the article.

    Later the same day, without making any attempt to ask me for the details of my action, Jbmurray came along and reverted my edit. In doing so, he reinserted information that is false, dubious (subject to detailed checking) or out of scope. His stated reason was that "Malcolm is far from being an unreliable source". Jbmurray knows little about the early history of cricket while both User:CDTPP and myself are experts. CDTPP has read and reviewed the Malcolm book and has dismissed it as "risible" (see above). I am convinced, having seen the edits done at History of cricket to 1725 and in this article that it is unreliable and is completely out of step with the consensus achieved by the subject's recognised authorities in their respective works which are the ones I have used when building these articles.

    I am not going to stand aside and allow someone who knows nothing about my subject to insert content that is frankly rubbish and so I reverted Jbmurray's edit and gave an explanation within the limits of the edit summary: "Reverted; the stuff in Malcolm's book if quoted correctly is wrong; e.g., nowhere in 1727 "laws" is the stated text included: see Articles of Agreement (cricket). The source is unreliable". Any reasonable person would at this point have checked the 1727 statement against the content of Articles of Agreement (cricket) but Jbmurray did not do so. That article includes the precise wording of the 1727 "rules" and a quick scan shows the falsity of the statement which the students found in Malcolm's book.

    After making this revert and directing Jbmurray to Articles of Agreement (cricket), I decided I would make some improvements to the article. I moved it because when it is eventually finished it will be too long if it covers a forty-year period so I decided on a 15-year scope. I made some content adjustments to comply with that and a few copyedits, nothing too extensive as I didn't have time. Within an hour, Murray made his third revert and he clearly had not verified that the 1727 statement was false. He did at least maintain the edits I had just made given the new scope. Again, he made no attempt to discuss the matter and just wrote in the edit summary that he was undoing a mass revert.

    After that it was a case of not giving in. I am the subject expert and the only other expert in this area who uses WP, although he is new, entirely agrees with me that the source is unreliable. As I see it, I have to prevent articles losing veracity and credibility. Jbmurray on the other hand is simply making a WP:POINT about allowing this university class carte blanche. You can see what his attitude is like in other discussions such as this one with his "let the madness continue" jibe.

    My initial action in reverting the students' edits to this article was bona fide and done in the best interest of the article. If the students had written to me to ask why I had undone their work I would have told them; and I would have explained it to Jbmurray if he would ask and also listen but he has shown that he does not listen and thinks that he can ride roughshod over other people's work and expect them to wave him through. I did not commence an "edit war". That began with Jbmurray's revert here and was then escalated by him with this revert here which was done after I had made a start on improving the article. His attitude and actions are completely unreasonable and taking his point to both this page and ANI is completely OTT.

    Whatever the outcome of this dispute, someone should report Jbmurray to whatever process screens admins with a view to him being removed from the adminship. ----Jack | talk page 21:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LesLein

    Following the line of Goldbergs Liberal fascism User:LesLein tries to portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US [10]. After finding out that Goldbergs Liberal fascism is reagarded as fringe and not as a reliable source he changed his strategy. As he admittet to the noticeboard "Since Goldberg is so controversial at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I only use his book to find other sources." He Cherry picked some quotes out of context and arranged them in a way that imposes the notion of New Deal Liberal fascism upon the readers. Since then he continuously makes edits like that one until today.

    User:LesLein got talk page advice and edit comments by User:Rjensen, User:DD2K, User:RashersTierney and User:no qwach macken to stop that kind of edits

    Smacks of POV, "I hate America" wrote Kennan at this point--he had lost faith in democracy and America at this point says Gaddis (2011) p 100, the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly; the second quote is falsified--Ickes never said it (Goldberg got it wrong), The Swope was not part of the new deal – this background information belongs in the NIRA article, No, there is no Talk page consensus for linking FDR to Hitler, and this article is about the New Deal, not Wilson's programs, drop pov claims; FDR and Mussolini did not have a personal relationship, change 1 is unnecessary, change 2 doesn't completely make sense, change 3 needs a better source at least - just the title sets my BS detector off already, One problem with using primary sources is you can except them to make them sound diabolocal...""He said that what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way." now that means he is communist? fascist? opening death camps? killing Jews? killing kulaks? starving millions? jailing opponents? setting up a secret police? gigantic increase in military spending? shutting down churches? killing priests? building roads and highways? deficit spending? jailing political opponents? sending spies around the world???? By not explaining the context the quote is a deliberate device to make readers suspicious of FDR's motives., the problem with the actual Ickes quote is that it does not say anything about the new deal. Some people will read it to say that Roosevelt imprisoned or killed millions of people as Stalin and Hitler did in their countries. The 2nd Ickes quote (" Ickes warned Roosevelt that there was an increasing tendency by the public “to unconsciously group four names, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Roosevelt.") is a fake – Ickes never said it. The statement came in a letter to FDR, one of millions he received from private citizens., Goldberg got the source wrong--Ickes is nowhere mentioned. cite book|author=Alan Brinkley|title=The End Of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War ***click to read |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3KwH05L49aYC&pg=PT39|year=2011|page=39 As for the first quote--it's a paraphrase and Ickes simply does not tell what FDR was talking about. Mentioning it is forbidden OR -- it involves contested interpretation not based on any reliable secondary source. Mentioning it is a rhetorical device that confuses our readers, suggesting FDR's atrocities on the order of Stalin & Hitler. As for Mussolini, there was one New Dealer (Johnson) who had a favorable view and he was fired for it. As Diggins says, "Hugh Johnson notwithstanding, the published writings of the Brain Trusters reveal no evidence of the influence of Italian Fascism." Diggins goes on to say there was zero influence of Mussolini on FDR. William Edward Leuchtenburg (2001). [http://books.google.com/books?id=grAgV8Dub_gC&pg=PA221 In the Shadow of FDR: From Harry Truman to George W. Bush ***click to read. p. 221.], The article will be used by high school kids who know very little about the New Deal but have heard plenty about Hitler's atrocities. "Any intelligent layman" will rwalize he's being fooled by the linking of FDR and Hitler but the kids won't. Again the Ickes quote (the genuine one) tells the informed reader zero--what program was FDR referring to??-- but will hint to the poor student that FDR admitted actions similar to Hitler., why can't you call FDR a dictator here -- because the RS strongly disagree. (Cooke wrote that passage when he was in his 90s and he garbled it completely. suggesting FDR was just like Hitler is likewise a no-no., re attacks on FDR try "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt" article, yes = primary sources. Hoover wrote at length and there is no mistaking what he meant: fascism = control of government by big business. (That is what Hoover meant by fascism but that never happened under Hitler or Mussolini.) FDR was talking to Ickes about XYZ, but Ickes never tells us what XYZ was. No historian has tried to guess XYZ -- there are simply no clues. The Ickes quote is used by enemies of FDR to trick people into linking FDR with Hitler's atrocities., I agree with Rjensen here. Might I also add that you seem to be trying to push a WP:POV here in an obvious manner. Using words like 'dictator' and attempting to link FDR to Hitler is definitely WP:FRINGE..

    A request at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Charges_of_fascism_and_charges_of_communism was commented by several users all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals. It is now resolved by User:UseTheCommandLine with the comment relentless WP:POVPUSH, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DEADHORSE, progress towards WP:CON seems unlikely.

    As User:RashersTierney [11] and User:Wing gundam [12] have done before, User:UseTheCommandLine left a note at LesLeins talk page to stop his disruptive editing [13] LesLein responded that Wikipedia tells him to be bold and that NPOV takes precedence over consensus so he "would rather continue to give it a try at the article a little while longer." [14]. I am afraid that dispute resolution is pointless since User:LesLein apparently does not listen to anyone. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I spent some time looking into this and Pass3456 has a point: we're dealing with a POV warrior. There are two options here, both of which leaning on "I didn't hear that", basically: a topic ban for the article, in indef block until the editor understands that those fringey theories aren't making it through the consensus-making processes and that their work is nothing but disruptive. Such editors are a timesink and help drive away positive editors. Now, a topic ban is easily proposed, but I don't know if the editor's behavior on other articles is any better. If the answer to that is "no", then an indef block is the proper way to go here, along with the standard offer of course. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I am sorry for the length, but the complain has many errors of omission and commission requiring a response. I think that a long response is better than providing a bunch of links. I am also staying up late to submit a timely response; so please forgive me if the editing isn’t as smooth as I prefer.

    Pass3456 says that I try to “portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US.” The first of my edits that Pass3456 goes to says In his college textbook historian John Garraty, a leading New Deal scholar, wrote that the NRA “was also similar to experiments being carried out by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini in Italy and by the Nazis in Adolf Hitler’s Germany. It did not, of course, turn America into a fascist state, but it did herald an increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of interest groups, both industrialists’ organizations and labor unions.” This was a very prominent college textbook, not fringe at all. If readers check Garraty’s Wiki article they will see that he held prominent positions among historians. On the New Deal talk page Pass3456 indicated that Garraty was a good reference, but this editor then ends up removing what Garraty has to say on the subject. Another editor previously restored my Garraty material was “well sourced and temporarily restored it.” If the information I originally provided from the Garraty article had been retained, I probably would be long gone from the New Deal.

    I’m probably the only one with the textbook handy, so I could have left out the part that NRA didn’t turn America into a fascist country. At other points, I provide quotations that Roosevelt was neither a totalitarian nor a dictator. I also provide examples (handling unemployment, rural electrification, deurbanization, regulations etc.) from other sources to make sure that readers won’t think that the articles were referring to dictatorial aspects of fascism. This isn’t especially derogatory; one could even say FDR’s willingness to consider radical sources to deal with desperate times was laudatory.

    What most bothers Pass3456 is when I provided a quote indicating that on October 5, 1933, Harold Ickes recorded a private conversation in his diary. Roosevelt told Ickes that “what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.”

    My first source was Goldberg’s article. On December 23, another editor reverted it as unreliable because even the title did not pass a “BS detector.” The user did not call it fringe. (The fact that so many Wikipedia editors take for granted that Goldberg’s book is unreliable without reading any of it can be considered bias.) I then got a used copy of Ickes’ diary and found the quote. Pass3456 reverted it as original research, even though the Ickes diaries are used as sources for four articles and he does not object to other original research in the article. (I did not know about OR at the time.) I then found an excellent academic article by Lewis Feuer with the quote (Wiki’s Feuer article says that in 1963, the year after the article, Feuer was invited to Moscow to lecture the Soviets on Marxism). On January 17, Pass3456 reverted it as original research without checking the source. Pass3456 and others keep moving the goal line to justify removing my edits.

    I am unaware of any Wikipedia noticeboard decision that Goldberg’s book is fringe. (BTW, one of Pass3456’s favorite sources, Stanley Payne, agrees with Goldberg on several key points. More on this later.) Even if it is, there’s nothing wrong with using the footnotes and text to find good sources and verify information. If the administrators determine otherwise, it will become Wikipedia’s practice to determine what books editors are allowed to read and use offline before doing Wikipedia edits. I don’t think we want to go there.

    At the fringe noticeboard I asked for Pass3456 and others to provide the real context for situations where I took quotes out of context. I request that Pass3456 check the Feuer article and Ickes diary and provide the real context of the Ickes quote, not using context I previously provided. Pass3456 can quote up to 300 words from the Ickes diary without a copyright violation. Pass3456 can also provide a few exact sentences from the Feuer article (along with the page numbers); the first page doesn’t count. This should not take long since Pass3456 is confident about knowing the context. I already know the context and can check on what is provided.

    I don’t have time to comment on the long list of links. An administrator checking them will find that I often rebutted them. If an administrator has questions, please let me know. One point I’d like to make is that one of the link titles states that a quote is “falsified.” Falsified means dishonesty; besides that the name of the author is wrong. Pass3456 knows that I previously reported this as a BLP issue, yet repeats it. It is dangerous to Wikipedia for editors to repeat unsubstantiated accusations against writers.

    Pass3456 states that my edits were “commented by several users [at the noticeboard] all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals.” This is not true. Near the end, one editor wrote, “There obviously are some similarities between FDR's policies on the one hand and communist and fascist policies on the other.”

    At the fringe noticeboard a second editor wrote “I am increasingly convinced that the problem is mostly an original research (well and NPOV and undue weight) problem. If we could all agree that the notion of ‘liberal fascism’, that basically implicates that any political group (exept libertarians) are fascists is a not notable subject, we could move on to the original research noticeboard.” The editor is Pass3456.

    As the New Deal Revision History https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&offset=&limit=250&action=history indicates, on March 6 I added a quote from Stanley Payne, whom Pass3456 holds in high regard, indicating that he agreed with the types of edits I had been making, saying that the New Deal’s work programs were “rather like” the Germans’. UseTheCommandLine edited the short paragraph with the quote. This editor and another must not have thought that I was pushing a fringe theory. Pass3456 indicated that the Payne quote was fringe theory. It was probably an honest mistake, but once UseTheCommandLine got involved in this, he or she should have avoided doing any more arbitration. It is like a judge ruling on a case after getting personally involved. In any fair-minded legal system, I would win an appeal easily.

    UseTheCommandLine acknowledged that he had no enforcement authority. He only said I shouldn’t make any more disruptive edits. When I said I make a few more edits, I also said that they would all be reliable and relevant.” I was working on one today. It is based on information in Foreign Affairs and a Pulitizer Prize winning book. I can provide a summary or draft if you want.

    I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood the “Be Bold” advice. I think there’s a statement that core principles such as NPOV trump consensus. Wikipedia states “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” That is what I have been trying to do. For example, the article has a block quote from FDR completely denying any interest in radicalism. To me NPOV means providing information that Roosevelt said something very different in private. Readers can then review some details and judge for themselves. I am not the one preventing this.

    The article also quotes Herbert Hoover’s claim that the New Deal implemented the Swope Plan. My edits to indicate that this is true was reverted. If administrators go to the Gerard Swope article they will find evidence from a Leon Keyserling interview that a major piece of the New Deal was based on the Swope Plan (I made the edits). Right now, the article says nothing about what happened to the Swope Plan. Garraty said that the New Deal and Nazi anti-depression policies had “striking similarities.” He also said that it was “neither capricious nor perverse” to point this out. Pass3456 and others simply won’t allow any of this.

    Pass3455 does not mention something else I said on my talk page: “I may end up going to an administrator as a last resort.” I wrote earlier that I might submit a fringe complaint myself. Saying that the Payne quote is fringe is itself an example of fringe theory. (The quote is not out of context; it is the only sentence in Payne’s book comparing New Deal unemployment policies to Germany’s.) It is the same with Garraty and Feuer. There is also a BLP problem since some of these writers, such as Payne and Dan P. Silverman are still alive. I was also considering a NPOV complaint for reasons described earlier.

    The reason I don’t usually listen to Pass3456 is that his own conduct is often wrong. This editor wrote on the New Deal talk page that my edits were wrong because the ratio between quoted text and non-quotation text was too high. There is no such rule; Wikipedia encourages quotations. Pass3456 says one time that Payne is an expert and later says that a quote from Payne is “fringe.” I can cite other invalid reasons my edits were reverted, such as a false statement about the context of the Ickes quote.

    I also believe that Pass3456 engaged in Wikihounding. Thirty minutes after he or she last reverted my New Deal edits, he or she reverted my edit on Joseph McCarthy without providing a single reason. (Before it comes up, I am not trying to rehabilitate McCarthy, just provide information to fill gaps.)

    At the noticeboard Pass3456 accused me of “fabricating an analogy,” without providing a single example. I considered making a complaint about personal attacks. I considered submitting a BLP complaint but don’t know if I can do that for derogatory statements about myself.

    I only started making substantial Wikipedia edits late last year. The only other “war” I can think of (it’s getting late) was the Hollywood Blacklist. This link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollywood_blacklist&action=historysubmit&diff=543930352&oldid=508972529) compares the last version before I got involved to the current version. I added the paragraph where Huston describes the Hollywood ten’s motives. I also wrote that the Communist party advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and took money and direction from the Soviet Union. The objection to me was that this was POV. It is only POV in the sense that it is POV to say that Paris is in France. My sources were described as unreliable because they are “professional anti-communists,” as if that isn’t POV. None are unreliable. One, Theodore Draper, was an award-winning historian who used to write for the Daily Worker. He was a professional communist if anything. After another editor joined me, all of the ridiculous praise of the old American communist party was removed. The net effect of my involvement was an improvement.

    I have purchased books, including one recommended by Pass3456, to make sure my information on the New Deal isn’t inaccurate or distorted. This shouldn’t affect your decision, but it indicates a willingness to ensure that my edits aren’t fringe. When administrators look over my other edits (Gandhi, Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, the Caning of Charles Sumner, John Brown’s Raid, John Brown, and Joe McCarthy) because I have read multiple related works on these subjects. I try to fill gaps with interesting and relevant information. I usually pick old topics to avoid a lot of controversy. That is what I tried to do with the New Deal, though perhaps in a misguided way.

    I deny attempts to promote fringe theories or push a POV. My interpretation of NPOV varies from others but seems consistent with the quotation from the NPOV page. To same everyone time, I am willing to operate as follows at the New Deal article and others where edits may be controversial:

    1. I will go to the talk page first to see what others think for everything but the most obvious problems (of course a lot of my New Deal edits were made in the same spirit; I will be more careful) 2. I will propose compromises 3. I will escalate to noticeboards, teahouse, or other places to discuss serious issues

    In return, I request that administrators:

    1. Do not jump to conclusions. I too was surprised at some of the things authors said about the New Deal and radical influences 2. Provide specifics when questioning this response 3. Give me a decent amount of time to respond to others 4. Allow me later to provide evidence (short) from other scholars (there are plenty) 5. Allow me to continue editing the articles mentioned above 6. Permit me to submit my own complaints no matter what happens

    Another editor suggested that I go to the article called Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pass3456 suggested on my talk page that I go to Conservopedia. That is not a welcoming approach to a relatively new editor. I prefer to stay here.

    Thank you for your time. LesLein (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Um...no offence, but when you post an essay of almost 15K, WP:TLDR kicks in. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am keeping the response a lot shorter.
    First of all: The article allready describes the relevant scholarly conclusions. Adding and discussing proposals for alledged similarities and differences would overlay the whole rest of the article and give undue weight to a topic that every major work on the New Deal ignores as irrelevant. E.g. David M. Kennedy (historian) has written a pulitzer price winning thick book on that subject called Freedom From Fear that can be considered thoroughly covering on it´s subject. It does not make any charges of fascism or communism. It is the same with every other scholarly book on the New Deal.
    Second: Yes, there are a lot of problems in how User:Lesleins uses his quote picks too. First of all they are cherry picked, he only cites quotes that Goldberg quoted to make his statement of Liberal fascism. Then they are cited out of context. E.g. he cited that Hitler and Mussolini send diplomatic notes to Roosevelt -> it is true but doesn´t mean anything since it is standard diplomatic behaviour. By presenting that non-topic (instead of a lot other relevant topics) he gives it a weight that historians don´t do (for good reasons). A historian might display that incident in an 300 pages book (without making anything near to a charge of fascism), that does not mean that an 8 page Wikipedia article should present the same under the heading charges of fascism. Several users suggested that LesLein should stick to scholarly research -> presenting scholarly conclusion. He should not pick one out of many sentences he likes most since it seems to link FDR to Hitler when the secondary source in the end does not link FDR to Hitler since LesLein is then drawing a conclusion that the cited book does not. Another example: one could say that Hitler and Roosevelt both were the first to regularly use radio to reach the people. On the other hand Roosevelt did that in a fireside chat way, Hitler almost every time in a hate speech. Now is it a similarity or a difference? I belive that it is not up to Wikipedia user to draw such conclusions. As long as no historian gives an example for something the scholar evaluates as a fascist move of the Roosevelt administration it is at least original research when User:LesLein does otherwise.
    By the way: LesLein does not present similarities and differences but only similarities which obviously violates WP:NPOV. --Pass3456 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement that mentioning similarities without mentioning differences violates NPOV is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy discusses an aspiration about articles, not about each and every editor contributing to each and every article. It is true that we accuse editors of violating NPOV, but we do so when we see that the article violates NPOV and we an editor or editors contributing to a bias. However, we typically see one editor trying to add some material and remove other material. If you have evidence that LesLein is adding similarities, and removing or edit warring to remove differences, then I would agree that is a violation. Is that the case? To use an analogy, article History of basketball is mostly about the history of men's basketball, with too little on the history of women's basketball. I plan to increase the coverage in Wikipedia, of the history of women's basketball. But I would be upset if someone accused me of violating NPOV simply because I rarely write about men's basketball. I don't accuse editors who write solely about men's basketball of violating NPOV. I would only see a problem if some editors, in addition to writing about one aspect, affirmatively took steps to exclude coverage of women's basketball. (This may be controversial, and it is possibly to see NPOV problems with editors only adding, and not removing material, but I think the charge in this instance is unfair.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on your baseball-example but this is a different case. To start with comparisons between fascism and New Deal (that have been made in the 1930s e.g. Hoover) ended mostly after 1945 when the full scale of Nazi terror and murder came to light. In the 1960s and 1970s a few historians startet to compare the economic policies of Hitler and Roosevelt - explicitly not to make an argument from analogy but as an comparative study to find out in which way the depression has been overcome in Germany and the US. German historian Kiran Klaus Patel summarized that studies in a recent work -> giving a valuable hint how to use them. He said that those comparative studies were made on the basis that they were not ment as an apology for Nazism since these comparisons were ment to highlight similarities and differences Soldiers of Labor: Labor Service in Nazi Germany and New Deal America, 1933-1945 page 6.
    Summary: a few studies were drawing conclusions of how the Great Depression has been overcome in Germany and the US by analyzing similarities and differences. They were not intended to make an argument from analogy (therefore there are no deliberations on relevance, amount and variety and number of characteristics in those studies).
    User:LesLein is making an argument from analogy (-> charges of fascism). But those studies are not intended to do an analogy, these were comparative studies just as historians have made comparative studies on weapons and tactics of Wehrmacht and US army in WW II without making an argument from analogy. LesLein uses those studies in an unintended way and necessarily ends in an False Analogy. By the way the correct context would have been Great_depression#Common responses to the crises. It would be similarly false to use a comparative study on Wehrmacht and US army strategies for United States Army#Charges of Fascism. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I will be even shorter. The response by LesLein is typical and there is no way to discuss an issue with someone who insists on posting those types of responses who nobody who has a life has any time(or desire) to read. The editors edit history is the epitome of disruptive editing. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 8:10 am, Today (UTC−4)
    LesLein is new, with under 200 edits, so deserves AGF for not fully understanding how this is best done. You, on the other hand, have 7K edits so can be presumed to know how this place works. LesLein has been accused of inappropriate editing, and has responded, admittedly at length, but without acrimony, and with cogent examples. In contrast, you accuse LesLein of disruptive editing, yet do not provide a single example. Which editor is doing better at making a case?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SPhilbrick, you have a point, though I hate to admit it of course. That someone wouldn't have a life because they post at length is, by the way, really a personal attack. I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go, or a couple of them with some pointed, individual questions. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the "nobody who has a life" comment as a statement about the type of people who would read it, not the person who wrote it. Sperril (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It takes a writer with lots of time and little life to produce something like that. I didn't issue any warnings, didn't block anyone--but I don't like the tone of that remark, especially since I'm not sure what that editor is doing here. Nor does pointing at an edit history mean anything at all. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am cognizant of the warning signs. I've read Goldberg's book, understand it is not mainstream, but do not consider it fringe. It must be used with care, but that pretty much applies to all sources. It looks like we have an editor who thinks some position are under-represented, and a large number of Wikipedia editors do not accept the central thesis of Goldberg's book, but we have the challenge of NPOV, which does not require the inclusion of literally all views, but neither does it insist that only "central" views be published. I haven't read the article in question closely, so am not yet ready to have an opinion on whether any of the attempted edits fall afoul of Wp:Weight, but I do see reactions to this editor that aren't well grounded in policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In accordance with Richard Bernstein I don´t think that Goldberg himself meant it serious when he stated that Liberals since the "American fascist" Woodrow Wilson are "nice fascists" [15]. Anyway he is an political columnist not at all an historian and therefore fails Wikipedia:HISTRS. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For another source by a reputable historian, see Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Warden (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    TL;DR

    Could someone please give a quick nutshell of what LesLein said (preferably by Leslein himself), in no more than a single paragraph? Thanks, Shiny Bauble! Pretty Shinies... 18:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "I'm right, you're wrong, NPOV trumps consensus" seems to be the jist of it. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bushranger, how uncharacteristically dismissive of you! What's the matter--did you run out of coffee, or did you have a flat tire? Try to see the glass as half-full, even if this particular glass holds gallons and gallons. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was indeed a tad grumpy due to having to deal with RL idiocy, alas, next time I'll try to keep Oscar in his can. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if this is a case of article ownership or of a newcomer misunderstanding the nuances of NPOV or both... I will say (echoing the Colonel) that LesLein is not coming at this from Tinfoil Hat City, there is scholarship down the avenue he wishes to travel, although one must be careful not to overstate the parallels. I am guessing there is a conservative/liberal difference at root here rather than ownership of the piece pure and simple. RJensen, a conservative historian and a solid wikipedian, would be a good person to get the newcomer versed in NPOV. If he has been talking to LesLein, I hope he continues, and I hope Les listens. I don't have time tonight to dive into this controversy but will take a look at things tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I took a quick look at Les's edit history before I head off for beddy bye... He's a conservative new editor who has dropped in a few tendentious factoids attempting to "expose" the nature of the Communist Party USA. He's also made some edits regarding 19th Century US history that I haven't looked at. I hope that RJensen or some other simpatico wikipedian can either get the new editor up to speed contributing somewhat more useful content on 20th Century history or else steer him towards matters in which he has greater expertise. More tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven’t written or read anything here since my first response and may not be back again for a few days. Like others, I have a day job and personal matters to attend to. Outside of Wikipedia, I too have a very nice life. It is too short to be consumed by some of the things concerning the New Deal edits. I am rapidly losing interest and may not use Wikipedia much more.

    My view, in a nutshell: Roosevelt was neither a dictator nor a totalitarian. The similarities are in economic policies, not politics. To let FDR’s denial stand without indicating his private views (Ickes diary) is misleading. The subarticle should make it clear that it wasn’t just folks like HUAC, McCarthy, and Hoover making claims of radicalism, but New Dealers themselves. If you scroll to the end of this edit, you will see an example where FDR’s ambassador to Berlin supports my information in my edits. One or two examples of radical influences on policies (mass unemployment, rural electrification) would be helpful. These examples are not necessarily pejorative.

    An administrator or someone should check the New Deal talk page. There is a possible case of plagiarism or copyright violation. It appears minor and accidental.

    Pass3456 is not the only bloodhound on my trail. Another is DD2K. This user’s edit summary did not say one thing that is accurate.

    In addition, Pass3456 insists that it is nothing personal. In this edit at my talk page Pass3456 wrote “About New Deal: I don´t know what your pain is.” Pass3456 wasn't talking about physical pain. He or she was talking about mental anguish. Now it is fringe theory. I am also a fabricator. Someone should tell Pass3456 not to practice psychiatry without a license. If he or she is a psychiatrist, then Doctor Pass3456 should know better than to publish a diagnosis, especially without knowing the patient. It may be a problem with phrasing, but alleging that dissidents have mental issues is a practice that went out with the Soviet Union.

    This user stated that I “admitted” using Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism to identify references. It is true. I read a book and used the information. Is there an article on what books we may read or how we find references? What does Pass3456 want me to do with the book, burn it? I have another confession: I went to the bank and grocery store this morning.

    This comparisonshows edits of mine that user rjensen partially restored after removal by Pass3456 (who ignored consensus here). See the paragraphs starting with “Other historians …” and “In 1934 German author ...” The second paragraph says:

    “In 1934 German author, Helmut Magers wrote ‘'Roosevelt: A Revolutionary with Common Sense'’. The book stated that the New Deal bore ‘surprising similarities’ with the Nazi revolution. U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd wrote a foreword to Magers’ book. He praised Magers’ ‘outstanding success’ in describing conditions in the U.S. and Germany. Dodd was emphatically anti-Nazi and hoped that moderates would overthrow or at least restrain Hitler. Dodd wrote of ‘the heroic efforts being made in Germany and the United States to solve the basic problems of social balance.’ He described Magers’s book as ‘excellent, friendly unpartisan book … without a sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.’ Dodd allowed his foreword to be published despite State Department objections.[1] “

    Roosevelt’s ambassador to Berlin was not a fringe theorist. Ambassador Dodd, an important official in FDR’s government, said that a book noting “surprising similarities” does not include a “sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.” If that is the case, why can’t I note “surprising similarities” (with due balance) in Wikipedia? This is not a rhetorical question. LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Bhaskarbhagawati

    LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) is currently engaged in bad faith editing. In the article Undivided Kamrup district he is trying to insert some his own POV, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from references. He are some examples of his activities.[reply]

    • He started making POV edits (diff). I asked him to discuss edits before making changes (diff)
    • He ignored the invitation to discuss and continued aggressively editing, which included removal of references (diff). He removed the reference to Richards 1995.
    • I inserted some text, which he then proceeded to move around. He even arbitrarily changed direct quote from references. (diff). Please note the change in the quote: "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the British occupation" to "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the Burmese occupation". This change is buried in the text, and not easily noticed. The direct quote is available freely (http://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&q=page+247#v=onepage&q=british%20occupation&f=false)

    Chaipau (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything is as per source which is in article itself. Parts of Assam are under Burmese Empire from 1821 to 1825 before British forces take control in 1826. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is your ignoring request for discussion, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from them. Your POV and disruptive attitude has been noted by others. (diff, diff) Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing ? भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that issue could be construed as canvassing, though that wasn't my intention at all, as I have admitted (diff). The editor in question refrained from voting, rightfully so. In that instance I wanted to let him know since he too found your edits "disturbing" and wanted me to bring your activity to admin notice (diff). But my notices to the other editors were not. I wanted to let them know I was using their quotes, so they could either refute or endorse the connotations. They endorsed, and this one was explicit (diff). Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How can we see it differently when you involve in such practice few days ago too here and here with whom i have some disputes in past. I cleared air here but you still indulged in vote bank tactics which was termed by user concern as vote banking.
    In your earlier post you said conduct is the issue not references, than why you posted link to google books as references in current discussion. I have edited as per sources and i have discussed issues with you on dozen of talk pages and noticeboards from mid last year which are not vandalism. Main problem is your primary topic which you want to glorified on every possible article which your recent history shows and correcting the same is equal to vandalism or disruptive editing for you. You used to be a neutral editor in past but it is lacking in your current conduct which i hope you work on. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reference deletion by User:Herr Gruber

    I think we're done here. We got better things to do--like invent a flying bicycle that drops bunker busters. Herr Gruber is encouraged to be more expansive in edit summaries; Fountains is encouraged to AGF cranky comments and look into the matter to see if there is value to particular edits and reverts. At ease, Drmies (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Herr Gruber deleted references, content, and ELs over a whole series of article with no rational other than the note "Mike Sparks is not a reliable source":

    diffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiff

    It came to my attention when Herr Gruber deleted a link to an online copy of a 1990 article by an unrelated author diff at Collimator sight. User seems to be claiming anything on a Mike Sparks related webpage is "something he made up"[16]. The writer in question (Mike Sparks) seems to have many published articles in the field and it looks like the material being referenced in the articles was not opinion, but instead was technical information and re-posted old articles/documents. Since the linked article in question used at the Collimator sight article was not even written by Mike Sparks I asked the user to take it to WP:RSN to show the claims of "not a reliable source", "altered or forged", "some crank's website full of his own hideous opinions", "He is a lunatic", "a crank and a liar" was more than the user's opinion[17][18], but the user simply keeps deleting the link diff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll give you my initial thoughts. From my mile high view, combatreform.org claims it is staffed by experts, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Herr Gruber's opinion on the reliability (or otherwise) on Mike Sparks needs to be documented on WP:RSN and agreed by consensus. More importantly, I see you edit warring with your reverts on Collimator sight here, here and here. Further reverts could have resulted in you being blocked for a short period. As soon as you get into a back-and-forth revert pattern with anyone, you need to step back, take it to talk, and wait for consensus. I know it means the article sits in what you might consider to be a "worse" state, but it probably doesn't matter too much in the long term scheme of things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the thoughts. "edit warring" is why I brought it here since Herr Gruber shows no signs of wanting to take it to WP:RSN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opinion on cranks and liars yet, but I don't think one can link to this in a Wikipedia article--I suppose I can't do it myself here--since that's probably a copyright violation. No? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have an opinion now, after reading this. Read it for yourself and judge whether this person should be considered an authority on anything--I wouldn't trust him with lunch.

      Anyways, that website, combatreform.org, is bigger than just him, but it appears to be the regular fairly indiscriminate collection of quotes, scans, videos, rants, editorial commentary, libertarian/militaristic opinion, etc etc. The opening sentence speaks volumes: "An elite group composed of military professionals, aircraft and ground vehicle designers and civilians dedicated towards creating an excellent U.S. military capable of defending freedom both at home and abroad that has a moral compass." We can't cite something like that, and while one can post this at RSN it'll be a quick discussion. Linking to its pages for verification of printed material is problematic: I don't see anywhere that the elite group got permission from various journals and magazines to scan and post those articles (see WP:LINKVIO). In other words, for all practical purposes, don't link to it.

      As for Herr Gruber's style of communication, I think it's a bit rough around the edges, but he gave reasons for his reversals, brief as they are, and actually used a talk page; that's nice, considering those don't seem to be his favorite places on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the edit warring: if my analysis of the website does not suffice, it should be taken up on the RSN and decided there. If edit-warring continues after that, this elite group of dedicated administrators, armed with the latest technology and with unwavering dedication to the principles of free knowledge, capitalism, and benign oligarchy will bring some kind of hammer down. Yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition: see if ArbCom cares. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • A brief look at http://www.combatreform.org indicates that, whatever one may think about the merits of its contents or contributors, it is pretty obviously a WP:SPS and thereore should not be cited as a source under most circumstances. Herr Gruber was therefore right to remove such references. If anything, he should also have removed the content sourced to that site. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and removing obviously unreliable sources does not need the rubber-stamp of approval by any noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, my rationale for documenting on RSN isn't so much rubber stamping as providing a reference to future editors. If I find a source I'm unsure about (which frequently happens when reviewing new stuff at AfC), an RSN search is my first port of call as a search. If even a one line entry containing "Not reliable in the slightest. Get rid." had existed, we might not have needed to come here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody needs to add that "not reliable in the slightest. get rid" then. I can't stress this enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As I noted, there is no pressing need to link to an online copy of a source if the full citation to the original work is given; there's plenty of FA-grade articles that link to journals, periodicals and other works that aren't stored online. What concerns me with using combatreform as a source is the site has a reputation as being the work of a crank (in particular his attempts to claim the M113 is called the "Gavin" are very well known on military forums), which makes it a dubious source for proof of the original content of a document. It's like linking to a pie chart on immigration that's hosted on Stormfront. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed; CombatReform's positions on military matters start at "dubious" and go downhill from there. Basically: keep far away from that site if you value your brain cells, although I will link this as an example of the sort of stuff we're dealing with here (although the one Drimes found above pretty much says it all!). Unfortunatly, the video Sparky put on Youtube for his straight-faced proposal for a flying M113 capable of shooting down MiGs was pulled due to using copyrighted music. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think misrepresenting what I said is going to help anyone. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No fighting in the war room please, gentlemen. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edits and discussions unproductive and disruptive editing User:Jfeise

    Jfeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to block efforts to improve and add information to International Technological University. I am operating under undisclosed COI as a representative for the university in the entry. Regardless of how my approach is with Jfeise, he persists in keeping any additions from being made. It is an uphill battle for any additions, and he always labels everything I propose as advertising. Jfeise continues to rely on the fact that I am operating under undisclosed COI as his argument knowing that it is a gray area, however, I am doing my best to be be neutral, and receptive. His responses are never productive, and he always goes back to the same points of "sockpuppetry" (which I'm contacting the admin that passed judgement to explain the situation, and will be happy to address if necessary), or advertising. Most recently, ITU received accreditation, and therefore, we would like to add the fact and expand upon our wikipedia entry to reflect that information. In accordance to wikipedia best practices, I post the proposed content onto the talk page, however, Jfeise is always quick to tear it down rather than suggest improvements. He is quick to label it as advertising, revert the changes without discussion, and carry on in a non-productive manner. I try to have a reasonable discussion with him, but he adds nothing new and keeps going on about unrelated incidents: Removing content without warning; another example is he reverted a change after only 5 min. . For the second example, the content was posted taking into consideration Jfeise's concerns of the neutrality, but still he continued his comments about sockpuppetry and advertising with no positive contribution. I hope that some administrators can help take notice, and offer some assistance. Ituhubert (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not surprisingly, Ituhubert misrepresents the issues. I am reverting his advertising on that page, but there are lots of constructive additions and changes that I have no problems with, so Ituhubert's assertion that I "persist in keeping any additions from being made" is simply untrue. Again, the reverts I have made on that article had to do with advertisements. jfeise (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, the the user Ituhubert has previously operated a sock, which had harassed me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. Recently, the same style of harassment was posted on my talk page from an IP (Special:Contributions/207.204.229.209,) and the same IP also removed content from the article in question, which was reverted first by me, and then by another editor. Yet, Ituhubert only attacks me, which looks like yet another harassment in the previous style. jfeise (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you view the talkpage [19], you'll see that the dialogue almost always goes to Jfeise referring to my operating under undisclosed COI, or to the sockpuppetry investigation, he seems to completely ignore any assumptions of good faith, and constantly labels the content as advertising. It's like talking to a broken record pretty much, and makes progress a tiresome and frustrating experience. I understand that statements should be backed and referenced, but constantly having to respond to allegations without any forward movement seems pointless. Regarding the sockpuppetry, as I have mentioned, there was someone from the same university that was found committing the violations - this person was asked immediately to cease and desist. I cannot control the actions of those that are around me, and even less so online.
    I have never harassed or attacked Jfeise, nor have I asked anyone else harass him in any way. The sockpuppetry investigation is inaccurate. Instead I've put all of my efforts into discussing things and working towards a mutual conclusion. Regarding his reverts, he does not discuss it on talkpage, and when he does it always goes back to the same two points: Undisclosed COI and Sockpuppetry. I could understand if the long discussions led to more progress, however, it's always the same song. Ituhubert (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The sockpuppetry was real. It was found by Wikipedia administrators to be sockpuppetry, and the sock accounts got blocked indef. You obviously did not consider the findings inaccurate at that time. And you need to learn that advertising has no place on Wikipedia. Please put your advertising elsewhere. And stop harassing people who clean up advertising. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, even Jimbo has said that those with COI should not be directly editing the articles that they have COI on - merely suggesting changes on the article talkpage to obtain consensus ... declaring COI does not absolve you from it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is of course what I have told Ituhubert several times, as the talk page shows. He just has chosen to ignore that, and instead accuses me of disruptive editing, when in reality it is he who does the disruptive edits. jfeise (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suggested changes on the article many times, however, the dialogue is always overshadowed with Jfeise's comments. I understand the gray area of COI, but Wikipedia policies do not specify that editors with a COI are not allowed, only advised not to: [20]. Now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am sure to post my content on the talk page before just blatantly making it public. However, every time I propose content, this is the type of responses that Jfeise offers:


    If the purpose of having other editors comment on the talk page is to discuss improvements, then I don't see how this comment and other comments like...
    ... are in any way progress towards building a consensus rather Jfeise's method of derailing the conversation, and going off-topic. Ituhubert (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that you copy from a conversation from July 2012, which was around the time when your sockpuppet OrientalSoul attacked me. It is obviously you who is trying to derail the conversation and going off-topic. It is obviously you who is doing disruptive edits. I have told you lots of times to keep advertising and promotional material off the page. Yet you continue to post advertising and promotional material in blatant disregard of the COI policies. When that gets pointed out to you, you attack me, and post a bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, Jfeise, we're only replaying what is already on our talkpage here. I have never attacked you, nor have I asked anyone else to attack you. I had often hoped that rather than you telling me my content is advertising and promotional that you would offer a rewrite or suggest a rewrite of your own. Every time my expectations were shot as soon as the mention of "sock puppetry" came about in your reply. I do appreciate comments like:


    Though there is some good points, I took those, and responded.. then the next comment:


    We go back to the same cycle, plus your example was false after my own research, WASC accredited two other universities for their doctoral degrees. It just seems like you're reaching to make points on a whim and just to spite my suggested content. Ituhubert (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And then you posted your advertising without getting consensus. Again, against COI policies. And instead, you were posting this bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and selectively quoting from the talk page is counterproductive to begin with. I am sure the admins know how to get to the talk page, and they can read the whole context there. The bottom line is that your recent proposed change was not noteworthy, not sourced, and promotional material. That's why I opposed it. The modified change was only marginally better, but it still was promotional material. That's why I reverted it. You have since made some changes that were not promotional, and I am happy with that. You need to understand that promotional material does not belong on Wikipedia, and you need to understand that you can't threaten and harass people who revert promotional material. ANd this whole discussion doesn't belong on ANI, anyway. Discuss this on the article's talk page. jfeise (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment on Jimbo's talkpage

    Alright then. Next time, R and I, and maybe drop someone a line for the B. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [21]. Is this a threat or just a personal attack?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing to do with trolls is make sure as many people as possible see what offensive thing they have written.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to "Don't Feed the Troll"? Was it seriously necessary to post this here Amadscientist? Lololond (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is not considered a threat and is just a troll needing to be starved off. I do not object to this being hatted or removed. It appears that Materialscientist has blocked the editor involved.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it could be classified as a "threat", it is so obviously not going to happen, so what was the outcome you were hoping for if the user has been indef blocked for trolling/disruptive editing anyway? Lololond (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean you hardly thought his family were in any danger, and since he could be indefinitely blocked for personal attack anyway; why did you feel the need to post it here and ask about whether it was a threat? Seems like just attention seeking to me. Lololond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd for someone who created an account almost immediatly to comment here accusing another of seeking attention.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say "for the purpose of commenting here", based on the logs. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The same applies with the original comment. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I made this before, or simultaneously as the user was being blocked. That works for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The remarks have been scrubbed. I call that
    Resolved
    no matter how you look at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Junebea1

    That was actually a couple of days ago, so, in my opinion, it doesn't qualify as 'current'. Myself and some other users have reached a solution that will work for right now on the talk page. The only user who has not engaged in the discussion is user:Badgirlsclub1. He/she has refused to listen to anybody else's opinions and will not even participate in the talk page discussions. Thanks--Junebea1 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Long-term disruptive editing is the issue, and that is current. By not allowing (edit conflict merging) my uncontroversial edit just now on Bad Girls All-Star Battle it may appear like an ongoing WP:OWN issue. Widefox; talk 01:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have had some problems with Junebea1 in regards to their edits to Bad Girls Club seasons' articles, there has been massive amounts of vandalism that has resulted in most of them being protected. I have brought up my past issues with Junebea1 and they have been working on them. The edit war over the color in a season infobox has stopped for now since I removed the color and stated a discussion on the talk page in hopes of gaining a consensus. Junebea1 has responded there while the other editor has not responded but has not added back a color to the infobox.
    This entire section is unwarranted since Widefox first warned Junebea1 against edit warring with a template for something that has not happened for three days and is in the middle of a discussion. Then Widefox left a more personal section on Junebea1's talk page six minutes before starting this discussion, leaving Junebea1 no time to respond to the criticism that could have averted this being brought here. Aspects (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm increasingly less concerned. Both of us having to make the same edit indicates a problem. Would be good that this ownership and edit summary are made clear as a minimum. Widefox; talk 02:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have come across this editor before. Junebea1 is a problematic SPA editor who exhibits the worst WP:OWN behaviour on a very small number of articles and does not listen to advice or warnings from any editor. I think Widefox is fully justified in bringing the issue to this forum's attention. I would add that in my opinion we are most likely dealing with a juvenile who does not have the maturity to behave as we expected Wikipedians to do. We would be far better off without this editor. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't insult me. I find that extremely rude and unprofessional. We can have a mature conversation without insulting each other. Junebea1 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree with Junebea1, personal attacks are not acceptable.
    but, as I came here completely independently from a noticeboard, no previous interaction, I'm fully confident that if we can just get across the WP:OWN issue with this WP:SPA editor, this will be a step in the right direction. As I feel my efforts to point out this are not yet being heard by Junebea1, I will now remove myself from this. Widefox; talk 11:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LePatro

    Hello,
    I would like to report a new user with non-constructive behavior (mass adding of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE) on articles related to Hejaz, replacing "Hejaz" by "Tihamah" on more than 100 articles (!). Even if many users asked him to stop that, as it can be seen on his talk page, he refuses and persists on these edits (referencing them by a book written in 1228).
    Since this user doesn't seem to be ready to accept what other users ask him nor to respect Wikipedia policies, I ask the admins to do the necessary to prevent him from continuing in that way.
    Thanks in advance
    --Omar-toons (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,

    I do not understand the reason behind this request. I was (removing wrong information, adding sourced information, and moving some parts of some articles to other articles that are related to the information). Omar-toons however was undoing all of my edits clearly without even reading some of them even though some of them were about other topics. The resources I have put are verifiable and genuine about this geographic matter and all of them cited and differentiated between the two neighboring regions of Hejaz and Tihamah. There is a huge misunderstanding in wikipedia that Mecca is part of Hejaz and that originated from Kingdom of Hejaz that became an independent state in 1916. Before that, all the sources regarded Mecca as being in the region of Tihamah whereas Medina is regarded to be in the region of Hejaz. Wikipedia is about sourced and true information and not misled information that originated from the name of this very modern state relative to the age of those cities. All Islamic and Arabic sources before that differentiated between the two regions. I am correcting this mistake in wikipedia citing these resources that are from multiple scholars in different centuries.

    Omar-toons however does not like the sources so he deleted the information I added with the sources in a move that I think against wikipidea rules. I have been in discussion with other users and I have clarified the matter ti them and submitted the sources and all of them accepted that and accepted the sourced information. However, this user unfortunately insists on undoing my edits. I ask you please to review my edits closely. I have not removed sourced information from any articles, and I was not replacing Tihamah with Hejaz everywhere. I replaced it when appropriate and you can see that I left the mention of Hejaz in most of the articles I edited. Please see the article of Tihamah that I improved. In the article of Hejaz, there were some parts that talked about Tihamah and some of its cities so I moved those sections to the article of Tihamah and I left the parts talking about Hejaz in the article of Hejaz. Thank you for your cooperation.--LePatro (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The edits that you were edit-warring in were totally unnecessary. I'm pretty sure we've all been through the sources as part of the numerous debates about these articles, and if the information was wrong, we'd have found it then. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately in aggressive editing, Omar-toons is continuing to delete the sources I put in the articles. He is continuing to delete the mention of the region of Tihamah from all articles. He wants to remove it from everywhere in Wikipedia just because he does not know about the region. All gepgraphic Arabic books cites the difference between the two regions of Tihamah and Hejaz. Even today, people still know the difference in Arabia. Mecca is geographically in Tihamah while Medina is in Hejaz. When someone talks about Mecca, the region associated with it in articles should be Tihamah not Hejaz. In fact, Tihamah is one of the names of Mecca. I find it very annoying to see the resources of the information I provide to wikipedia get deleted in the blink of an eye just because a user does not like what they say. --LePatro (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WA 2000 personal attacks

    You are accused of being a sock, and it's not a matter for here. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 15 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 been attempting to make some small edits on the page devoted to the WA 2000 rifle. A user ROG5728 has been accusing me of being a SOCK. I dont pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia as I mainly just read articles and seldom edit them. The accusations on that page are defamatory and serve no purpose other than to ridicule. English is also not my first language so I apologize for any confusion. Anyone who has supported my position, including me, has been accused of being a SOCK. I don't pretend to understand fully how these things work but I am a college student and I do most of my posting from the campus library so his threats about tracking me down by my IP seem quite ridiculous, petty, and threatening. I think this matter should be looked at objectively by an outside party. In the past he has called in Admins that he has collaborated with in the past. I would appreciate a neutral party, who is not involved in the Wikipedia weapons project, investigate this.

    Below is the link to the talk page

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walther_WA_2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary, there is currently a sockpuppet investigation open against you. No one said anything about "tracking down" or threatening you. I explained to you that socking (and/or edit warring on said sock accounts) could likely earn you a block from editing Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The Scottywong, the Wikipediocracy, and the blacklist

    If further discussion on related-but-different subjects is needed, please open a new section below. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Context for this section. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think we all have expressed ourselves adequately Spartaz Humbug! 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not quite the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but anyways... just when you think the eDrama was dying down, we have the recent kerfuffle over the Wikipediocracy brought about two separate blacklist discussions; one at talk:Spam-blacklist, the other at the Village Pump, both of which garnered rather tepid responses from the WIkipedia community. AGK unilaterally added the URL to the black list the other day, then self-reverted in the face of opposition. Scottywong has now taken it upon himself to ignore the community and wrong-headedly invoke WP:IAR to overrule by decree.

    Admin attention is necessary to revert this edit and to caution Scottywong against thumbing his nose at the Wikipedia community. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please just stop it with all the STUPID that's seems to be going around like a virus lately? Scotty, just undo what you did, then let's close it quick and everyone relax.Volunteer Marek 03:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not going to say that Tarc was wrong to bring this here, but perhaps we should try to determine consensus on whether or not the site that shall not be named should be blacklisted. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that was partially the point of the VP discussions, so I don't think bringing it up again (at AN/I) is the best venue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for the record. I am the one who closed the discussion as rejected. Clearly, some people here has been overreacting as of late. First, the damage is already done; Russavia is outed, and blocking users for posting a link (i) will do more harm than good, (ii) won't change the status of Russavia's personal information, and (iii) won't prevent more users to see the private information. Wikipedia and its users are not the only way that people can get to that website, and punishing our users won't change anything. Also, seems like adding the website to the blacklist is a way to climb up the drama-hill again. — ΛΧΣ21 03:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary seems to suggest that editors are being blocked for linking to this site. If so, who? It seems like admin time would be better spent unblocking those editors, surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll explain my reasoning here, and then let whatever happens happen:

    • Multiple editors (including admins) have recently been blocked for posting a link to Wikipediocracy. It has been demonstrated that anyone recently posting a link to Wikipediocracy will get blocked. Therefore, we can either allow people to continue posting links and getting blocked, or we can not allow it and prevent those blocks. Perhaps it will prevent the blocking of someone who is unaware of this new de facto rule. This helps improve the encyclopedia by preventing the unnecessary blocking of editors.
    • People are getting blocked because Wikipediocracy is currently hosting an article that publishes the identity and personal details of a Wikipedia editor. If this article goes away, then I would agree that Wikipediocracy should be removed from the blacklist.
    • The above-mentioned discussions on VP and the blacklist talk page were contributed to primarily by WO regulars, since the discussions were advertised on their forum. I don't consider either of these discussions to represent the unbiased consensus of Wikipedia editors, therefore I don't consider my action to be against consensus, nor is it my intention to "thumb my nose at the Wikipedia community".
    • The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write encyclopedia articles. If we continue to lose editors due to something as stupid as posting a link to a site with questionable content, then we are not serving our own best interests. We can't write articles without editors. We can write articles without linking to a site that will immediately get you blocked. This is my rationale for invoking IAR with regard to this action. If you can't link to a site without getting blocked, then there is no reason to give editors enough rope to hang themselves.
    • Further discussion on the subject can be found on my talk page.
    • If my action is to be reverted, I would prefer that it is done either after a consensus discussion that is not dominated by WO regulars, or by an admin who has no connection to Wikipediocracy. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm off for the night. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy solution: Stop blocking people for linking to a Wikipedia critic forum site (it's petty and stupid), then the above arguments for blacklisting it (against the will of community discussion) won't hold water. (Keeping my essay up to date is getting to be a full-time job these days.) *Dan T.* (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    --MZMcBride (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF? This debate is like Michael Myers, no matter how many times people try to kill it the damn thing never seems to die. What Scotty fails to disclose here is that he actually participated in the VPP discussion to express support for such a listing making him WP:INVOLVED and the fact that several editors with no apparent connection to WO have opposed the measure in that same discussion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a regular contributor to these particular discussions, and I've never edited at WO or its predecessor, so perhaps Scottywong will accept me as neutral. There has already been the sufficient discussion he asks for, and the consensus has been found. Not only is there no consensus for blacklisting the site; there is consistent good consensus against it. And rightly so, in my opinion: trying to hide the mention of one's critics is wholly against the spirit of WP, and the letter of policy. As an analogy, removing links to criticism is the sort of thing we routinely find from paid and other COI editors, and which has cast such editing into disrepute. I think the discussion is over here, and I would regard trying to restart it as disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are missing the point of why it's proposed. They out people on their front page, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And exactly who is a Wikipediocracy regular? I don't post there. Look, this a turning into an attempt to overturn the old attack sites ARBCOM case by admin fiat. The purpose of all of this is to drum up a lot of counterproductive drama. If everyone would quit pointing at then and crying about how awful they are, the problem would blow over. I do not want a precedent by which admins are essentially authorized to delete links because they don't like the Wikipedia criticism at the other end. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what Scottywong and others have asked now. For all of you (Tarc, Hex, Kevin, etc.) who were involved on WO in the past weeks to stop trying to turn consensus your way (and by the way, I have proof that there has been canvassing on WO for these discussions). Leave it to the uninvolved, i.e. never posted on WO, community to decide this instead of bringing all of WO here and not letting anyone else who isn't on WO discuss it. Thanks. gwickwiretalkediting 03:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the kind of foolishness that led to your block in the first place, and is providing ample reason that it may have been too hasty to grant you a reprieve. No one is, or even can, "turn consensus"; to my knowledge, no one around here is a psychic, a confidence man, or a shyster. Many editors, regardless of what external websites they may or may not also be a member of, have presented their opinions on the matter. It is quite a simple fact that more editors simply do not wish to resort to blacklisting and other such vilification tactics, and that opposition comes from many editors who have nothing to do at all with any such website. For you to whip out that broad brush is the height of intellectual dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Scottywong, I guess you missed the fact that AGK (who is not just a fellow admin but also a very important member of the shrinking ArbCom) unblocked MZMcBride, who he had earlier blocked for linking to the site in question. AGK's unblock edit summary was "community consensus has held that linking to pages that out another editor is a legitimate thing for contributors to do, so this block cannot stand for much longer". Now, I think AGK may not have chosen his words carefully when he wrote that, but he seems to think that there is no consensus to add the site to the blacklist or to block people for linking to it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's done quite a bit to promote that site, hasn't it? They're probably hoping there are some more blocks/bans/desysoppings/blacklistings over it; it's the best marketing they can get. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this at Wikipediocracy, but if you look at the Alexa stats, in the past month alone the ranking dropped (improved) by 31,073 (compared to a 3 month total of 47,788), number of pageviews was up 53%, pageviews per user up 50%, time on site up 115%.Volunteer Marek 04:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, Scottywong's reasoning and rationale is irrelevant; we've had this discussion twice now, and these people can't be allowed to just keep flinging their junk at the wall hoping that sooner or later it will stick. I am off for the night as well now; I hope tonight someone steps up and revert this blacklist absurdity, which is supported by neither policy nor community. Tarc (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Similar to a situation in which no admin is willing to unblock a user (creating a community ban), I think you may find that no admin is willing to revert this edit to the spam blacklist. On the other hand, it seems like it's trivial to work around (for now). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    News about Wikipedia doing anything which has even the appearance of trying to stop people from reaching sites that are critical of Wikipedia is just the sort of thing that often turns into a full-blown Streisand effect. The best thing we can do to limit any damage to someone who is outed on another site is to do nothing at all and wait for something else to grab people's attention. --Guy Macon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have undone the entry as IAR is not and can never be a satisfactory alternative to consensus and admins don't have a supervote to chose whether to accept a consensus or not. If you don't like it you need to challenge it, not ignore it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My evaluation is that we are trying to solve a rather tricky situation from the wrong end. The problem is not at Wikipedia, but at Wikipediocrazy. Blocking users here won't work. Adding the site to the blacklist won't work. Lynching ArbCom won't work. Every attempt to solve the situation from this end of the river won't work. If we want to put an end to this, the matter has to be squashed from the website that created all this mess, not from the one that is receiving it. — ΛΧΣ21 07:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting way to put it: makes me use a Water Treatment Plant analogy. We're the treatment plant, but we're downstream from something that does nothing but pollute the water. Every time we add a new filter to the plant, they just dump more potent industrial waste or raw sewage into the water. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The last few times someone from outside Wikipediocracy honestly engaged them, content was removed, members were asked to reconsider some of their actions, and the site created a support email address and posted it prominently. →StaniStani  09:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In December 2012 Roger Davies commented, "I am dismayed that we are providing a platform to interaction-banned editors who are closely associated with site-banned editors and who are seemingly running the same arguments as those proffered by the site-banned people and already rejected on numerous occasions by the committee." Amongst other things, Wikipediocracy provides exactly such a platform, with a twist. It is a place for site-banned editors to link to posts here that were added by editors closely associated with them. Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcomm's outing of Malleus

    The latest report on Malleus, now by Inspector Clouseau, follows an even more serious outing by an incompetent Arbcom that couldn't even manage its mailing list. Where was the concern for privacy then? Where was the ban on WR/Wikipediocracy?

    Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Explain how they have outed him - As far as I'm aware, they announced that he was using a sock that was possibly being used in a somewhat abusive manner. That's not outing someone! Where have they identified him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No outing. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a Spartacus analogy. Didn't the Romans crucify all the rebels? Then again...they were slaves and not just volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Beware the Ides of March. Now I am off to bed. Good night Wikipedia...wherever you are.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kiefer, that's quite a serious accusation to make, and as far as I can see there was no outing (ArbCom state that MF and GP had possible links, and at least shared an IP address) - do you have any diffs please? GiantSnowman 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You might consider Google, or ask somebody who has been editing for more than a year. I don't post diffs of arbs saying, forgive us for fucking you over, Malleus, because of our incompetence. We shall really try harder to protect your privacy and not be such fuck ups in the future. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an accusation. After the last outing, many arbs, including the most severe critics of Malleus, stated that they had no idea that their security was so incompetent, and they were very troubled by their fuck ups. They pledged to redo their security. They also rewrote their page, giving a warning that users should be aware that private communications were liable to be pilfered again, as in the past.
    Even now, it is surprising to me that somebody would label these facts to be an "accusation", or censor the heading with the misleading edit summary that "accusations don't belong in headings"---a rather strange claim for anybody honest who views a few days of threads here.
    Please check the facts. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Until this discussion, I had never visited that "Wikipediocracy" site. If we want to downplay "outing", bringing it here ain't the way to do it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Inappropriate NAC?

    Everything seems now to have been cleared up. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hahc21 is ΛΧΣ21. The discussion he closed is here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#wikipediocracy.com. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been informed elsewhere that the restrictions were lifted. Isn't the close pretty much similar to the original issue though? It's a premature close of a discussion; it was NACed after 1 day, before any non-involved editors could comment (and is probably partially why the issue spilled over here). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, the restrictions were lifted here. I had actually blocked on the basis of this final warning because I had not seen the lifting. I apologise to Hahc21 for the block. However I do feel the NAC was unwarranted and it's possible that a topic ban on this editor performing NACs might be in order. They just generate too much hoo-hah. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add to that. Nobody in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive245#Request_to_lift_restriction appears to have noticed the final warning, and the comments are written without addressing it. Hahc1 also didn't mention it in his request either. Bwilkins, Kudpung and newyorkbrad didn't take part in the ANI discussion; possibly because they didn't know about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe that we are going to hold this "final warning", where he closed a withdrawn RfA (extremely contentious and definitely requiring a judgement call), against Hahc. I also can't imagine that the extreme unimportance of that "final warning" wasn't a factor in no one mentioning it. But, you know, to each their own. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • *sigh* Make someone an ArbCom clerk and hand them a couple of other trophies for their shelf, and they lose sight of what their authority and common sense really is. I do recall warning both Hahc to be careful, and also the community of what could happen, and was lambasted by his minions for suggesting that Hahc could possibly slip up. I feel slightly vindicated now, but I hate it ... and I do mean hate it when I have to say "I told you so" - especially after WP:AGFing all the way to the edge of the trees. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your condescension towards Hahc (and his "minions", not sure what that's supposed to mean) is ... interesting to see, Bwilkins. Moving to the topic at hand, which you essentially didn't address in your comment, while it certainly wasn't an ideal close, it's far from a bad close—unless you really want to argue that consensus was going to swing in favor of blacklisting the site. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell are you talking about Ed ... what "condescension" are you making up? I'm utterly and excrutiatingly flabbergasted and saddended at Hahc's decision to have closed something that was so controvertial. The controvertial nature of it does make it a bad close - but was most certainly not one that Hahc could make. And WTF is your "minions" comment about? I'm sure you've read the attacks on my talkpage about a comment where his friends horfifically misunderstood a comment I made to Hahc and attacked me for a couple of days? I'm also certain you have followed my contributions today and have read all about minions? You're an intelligent and respected person ... I'm sure you did your homework before making the above comment? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a discussion which was closed after one day, I think it's hard to tell where it would have gone, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd consider myself not involved - others who have misread in the past would not agree :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair to Hahc21, the "hoo-hah" in this case comes from both sides of the ridiculous drama that has been and is with outing, WO, ArbCom, blocking, unblocking, blacklist et al. Let's not crucify Hahc21 for others, a lot of very experienced editors, acting like idiots. -- KTC (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahc21 shouldn't have closed that discussion. NAC closures are generally expected to be less controversial topics. WP:BOLD NACs are done with the understanding that you will explain it in full detail, and you understand you are sticking your neck out and someone might take a chop at at it. That means you do so at some risk, which means sometimes there are negative consequences. Is it block-worthy? No, but it was ill-advised and poorly executed. This is partially why many in the community wanted to restrict Hahc from NAC'ing anything to begin with, and did topic ban him for a time (and may end up leading to another topic ban discussion, unfortunately). I strongly suggest you simply refrain from closing complicated discussions because the drama the closing causes is problematic. As I would tell any editor, Thank you for closing the simple stuff, but leave the contentious discussions for admin to close. This is what we do and what the community expect, and they hand pick who they want to close the contentious stuff, via RfA. If someone wants to start a topic ban discussion, I would suggest doing it at WP:AN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for what I did. I am not in favour or against the inclusion of the website, and my explanation of that action is now rendered as useless. I was blocked, which was the last thing I wanted to happen in my career. I would revert myself, but I don't really have the desire to press the save button again. — ΛΧΣ21 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I agree with The ed17 that there is no need to be so condescending or patronising while criticising a bad call—we're fellow editors, not his teachers. wctaiwan (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NAC close was a poor judgment, the block was a mistake due to not knowing the restrictions had been lifted, everyone has apologised, the unblock in the log clearly states that the block was a mistake - I move that we should be abundant with our forgiveness all round, and close this and let an excellent contributor carry on with all the good stuff he does for the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In the future I encourage editors to both log restrictions at editing restrictions and remove them when restrictions are over turned. NE Ent 20:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Angelo6397 - continued copyright violations, disregard of Wikipedia policy despite repeated warnings

    User blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As you can immediately tell from this user's talk page, said user had been constantly warned previously for uploading copyrighted images, page-move vandalism, and creating non-notable articles. Said user has previously been blocked for similar incidents. Most recently, this user uploaded image, claiming it under the public domain when the author field is filled in with "Dont know". I [23] the bad image off the page it was edited into, which the user, just a few minutes later, reverted. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pope Francis image was tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#F8. I deleted it per WP:CSD#F9. The user was blocked in July 2012 for a month for copyright violations. They still upload images that are later deleted. They also create articles that are deleted. They appear to have a few useful edits sprinkled here and there. Some of this may be competence issues. Plus they don't appear to talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked the user. The continued copyright violation, combined with the almost total lack of communication, are very worrisome. This is not intended to be an infinite block, though if there continues to be no communication it may become such by default. But if the user will begin to communicate, and especially if they will show some understanding that there are problems with the copyrights of many of their edits, then I have no problem in them being unblocked by any other admin. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Fixed. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Why does the close say the editor has been blocked indefinitely, but the notice on their Talk page says they are blocked temporarily? RNealK (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked the block log says indefinitely so temporarily is likely a typo especially since the person that blocked them specifically said that it was indefinitely above. That may need to be changed unless I am missing something--64.229.164.74 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The boilerplate block template has that wording if indef isn't specified, I've modified it accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blackgaia02

    Blackgaia02 and C0sm0 (alternate account) indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs · count)

    Well I'm not involved in the issues at all (User:Ryulong is his target), but I have this user on my watch list for some edit warring I blocked them for over a year ago. Not really important. What is important is that I think this user is having issues editing Wikipedia lately. They've been a bit uncommunicative, gets a little mad, doesn't want the rules to apply to him, some more hate for the rules, some shouting in the edit summary, more edit summary silliness, more shutups, and a new one 'sourcefags'. All in all, the guy isn't really that disruptive on a blockable scale. But per WP:CIR, I think he needs to find a new hobby. Read the bottom of his talk page and tell me if I'm being silly. I haven't discussed this with him because User:Bbb23 has already tried to discuss it with him.--v/r - TP 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok my reply to this is quite simple, I just don't like how much people were reverting all of my edits. Fine I do understand those but I just hate being told by many people who to do in this site or what should I add or not. This is like taking away my own freedom to edit any articles as I wish. As I knows, it was on the Dokidoki! PreCure I got seriously mad because they keep on removing my edits, and I'm only just adding vital info that is shown on their names. So what, I just hated people telling me that "You cannot edit as you please. Sources and Rules allowed" again and again. It pisses me off.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 14:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    They're telling you that because you have no 'freedom' to edit 'as you wish.' Editing here is a privilege that requires you to obey Wikipedia policies. You've been reverted for not following those policies several times and then yelled in frustration. If you cannot edit in a collaborative environment, by the policies the community has set, without getting angry then you should find another hobby.--v/r - TP 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not fair at all. You're telling me to leave forever because you guys never like how I edit? Fine.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 14:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    Clearly this user is not here to edit an encyclopedia. Yes, anyone can edit - but there are rules and guidelines for promoting an academic and collaborative environment, which Blackgaia is obviously not willing to follow (in fact, on this ANI thread alone, he is already in contravention of one guideline). Any objections to an indef?--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at work so I can't delve deep enough to comment on any block, but this account should be included in any result. Tiderolls 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I get it! I'll work with everyone here if anyone won't eventually annoy me on what to do.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 15:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    You also need to include links to your user page and talk page in your signature, please. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand Blackgaia's problems, whether they are attitudinal or medical or something else, or a combination of more than one problem. However, from a Wikipedia perspective, he wants to edit in his own bubble, which is not possible. Otherwise, he is going to have these periodic outbursts. He should be indeffed. If he corrects the problem in the future and can edit collaboratively without tantrums, then he can always come back and request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. User has been here for seven years and still can't behave like an adult. We are not here to guide young people through life, and temper tantrums call for a naughty chair. If user can promise to behave, they might could be let back in, but I see nothing but a net negative here (note also the long list of notifications on the talk page: typically such lists are evidence that the editor simply doesn't know what we are and what we do). Drmies (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nickst and User:EpidemiaCorinthiana

    WP:BOOMERANG. EC blocked as a sock of God Football (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Yesterday, I reported the user over his disruptive editing and he got blocked as a result of the 3RR. However, I really reported him because he refuses to listen to reason or regulations and he even had a little spat with a few of the administrators on his talk page to the point they needed to block him from editing his talk page. Well...the first thing he does the second he is unblocked is deliberately disrupt any article that I have edited regardless of how much I try to explain to him that I am merely following certain basic regulation. On top of that, it seems he is trying to game the system in order to excuse his erratic behavior. I just don't think he learned his lesson and I will not even bother reversing anything anymore. His attitude yesterday at his talk page is more than proof of the futility of it.

    I reported him, again, to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, I was directed here per User:Monty845. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I'm not seeing anything disruptive from Nickst nor do I see WP:GAMEing, certainly not since the block expired, which seems to be the time period referred to. Those kind of accusations would require diffs backing them up, and maybe I'm just missing something but those seem to be lacking. On a side note EpidemiaCorinthiana, NickSt is allowed to remove comments from his talk page, removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. Reverting that removal (and removing one of this responses in the process) is inappropriate. - SudoGhost 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we all need to step down for a bit, this has become a bit silly. EpidemiaCorinthiana has made a number of edits which contravene WP:COPYPASTE & WP:SPEEDY and failed to acknowledge that mass moves which may be controversial should go via WP:RM. I've informed EpidemiaCorinthiana of this and we're trying to get to an understanding. Certainly I believe there's no justification in calling User:Nickst a "vandal". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Rambling Man. By letting this user get away with gaming the system the way he has just to derail anything I have touched is simply opening a can of worms. Since I was extremely busy today, I decided to take a short wikibreak and my hunch was right: he was merely waiting to be unblocked to become a disruptive editor. I have had my disagreements with a few editors. This guy's case is blatantly obvious if you look at his edits today. Ultimately, it isn't my choice. I would recommend blocking him for a month. By his logic and pattern of editing, anything he doesn't agree with must be discussed and that derails any real progress to any article. I am not even going to entertain this any longer. He walks like a duck and if the relevant people want to ignore that, that's them.
    And in case no one has noticed, this has nothing to do with editing any certain pages on my behalf. His behavior yesterday with the administrators who were trying to help him is more than enough proof of the kind of persona you are dealing with. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrator Dougweller's Apparent Misrepresenations

    No administrative action is required. The AfD is the correct venue for (reasonable) discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. Dougweller has put much time and attention into getting a page deleted (Covenant Reformed Baptist Church).
    2. I noted (copied below) that Dougweller stated a notability tag had been on the article for 2 months when, in fact, he had put it up only 5 days previous.
    3. I ascertained that The Caswell Messenger is owned by Womack Publishing Company (http://womackpublishing.com/our_papers/) while the Danville Register and Bee is owned by World Media Enterprises, a division of Berkshire Hathaway (http://www.worldmediaenterprise.com/section/wme02).
    4. Why, then, did Dougweller state that The Caswell Messenger and The Danville Register and Bee were owned by the same company? (copied below)

    This appears to be two misrepresentations of fact: (1) about the duration of the notability tag and (2) about the ownership of the two newspapers.

    copy of my order of events March 14 with assertion of fact following:

    1. a notability tag was put on the article on January 23 and removed that same day because the organization, having two separate sources for published articles, seemed to meet the standard stated on the tag.
    2. another notability tag was placed on the article on March 9 by Dougweller, writing, "I've restored the notability tag which was removed without discussion...".
    3. To that, Rjensen responded defending the article's notability on the "talk" page, including: "the editor of a local newspaper can be considered a RS on institutions in that county."
    4. On March 13, I wrote, "The notability tag wasn't removed without discussion. The reasons for this page meeting the notability requirements were given briefly and are still above."
    5. Only 5 days after placing the notability tag on it, Dougweller nominated the article for deletion, saying "A notability tag has been on this article for almost 2 months" (above).
    6. A new source has been added: "Covenant marks first anniversary," Danville Register & Bee, March 8, 2009. This is the newspaper serving Danville, Virginia.

    Yeoberry (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

    Owned by the same company as the Caswell Messenger. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Yeoberry (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag was added here dated 2013-01-23T15:27:37. You removed it here, half an hour later. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's noted above. Dougweller's statement was that a notability tag had been up two months. It had not been. He used that statement to move toward the deletion of the article.Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see what admin action is necessary here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What do we do when multiple misrepresentations are used as the basis to delete an article? Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You've already responded, multiple times, to the alleged misrepresentations on the AfD, so anyone going there to comment will see your claims, and will !vote with full knowledge of them. What more do you want? No one is going to take down the AfD on the basis of your claim of misrepresntation, the AfD is just going to run its course. There's really nothing for an admin to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darkness Shines

    DS warned by User:Kim Dent-Brown, who also wisely advised both parties to chill. Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was editing an article in my own Wikipedia user space when User:Darkness Shines issued a message on my talk page that struck me as Wikipedia:Harassment,[29] and so soon after he had been warned about his behavior in an AN/I that's not even a week old. I did not answer this (thereby going against your advice above to talk it out first), but the reason is that this would, in my previous experience, only yield another negative reaction. Crtew (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't like DS, and he doesn't like you. Does that mean that anytime the two of you interact you're going to bring it to ANI? Why don't you work on the article that he promises to nominate for deletion? Surely we all have better things to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User Space should mean something. And why is he watching whatever I do? There are rules against that, and it's policy. See above. Also see past warnings against him in these archives. Crtew (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all pages on Wikipedia belong to the Foundation ... even userpages. For example, userpages are subject to copyright, BLP and can be MFD'd and speedy deleted ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit Conflict) Also I would hardly call this "interacting". That makes it sounds so innocent, as if I were actually on mainspace and editing an article and another user wanted to talk about something I was doing. This is someone watching my own development space, uninvited, and then intimidating me with warning messages. Yes, this is a statement of intimidation: He's saying when it's in mainspace, it will be nominated for deletion. If you look at past interactions, there is a pattern. Furthermore, since the closure of the last AN/I, I have gone out of my way not to "interact" with him in mainspace. You can look at my edit history to verify that.Crtew (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then he should propose a speedy delete and see where that will get him.Crtew (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go, if you think it can be speedy deleted: User:Crtew/Press intimidation in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtew (talk • contribs) of 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)As long as he doesn't edit your userspace pages, I think he's allowed to read them and comment on them. Although his message wasn't very friendly, I don't think it is strictly against the rules. If he posts on your talk page again, you're free to revert him. Just make sure the page you are working on is notable and you don't have anything to fear from him. I suppose you could request an interaction ban, but I don't know if there are grounds for that or not. It would have to be based on more than this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so we're all reading the same policy here I quote: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

    The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

    Taken with his past history (see his history for what I'm talking about and his long list of complaints here in AN/I), this is tendentious and disruptive.Crtew (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The two of you have a history, and I'm not going to dig up all the diffs to compare the childlike behavior to see who "wins". I've seen enough of it. As an aside, he didn't say he'd tag it for speedy deletion; he said he'd nominate it for deletion. As Mark said, you can revert him; it's your talk page. You can also tell him not to post on your talk page again (better to do that on his talk page rather than in an edit summary). This topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already told him never to post on my page again and several times, both on my page and on his page. That's not going to work.Crtew (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs for that would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've viewed Crtw's talk page and the requests for DS to stay away are still there. I've warned DS not to post to Crtew's talk again. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, the speedy delete point was about what bwilkins says, not what DS said. There's no way in a million years that what I have even it a half finished form as it is would be a speedy delete. The point here is that there is no need for him to be poking his nose around in my user space and then to be issuing me disruptive comments.Crtew (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As for diffs it's all Mizabotted. Right after he put me on his fake warning list (where he was posing as administrator and issuing me warnings about my behavior -- for copying editing an article) I wrote this on his talk page:

    You have absolutely no right to put me on any kind of noticeboard list. You must stop this immediately, take me off the list and leave me alone. Crtew (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to stalk me to a highly contentious article it is only right that I inform you that it is under arbitration enforcement. I inform quite a few people, it is no bigge. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NO it is a very big deal. You need to leave me alone. This is a backlash. Do not address me or contact me or put me on any kind of listing. Why do you think my editing on this site is about YOU? Are you that egocentric? Get over yourself. I was there to explore a connection between Bergman and the article and I have every right to do that. You have crossed a line Buddy/ I feel intimidated by your actions and no longer safe in this environment. And I will not tolerate this. You need to cease and desist. Crtew (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For goodness sake Crtew, ease off. You brought a complaint, DS has been warned. Don't pour fuel on the fire by continuing to post here. There is no further admin action likely or necessary. The pair of you are heading for an interaction ban if either of you pursues this quarrel any further. DS, lay off as well. There is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by extending this. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Durneydiaz potentially removing PROD tags placed on his articles while logged out

    A suspiciously large number of articles created by User Durneydiaz (for reference, see his talk page) have been marked for PROD, but never deleted. Upon some examination, I have discovered that many of the pages that User Durneydiaz created have been marked for PROD, but then the PROD tag was removed anonymously (many of them from the same IP). This seems fishy.

    See:

    Uberaccount (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm curious. Are the external links (the profiles) in these articles considered reliable? Aren't they used as sources? (I know nothing about this stuff.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added bullets to your list. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    please remove information about me immediately

    my name is Bea Hamill, I want all information about me removed immediately. It is causing me a lot of distress. I have tried deleting and people keep putting it back. The information is of no interest to anyone. I want my privacy and I do not want my name, my surname, my date of birth, where I went to school and university being publically accessible. This is also having a very bad effect on my family, who obviously have the same surname and do not want to be associated with a tv show i was on 4 years ago. thank you

    Beahamill5 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The above was a contestant on Big Brother. Her information is part of List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK); the BBC News website profile used as a source is still live. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Short of deleting the section entirely, we could pare it back. We could eliminate her last name, the birth year, and the part about the school. The part about the school is mainly there because the principal of the school expressed her displeasure with Bea appearing on the program; it's not really necessary. The other two pieces aren't necessary, either, but removal of them would make her section inconsistent with all the others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unilaterally blanked this as a temporary measure. How about, just this once, we decide what to do first, then we set the content however we've decided it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I applaud Andy Dingley's removal of the information as an interim measure. I hope that permanent and complete removal is something that can be done. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The person involved should contact the sites being used as sources and have them take the information about her taken down first, otherwise, Wikipedia is reporting on past events that are reliably sourced. RNealK (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've closed the OTRS ticket the user opened today regarding this request, with my recommendation that they discus this here instead. There are things we can do BLP and courtesy-wise, but I did explain that completely removing the section is not possible. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree, and I don't think the unilateral removal was appropriate, but, as a temporary measure, it's not a big deal, either. BTW, the three points I highlighted are all independent, so, for example, we could remove the birth year and the school business but leave in her last name. Omitting the birth year wouldn't be as glaringly inconsistent as removing the last name, and the school stuff isn't really necessary. Related to RealK's point, though, I wonder how much more damage our article does to her vs. the information that is publicly available on which we're relying.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the whole article has been to AfD twice, before ARS rock up and claim that this trivia is the most important content on the whole of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Disagree with removing sourced, factual information. Put the whole article up for deletion, but we cannot respond to every request - we don't know who the person making the request is. Either the bio is within policy or it isn't, regardless of the requester. I have some doubts as to their identity. Leaky Caldron 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then restore it and start the edit war ASAP. Please, will someone do this – I've got money riding on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you removed it in the hope of starting an edit war that seems a poor motive. I said I disagreed, that's all. Leaky Caldron 00:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, please stop toeing the line of WP:POINT. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please use the phrase "or I will block you". Someone has already restored it in mid-discussion, so that's lunch paid for. If I can get a threatened block too, I get free beer as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is a branch and the main article contains much more information that the claimant may not like. Leaky Caldron 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We may not treat the Bea section differently from the other entries; I agree that this is not particularly encyclopedic, but there's no good reason to pretend that the content was unsourced or improperly sourced. Let Bea nominate the whole thing for deletion (which I'd support) or persuade the BBC to take down their comments on her. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree with removing sourced information. When someone goes on a show like Big Brother, they are putting themselves in the public eye, and what goes on is a matter of record. That is not something that can be suppressed later when they regret their decision. Even if we remove it, Googling her name produces plenty of references to her BB career. JohnCD (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both Nyttend and JohnCD are correct. If you want to be a private person, don't go on Big Brother. If you put your personal life on a TV show, then don't complain when it doesn't get forgotten. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that has already dawned on Beahamill5 (talk · contribs) by now (and I find the linked article from her former teacher to be ironic in that sense), however we are here to explain to her why we cannot remove the information while being sensitive to her plight. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. You go on BB, you get to live with the crap afterwards. However we have the option to act honourably and decently in the interim, while we decide what to do. Nor is information being available elsewhere a requirement for WP to duplicate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not like this was the first season of the show and nobody knew what would happen. There was ample example of how show contestants are viewed/discussed and I submit that anyone who claims they were surprised is....well, I'll be polite. (that's me being sensitive to her plight) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Compared to whats out there - I would assume this entry here at Wikipedia is not a priority vs all the negative info about her on the net. I do feel bad for her - we all dont make the right life choices all the time - but we all have to live with them.Moxy (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the appropriate venue for this discussion. Wikipedia administrators are responsible only for the most obvious and pressing breaches of Wikipedia policy, which doesn't appear to apply in this case. The community in general is responsible for everything else. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page (with a courtesy link from BLP/N, or vice versa). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have missed the bulletin, Finlay, everything now belongs on ANI. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that if we include the most basic info, and remove anything not required for context, we aren't compromising our duty to publish facts, and remembering that she is a fellow human being. This is my opinion as an editor, not an admin. Pharmboy (alt. of Dennis Brown) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As Wikipedia, we report on what is notable. Notability is defined by us as having coverage in reliable sources. Barring libelous or slanderous material, or other legal considerations, we don't remove material or stop the addition thereof because someone asks. This person, although I sympathize for/with (darn English language) them, knew what would happen if they went on the show. They should not be surprised that the sources we use still have her information, and that we still have her information. If she wants it removed, she will need to make a formal legal request to the Foundation, which may or may not have merit. This all, of course, is pending the AfD on this article. I do feel bad for Bea, but we can't just remove anything that anyone asks at any time. Otherwise, I could go create the AngelMcKenzie73 user and come and say that I wanted my information removed, or others. The proper method for Bea to follow would be to file a formal request with the foundation, because we are not obligated to remove the information, nor should we, here. gwickwiretalkediting 02:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we knew she had made "a formal legal request" we would block the account per WP:NLT. She appears to have followed the instructions to email her request to OTRS, which would have ended up with a polite "sorry, we can't do anything" response not dissimilar to yours. I don't know how she ended up coming to ANI, but she will probably get the desired result because of it. The fact that she is a young woman and is not an entirely unsympathetic character will work in her favour. Perhaps she should claim that Wikipedia is trying to "blackmail" her into something by threatening to reveal general information about her which is already available on the internet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (because that sort of thing is only the evil crime of "outing" and "doxxing" when it's done to Wikipedians!) *Dan T.* (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Outing is only a big deal when a user has made an effort to remain anonymous. For example, I haven't been on a reality tv show, there are no news articles about me, therefore if my personal details are added to Wikipedia it could be considered "outing". Bea Hamill has articles published about her. You can't really "out" an already public figure unless you post new private information (which Wikipedia does not). If it were her phone number/address etc. then it should be removed. Information published in reliable sources is reasonable to retain. James086Talk 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I understand Andy's motivation behind blanking the section pending discussion, the Striesand effect needs to be considered here. Having one constestant's section blanked is a red flag for people to go looking for information to add to it, and if we were to delete one article on BB housemates, that creates a hole in the list that other people will ask "why?" and start poking. Wikipedia is not censored, we don't remove reliably sourced, verifiable material on notable subjects just because somebody is hurt or offended. I feel bad for the person involved, but unless the sources are dissapeared and the event unhappened, there's nothing we can really do. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the figure voluntarily joined a nationally televised, controversial show and now wants that scrubbed. Uhm...am I missing something? Has the figure been defamed? Is the information inaccurate in any way? Are the sources adequate? Is the request based on an immediate need or danger or is this a simple request to take the spot light off her now that the show is over and they don't like the result? Yes, we should trim it back to what is firmly within policy but no...we don't blank BLPs in the middle of the discussion before a consensus and this is the wrong venue. This should be at the BLP noticeboard unless editors agree to ignore that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eliminating the redirect is essential. Deleting the article is unacceptable. Clearly the initial version of the article, with some unsourced and highly unflattering personal commentary is also unacceptable under BLP. The first version got whacked down to a second shorter version which is pretty close to okay. The "scatty and bohemian" bit needs to go for sure, and further tightening could also easily be accomplished; but all information on the contestant should not be blanked. This is really a matter for the discussion page of the article and not AN/I, by the way. Thank you to Bea for alerting us all to the problem; the first version clearly was unacceptable. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the redirect is not needed but do think it should go the normal route as has been done with other mentions of living persons such as Ryan Lanza.
    This is ridiculous. You go on television - a primetime television show at that - you accept the consequences. I've had a look at the revision as it was then and in my opinion, there is nothing there that falls foul of WP:COI as reporting on offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. In addition, I don't like it is not a valid reason for removal.--Launchballer 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Bea's edits to the list article should be oversighted as she has revealed further personal information which is available under the edit history. –anemoneprojectors– 20:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done a revdel, I think it's only right, but also felt I should notify this discussion as well! –anemoneprojectors– 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've now gone ahead and contacted an oversighter. Pretty sure this was the right thing to do. –anemoneprojectors– 20:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, there's some information at Big Brother 10 (UK)#Controversy and criticism and Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) that relates to this. –anemoneprojectors– 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vercelli

    Having the "*" tab at the top of the page purges as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A few days back User:Gixz moved the Italian city Vercelli to its unused old dialect name Varsei. A ridiculous move and one that flies in the face of the entire naming convention. I reverted this move, but all interwiki links on wikidata still point to Varsei and worse, there is just one interwiki link left at Vercelli; could someone please fix this interwiki issue. thanks, noclador (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You just need to purge the page Vercelli using a null edit [Click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Click "Save" at the bottom of the edit box without making any changes.] This clears the cache and rebuilds the page to show the transclusions of the wikidata links. It should be OK now [they're working for me]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks! yes that helped :-) noclador (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Two Three new related users; could be socks, could be meat

    The accounts have been working in concert, first making unsourced test edits, now adding references like this [30], which leads to a university library site, not the professed source. Overall these still amount to test edits, and though there's been discussion attempted at both user talk pages, there's been no reply. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Omar account hasn't edited since you posted the warning, which leads me to assume that it was in fact heeded. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a third to the collection, with a similar edit to the same source and university library website [31]. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I don't think the most recent additions to Self-image, even if the sources are fixed, add much to the article. But to continue reverting him/her/them is tiresome and looks bad. Other thoughts appreciated. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The added content was terrible. It's possible (though not likely) that these are students. If you don't mind, drop a line on their talk pages with a link to some acronym for "Don't Edit With Two Accounts". Again, it is possible that they have an explanation for this. Kindalike the Alabama Republicans think it will improve education if they take up to $300 million out of the education budget to hand it over as tax breaks to parents who send their kids to private schools. Kindalike there are people who want to have relations with the Kardashians. It's hard to imagine that one would, but there are people who do, so it's possible. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, mr. Invisible IP, consider looking at Cct881 and Luluchan04 and Chuntingchan. Or mosey on over to SPI. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oy. Socks everywhere, or else a group of affiliated students who are experimenting here. How did you manage to work in editorial comments on Alabama education and the Kardashian clan? You know, we have universities north of the Mason Dixon, too. Just saying. And I'm not invisible, but I am transparent. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the edits, I think a small group of students or people acting as a group is more likely. Not necessarily meatpuppetry, just working together. Polite notes welcoming and explaining things would be the better first step, ie: assuming good faith. Doesn't look like they are intentionally trying to break anything, from the contribs I sampled, although they are of questionable quality. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding two more, in addition to those mentioned by Drmies. Every reason to assume good faith, but as a group these are problematic, often linking to the University of Toronto library website, which can not be freely accessed, rather than to the cited sources. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, he did mention Lulu. Well, there's a bonus listing. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also certain Hira2024 (talk · contribs) is related to this possible sockfarm... same type of edits with the same poor grammar, etc. --Kinu t/c 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Franek K.

    Franek K. (talk · contribs)

    Abuses warning templates and accuses users of vandalism for edits he disagrees with [32][33]; continues an edit war (albeit with slightly altered versions) on Slavic Languages. Previously warned for edit-warring about the same topic on a different article. (notified. I will be offline for an hour or so.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I not abuses warning templates, User Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 made ​​a typical vandalism (remove text + sources from Wikipedia) [34] and this user start new edit war (two reverts in 16 minutes) and reverted to yesterday version by Benwing (for which there is no consensus). The use of warning template is appropriate. About my edit, this is new edit, I only added opinion by linguistic organisations and political issue (about regional language) + sources, do not change the tree of languages. We can freely edit Wikipedia, I added new data + sources. I have a right to this. The problem of the Slavic languages‎ is complicated and users involved in the discussion are not neutral, therefore, I propose the creation of a neutral RFC. Is this a good idea? Franek K. (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Franek, WP:Vandalism is a very narrowly defined concept here, meaning edits that are designed to deface or undermine the encyclopedia. The two examples given are clearly NOT vandalism. Throwing vandalism templates at people when their edits are not vandalism is considered incivil, and as such, unacceptable. You need to familiarize yourself with the wikilink I've provided, and not template people in this way. You can argue about the appropriateness, the neutrality, etc. of the edits, on the talk page of the article. That is what the talk page is for, and not what we decide at ANI. If you keep accusing people of vandalism for edits you disagree with, you will end up getting blocked, which is something I would rather avoid. I assume you would, too, so stop the templates and use the article talk page and conduct a civil discussion on the merits. If you can't agree, go to WP:DRN and hash it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see, though Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is new case but edits by user Benwing have signs of vandalism. Benwing deliberately remove the data and sources from Wikipedia (eg opinions by linguistic organisations) because they have a different opinion and also pushing only one POV-version despite the fact, that the topic is contentious (different opinions between linguists and linguistic organisations and politicians and sociolinguists and other). This falls under the Wikipedia:Vandalism: deliberate action on your site and weakening the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. However, you're right, better avoid these terms. Vandalisms better report to administrators. If the fight is not over, I think on the DRN or RFC. Franek K. (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NONE of these are vandalism; from now on, each time you repeat that word in this manner, I will give you escalating NPA-warnings and you'll eventually be blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not vandalism. Vandalism is something like replacing the content with garbage or obviously unrelated information. Period. Do not template as vandalism edits that you think have neutrality isssues. As for the content, I have no opinion, but when it comes to your actions, Seb is completely right here. You will get NPA warnings and blocked if you continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'll try to do not write terms of "vandalism" describing the action of other users. Wikipedia:No personal attacks (NPA) works both ways? So, why user Benwing in their posts lying about me and says that I am an activist; and nationalist editor and other? (for example: [35] and ten times on other sites). This is personal attacks. I asked user Benwing several times to not write about me and do not lie about me. It does not work. Also, user Seb_az86556 who wrote to me about the NPA here should be impartial and should be write about NPA also to user Benwing. Franek K. (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Insertion of non-notable individual into Aix-en-Provence

    Putting the socks in their drawer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The Spanish version of the Aix article was recently modified to include information about Antonio J. Wassermann living there on Rue Cardinal.[36] I cannot find any sources that suggest this is an important person so I wonder if anyone can back up this addition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.216.52.43 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately we have no control over the Spanish Wikipedia, only the English (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple IPs on Office 365

    Multiple IP addresses in a similar range (presumed to be the same person) have been engaged in an edit war and uncivil behaviour surrounding what the service Microsoft Office 365 is classified as (contending using original synthesises that it cannot be considered Software as a service or Software plus services, despite multiple reliable sources using the term "software as a service" to describe. The page was semi-protected in order to prevent their disruption, but their uncivil remarks continue on the talk page. One IP also made a personal attack directly against me. Their only edits have been on the one page, and I'm beginning to suspect possible sockpuppetry. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I read the link 3 times .... where's the personal attack? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Directly attacked me based off his opinion on my edits and for reporting him on edit warring, claims we cannot use "buzzwords" in articles, that my writing is poor, etc. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." ViperSnake151  Talk  18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, the IP's talk-page contributions look constructive, other than accusing you of vandalism in one edit. A bit gruff perhaps, but I don't think there's need to semi-protect the talk page over this. I think continuing the discussion on the talk page would probably be best. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 109.151.98.87

    IP blocked for personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has engaged in personal attacks and edit-warring, although this last is outside this page's jurisdiction.

    Diff 1: His edit summary says, "rv as per WP:OWN - Fantr if you don't like people editing you're words don't go on Wikipedia. (Besides they're only being edited because you can't write for shit.) Did you graduate high school?)"

    Diff 2: "Undid revision 544689632 by Fantr (talk) Get stuffed. Read the reference, if you want to get stroppy. I did. What has a credit got to do with anything?)"

    I left a message cautioning him against personal attacks. He replied with:

    Diff 3: "Piss off fag! If you can't take the heat don't hang out in the kitchen! 109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

    -Fantr (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OK goodness sake. Is this like running to mummy? Geez grow a pair, why don't you! All I did was edit substandard English and amend the words to fit the reference. Look at the article here here when gentle-of-heart rested on the seventh day because they had done all that they could. Then look here to what I added. Seems to me there might be a tad more here than when twinkle toes tried to be an editor. Besides the quote is wrong in the sentence the novelist doesn't "claim" to be a writer on the film, because they were a writer on the film. At the end of the day, I don't suffer fools gladly and as this one has only being around since last October they get what they deserve.109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff 4: He writes on my talk page: "Look you obviously have a very thin skin and also an inability to write clearly and concisely in English. So >with a sigh< I have to take your hand and walk you through the facts: <snip> In the end if you don't want grief then my advice is walk away now? There are no rewards for this, none whatsoever, except unwarranted self importance and eventually a chance to advance to a new level. Despite my crass manner I am trying to be nice, but others who play here will not."

    - Fantr (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But you omit what is wrong with your edit! Ah how very picky of you. I just edit content and add reference. That's all I do. The last time I was dragged here to Admin land must have been a good few years ago. I am more than a gnome, I just like to add information, tighten copy, find sources and improve articles that lack details. However I think sweet, little Fantr is more interested in the drama and lawyering than content. 109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff 5: He writes on my talk page: "Wow such a drama queen. Why don't you grow a pair and learn to write properly?"

    - Fantr (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In contrast, the bravery of IP addresses knows no bounds. However, there's a theme to his comments. Being from "Man"chester, he's obsessed with "Man"hood. I've reported him to AIV, and we'll see where he gets blocked first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked 48 hours. Hut 8.5 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Steve Walsh (rugby referee)

    Semiprotection applied. In future, WP:RFPP is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Steve Walsh (rugby referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Seems to be heavily vandalised. Uberaccount (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It was semi-protected by Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) shortly after you posted here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kevin Youkilis

    This is a copy-paste of my post to WP:BASEBALL

    User:Nyyfnfrvr is actively disrupting this page, adding a non-free image and the whole "2013-present" WP:CRYSTAL violation. S/He reverted Muboshgu once and me three times. I have issued 3 disruptive editing warnings which have not even bean read. Don't want to be involved in an edit war here - any and all assistance would be awesome. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    and s/he just did this to my talk page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really consider the talk page thing an emergency or a threat, but quick admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    please also see this latest message. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Garraty (1973), p. 933.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=544758298"