Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

The harmful speech of Norden1990

I want to inform the admins about the uncivil speech and dubious agressive POVs of User:Norden1990 according to WP Conduct policy WP:NPA. What is considered to be a personal attack? 1) Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. He recently called me in edit summary a "chauvinist user" [1], called my behaviour as "hysteria"[2] and named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist [3][4]. When I complained about this behavior on another thread [5], Norden1900 was not sorry at all, but on the contrary: he replied that "I reserve the indicatives about you" [6] + he wrote "I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's." which is in fact similar to banned User:Stubes99 edits[7]. He also called the insertion of referenced text "vandalism"[8]. User:Norden1990 also used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor on my Talk page [9]. This looks like a some form of ongoing harassment. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia) from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) [10]. User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. Some unconstructive discussion with this user[11][12]. User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [13][14] he wrote: "Slovaks had not yet existed." which is obviously an attack + also deleted info, Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár[15] (Note: see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[16][17][18][19][20], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[21][22]) or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [23][24][25][26]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[27] and here deleted name Oradea [28] or [29][30]. Indeed quality of the article first. Or his contradictory edits [31]>[32]. In the past he also had this kind of unfriendly speech:

• "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak."[33] .
• "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration" [34]
• "It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself" [35]
• "typical product of Romanian chauvinism" [36]
• "So you can go to hell together with your threatening." [37]

.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not civil behavior, but I don't think there is much that can be done at this time other then DRN. The edit of Rightful ruler which placed a false banner on the page and was possibly the worst offense here. It would have to go to WP:SPI, but Norden's edit warring has resulted in locking of a page before and this problem has existed for months. While not terribly disruptive, these are minor personal attacks and a warning about personal attacks should have been issued first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Norden1990 needs a NPA warning, and probably a block. There are some absolutely inappropriate statements there, regardless of whatever the OP has said in the discussions. I'm not inclined to look deeper into it, and would leave that to an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can see the most recent act of Omen's crusade against me. Dear Omen, do you think, the article of Upper Hungary is also a racist and pejorative anti-Slovak article, because it contains the word "Felvidék"? Felvidék is a Hungarian word, which means "Upper Hungary". This phrase marks the area, hich is today's Slovakia and which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 9th century to 1920. "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century" - historical fact, They were nobles (natio Hungarica) and serfs, the modern national consciousness evolved in the early 19th century.

The other issues that you brought up again has already been discussed. I would like to ask the honorable court-martial that compare the edits of Omen and me. I hope you will see the difference. Since Omen is editing, there is only problem with him. Edit wars, POV edits, unsourced and malicious edits, there is need only look at his discussion page. I can only repeat myself about Omen's attitude and behaviour. Bye --Norden1990 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen's conduct doesn't excuse your own. Nationalist debates require cool heads to resolve, and calling other editors names is not conducive to that. If you keep a lid on your own behaviour it makes it that much easier to report the misdeeds of others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You used again provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor (me) on my Talk page [38] or in this discussion [39]. It was not in the article Talk page about "Upper Hungary". Nevertheless, also in the main article is: Any use of the word Felvidék to denote all of modern Slovakia is considered offensive by Slovaks.

I also dont understand your dubious POVs, you wrote [40][41]: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit" and then here you edited article with this term + deleted Austrian Empire[42]. It looks like some form of poor provocation.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My conscience is clear. I always strived for NPOV in my edits, and it is not my fault that Wikipedia is unable to filtering out nationalist editors, who call into question academic publications and historiographical works. I already created almost 900 articles (true, some of them are stubs), contributed in development of much, I do not think that I'd be in such a troubled editor. In contrast Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources, get involved in edit wars, and probably is not a coincidence that he was banned already at few times. I do not see a fault with my behavior. I think (and obviously I only proclaim my own opinion) Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult. It looks like that is enough to accuse someone and the person in question is banned forever. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've searched the archives and I noticed that is not the first time when Norden1990's name appears on this noticeboard. Four months ago the administrator User:Sandstein raised the possibility of a topic ban / other sanction for Norden1990: [43] 181.48.15.98 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi (note: a sockpuppet), first login and after that we can discuss, and if you see this incident, I was found not guilty. Omen reported me several times, but that does not mean that they should be taken as a precedent for continue this witch-hunt. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always strived for NPOV in my edits... > this is only based on your personal thoughts, but your edits say something quite different.

I already created almost 900 articles... > And what is point? Some users created 10.000 articles..., but absolutely this does not excuse your behavior.

User:Norden1990 post is another absurd false dubious personal views/attacks with no evidence (Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources...).

I do not see a fault with my behavior. > Norden1990 continue with personal attacks even on this noticeboard, in the front of the admins: "Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult". Accusing the proxy ip 181.48.15.98 of being Iasi is also a personal attack, because your allegation was not officially confirmed, it is only your supposition which must be kept for yourself in the lack of a SPI investigation.

He also bringing here false information (that I was "banned already at few times").

He also involved in edit wars, and not only with me (so in fact Norden1990's another false information...) [44] - here his opponnent was the user Inhakito. The result is that the User:Norden1990 is highly unreliable and only his dubious POVs are acceptable (for him naturally)...--Omen1229 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not instruct me on right behaviour. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen, you were "topic-banned from all edits relating to Slovak-Hungarian history for a period of 6 months, due to a persistent history of ethnic battleground editing" [45]. You were also sanctioned for "nationalist editing" [46]. It seems that the six months was not enough for you. For the case of Cabello: there were conflicting news after the death of Hugo Chávez. You can see the talk page, a cooperation evolved between the editors and I also took part in the discussion.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote here at first false information that I was "banned already at few times". In fact Fut.Perf. banned Samofi and me after few minutes of investigation but in last 17 months he had not find a time to look on "opponents" as he promised. And here is topic-banned the reporting editor'. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that misconduct related to Eastern Europe is subject to discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision WP:ARBEE. Without examining this in detail, it appears there is sufficient evidence for recent problematic editing by Norden1990 (notably, personal attacks by commenting about contributors rather than content, and mislabeling content disagreements as vandalism) to warrant a warning about discretionary sanctions, which I am now issuing. If this problematic editing continues, it can be reported to WP:AE for sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want. I suggest you first should look at Omen's activity here. If the style that he uses is permitted, then there's nothing more to talk about. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Norden1990's comment. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Said User:Fakirbakir who for example declared this statement: "the modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state"[47]--Omen1229 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When he wrote that the neo-fascist anti-Hungarian and anti-Roma Slovak National Party (SNS) was member party of the Slovak coalition government. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'm taking a quick look. Now, Norden1990 has clearly acted in an inappropriate manner all too often, but Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990, sometimes incorrectly, sometimes not. Both users edit-war across a whole range of articles, over some of the most ridiculous things (categories seem to crop up fairly often) - Omen removing a category with a frankly inexplicable reason, based on the article here: [48], and [49] is part of a particularly pointless edit war from both sides being examples of both users reverting each other, pretty much based on the fact that their opponent (so to speak) made the edit. This can either be fixed by an indefinite interaction ban (which is almost certain to fail as both edit in the same area), or a 6 month/year long topic ban on editing any WP:ARBEE-applicable articles, broadly construed for both parties, for frequent, careless and pointless edit warring in those areas, based on nationalistic motives. The latter is by far the more likely to work, and I suggest that's what is applied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen1229 seems to quite frequently revert Norden1990 > here are some my last edits and please look at who started:[50][51][52][53][54][55] and here is additional Norden1990's provocation [56] > he declared: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit"[57][58].

edit 105 > the article is about Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár, also User:FactStraight reverted Norden1990's similar edits[59][60]. As I wrote above about this Slovak nobleman: [61] > see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[62][63][64][65][66], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[67][68]. Natio Hungarica does not mean Hungarian nobility, but it is Nobility in the multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary. Category:French nobility has a category under the name of the article French nobility and there is not article "Hungarian nobility", only Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. And this edit[69]? It needed new category: Jews in Kingdom of Hungary or something similar, also scientists in the Kingdom of Hungary[70] etc... Being a citizen of the multilingual, multiethnic Kingdom of Hungary is not the same with being an ethnic Hungarian.

edit 106 > I don't understand what is "inexplicable" about my reason ("no source for this info")[71]. The edit summary is clear and it reflects the reality: the information is unreferenced. The same idea is supported by another user (Koertefa) on the article talk page: "I do not see the relevance whether "Mercurius"/"Merkúr" is an original Hungarian name. Even if it was, it would not prove for sure that he was ethnic Hungarian [72]--Omen1229 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not evaluating whether the reversions are valid or not, but I can see multiple instances of you turning up at articles that you've never edited before, just to undo his changes. And Norden1990 has done the same, but less frequently. You're both edit warring in ARBEE areas, which is justification for a topic ban and/or a block, regardless of if your edit is right or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I assure you that his edit is not right. Omen. Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit. That's right, what is your problem? There were separate administrative units, like Transyvania, Croatia or Fiume, but not Upper Hungary (or Felvidék, which lit. means "Upland"). Slovak nobility never existed, as was only one nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary (Natio Hungarica, as you wrote correctly). You are trying to force modern national consciousness into old situation. Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary is might be misleading, as there are also Hungarian nobles today. But they were born when the kingdom was already abolished. By the way, there is standardization: I couldn't find Cat:Nobility in the Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Poland or Kingdom of Portugal etc. etc. [73]. Aaron Samuel ben Moses Shalom of Kremnitz was a Jew and lived in today's Slovakia (then Hungary) in the 17th century. Mere speculation and anachronism to inserted him into the category of "Slovak Jews". Slovakia established in 1993, centuries later. You usually use POV edits and personal attacks ([74]) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated", however article already contained Hungarian names (correctly, as apperanace only today's name version is illogical and misleading, according to my knowledge, Slovak language was never used in public administration). "however this is only a biography article of Štúr" [75] - illogical and poor argument, according to your perception, we should write that "Ho Chi Minh City was capital of South Vietnam in 1945". Absurd. These towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts. The term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography, which denies all connection and contiunity between the historical and modern Hungary. Then, Omen, now you just have to tell, who were the "Uhors"? Maybe Hungarians? I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. [76] 100,000 results? Yeah... Jesenský is a common Slav name, but this family was a Hungarian noble house of Slav origin, as you can see the sources that I proved. "poor nationalistic dubious POV", typical behaviour of Omen. Like this POV pushing [77]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [78]. when you run out of nationalist arguments, you always try to bring the matter to personal attack, as you did here [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You usually use POV edits and personal attacks (131) where you claimed Hungarian names as "fabricated" > Well, so let's tell you more details about the etymology. Slovak person Ľudovít Štúr 28 October 1815 - 12 January 1856, Uhrovec - the version "Zayugróc" was fabricated in the 19th century (1863) in the period of Magyarization. You also wrote that "these towns (Modor) were clearly part of Hungary, these undeniable facts." I will stay only in the etymology of the town "Modor". You probably think the Slovak city Modra. So according to Štúr biography 1815 - 1856, the official names valid and used in 1808 - 1863: Modra, Modorinum, Modern, Modor. In the 1863 in the period of Magyarization until 1913 was valid only one name - Modor, other variants have been banned. So according to these etymological facts, your edits here edits look like bad faith.

the term of "Uhorsko" is a fabricated phrase of Slovak historiography > please write me more details with some source, because I do not understand you, I used here only term Kingdom of Hungary, if you want I can use latin term Regnum Hungariae or Kaisertum Osterreiach for Austrian Empire. In fact only you used in this discussion the term Felvidek and other dubious POVs...

I am also Hungarian, so please do not interpreted this Slovak POV to the English Wikipedia, as Western publicationd also do not use the term of "Uhorsko" or Uhor Country. > ? Where do you see these names in this discussion?

Like this POV pushing [134]. You continously add false information, despite of that User:Koertefa provided several Western sources [135] > Sources about what? Please first read the full discussion [84]. Where do you see "Upper Hungary"? You also declared that Upper Hungary has never had a separate territorial unit[85][86]. So according to these evidence, your edits here edits look again like bad faith.

edit Giglovce [87] > User:Norden1990 wrote: "Yes, but formerly known as Giglóc (until 1920)." In fact in the 1863 until 1913 was valid only one name - Giglóc, other variants have been banned. User:Norden1990 used in the article only one variant from this period - Magyarization. There are no members of Magyar ethnicity in the village - 0,00%. According to the 2011 census, the municipality had 153 inhabitants. 148 of inhabitants were Slovaks and 5 others and unspecified. There are also other names, for example: Giglowce, Gyglowce, Gyglowcze etc., but unfortunately this user used only one... User:Norden1990 also declared: "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[88] and here deleted name Oradea [89] or [90][91].

Note: I will continue in this edit, but now I'm bored of this unconstructive discussion with highly unreliable editor who have strong dubious POVs.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the above "I'm right, it's the other guy who is POV-pushing" type responses sum up exactly why I believe an ARBEE topic ban is in order. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for who? I do not get it. Please compare Norden1990's contributions to Omen1229's editing. Their contributions are as different as chalk and cheese. Norden1990 is an excellent wiki editor. He deserves praise instead of scorn.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors. Regardless of whether their edits are correct or not, both have violated ARBEE by frequently edit-warring over the nationality of a hell of a lot of articles, and that is a simply unacceptable fact. There have been some very solid edits by both editors, but the fact of the matter is that good edits don't justify editors staging all-out war on other editors. Both are constantly accusing each other of being POV-pushers and both abuse each other quite frequently in other ways, which complicates matters. People should never be praised for constant edit-warring (unless that edit-warring is to removal obviously hateful content and keep it out, which this doesn't classify as.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the editing on nationality is just offensive [92]. IMO, the disruptive edits outweigh the solid ones because they are inappropriate and drive other editors away. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

Per Lukeno, I propose a topic ban for both users from Hungary-related ARBEE-related articles, broadly construed, for violating ARBEE. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, a topic ban from Hungary-related articles would be equivalent to a total ban from anything, while this method is only partially affected to the Slovak ethnic Omen's edits. It is not fair. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I was not proposing a Hungary-related ban. I was proposing an ARBEE-related ban. Technically, since one user insists these are Slovak articles, then the ban wouldn't actually work anyway. Obviously, I strongly support an ARBEE-related topic ban, but a Hungary-related one is definitely too narrow in scope. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that edit warring is not acceptable, it should be noted that user Norden1990 made several excellent contributions to WP, mostly to articles which fall into the category of WP:ARBEE. Therefore, by enforcing such a topic ban we would lose an exceptional editor. I think that warning both involved editors should be enough and, if they continue the war, a 1RR like restriction could be applied, to enforce appropriate communication. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that the editors haven't made good contributions, because they clearly have. However, any flagrant violations of ARBEE, like this, cannot go unpunished, no matter how good the editors may be. Also, 1RR won't work, as they're edit warring with each other over multiple articles, but not necessarily making more than 1 revert per article. It is always a shame to lose productive editors, but if they won't abide by the guidelines in such highly charged areas, then there's no choice. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Then call this prohibition, which is actually that: ban from everything. Might as well you can also close my user account. Furthermore, Hungary is in Central Europe, so I don't understant this Eastern Europe ban here... --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support As nom. Changed to include all ARBEE-related articles. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can not give appropriate reasons. So, could I not continue to create biographies of Hungarian politicians in the modern era? --Norden1990 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasons have already been stated above. To prevent further edit warring and disruption. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• No topic-ban - There is no demonstrated need for a topic ban after just being placed on notice as a result of this thread. Editor has been notified and that is enough, anything further will likely drive the editor away and serves as a procedural block/ban. I cannot agree with the warning to topic ban for this single instance, there has not been an issue since the warning and no expectation or evidence of bad-faith to warrant topic banning at this time. And to answer Norden1990's statement above; United Nations Statistics Division and the European Union considers Hungary to be in Eastern Europe, see page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of where Hungary is considered to be, ARBEE covered Hungarian articles anyway, did it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Might it not be simpler to use a standard discretionary sanctions model here? They've now both been warned/notified (Norden recently, Omen a long time ago and receiving a now expired 6 month ban later) and this has been reaffirmed here. If their poor behaviour continues, they can be taken to WP:AE which would likely be simpler than a ANI discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Opposing topic ban. I agree with the above comment of Nil Einne: for the time being, a warning is the proper solution. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I think that editing outside Hungary-related articles would be a very good thing for Norden1990, and help them learn a little more about neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sources in subjects about which they are dispassionate. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding Norden, Omen or anyone else, having to deal with nationalist editors is hugely disruptive and a gigantic time sink. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If Norden has really created as many as or more than 500 articles, that's really impressive. I just wish they would cool down on the nationalism question. Perhaps I'm wrong in my support for a ban here. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very dissapointed concerning your vote, as, I think, we could discuss the problem about the Szaniszló article. Yes, we did not agree each other, but you could see, finally a consensus solution evolved between User:Koertefa, you and me. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, note that user Darouet is clearly not neutral in this question, since (s)he had/has many content disputes with user Norden1990. Topic banning user Norden1990 is in her/his own personal interest, since then (s)he would not have to discuss the issues in detail with someone having a different opinion. By the way: these discussions are indeed time consuming, but they are the right way to reach consensuses and, ultimately, to achieve more neutral articles. And that's our common interest. Therefore, user Darouet's vote should not be taken into account, even if (s)he was an administrator, per WP:INVOLVED (that's why I did not vote either). All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs? 75.171.41.8 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We have been in a dispute here: Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló. -Darouet (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Der Darouet, I would like to emphasize that it's not just about my topic banning, as User: Der Kommisar proposed this punishment for both of us (Omen and me). The last posts are beginning to shed such light on the matter that as if I were the only editor, who can count to retaliation. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Omen was also the subject of this, but don't know anything about them, and leave that judgement to others. It is true that Norden, Koertefa, and Fakirbakir are all in a dispute with me on the Ferenc Szaniszlo page. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I entirely agree with Nil Einne's opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors have demonstrated battleground mentality. I'm no expert in ARBEE matters, and certainly you could call me broadly involved because I've had a few run-ins with the Slovak/Hungarian crowd (I remember Samofi pestering me to get unblocked, and Borsoka and Fakirbakir promoting some excessively nationalist view of history templates), but with ARBMAC this kind of a violation of standards of behavior would definitely result in a reprimand. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC User's Rash Approvals

I have been active in #wikipedia-en-help for a little while now. At least 90% of the "editing help" questions are about the AFC process, and 90% of that is a familiar routine; the wait time, the COI issues (the vast majority of it is corporates or PR types, alas), WP:ADVERT, what's a good reference, why those aren't good references, why those references "do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

So far, so good. A couple of days ago someone came in asking about what is now Eric_Sanicola; in the course of discussion, they (entirely predictably) proved to be Mr Sanicola, who had written the entire thing himself. (Not grounds for rejection itself, but not a good start). We gave him the usual spiel - references not reliable or mention him only in passing, notability is not infectious, etc. - but at the end of the discussion, User:Coolboygcp pops in for some other purpose and says "sure, I'll approve it"... and did.

This seems to me to be quite contrary to the reviewing instructions - and frankly, it seems a little futile to hang around in the help channel explaining the need for good references if someone else will come in and approve articles with junk references.

I attempted to discuss this with User:Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled; a flat denial that there was anything wrong with the article. On checking further, their contribs consist of a series of AFC approvals many of which seem dubious, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association I am not the only editor to have an issue with them.

I'm seeking advice on what should be done next. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are certainly some highly questionable accepts among User:Coolboygcp's contribs. Apart from this, has the user been asked (on-Wiki) on be more careful and pointed in the direction of the reviewing guidelines? Pol430 talk to me 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I got a flat denial on IRC that there was any kind of problem. IRC does tend to make people terse, but if you agree that there is an issue, I would be grateful if you (or someone else) would bring it up on-Wiki; I appreciate a sanity check that I'm not overreacting. I observe the Eric Sanicola article has been CSDed. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're overreacting, but I don't think the Eric Sanicola article is the worst of them (CSD has been declined). I'd rather someone else took them in hand, a third opinion won't hurt and I've already raised one editor's AfC work at AN/I today – I don't want to earn a reputation :P Pol430 talk to me 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow.

I had no idea that there were this many editors interested in my contributions.

Additionally, when I read the quote: "I attempted to discuss this with Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled:", I proceeded to laugh hysterically. I did no "stonewall" Pinkbeast, in any way whatsoever.

When I corresponded with him/her, I provided several reasons as to why I approved the Eric Sanicola article. I truly cannot comprehend why he/she would fabricate such an accusation and story about me. However, Pinkbeast has repeatedly threatened me on the mentioned IRC channel several time. Threats such as, "if you upload that image, I will delete it", and I will report you if you upload that image, as well as "I will report you for even thinking about creating that article". Additionally, he/she has repeatedly misinformed dozens of editors and users who come to the IRC channel in order to seek useful, and proper advice and help, who instead receive misinformation and incorrect instructions among other worrisome advice.

In fact, I would advise that Pinkbeast has exhibited very much more worrisome, and detrimental behavior and conduct. Coolboygcp (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

CB: Please feel free to show equivilant examples of Pinkbeast's disruptive behavior/content. Your behavior on the other hand causes problems, both for volunteers and the project as a whole. Your article approvals could cause editors and admins to have to edit the newly minted article and potentially have to go through the process of deleting it, having to sort out a policy morass, or potentially opens the foundation to liability. I'm saying this as nicely as possible, be extra careful with your approvals due to the fact that previous approvals have been questioned. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These accusations are false. If there is any doubt about that, I would suggest contacting other users of that channel to see if their clients keep sufficient scrollback; I believe any of User:gwickwire, User:TheOriginalSoni, User:Huon, or User:Yngvadottir might do so. For the avoidance of doubt, I am completely happy to have any comment I addressed on-channel to User:Coolboygcp, or any comment to anyone similar to those above, made public.

The only discussion I have had with User:Coolboygcp about images is that I declined to upload a non-free image for them, responding that "I can't really see that there is much justification for using a nonfree image there" (direct quote) after quoting the Wikimedia Commons guidance on non-free images verbatim.Pinkbeast (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've lightly interacted with Coolboygcp in the past. The direct interaction between us was minimal, and if there was, I dont have a strong memory or a log of it. What I do carry is an impression of him trying to help others, though giving quite a few wrong advices. Based on only that impression I carry from there (which I think were based on some articles he was involved in), I think he might make a good reviewer if nudged properly. I think a mandatory adoption for him before he can continue reviewing articles might be sufficient.

Also, IMO IRC interactions have a lot better chance of actually generating a positive response and actually solving the problem than escalating the issue, which I've often found on-wiki interactions do. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Looking through his declines, and his assurances that nothing is wrong, when many of his reviews clearly are, anyone willing to support an attempt to get a topic ban? Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through some of his approvals and am the one that nominated the article that brought this up for CSD, which was declined, and subsequently nominated for AfD by myself, which at my last check had only one other person with a Delete nomination and no Keeps. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be best, but I'm not exactly unbiased here. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

They're still at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history is an approval of an AFC which took a whole five hours to get G11ed! Pinkbeast (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure IRC is the best way to communicate to people about what they might be doing wrong. Suggesting improvements or problems to people on their user talk pages leaves a record, which can be very helpful for anyone coming with subsequent problems. (It also eliminates pointless disputes like the above about what has been said.) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree; I just happened to see him pop up there while I was thinking about it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from reviewing AfC submissions for a period of three months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• There comes a time perhaps where some reviewers should be asked to cease reviewing, at least for a while, such as in the past we have had to ask patrollers to stop patrolling new pages. A polite request rather than a formal topic ban may be sufficient. Like many meta areas, AfC is one that attracts many relatively new and/or inexperienced editors. This has always been a thorn in the side of the AfC process which often requires an admin level of knowledge of inclusion policies. I am absolutely not advocating that only admins should review the pages - there is backlog enough - but some campaign to attract truly experienced editors to the task would probably not go unrewarded. Nothing will change much however until the Foundation comes up with a decent landing page for new users / new, new-page creators. Concurring with DGG, transparecy is required for discussions and IRC is not followed by any means by everyone. Some of us do not use it at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose We have one example here, an AFC approval which has now survived AFD. Before topic banning anyone we should be looking at enough diffs to form a pattern, and that pattern would need to indicate a problem. But if an editor's judgement has been born out by the article surviving AFD then it is the rest of the AFC community who have got this one wrong. Note I'm not proposing that Pinkbeast be topic banned from AFC simply for this one case where he declined an AFC submission that went on to pass AFD, I'm hoping that that is an isolated mistake and a learning experience. But there is something deeply wrong with the AFC process when it is regarded as controversial that someone approves an AFC that goes on to survive AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article was improved enormously (by someone else) while the AFD process was going on; the version that was approved was essentially uncited and bears little resemblance to the one people were commenting on later in the AFD process. This is not the only example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_1&oldid=551942369#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association (expunged from talkpage history)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history (G11ed within eight hours)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Construction_Contracts (notability? And the article is basically a pointless list of stuff.)

These are likely not the only ones, just what a quick trawl finds. I think a more compelling argument for opposing is that the editor appears to have stopped doing it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, addendum, I have never in my life declined (or accepted) an AFC submission. But if I had declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Sanicola&oldid=551199625 I feel I would have been right to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Copied to ANI here Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think some of his approvals are questionable, however we need a more thorough investigation before doing anything rash. I have started a thread at the WP:ANI, and have copied our discussion here as well as adding my own comments. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also informed everyone involved in this discussion via the ANI template. I hope this is due diligence - I even notified myself. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ummm... I think I said all I had to say in that AfC discussion and had thought this issue was closed. Echo me if you need clarification of what I had said, but otherwise I've nothing further to add at this time. (I'm not monitoring this discussion as I would rather stay away from ANI right now but will check back in a "few" days). Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - While there does seem to be a problem, its too premature to throwing around topic bans yet. There needs to be further discussion, and a longer pattern of troubling decisions, before that is warranted to be discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would like the editor to voluntarily stop approving AFC's right now, based on their poor history. If they refuse to do it, then I will 100% support a 3 month topic ban (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in general against a topic ban on Coolboygcp because I think its neccesary that we try to approach him directly and help him understand the reviewer functions more before trying anything of this sort. We need more reviewers, and not less, and AGF, I believe, coolboygcp's intentions are good. Maybe we ought to suggest him to be adopted by another experienced reviewer before he actively reviews articles again? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose á la flying off the handle with this one. Basket _Feudalist 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support: Coolboygcp does, judging by the diffs that have been posted here and his response here, not have the competence/maturity needed for the job, and should be stopped before he causes even more damage to WP. Thomas.W (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Bwilkins, I also think they can think of voluntarily stopping AFC review for sometime (2—3 weeks?), in addition they should be more careful in future, but, I don't support the "Topi ban" right now! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance. I'm not seeing any sign of Coolboygcp realizing their acceptances were problematic, and I see recent creation of two articles of their own that have been deleted as non-notable, so I don't think they "get" the criteria yet. So rather than ask them - again - to hold off on accepting any more articles at AfC for a while, I think we'd better make that official: for a short time. They can always consult with someone else if they think an article is ready, and should be encouraged to do so. Making it official will send the message that they really do need to re-read and internalize the criteria (including, for example, checking for copyvio in the obvious places). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just AFC that's the problem...

• Support per User_talk:Coolboygcp/Archive_4#Please_stop_moving_articles_into_mainspace. Copyvios, plainly non-notable articles, and articles that were recreated in the same state after being deleted at AfD. That was only a small subset. They weren't all AFC submissions, some were userspace drafts that the user took it upon themseslves to move into mainspace. When I redirected the unsourced non-notable article, the editors response was to tell another editor that I was "some random vandal" [93]. And then, personally, created an article for a fictional recipe in an episode of a TV program. Here you go - have another completely unsourced list of dubious notability. Unsourced BLP anyone?. This one is not only a G11 but also a G12 ... etc, etc, etc. A topic ban per WP:CIR is required here. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• SupportPer BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment He also seems to be committing copyvios. A great portion of this text is pasted straight from here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• BLP vio [94] unsourced accusations against a BLP. This is a copyvio from here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note That copyvio was made with the creation of the page back in 2007. [95] It is not the editor's fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Editor's competency is clearly insufficient to continue reviewing AfCs and their behaviour so far shows me that they don't seem to take well intentioned advice onboard. Indeed, their responses show a certain combativeness that leads me to suggest they won't stop voluntarily. This, taken into consideration with the evidence of introducing copyvios, makes a topic ban entirely justified IMO. Pol430 talk to me 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per WP:CIR and the editor's demonstrated unwillingness to take good advice on board. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC).
• Support a topic ban per Black Kite. For whatever reason, this is clearly not a user who has the judgement to participate in AFC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite and Bishonen, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - If Arbcom requires intermediate steps of dispute resolution before considering the sanctioning of an editor, why do we so routinely see calls for sanctions here when nothing of an equivalent is considered. This is RFC/U material, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. It is reasonable to insist that users who are involved in reviewing AFC contributors' work -- and giving advice to those contributors -- show an awareness of and willingness to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This user's record at AFC, the incidents described here, and the WP:BLP/WP:NPOV/WP:V violations I found when reviewing the user's recent edit history (diff) lead me to conclude that this user is not currently qualified to evaluate the main-space acceptability of other users' contributions. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Commenting so this unresolved discussion won't get archived. (The user hasn't edited in several days and this discussion has gotten quiet.) --Orlady (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support When I read the title "AfC User's Rash Approvals", I thought let me report coolyboygcp here and voila, whole discussion is about him. When I had noticed him sometime back, he not only approved "yet not ready" articles, but went ahead and gave "B" ratings on quality scale to the Stubs.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose -- this started off as a dispute about afc & now it has turned into a "shitstorm" of "everybody-hates-coolboygcp".

first: the discussion has been split by what seems to be an unnecessary subsection, which makes it more difficult to tally opinions; that needs to get sorted out.

second: this started off as a discussion about coolboygcp's actions in afc, NOT as a "general-complaint" about said user. IF we want to convert it to a general complaint about the competence/merits/etc. of the user, then let's do so openly (rename/restart the topic, revise the suggested sactions accordingly). IF NOT, then let's please try to stay on-topic? right now the cat & the kitchen sink are competing for attention in this discussion, & i breathlessly await the next startling revelation from this user's sordid history.

whereas, if you look @ the user's overall contributions, it actually doesn't look like the antichrist has come to wikipedia (yet?)

third: some of the "excitement" in this discussion needs to cool down. there's nothing this user is doing that is vandalizing or irrevocably harming the project; we can afford to take a little bit longer, reaching a decision here. given the agitation & strong feelings of some of the commentors, perhaps we should seek a wider range of opinions within the community before reaching a decision?

(i'd also like to know how many people were "social-networked" into the discussion)

fourth: while i may not agree with some of the cited editorial decisions by coolboygcp, i think that a topic ban (or any other, broader sanction) would be an OVER-REACTION.

this started off as a squabble @ afc; absent some urgent problem, or persistent edit-warring, it shouldn't have been brought here.

there are plently of (you should pardon the expression) "hard-ass" editors @ wikipedia, who freely vote "no" to most new contributions & "yes" to most deletions; they get along just fine & seldom face sanctions for their actions, except for the most severe abuses.

this editor is perhaps a bit too permissive, but there's no "severe abuse" at hand & they shouldn't face any worse sanction than a comparable editor who is excessive "in the other direction". when we start to hand out tougher sanctions for "deletionist" zealotry, then we can revisit this case.

right now, there aren't enough "inclusionists" @ wikipedia & this editor isn't doing any harm. you'll note that (at least) one of the cited "rash approvals" that sparked this argument has survived DR.

that said; if anybody can build a real case for the actions of this editor being or becoming harmful (or at least egregiously incompetent) to the project, i'll reconsider my vote. right now it just looks like a local spat @ the afc sub-project, that's turned into a "pile-on" here.

i'll finish by c&p'ing my comment from the original discussion @ afc; other parts of which have already been copied above

"*Oppose with all due respect, simply not liking or not agreeing with another editor's decisions is insufficient grounds for a ban. Lx 121 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)"

endrant

Lx 121 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

post-script: as per somebody else's comment (either here or @ afc) it's not really good or useful to cite an irc chat, when nobody else has access to the text. Lx 121 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lx, I'd like to WP:TLDR that entire rant. But, since I read it, I can't do that. So I shall respond. This is not (in a major sense) an ideological debate between inclusionism and deletionism. (full disclosure: I am a precisionist.) This is an incident involving an AfC reviewer flying in the face of article guidelines. Also, you provided no evidence for your contention that there are editors who abuse the process the other way. And even if they did, that should not be evidence to end this dispute. Sanctions should be issued to the (theoretical) deletionist abusers as they should be issued here. TheOneSean | Talk to me 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

oppose - I'm not sure that its' fair to ban someone simply for having a different threshold of notability than you. He isn't breaching policy exactly, He is simply approving articles that someone else could in good faith not approve. Both perspectives are reasonable. Personally, I would never even think to make something like Australian Construction Contracts which is frankly almost lethally tedious but the article is well cited and well referenced. If his standards are dramatically out sync or out of whack with 99% of the community's, that's a cause for mentorship or advice, not for just banning from a vital responsibility solely because of one potential slip up (re: Eric Sanicola, an article that actually looks pretty good despite the hyperbolic assertions made elsewhere). DrPhen (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366 at Narendra Modi

Mrt3366 has recently begun contributing at Narendra Modi. Are this edit summary & comment this edit summary and a lot of the stuff here really necessary? I did try to deal with it but was brushed off. Although there has been some heated debate in recent weeks, we have generally managed to keep a lid on things until the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• And can someone else notify Mrt3366, please? I am persona non grata on their talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)ANI is not the appropriate venue for this. Do you want me to get blocked or banned? If not, then this is admin shopping. Before he came here I initiated a discussion seeking his explanation. He shrugged it off and came here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you know that I shrugged something off. What I want is for some uninvolved people to take a look at what seems to berather pugnacious editing by you on that article and its talk page. As I said, things were actually being discussed quite reasonably (the specific section about POV aside) until your arrival. The temperature has suddenly risen and given that this is (i) about a controversial politician, (ii) a BLP, and (iii) potentially one of those awkward Hindu vs Muslim situations that often spiral out of control, it seems sensible to see if something needs doing sooner rather than later. I can't even discuss it with you on your talk page and the article talk page is really not the right place to discuss behavioural things. I'm no prude but shouting out "fucking" in an edit summary that mentions Hindus and Muslims is something that sorta catches the eye, seems unnecessary and perhaps should be revdel'd even if the actual content of your edit is considered to be reasonable & thus reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment MrT is a sometimes passionate editor and gets a little carried away, he does on the other hand stick to NPOV quite well. And saying "fucking" is not a violation of any policy I know given Wikipedia is not censored. I would ask MrT to allow you to post to his talk page so that the two of you can discuss the issue there and should that fail, return here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of him sticking to NPOV quite well? two weeks ago he ws editwarring to insert a claim that Kashmiri Pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race sourced to a 200 year old book. Today he is removing a POV tag from an article that glorifies a hindutva politician during an ongoing discussion of neutrality concerns. I dont think he even knows what WP:NPOV says.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would not ask MrT to allow Sitush on their talk page because I can understand why someone may not want Sitush on their talk page. Perhaps they could discuss things on Sitush's talk page or some other talk page, if it needs discussion at all ...OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Sitush on this. While the f-word is not by itself a problem, this sort of edit summary indicates that Mrt is approaching the article in a less than salubrious way. Regardless, I think a warning and closing this thread is the best action here. --regentspark (comment) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's a fucking good idea. Basket _Feudalist 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Warning MrT for what and what do you want to warn him? Closing the thread is a better idea though.-sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning him that India/Pakistan topics are covered by discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom and that he could be blocked if he continues exhibiting biased editing and intemperate language in edit summaries or elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 11:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Has he shown biased editing? I am sure you have seen other issues on the page of Modi here at ANI, you did not call that bias editing, coming to the edit summary I am sure if you dig out you might find not so good edit summaries on the page of Modi. You can close this ANI though, if you want we can ask MrT to tone down his edit summary if it was that offending.-sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It is natural for a Pakistani POV guy to fail to see anti Modi bias even if it exists, but see pro Modi bias/problems even where there is usually no cause for concern.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure who is this Pakistani POV guy you are referring to, everyone commented here commented are pretty reasonable and if you are referring to RP then I strongly disagree. Can an admin close this thread. I don't think it is going anywhere, lest it turns into a slugfest.-sarvajna (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why should a warning be given to Mr.T? A warning should be given only if his introduction of any lines was found to be a POV. Unless that has been established by consensus, how is his editing being considered biased? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The comments, edit summaries, and edits of MrT show that he just wants to display what wrong the "Muslims" did. This may be a violation and breach of Wikipedia policies. The editors should take in account WP:POV. That's all. Faizan 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What POV in it? Those are facts. Do you wanna say those numbers are wrong? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about facts, whatever they might be. Rather, this edit summary Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were FUCKING BURNT TO DEATH by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims. is extremely problematic. More of this sort of thing and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Again, I suggest that we warn Mrt that this is not acceptable and move on. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok read this Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were burnt to death by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims., if you remove the f-word then I don't see any issues at all.I don't see any reason why he should be warned, like I said before this is not a first dispute that is resulting in an ANI and somehow you think that this was wrong.Close it if you want.-sarvajna (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I met Mrt3366 a few weeks ago when he was editwarring against multiple editors to insert a claim that "Kashmiri pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race" a standard Hindutva propaganda claim which he sourced to a 200 year old book. When I reached out politely at his talkpage to let him know that he was about to breach 3rr this was the reply[96]. Now he is continuing the same pov pushing at Narendra Modi where he is joined by a few other likeminded editors trying to keep critical information out of the article about the Hindu National politician. I think a round of topic bans are in order, someone clearly are having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality. Mrt3366 also clearly has a hard time accepting critical messages on his talkpage instead flying off the handle[97], but this is a kind of communication that is vital for wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is someone who is "having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality" then it must be you for sure. Your edits to the page/talk page are clear testimony of that. Also if you know even a bit about Hindutva thing then you will know that they do not support the theory of Aryan race, you still need to do some research in that field I think. -sarvajna (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to you I have a long history of editing things that have nothing to do with Hinduism or Indian policy. I dont have a POV on this topic, but I recognize propaganda when I see it. In fact it is only this last month that I came to the topics and discovered their dire state. And your claim about aryanism not being espoused by Hindutva is of course wrong, they exactly propose the theory that there was no Aryan invasion but that the Aryan race and the Indo-European languages originated in the subcontinent. Im a little surprised you wouldnt know this yourself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So what, yes I edit articles related to India, that is what interests me, I need not edit other articles to show that I am neutral also coming to the point about aryanism they don't believe in the theory that there were people called Dravidans and the theory that aryans came to India and pushed natives to south India is not something that they accept. So the whole point of considering just Kashmiri Pandits as the purest form of aryans is not some Hindutva thing.One more point, the dispute here is not MrT pushing material against consensus like you were trying to do, the dispute here is whether his language in the edit summary is proper or not -sarvajna (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to push any material as you well know, I was trying to tag the article for its obvious lack of neutrality and start a discussion about how to make it conform to NPOV. As for your claims about Aryanism they are contradicted by sources like these:[98][99][100] which describe the racialist element in hindutva thought. The topic here is Mrt editing aggressively in collaboration with a group of povpushers trying to own articles related to hinduism and make them conform to their own viewpoint.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my concern is Mrt's pugnacity and the way that has almost immediately raised the temperature from warm to uncomfortably hot. We were generally getting along ok together until their arrival. The edit summary is one part of that but not the whole. He has been combative from the outset seemingly because he thinks I am not trying to usefully develop the article and am hiding my POV by committing many small edits etc (at least, that forms part of his rationale in the last of my three links above). - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

So was there any discussion started when the disagreement began? To be honest I am still not able to understnd the reason why we are here, Sitush, disagreements happen and people might not have the same style as you do. Taking people to ANI because you did not had your way or because you did not like how they did things might not be the right approach.-sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

See my 09:38 above. I am not here because I have not got my "own way". I want uninvolved people to look at this, not you or Maunus or OrangesRyellow (who is pretty much always involved with niggling commentary whenever my name crops up here, rather like another user with a fruit-y name once was). Without input from uninvolveds, we are just going to go round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, however you have tried to involve more people [101], [102] .-sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And your point is? I went to Boing! before Mrt posted the last-linked item above and with the knowledge that Boing! had just posted a message in another thread here & thus was active. There was no response from Boing prior to Mrt escalating things further and I had good reason to believe that Boing may have gone away. So I came here. I could have come here straight away but I was trying to keep the drama down. If Mrt had not posted that last comment, I might still have been waiting for Boing now but it seemed obvious to me that he (Mrt) was getting still more worked up. Happy now? - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• With due respect to everybody, I think nobody likes to apologize or to be warned, when they have done nothing wrong but still I have been accused of exhibiting "pugnacity" and it's time I said something about it. If somebody's emotions are hurt because of the valid edit which elaborated (with a reference) how a mob of 2000 Muslims burnt alive 58 helpless Hindu pilgrims, then I am profoundly amazed. If somebody doesn't like my usage of the word "fucking", then I ask others to close this discussion ASAP; it is not the right venue to discuss user conduct. There are other venues to discuss user-conduct. Having said that, I am sorry that any of this is happening at all. Let's close this damn thing and move the discussions to relevant pages. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fucking get on wiv it then Basket _Feudalist 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not looking to get involved here, but I feel the need to point out that user conduct is indeed discussed here (although RFC/U is equally appropriate; it just depends on whether you want sanctions or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Pointing out that User:Ratnakar.kulkarni have now removed a pov tag three times from the article (just today) with no other rationale that he doesnt agree that the article is biased. These are the editors who are accusing me of pov pushing, "mischief" and "aggresive editing". Could we get some fucking admin attention here already? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, you dont get to come and cry here begging for admins. The real problem here is that you simply want the POV tag stayed there on the top of the article. There is absolutely no action from your side to remove it. You have been asked n number of times of what exactly is POVy and what you think should be written instead. But instead of commenting on the content you are being very very fond of this mud throwing at other editors. Its been 24 hours since i have asked you to come up with your version of non-POVy lead. But here you are playing blame game instead. In that vaguely worded RFC you raised you are asking for other editors to come and see if the article is POV. Why will they do that? You think its POVy, you say it why it is. When i said this last time to you, you resorted on personal attacks. Not surprised by that; Chesterton says that people generally quarrel because they cannot argue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because it gets anonoying after having spent three weeks descirbing in detail what the pov problems are and how the article doesnt conform to policy that idiots like you keep saying "so say what the pov problem is". It is pretty difficult to talk to people who are simply not willing to listen. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• How odd. How could anyone deny that this edit here is of a promotional kind? "In 1967, he volunteered to serve the people of Gujarat who were affected by the flood"--sourced to the subject's own website. The additional detail on the 2002 massacre appears to be inserted here to rally anti-Muslim sentiment (58 against 2000); the numbers add nothing to the article's subject. And then Ratnaker has the gumption, after all this promotional stuff was added, to remove a perfectly valid POV tag. I think an ArbCom-enforced slap on the wrist for Mr. T and Ratnaker is in order. And Basket Feudalist, if you got nothing useful to say, then just stay out of it. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely the numbers do not add anything, but don't you have any issues with the other numbers given there? that post train burning killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. If you really cared to see the talk page you will see that I have started discussion on those things. Unlike few other editors who just want the POV tag, I am rather trying to resolve the disputes.-sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Solving the dispute by editwarring and slandering others....Thatll work....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Drmies, the edit does appear to be promotional in the sense that it employs the phrase "to serve the people of Gujarat", but there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for something non-controversial that is not unduly self-serving. The text would have been alright had it simply stated the fact that 'he volunteered during the floods' and so on... and it would have been better had the fact been corroborated through a secondary source. The same paragraph that you point you details the fact that among those dead there were 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. Does that equally seem to prove an anti-Hindu sentiment? I would like to see some unbiased commentary here please from an apparently uninvolved administrator. I would further like to understand your rationale behind the proposal to sanction Ratnakar. Please do elaborate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Edit warring, related to the tag. There is a big difference between saying there were 790 victims of faith X and 254 of faith Y, on the one hand, and saying that a mob of 2000 Muslims burned 25 women and 15 children, on the other. It's called rhetoric, and it's pretty obvious what this is supposed to accomplish. Helping flood victims and all is nothing encyclopedically unless rigorously verified to be non-trivial. You can send a $10 check and write it up in your autobiography. It is not easy to judge whether this is unduly self-serving, but it certainly is self-serving, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Given that Modi is a high-level politician and a former pracharak (propagandist working for the RSS), who is known to be reluctant to talk about some of his early involvements and to have pulled the plug on attempts to write an official biography, I think it reasonable to assume that anything he says about his background etc on his website is self-serving and any source that relies on it is also thus. Nick and I do not see eye-to-eye regarding this, nor about the use of op-eds to contrive neutrality, but while I might give a little on the latter, I'm sticking to my guns on the former: Modi's self-published biography is not acceptable for anything much other than his date of birth, religious affiliation and nationality. Mrt3366 only needed to read some still-visible threads on the talk page to understand the contentious nature of some of his recent edits: he should have continued to discuss, not forced the issue in such a heavy-handed manner. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, I am actually amenable to what you have said regarding the particular assertion and using the primary source above and I am happy to discuss content on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Mrt3366 was involved in a discussion where you pronounced that using the above WP:SPS for an almost-identical statement was ok. From that he may well have been encouraged to make a contribution based on that dodgy source. Like it or not, I think that even many experienced editors (me included) do tend to have a subconscious "they're an admin so I'm alright doing as they say" mentality. On this one, you were way off-base, as I suspect you have been on a few other content pronouncements relating to that article. You know that you are fallible but did Mrt3366? He is responsible for his own action, of course, but it is all a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sitush, you are misrepresenting my position again. The other discussion was altogether different where there were secondary sources available to corroborate the primary source. Please review the discussion again. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That page is such a mess now that I can't even be bothered trying to work out who said what and when. I'll take your word for it and apologise. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment is the latest in a long line of combative comments and edits made by Mrt3366 in the last few hours. He's probably exceed 3RR anyway but will someone please give him a break. He needs to calm down. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor behaviourial issues

• I have recently reported Maunus's less than productive behaviour on this page when he went on a campaign to canvass for support on several Wikiproject pages without due regard to their relevance. Their aggressive mode of editing and commentary is counter-productive to any form of dispute resolution on the article talk page. I think that any form of sanction should equally apply to users who indulge in unnecessarily combative behaviour to bully, intimidate and harass other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And that would of course include your twinkle reversion of my first edit to the page[103] (a clear violation of WP:VANDAL which should cost you your access to automated editing tools) and your subsequent unmotivated threats on my talkpage[104]. You know that your accusations of canvassing are unfounded (advertsising an RfC on project pages is NOT canvassing), and your accusations of bullying are gooing to boomerang right back on your own ass. So I think you should shut up with that right about now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, reverting your edit using Twinkle was a one-off mistake. As a courtesy, I left a message on your talk page asking you to discuss prior to making substantive changes to the lead section (even when cited). The rationale behind the reversion is available in my comments. You also appear to have gotten into a habit of clearing out your talk page each time you have an uncomfortable discussion takes place, mostly cases where other users highlight your less than ideal behaviour. Perhaps you should take time to read what you write and reflect upon that. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how many one-off mistakes like that I could find if I perused your editing history. Yes I archive my talkpage regularly - is that a problem? As for my "less than ideal behavior" look at your self in a mirror. I have met few more arrogant admins and admins with less clue about policy. As for your "courteous message", perhaps you could take time to read what you wrote and reflect upon how it looks in the relation to WP:OWN and WP:CHILL. You do not have the right to request from anyone to discuss before they edit, and an edit not having been discussed is not a valid rationale for reverting, not even when not using automated tools. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop treating Wikipedia like your personal playground. You cannot simply decide to barge in on an article and make substantive changes to the lead section without discussing on the talk page first. Please extend some courtesy to other editors if you expect them to extend the same to you. Or perhaps, given your recent experience on the project where you had to give up your admin tools, you no longer believe in civil discussion? The fact is that you edited the article to make inappropriate inclusions to the lead section and I reverted you and left a message on your talk page (which appears to be that of an SPA) informing you that a reversion had taken place and that you were invited to discuss the matter on the talk page in the spirit of WP:BRD. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No? Honestly you call yourself a wikipedian administrator and you think one has to ask permission before adding reliably sourced material to the lead of an article. How the hell did you pass an RfA? And dont talk about courtesy to me: Your first courtesy to me was a threat and a claim of ownership, since then youve graduated to lies and false accusation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to leave this diff here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

/edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A few other one-off mistakes: [105][106][107][108][109] Here is your admission[110] that you know [[User:Kondi] personally. User Kondi who showed up out of nowhere[111] to remove the pov tag that you dont like on the clearly biased BLP article which he had never edited before. Could be a coincidence I guess. But on the other hand perhaps you are not the one to be accusing me of canvassing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it is you who is clueless about policy after all. Or perhaps in the spate of zealousness you forgot to review the cited diffs properly. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They are all reversions of good faith inclusions of cited material with only an automated editsummary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To whomsoever it may concern: I would request you to examine the pages and the changes made carefully along with the corresponding talk pages of the users reverted. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I made a personal attack which I later removed. If you are so keen that people see it i can repeate it here and save "whomseoever" the trouble to go through my editing history. /edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Maunus for 48 as a result of his repeated personal attacks. -- Y not? 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: To return to the supposed subject of this discussion. MrT, I've spent a little time reviewing his contribs over the past couple of weeks and I think it is obvious that he has problems with NPOV over a whole range of articles that involve Hindu-Muslim conflicts. Uninvolved admins should step in before it gets to be an even bigger problem than it has been so far. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly aren't new to Wikipedia. Did you accidently get signed out? (For about an hour or so and still didn't notice!!) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I just don't edit that much any more, and even when I used to it was back in the time when we mainly used IPs, and I'm old-fashioned. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I tend to avoid it because of the POV-battles that are such a feature nowadays, and drive away editors -- which is why I strongly recommend uninvolved admins take a look at MrT. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor (Sitush) behaviourial issues

Sitush is being a real pain at the Talk:Narendra Modi. He is picking trivial stuff and making huge issues out of it. Once or twice was okay. Its good to have best in the article. But he is nibbling every line and arguing on it with every editor. The article is not in GA/FA review and doesn't need so much of strict reviewing. Few examples.

• The article previously said "During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Modi, who was then a teenager, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations." Sitush added a "clarification needed" stating that it was a very vague. We had a huge discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Serving_soldiers_in_1965 on firstly how the term "serve" was sufficiently concise enough for a biography. Then he said it comes from self-published source and wasn't reliable. When presented with multiple third party reliable sources he insisted on what exactly did he serve as. After a whole day of discussion with 3-4 editors finally he was happy to know that Modi served "snacks and tea"; which was the mostly likely guess and didn't need such a huge debate. But whats the result? The line is now finally removed anyways.
• Next day he questioned one of the quotes of the subject, saying that the quote "makes no sense". (NOTE: He did not say that the quote makes no sense in context but said that the quote itself makes no sense.) Thankfully we had a very small discussion here at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Weird_quote which he hasn't replied to. (I don't think he is happy with the discussion. He has simply forgotten about it because he is busy causing other disturbances. )
• Next he picked on Mrt3366's (Mr.T) usage of phrase "Godhra Train Massacre". He object and debated on it and wanted it to be "Godhra train burning". When Mr.T presented various third party independent reliable sources that use "massacre" or "carnage", he came up with some silly reason of how google gives different results in different location and that his UK version didn't give much results that used these words. (The incident is the one that happened in India in 2002, 55 years after India got freedom from UK and has no known connection with UK at all.)
• Then he complained about the Google+ crash incident. He objected on the line "The chat was schedule to start at 20:00 IST, but began 45 minutes late because of the reported crash of Google+ due to the response." because he thinks it is a PR stunt. After giving various references, the line is still anyways removed from the article because he doesn't trust these newspapers like Business Line (part of The Hindu group) and Zee News and others.
• He then debated on use of two references to cite one and same point when its perfectly okay to use multiple sources for one and the same thing.
• Long back we had discussed on the line "He is a crowd-puller as a speaker." Sitush had objected on inclusion of this line firstly because he says its just the opinion of that one particular writer (POV) and secondly that every politician is a crowd puller. I presented to him a newspaper report of how one major politician was not able to get enough crowd and it was felt worthy of noting as a news by one newspaper. To comment on his POV doubt, we presented various reports that called Modi crowd-puller. The discussion did not conclude and hence i finally added multiple sources by bundling them together to avoid CITEKILL. He reverted that addition saying that it was ridiculous.
• He is also seen moving edits of other editors on talk pages [112].
• When Mr.T posted a huge commented on his reversion of edits on talk page at 08:43, 16 May 2013, he instead submitted this complaint about Mr.T here at 08:56, 16 May 2013.
• And you would think that he is such a nice boy being so particular about right usage of words. But no! When Mr.T proposed using exact figures of people killed in 2002 violence, he instead reverted him and added a vague sentence of "Many people were killed".
• He still continues on talk page "wondering who pays the Supreme Court judges!" demeaning India's system as compared with UK's; calling various stuff in the article as gibberish; indirectly calling Modi a male prostitute and various other things.^diff

All these edits of Sitush are just to agitate other editors. He knows that it works well. He knows that Mr.T gets short tempered and would violate WP:3RR and then he can be blocked. He also knows that i have for various times abandoned editing such articles where someone is simply playing in a puddle and throwing dirt. That is also true with various other editors and not just me. He is using all these strategies to irritate us all.
I propose that he be topic banned from editing this and other related articles. He may choose any of his buddy-editors to edit the article instead of him; you know if he is really very caring about the readers and Wikipedia and such moral stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am reluctant to believe that Sitush is making these edits to agitate other editors! The first one "clarification needed"— I also feel expansion was needed there! Which railway stations? Did he volunteer during whole war period or any specific period? Did he work as a member of any volunteering group/religious/political organization? About Godhra Train Massacre>>Godhra train burning, the Wikipedia article is titled Godhra train burning! I have not checked other points you have mentioned! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh of course! We should also mention his working hours, was it raining or scorching heat on those days, how many more people helped him, what he used to wear then, how did he communicate with soldiers, did he knew Hindi or English then, or did he use sign languages to get their orders, what types of teas he used to serve and what in snacks, did he serve the spicy ones or medium one, did he wear gloves before serving and tie his hair properly, VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS!!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your answer does not require a reply as it teases back itself! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Still a reply below! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• "edits to agitate other editors!" - I myself don't believe Sitush is editing this way only to spite other editors.
  Moving on, if you wish to know more about "Godhra Train Massacre>>Godhra train burning" then I urge you to go through the spiral discussions on the talk or we may just use common sense or if you want to know my views click here. That's all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Post script to that, my comment should not be used to mean that the points Dharmadhyaksha is presenting as the issues, are in anyway false. His conclusions might not be agreeable but the points are verifiable. I would not like to be involved in this any further. Thank you all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Dharmadhyaksha, initially it was good to clarify his doubts but now he seems to see issue with every word.I do not know the real intention of Sitush behind his nitpicking but I see that lot of editors are agitated and irritated due to to his current behavior, he has very stong opinions about the subject and most of the times think that everything is a PR stunt of the subject or it is somekind of POV that is being added by editors.-sarvajna (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Much of what is said above, and in particular the opening exposition by Dharmadhyaksha, is a misrepresentation of things that I have done or is mind-reading. To take just the first point as an example, the statement related to a war of 1965 between India & Pakistan and it was sourced to Modi's self-published biography. I raised the issue of what "served soldiers at railway stations" meant due to the lack of context, ie: served in what capacity? It was eventually determined that Modi had served tea to them, as opposed to being, say, a shoe-cleaner, batman or a male prostitute. So, the statement became something like "served tea to soldiers". That it was subsequently removed is something that I that I had mooted (it is a minor point and arguably self-serving) but was not my doing and had support from others. The thread that Dharmadyaksha links explains pretty much all of this.

  I'd rather one of the above actually explained what their specific problem is here because at present it looks like an exposition of various content disputes. Or is the claim that I am editing in a tendentious manner, ie: that I am similar in style to Mrt3366, who is repeatedly raising certain issues in new threads and even here, such as whether we refer to something as a "train burning" or a "massacre"? - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! I have not studied all of the points, but see my post above and his immediate reply! Follow this, if keeping Modi's political activities in mind (read the political party as BJP), if I want to to learn did Modi serve for any political or religious volunteering group— RSS, BJP, will it be totally irrelevant, since it could well establish political activities of early days? The second question was— did Modi serve as volunteer during whole war period? From history, Atal Bihari Bajpayee joined Gandhi Ji's Quit India movement as a volunteer but only for few days, not from starting to ending and later was jailed for 23 days.Now, coming to L.K. Advani, though the story is unclear, some people alleged Advani was a member of the team who assassinated Gandhi (ref or search in Google). Whether he was there or not, surely Advani was not the head of team at that time and his activities surely had been minimum. Now, these two examples (actually there are more..) show that some political leaders worked as volunteers in their early days, but those were not very remarkable/ were for brief period. Now read again the question— did Modi serve as volunteer during whole war period or a brief period? Note, the point, he did not even attempt or ask me to clarify the questions I asked and .. (see his reply).. --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you really want to say? There information of Modi serving army men is supported by RSs, if you want to learn more you are free to do research. Was he part of some volunteer group? the info is not provided in source. So what is the issue to write that he just served, obviously he was not a soldier.Also I do not know how helpful the whole Advani thing will be but just FYI, Advani is accused to be involved in a plot to kill Jinnah. Sitush, on what basis did you speculate that Modi would have been a male prostitute? Did Indian army used the services of male prostitutes or is Modi well known to be a male prostitute? It would be helpful if you can control your bias. -sarvajna (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is the bias in the "serve" issue, sarvajna? I just picked some random examples - he could have been serving ice-cream or playing tennis with them for all the sense that the statement made. Anyway, Is the allegation of bias the crux of this issue? I'm still trying to figure out what I am supposed to be defending myself against here, if anything. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in the serve issue, you speculating that Modi would have been a male prostitute is what I am saying. What was the basis for the speculation? because you wanted to be funny? because you think that Indian army use the service of male prostitute? -sarvajna (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who understands English knows that Sitush did not speculate any such thing. Competency is required. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

read this -sarvajna (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You'd do well to point at something specific; I'll do it for you: "as things stand we could as well mean that he served them as a male prostitute as a boot cleaner". If you think that that means that Sitush is speculating that Modi was a male prostitute, there's a serious lack of language competency. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My suspicion is comprehension underlies much of the angst that I seem to be generating, and I suggested an example of this yesterday. Perhaps I need to try to say things more simplistically. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you know there is a slight difference between "simple" and "simplistic"? The "angst" you seem to be generating has little to do with semantics and phraseology, your diction was at times truculent and provocative. Your way of editing was unilateral, autocratic, subsequent justifications for removing seemingly relevant edits (as well as my talk page comments) were whimsical and occasionally peremptory. You're again implicitly refusing to even admit that those who are speaking against your general behavior in this article, have any basis to do so. It seems as though you're trying to blame it on the incompetence of every single one of your detractors while precluding the possibility of your obstinacy over fairly minuscule things. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have the same impression as Dharmadhyaksha. I have been following the article and its talk page for some time. It is obvious that Sitush is constantly doing and saying things which would constitute blatant baiting (WP:BAIT}. He appears to be baiting MrT3366 in particular (who does not seem to understand how ridiculously common and succesful baiting is on WP, or what baiting is). I would urge that suitable action be taken to prevent Sitush from baiting others.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, Dharmadhyaksha is unclear about what exactly it is I am being charged with, sarvajna seems to be suggesting bias as being the issue and you are suggesting baiting. I seem to be causing an awful lot of different problems for different people, so perhaps it would be best to set up a formal call for a topic ban - D mentions it but has not set up a "yes"/"no" arrangement where people can support or oppose. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was wrong in writing this all. I did not realize this before. The more chance you give Sitush to speak, the fouler it starts getting. Please close this thread. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I really detest this (AN/I) venue and would not post in this thread unless a bizarre coincidence. Sitush today astonished me by his appearance on my user_talk without any previous interaction or other plausible pretext, and for the sole purpose of reiterating a nonsense accusation made by a third person (I presume the two are members of some clique). I did not try to determine how many other users experienced such intrusions, of which persons and in which numbers, but I have a feeling that it is something undesirable for Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd remove this is trolling but hey, here we are. For the record, Incnis Mrsi is pissed because they warned a user for "defacing" a user page after an honest mistake and then got even more pissed when I asked them to look carefully next time. Sitush happened to agree with me, hence the "clique" thing. It's on the user's talk page, if anyone is interested, where you'll also find this diff with a sneer against the editor who made the initial mistake, "I am really happy that English Wikipedia has so few people here like you, 76.189.109.155". Maybe someone should collapse this section. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW I have an impression that the user talk:Drmies page is used by the clique to coordinate attacks against disagreeable contributors. One can see how they discussed (and defamed) me there, without even notifying me, although I did not cross their paths except this single message at user talk: 76.189.109.155:

“ Don’t deface other’s User page. If you post to AN/I, then you are an experienced user and should understand that a User: page it is not the place for postings. ” — Incnis Mrsi 05:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC), diff

Believe me: I had no previous history of interaction with anyone of them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I know I said that I would not like to comment here, and I don't. I empathize fully with Incnis Mrsi, like others, I also didn't like Sitush's insinuation and baiting and everything. Didn't find it helpful at all. I don't believe that Sitush randomly chose to use "male prostitute" as one of the few possibilities. It seemed as though he was looking to instigate his opponent to say something unbecoming. Some flatly reject even the possibility that Sitush's way of inserting inferences, speculations and insinuations like "BJP hit squad might be sent to find him" (in response to merely a vague and inarticulate comment by Dharma), "BJP is affiliated with a known militant organisation" along with the anecdotal claim that BJP is trying to kill him and he is worried for his safety (see Talk:Narendra Modi#Serving soldiers in 1965), might reek of possible bias. Sitush is very good with words and his rationales for edits in this highly controversial article have been, at best, arbitrary and subjective. He has removed my comments altogether without even trying to discuss with me or others in the talk. Even after my repeated attempts to stop him (i.e. i asked him on the edit summaries that "don't DELETE my comment", "Don't delete my comment altogether, I didn't refactor your comment, I added proper date"), even then he bullishly kept on shifting my comments with arbitrary claims thereby mocking me. He went to complain against me to admin Salvio Giuliano (as opposed to other editors or admins who were already involved) instead of discussing on a thread in the talk. I later deemed it necessary to open a thread to discuss this otherwise trivial issue. Then he himself proved that he is not concerned about the problems he cited as excuses to delete or shift my comments (read the linked section). I felt indignant, It didn't help at all. But I do not believe his sole objective is to agitate other editors.
  Two sources (bundled) behind one statement is unacceptable to Sitush. He created a big fuss out of that too. Were it not for Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington I don't know where we would be with this article, the lion's share of credit goes to Nick for monitoring the article. I don't believe Sitush is done editing the article, one day Nick won't be around and then nobody could stop Sitush with all his mockery, chicanery and bullish edits. Read the talk, I attest to the points raised by Dharma, they are true. Nitpicking is fine once or twice, but persistently groping for excuses to maintain a neutrality dispute at all times is very, very pugnacious and not helpful at all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• (EC) I have a passing interest in the article areas Sitush regularly edits (from a reading perspective only) and I have generally found their interaction in those areas to result in great improvements to the articles. I think most of the issues above are caused by a combination of non-native English speakers completely mis-interpreting Sitush comments (see the above 'serve' discussion), and some, very minor in my opinion, poor choices on the part of Sitush when discussing with editors who do not have the best grasp of the English language. As some people have said above, "competence is required", we also need to accept that certain areas are going to primarily be of interest to people who are not well-versed in all the nuances of the English language. So every reasonable effort should be made to help them. I think Sitush offer to try and communicate more simply would probably eliminate quite a bit of the noise and be in line with that. And perhaps when making a comparison, not take it to the extreme. (Was he a batman or bootcleaner would have sufficed!) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. You're oversimplifying a very convoluted issue that has to with the general modus operandi of the user in question, by theorizing it would go away if only these non-native English-speakers knew English better. No. It doesn't have much to do with understanding English. Nobody is saying Sitush is a bad contributor all-around, but his contributions when taken as a whole, from legitimate edits to needless caviling at a number of points, doesn't augur well for the progress of the article and its other editors. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was focusing on the only coherant evidence (with diffs) supporting them above. 'Needless caviling'? You would need to provide supporting diffs that show Sitush objections are trivial for that sort of comment to fly. And I just have not seen anything that qualifies. But as an aside I generally find any time someone says 'this is really complicated' what they are actually have is an inability to explain things in a logical and concise manner, or are unable to drill down to what the issue is. And as I said, when I see Sitush has been involved at an article, it usually means it has/or is in the process of improving. If the issue is communication (which it looks like to my eyes) then an attempt to alter/change the method is likely to have an effect. If your problem is that you think Sitush's objections over article content are 'trivial', then you will need to post diffs that show that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Many diffs are provided with proper explaination by Dharmadhyaksha in the beginning of the section.-sarvajna (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, is

“ Isn't one inappropriate claim of vandalism sufficient? Would it not just be simpler for you to acknowledge that you erred rather than drag the matter on? ” — Sitush, diff

and my reaction on it a matter of [my] mis-interpreting Sitush comments [due to my non-native English]? Nobody of Drmies’s brigade (of which Sitush is apparently a member) didn’t provide a single diff showing my alleged “inappropriate claim of vandalism”, and nobody of them apologized for their defamation and harassment, including a fresh accusation in trolling. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Drmies is being lenient there. You used the word 'deface' when warning an IP over what amounts to a minor mistake. Deface is not a nice word. It means to intentionally spoil. So vandalism. But thats all explained on your talkpage. When you bring up spurious arguments to support something, expect someone to characterise your editing as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it is possible that I made a mistake, I prefer to ask at a more neutral venue to ensure that my mistake took place. An overt assumption of my bad faith and baseless accusations in making “inappropriate templated warnings” eroded my confidence to the people from AN/I and user_talk:Drmies. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Sitush has a prodigious output when it comes to Indian subjects, he quotes from reasonably reliable sources and has good understanding of Wikipedia rules. He edits caste articles frequented by those with inadequate understanding of what Wikipedia is. He is a tireless editor ever willing to support his edits with sources and more sources. The only lacuna if there is any is his inability to understand the nuances and his tendency to be judgemental. Most of us here are willing and happy to work within Wikipedia rules and are here for building a better encyclopaedia. He ought to AFG. He also has a right to be unhappy about Modi, or India or Indian courts, however he mustn't let his beliefs overcome his responsibility to be neutral while editing Wikipedia. Also if anyone alleges lack of comprehension of his prose as a defence, I think that is a poor excuse. If there are allegations of baiting against Sitush, well is this the first time? If anyone has been apotheosised he would consider himself beyond action. No surprises here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Wajidafridi1

Wajidafridi1 (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose sole purpose at Wikipedia is the promotion of Pakistani politician Haji Baz Gul Afridi. He has a history of writing clearly promotional prose without sources (the "Since 1999, He has not being directly involved in politics" claim was later proven false), of edit-warring to keep his preferred picture of Gul (which showed him with the then-Prime Minister of Pakistan, now deleted as a likely copyright violation) on the article [113][114] [115][116], and as a masterpiece claimed on IRC that his life was in danger if the article mentioned smuggling despite the New York Times reporting on Gul's arms shop in that context, a claim that got parts of the article revdeleted until the Office decided to take no action and to leave the article's content to the discretion of the community. I had hoped that now that the election is over Wajid would vanish again and that we wouldn't have to take action. Not so: Today he removed sourced content on Gul's 2008 election defeat (see "not being directly involved in politics" above) and simultaneously inserted an apparently fake claim of a re-election in Gul's 2013 district (not mentioned by today's Daily Times article, for example; he has now presented a "source" which doesn't mention Gul's district). He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and this disruption needs to stop. Huon (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconding what Huon is saying. My experience with him is that he's a liar par excellence, having never spoken a word of truth in #wikipedia-en-help to anyone trying to help him, and when called out leaving quickly or trying to change the subject. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is WajidAfridi1. I would like to say that this whole thing against me is motivated due to personal differences between me and some people. There have been numerous times that they have ignored Wikipedia rules and taken it personal. When I uploaded an original picture, a user [Demiurge1000] took it off, not because it violated any rules or anything, but he told me that he will continuously dispute me until I stop editing Wikipedia.

Please check the following exchange of messages in IRC
<redacted>
My Question is that why the 12th of May? Surely this has nothing to do with any date.. but the whole 12 may thing by him was because that is when the elections are over! Why is he seeing this as personal. Later on, he made some statements which was targeted at me, Implying that I am some sort of a terrorist due to my background.. and I was offended by them.
<redacted IRC comment> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajidafridi1 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Three observations:

1. It's claimed above that Wajidafridi1 (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose sole purpose at Wikipedia is the promotion of Pakistani politician Haji Baz Gul Afridi. Yes, even a quick look makes it very clear that Wajidafridi1's sole interest is Baz Gul Afridi. (At this point I'll refrain from commenting on the claim that promotion is the purpose.)
2. There is an extraordinary resemblance between the names "Wajidafridi1" and "Baz Gul Afridi". Simply, there are two possibilities here. Either (A) the former is (or is employed by) the latter, or (B) he is not. If (A), then we have a conflict of interest. If (B), we have a potentially deceptive username.
3. In this edit, Wajidafridi1 alters the article in such a way as to claim that the ordering of a re-election by the Election Commission of Pakistan is itself backed by this source. That assertion is not backed by that source. Wajidafridi1 thus added an untruth to the article. There are two obvious possibilities here: (A) mere incompetence and (B) an intent to deceive.

So I have two questions for Wajidafridi1. First, are you (or are you working for) Baz Gul Afridi? Secondly, how do you account for your attributing to a web page an assertion that the web page does not make? -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that copy pasting IRC chat logs here without consent is a pretty big no no, but I'll leave that to be dealt with at the admin corps' discretion. I've notified Demiurge1000 seeing as their name was raised here and sought their comment. Blackmane (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wajidafridi1, it is not permitted to record material from the help channel and then publish it somewhere else. Please don't do it again, or your access to the help channel will have to be removed.

For context, my reference in the above-quoted conversation to the world's most popular firearm, was because the article which we were discussing was about an arms dealer (as is reliably sourced in the article itself).

The "me with my friend the former Prime Minister" photo was deleted on Commons after I raised the possibility that it may be a copyright violation. The photo currently used in the article is far more appropriate in any case.

It does not necessarily follow from the username that Wajidafridi1 is the subject of the article or is employed by them. (They could be a close relative, a distant relative, or just someone who shares one of the same names).

Wajidafridi1 should seek consensus on the talk page of the article before making any further removals of content, or potentially contentious additions.

Wajidafridi1 and others should refrain from using the help channel to discuss disagreements about what should be in the article, disagreements about Wajidafridi1's identity, location, or motives, disagreements about whether he has misled anyone about any of these things, disagreements about what that would say about him as a person, or disagreements about whether one or more people are personally biased against him.

I don't currently see an immediate need for administrator action. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoary I just want to point out that the surname Afridi is a common surname, and hence its no extraordinary resemblance. However, I do say the (A) possiblity is correct because of all the facts I know in this case due to my heavy involvement.

Second, adding untruths to the article is not unheard of from Wajid. In the original article that I modified and then approved from AfC (A move I retroactively regret), we see the line "Since 1999, he has not being directly involved in politics but remained a key figure in the region". This line was uncited, but it appeared non-controversial and there was no need for me to suspect that, so I did not remove it.

However, the current version of the article states "Baz Gul was a candidate for National Assembly seat NA-47 in the 2008 General Election. He was third, with 20% of the vote". This fact is now sourced. When I asked him about it, Wajid claimed he did not know about it, but I find it implausible and highly suspicious, given the amount of detail he did infact know about the article subject [See the old revision for that].

Its therefore very clear that he is lying on this issue.

More comments on the rest of the statements shall follow in a short while. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Or maybe in a slightly longer while. Waj has repeatedly lied to all of us about everything here, including lying about alleged threats to his life from the article subject to prevent changing that article (to me as well as other editors). I have logs which I am willing to share with any admins to show his lying, and I am willing to try to find further proof of the same too. In my opinion, he deserves nothing short of a topic ban, and possibly as big as a possible block because of his disruptive nature and willingness and attempt to decieve all of us. [Did I tell you about the one time he came to the IRC pretending to be Jimbo, and "ordered" us to not attack that article?] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The majority of people who come to the help channel are single purpose accounts with a conflict of interest. A substantial proportion of them are deliberately misleading in some manner while there (e.g. pretending they don't have a conflict of interest). What makes this one special? (Why would anyone be attacking the article - your word - anyway?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I dont remember where I've used the word "attacking". It would be good if you could remind me please.

To answer your question, first I think i should point out that just because a large number of editors are deliberately misleading doesn't make their actions less worse. Being deliberately misleading

And as for the second thing, the reason this issue is the way it is, is because of his lying, the article was forcefully set to a deliberately incorrect version for a substantial period of time. I dont think trying to manhandle the encyclopedia into his favoured way is something we should ever allow to pass. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit.

As for "the article was forcefully set to a deliberately incorrect version for a substantial period of time", the solution to that is to thoughtfully edit based on reliable sources and BLP, rather than allowing anyone's ramblings on IRC to "force" anything.

The guy hasn't edited the article for the last four days. If he edits it problematically again, sanctions might indeed be needed.Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns regarding User:USchick

Now that the shouting has died down, USchick has promised to fix the copyright issues, and both sides finally understand each other, let's move on. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

I think we may have a problem regarding User:USchick, who appears to be copy-pasting material (with occasional minimal rewording) into articles: see for instance this edit [117], and compare to the source [118]. Another example can be seen here [119] which again contains material copied from the source, and here [120] (in this example I'm not sure that USchick was solely responsible. I raised the issue at User talk:USchick#Copyright violation, but the response has been dismissive, with accusations of "stalking harassment on [my] part". [121] Since I clearly don't wish to be accused of harassment, and consider the issue of possible copyright violations of real significance (as our policy makes clear), I would ask that uninvolved contributors look into the matter further, to see if there is a deeper copyright problem with USchicks editing, and would also ask that an uninvolved person makes it perfectly clear to USchick that copy-pasting material into articles is unacceptable, and if USchick is unwilling to abide by policy, there are likely to be consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

According to policy - "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed." Instead, AndyTheGrump has been stalking my edits and reverting them. I have posted the copy in question on the talk pages of both articles for comment. In addition, I would like to point out that if you look at revision history for AndyTheGrump, [122] his edits consist mostly of acting belligerent toward other editors. I request for him to be reprimanded. Thanks. USchick (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting suspected copyright violations is entirely appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to behave like this? Quoted from your talk page: "even if it involves breaking a rule or two, and telling the less clued-up 'contributors' to go boil their heads. This will of course put me at risk of getting blocked, but I think the results are worth the risks" USchick (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be dealt with at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems noticeboard. Count Iblis (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If this was a single incident, I'd agree: but there seems to be evidence that this is an ongoing problem: compare this diff from February [123] with the cited source: [124]. Almost the entire section added by USchick is copy-pasted, with minimal changes. Compare the source "These weapons included an infertility toxin to secretly sterilize the black population; skin-absorbing poisons that could be applied to the clothing of targets; and poison concealed in products such as chocolates and cigarettes" with USchick's edit "These weapons included an infertility toxin to secretly sterilize the black population, skin-absorbing poisons, and poison concealed in products such as chocolate and cigarettes". If USchick has been doing the same thing in multiple articles, it clearly needs wider attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Note. I removed the material referred to in the above post, as a clear copyright violation - USChick has just reinstated it: [125]. Given this clear refusal to abide by Wikipedia policy on copyright, can I suggest that at minimum USchick be formally warned that further violations are liable to result in a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm quoting Andy from my talk page "Copyright violations are exempt from edit-warring policy." Please make up your mind, are they exempt or not? I don't appreciate being threatened. USchick (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Deleting copyright-violating material is exempt from the edit-warring policy. And asking that you be obliged to abide by policy isn't a threat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please check your belligerent attitude per Wiki policy. USchick (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Final warning given, including a link to the relevant section of the US Code. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked her to clarify whether this is a habit or a lapse. If she doesn't know, that's bad. --John (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time ever that this issue has been brought up with me. It has not yet been determined how many of my edits (if any) are actual copyright violations. USchick (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're at four right now. Are there more? --John (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have strong suspicions that the problem is extensive, then this should be taken to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where should I complain about being stalked and harassed by AndyTheGrump??? ;-) USchick (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The stalking section of our harassment policy notes that it's appropriate to follow someone else's editing for the purpose of fixing "violations of Wikipedia policy"; when you're infringing copyright and claim not to be aware that you're doing it, your edits definitely need to be followed. If you're not able to determine whether you're infringing copyright, I strongly suggest that you refrain from adding substantial content to any articles without first discussing your additions on a talk page (article or user) or a Wikipedia: namespace page (e.g. WP:HD), since it's lots easier and much less disruptive to remove infringing bits from a talk page or WP: namespace page than from mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, when he started stalking me it was because he didn't think anyone should be editing an article that he wants to delete. [126] First he reverted my edits by claiming that they didn't reflect what the sources said. Then when my edits used the same words as what the sources said, he accused me of copyright violations, except this time he also claimed that he wasn't edit warring because copyright violations are exempt. How convenient. So that's why we're here now. I don't expect you to do anything about it, I'm just saying on record that AndyTheGrump is a bully. USchick (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple question, USchick. Do you accept that the material I have linked violated Wikipedia policy on copyright? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing here [127] and you reverted, claiming that's not what the source said. When in reality, that's exactly what the source said. As a result, I started quoting sources more closely, and that's when you accused me of copyvio and then you hid behind an excuse of being exempt from edit warring. Then you escalated, by stalking my other articles. That's as simple as I can answer. USchick (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

USchick edits articles on recent breaking news events a lot; editing these articles makes one vulnerable to this problem. When I was last editing such a page (about the London Riots, I think I saw USchick editing there too) I found it quite hard to avoid copying texts from sources. But then these sorts of articles are edited by quite a few editors at the same time, so I think the editors should collaborate with each other better (perhaps in some WikiProject) and discuss these sorts of problems. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a problem here at all, because most sources allow copying of their texts as long as the source is cited. You then do need to make it clear that you are quoting directly from the source, e.g. you can write that source [X] reports: "......". Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

USchick did not indicate that the material had been copied directly from the source - which constitutes plagiarism even if it isn't a copyright infringement. As for what may be legitimately done when clearly marked as a quotation, that is another issue, of no relevance to this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You reverted this edit, a direct quotation. [128] Now that we're here, why don't we let others determine what they think is relevant. USchick (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There was more to the edit than the quote, as anyone can see - 'Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro said the criminal justice system can't be "complacent" as it has only 60 days to accept the charges against the suspects' isn't marked as a quote, is it? Now, I ask you again, do you accept that the material I have linked violated Wikipedia policy on copyright? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered your original question above. Now about the rest of that edit, can you please explain what you see as the problem? "New Orleans residents expressed outrage over the violence and questioned American apathy toward inner city crime and gang violence." And why were you not willing to discuss this on the talk page of the article in question? USchick (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:My76Strat asked me to look at this section. While these issues may have been created in good faith, there seems to be substantial content requiring at least repair. I did a quick spot-check and have found multiple problems with copy-pasting from other articles. I did not in my spot-check find copying from external sites, but I did find copying from other Wikipedia articles in almost every edit I looked at. In this edit content is at least copied without attribution from Divine Adoratrice of Amun, while this edit includes at least content from Yab-Yum and Maithuna. I have not checked to see if content is copied from any other pages or what remains. In another article, this edit at least includes content from this article, possibly others, without attribution. I haven't checked outside sources having found some copying. This article was created with content from at least this article ("the highlands are characterized....") without attribution. In this one, we see content from this article without attribution and [129]. There could be other sources. This content was copied at least in part from at least this article. I have not found in my spot-check copying from external sources, but evidently others have, and I have found obviously in a short period of time substantial copyright issues. I have no reason to doubt they were made in good faith, but they need repair in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If attribution is supplied, it's quite all right to copy from one Wikipedia article to another, but our material is copyrighted. This attribution is an essential part of complying with the license under which we publish. It seems likely that we need a WP:CCI to make sure that any unaddressed copy-pasting - from within or without Wikipedia - is repaired. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Block Proposal

I think that it is evident that USchick is refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem here - and accordingly, I again suggest that this contributor be blocked from editing until they agree to comply with policy. Wikipedia has to take copyright violations seriously, to avoid possible legal repercussions, and failing to deal with a contributor who seems to think that compliance with copyright policy is optional doesn't exactly reflect well on us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't read that into USChick's replies here. Avoiding copyright problems isn't always easy, it becomes a lot more difficult if the editors are fighting tactical battles instead of editing collaboratively. Editing like playing chess with a potential copyright problem as a check situation on the board and claiming checkmate on AN/I if the opponent doesn't concede, isn't a good example of collaborative editing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Block With the hope that USchicks failure/refusal to understand the copyright violations she adds will not escalate further. I'd hate to see another topic ban, but at this point that doesn't look very far away. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block. There are some copyright problems here that do need to be dealt with, but you shouldn't do that the way AndyTheGrump is intervening in the editing there, as that's basically a guarantee that the editor he is dealing with is not going to listen to him. It seems that we're not learning anything from all those long term disputes we've had on Wikipedia. What's needed is better collaboration, so I would suggest that we advice USchick to read a lot of articles she likes to edit, to see how you avoid copyright problems and to find some other editors who also edit a lot of recent news articles and collaborate work with them. I note that AndyTheGrump's position is that Wikipedia should not have any articles based on recent news articles. While we can all respect his position, his interjection in the editing of these articles led to this copyright issue escalating to AN/I, instead of being dealt with at the talk page level. Count Iblis (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So your position is that if a contributor violates copyright policy, and refuses to acknowledge that s/he has done so, no further action need be taken to ensure that policy is complied with? Somehow, I think that the WMF may take a different view, as might the copyright owners of future material misused in this way. As for 'collaborating' on articles, I see no reason why I should be obliged to assist people who don't understand policy in creating articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place (as the AfD seems to be making perfectly clear) - and please note that I've already found an example of blatant copyright violation in an article which was in no way news: [130][131]. If contributors can't be trusted to comply with a policy that has potential legal implications for Wikipedia, they shouldn't be editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we should certainly help USchick with complying with our copyright policies. But that does involve assisting the editor with editing the articles, pointing out where she went wrong and how she can improve her writing skills. Blocking should be the last resort for truly disruptive editors. The problem is that if you storm in, don't show much interest in actually editing the article for content, her replies to you will be rather unhelpful, she won't show much interested in your problem either, even though the copyright problem is actually an important one to deal with.

Of course, you don't have to assist her yourself, but we can ask other editors who do freqently edit the news articles to assist her. If later it turns out that she can't collaborate well with these other editors who do passionately edit the news articles, that she still is making mistakes w.r.t. copyright, then that is a sign that she can't function well in this sector of Wikipedia and then we could think about topic bans or blocks. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds are you assuming that USchick's problems are confined to 'this sector of Wikipedia'? I've already found one non-news-related violation, and see no reason given USchick's responses at User Talk:USchick to assume that there aren't more - several contributors have asked for clarification, with no meaningful response. I'm reluctant to do more searching of USchick's edits myself, having been accused of stalking, but nobody else seems to be dealing with the possibility that there may well be other undetected violations. This needs addressing properly, and cosy talk of 'collaboration' isn't going to get us anywhere as long as USchick fails to admit that policy has been violated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of a vast numbers of edits a few where found to be problematic, she's clearly not a copy and paste bot that has to be shut down. Then those few copyright violations do point to a problem she needs to address, for that we need her to see the problem and learn what she can do about it. The approach you took with her made it a lot less likely that she would seriously consider the copyright problem. Admitting that there is a copyright problem was complicated by that becoming a sort of recognition of the unequal situation between you and her, because you are not there editing with her collaboratively. If you had just put your own preferred version aside and explained to her how she could actually edit the text she wanted to edit without violating the copyright, that would have gone a long way of solving the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Out of a vast numbers of edits a few where found to be problematic"? Really? As far as I'm aware, there has been no systematic investigation into USchick's edits at all. If you are saying that there has been one, can you provided a link please. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you have been advised about how to go about doing that. Have you done that? You like to escalate things, don't you? USchick (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to de-escalate things by giving a straight answer to the questions that administrator John asked on your talk page two days ago: "Are [all your edits] copyright violations or only some of them? It would make it easier for those of us who have to check if you could help us", "Are you saying you don't know what is and isn't a copyvio?" AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The answer is yes, I know what it is. Now I'd like to ask you a question. If this is an issue for you, why are you unwilling to address it on the talk page of the article? USchick (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you know what a copyright violation is, why did you violate copyright? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I answered your question, and your refusal to answer mine is further evidence of your unwillingness to collaborate. I request a block of AndyTheGrump for whatever numerous policies his actions violate. WP:TEAMWORK His constant reversal of other people's edits without any discussion is disruptive and a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus. I feel like the only reason he brought me here is to make a point. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. USchick (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I like to (try to) deescalate things. Yes, Andy is eponymously grumpy; while not "ideal" his behavior falls inside the big vague gray box known as the "Wikipedia (lack of) civility policy." What I'd like to see is a simple affirmative that USchick will refrain from edits that could be construed as copyright violations; then we close the thread and move on to other things. NE Ent 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would consider doing that if Andy was reprimanded for his underhanded editing tactics and his attempt to "exempt" himself from edit warring. Looking over his edit history, his contributions seem to be of limited value, since he spends a lot of time bullying other people. His knowledge of various policies could be put to better use if he was willing to collaborate with other editors. USchick (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He brought you here for violating copyright, and reverting copyright violations is an exemption from 3RR. And you have the cheek to ask for him to be blocked for bringing this to the community's attention? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning. I accept it. Now I expect someone to deal with Andy the Grump for his violation of policy as outlined above. The appropriate thing for him to do was address it on the talk page, which he refuses to do even now. USchick (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the appropriate thing to do was bring it to your talk page, which he did and you brushed him off from what I can see. Then he brought it here, which is also the correct course of action. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm interpreting USchick's comments as a request that AtG "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users."; personally I don't consider statements such as "Are you being deliberately obtuse" as meeting that goal. Unfortunately, this community has never been able to converge to consensus on what is and what isn't okay. NE Ent 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He reverted edits that had nothing to do with copyright violation, he claimed the edits did not reflect the sources. I submitted new edits that more closely reflected the sources, and that's when he claimed copyright violation repeatedly. I was coerced into creating a copyright violation and then he claimed to be exempt from edit warring. This is VERY unbecoming of an experienced editor and needs to be stopped. USchick (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the ArbCom climate change case a big deal was actually made about even less problematic editor behavior. In the article about the CRU-hacking incident, climate sceptical editors wanted to edit in favor of unsupported allegations that scientists had falsified data. This was reverted per the usual wikipedia policies, but the way that happened created a bad climate on that page, some experienced editors where actually topic banned for a while. But what happened was is still far from playing hardball, you could e.g. imagine invoking BLP to revert more than 3 times, or to even shut down talk page discussions about whether some scientist had falsified data because that is in itself a BLP violation. None of that happened, so I'm not sure we've really learnt anything from what went wrong on the CC pages. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to look past Andy's bad attitude. What I think needs to be addressed is his underhanded tactic of coercing someone to create a violation, bringing them to ANI and then claiming that he is "exempt" from creating the problem. USchick (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In the lead up to the climate change ArbCom case a system was put in place by Admins here to try to resolve the problems by strictly enforcing rules but that backfired because the editors where constantly at each other's throats by playing games with the rules. What this shows is that the whole attitude that rules are rules won't work in the abstract away from the context of actually editing the articles constructively. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The person who brought me here was unwilling to cooperate on the talk page and he is still unwilling to cooperate. So nothing has changed. USchick (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

While I haven't looked at the edits in question, I reject the notion that it is impossible to use your own words to make a point that accurately reflects the source, while not being a copyright violation. You have argued that this is the case, and I don't believe it is plausible. You were not coerced into violating copyright. While Andy does, on occasion, stray from the ideal in terms of editor interaction, I haven't seen anything in this thread by AtG that is actionable. We take copyright seriously, and that is a far bigger issue than the possibility that Andy could use more sugar than vinegar.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have received a warning about the copyright violation and I accept the warning. USchick (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you copy from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you copy from two, it’s research. :) .Count Iblis (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This actually contains useful advice for editing news articles. Suppose you have two sources reporting about the same event, you can then simply combine what you read from the two sources to avoid literally copying from either source. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If only it were so simple. I did that and was accused of WP:SYN. USchick (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If what you wrote is supported by both sources, Synth doesn't apply and if the editor keeps on complaining about that you just invoke WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Personal attack by User:Alansohn

On the Red Bank, New Jersey article, I removed this material for reasons that I spelled out in the edit summary. A comment about Red Bank increasingly becoming a high-end shopping mecca was not found in the cited source, nor was the statement about "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". The cited source, which supported only the opening of a Tiffany's, was a press release by Tiffany themselves. This left only a mention of a brewery, supported by a book archived at Google Books, and a what appeared to be a personal fan site. I didn't challenge the reliability of the book, but this raised the question of whether one business merited its own section, and more importantly, whether mentioning individual businesses is even relevant or salient, particularly when there is nothing unique about that business (like whether it's the flagship store or the company's headquarters).

Alansohn reverted the edit, saying in his edit summary "rv removal of sourced content, with some editing". This despite the fact that the source did not mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters", something Alansohn did nothing to address. For this reason, I again reverted the unsourced material, saying, "Revert. A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS, and it doesn't mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". That leaves one brewery, which doesn't merit a section."

Alansohn found a source for some of the material, and restored it, leaving out the unsourced information, but did so with the edit summary "rv malicious removal of sourced content, all material that was easily sourced; press release from a top firm meets all requirements of WP:RS, though feel free to replace it".

First of all, whether something is "easily sourced" is irrelevant. The material was not sourced, and it is not my responsibility to source material added by other editors. That I already do so at times ([132],[133]), despite my already heavy edit workload, is a courtesy, not a requirement, and I'm tired the obnoxious edit summaries in which Alansohn implies otherwise, a practice in which he has been engaging in for some time now.

Second, my edits were based on sincere, good-faith readings of Wikipedia policy on my part. They were not motivated in any way by "malice", nor has Alansohn even bothered trying to illustrate how he knows my state of mind. Material that was not sourced was removed, in accordance with WP policy, and he himself omitted quite a bit of it in his most recent restoration of some of it, presumably because he saw that it was not found in the source cited in the article, or even in the new one he found (despite it being so "easily" sourced). If that's the case, then how could removing it have been "malicious"? His comment is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and is unacceptable. Someone needs to politely inform him of this. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Alansohn was well out of line here, but I'd be interested to hear their side of the story as well, to see why they acted like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is rather clear: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step..... If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I believe that all editors have an obligation under policy to preserve content and I will take all reasonable actions to preserve it as required (see this edit for a recent example) by seeking out possible sources; Nightscream follows a We had to destroy the village to save it approach in which he usually fails to make any attempt to find sources, blindly removes the content and then WP:BITEs newbies with claims of WP:V / WP:NOR that are unjustified in most occasions. In this case, removal of sourced content was even less justified. No one ever challenged the material in the Red Bank, New Jersey article. The material was reliably sourced (note that per WP:SELFPUB, a press release is a reliable source) in addition to other sources in the section. Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification. The material was then reinserted with additional sources intended to address any possible objection that Nightscream might ever have. Over and done, one would think. Nightscream seems to be upset that sources were added, as has happened many times before in articles we both edit, where Nightscream removes unsourced content and I reinsert it with sources found with trivial ease. See this edit, where Nightscream removed material regarding a proposed Formula One race that was on the front page of every newspaper in the New York City metro area calling it a "WP:V/WP:NOR" violation, while I reinserted the material with appropriate sources (here) minutes later. This process has happened often and it seems to bother Nightscream deeply. Besides, claims of NPA issues coming from someone who as standard procedure berates, belittles and maliciously attacks other editors on a rather personal basis for rather trivial violations of his expectations ("Really? You can't even capitalize a proper noun? Or format the movie in the same way that all the other films above it and below it are?? Or spell it properly? Seriously?", "No one gives a shit about which studio animated it.", just from the past two days and I could provide hundreds more), I would hope that Nightscream would be better able to recognize legitimate criticism of improper removal of sourced content. And I'm not the only person with these concerns with Nightscream and his editing practices. Take a look at User_talk:Nightscream#Dan Brown, where one of many editors complains on his talk page about unjustifiable removal of what he defines as "Original Research", and see User_talk:Nightscream#Your behavior at Talk:A Scause for Applause, SPI for strong criticism of his attacks on other editors. Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oyi, this fight again (not you two, but lots of others have gone down this same road). In my experience it is a good idea to remove only material you can't easily confirm. If we deleted every unsourced sentence on Wikipedia, we'd have about 10% of the content we have right now. The "challenged or likely to be challenged" part is the key. And you did yourself no favor by referring to a reliable source as not being reliable and deleting material on that basis. That said, if you do feel the material has an issue, you are 100% correct to remove it. And Alan needs to AGF on that. But did you seriously have doubts about material in the press release? If not, why did you remove it? I can see why Alan would get frustrated, but I also understand why you are. If you showed a bit more care and Alan had a bit more patience, things would go a lot smoother... Hobit (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Hobit's points are well taken and I do want to apologize to Nightscream for my snarky remark; Frustration may have been an acceptable rationalization at the time but it isn't an appropriate justification. Nightscream and I are inevitably going to overlap on editing a significant number of articles and I hope that we can find a more effective way to work together towards the goal of building an encyclopedia rather than trying to score points. I do appreciate that Nightscream will lean far more towards removal of unsourced content added to these and other articles, but I am more than willing to work in a partnership in which Nightscream tags (rather than removes) and discusses legitimately questionable unsourced / poorly sourced content, while I will be happy to reference sourceable content and to remove content that is irredeemably unsourceable based on my attempts to find decent references. I thought that we had been heading in a more productive direction in recent months since our earlier confrontations and I hope that this "incident" can lead to mutual agreement on a path to work together in reasonably harmonious fashion rather than to escalate a needless conflict. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you have a beer some time, or if that's not practical have a chat offline. It is well worth investing time in getting to know and like people you will meet often, especially if you are likely to disagree much of the time. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Msoamu

Msoamu (talk · contribs) has had quite a few ANI cases filed against them recently. They've literally just come off a 2-week block for large-scale, long-term sockpuppetry, and immediately returned to their editing style of pushing their own POV, whilst accusing other users of doing the same, ignoring consensus and making allegations about other users' religious stances. Diffs (note these are all post-block):

• [134] - restoring a whole bunch of unsourced information, which had been removed for that reason, citing POV pushing by User:MezzoMezzo as the reason for their reversion.
• [135] - allegations about editors religious stances, allegations of POV pushing, failures to abide by consensus.
• [136] - various unsourced comments, more allegations of POV pushing.
• [137][138] - restoration of unsourced information, despite two seperate editors (one whom I've not seen in any of the disputes) removing it for being unsourced, again initially citing POV-pushing.

I think it's time we either gave Msoamu an indefinite topic ban on editing and referring to all religious articles, broadly construed, or a simple indefinite block. There's no point giving any short-term topic bans/blocks, because this is a 6 year old issue, and previous blocks haven't achieved anything. User:Qwyrxian, MezzoMezzo, User:GorgeCustersSabre and various other editors are probably all equally as fed up of Msoamu's actions as I am. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban I've seen this user at AN/I enough times to know the amount of pot-stirring and disruption this user causes. Action at this time is not only warranted, but necessary. It's time for the project to get back on track. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 20:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict), reply to Lukeno94. I would support a topic ban at minimum. I haven't been as involved in this as some others, but I did try to help out on Barelvi some time ago, and found it an incredibly frustrating experience. Dealing with Msoamu and socks made it too tempting for me to break the 3RR, and I ended up taking the relevant articles off my watchlist to save my sanity. I think we have a serious case of failure or refusal to get the point here, with perhaps a sprinkling of competence issues. (Quote from the Competence is required essay, "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively.") Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, the content he was edit warring in was also a copyvio from here which he must have known as he added the references. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban especially not "indefinitely"..i also don't mind mediating in the article talk pages..msoamu can perhaps agree to being more "talk page" active instead of reverting or editing..if the points in contention can be brought up clearly i don't see why there won't be a solution. Baboon43 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear All you have to look into this case with a very neutral perspective.I am an Sufi Sunni wikipedian who has contributed a lot to this wikipedia by his Articles and sourced content.There are issues with me and User:MezzoMezzo.He has hundreds of time found deleting content from Sufi related articles and sometimes nominated many pages for deletion unsuccessfully.I am not saying he has particular leanings but his love for some movements [[139]],Madkhalism[140] and Wahabism and his insisting on adding criticism for Barelvi page must be noted after deep study.He has accepted it in his own words when he created Article named Madkhalism.Quote Madkhalism is a strain of Islamist thought within the larger Salafist movement[141].

Read this interesting comment on his Page by a fellow Salafi editor who has witnessed that MezzoMezzo is a Salafi.

• salafi's at wikipedia

assalamu alaykum brother alhamdulillah i see you are upon the manhaj of the salaf us salih insha'allah and i wondered if there is any way for all the salafi brothers to some how network on here inshallah so we are able to work together to ensure all of the information on wikipedia is correct. if you are interested please get in touch with me.jazak allaju khayran. assalamuy alaykum wa rahmah tullahi wa barakatuhu Dawud.Beale (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (taken from his talk Page)

• His hate for Sufi oriented Articles nominated several articles many time for deletion at a single time read here and
• He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
• for speedy deletion [142],
• [143],
• [144],
• [145],
• [146]*Mohra shareef here
• Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [147]

• Conclusion-Barelvis or Sufi are not considered Muslims by these Salafi,Wahabis,Ahle Hadith people.This thinking and motivation has prevailed world over to kill and murder them.Now this hidden motivation is also here on Wikipedia. It has been complained by many editors that Wahabi editors are editing with an objective.Islamic articles are not so easy for non Muslim Wikipedians to understand where agenda has been inserted or where the content has been removed with an objective.If a Salafi will continue editing Sufi or Barelvi Articles , he will do what MezzoMezzo is doing regularly ,removing content and nominating them in a sequence with out genuine reasons for deletions.
• Wahabi interference is reality at Barelvi page
• Request-
• This behavior establishes his editing pattern which has harassed many editors in the past forcing them to leave Wikipedia editing.For his behavior he has been warned many times by multiple editors.
• His friend Lukeno was also warned for edit warring at Barelvi page.

No one of them is neutral though they are trying to be.It is very essential to stop MezzoMezzo from editing Barelvi Articles and Sufi pages for the sake of neutrality.*This ANI is motivated and opened up by his close friend Lukeno who shares good relation with him.Lukeno never edit or participate in discussions every time he came to revert articles about which he knew very less.He is just a right hand of MezzoMezzo. After my Ban How much he got active on this page and removed points according to his POV. I have edited with references and have also left comments on all talk pages where I have edited after my Ban.It should be noted that after my absence a lot of Sufi Barelvi topics were edited by MezzoMezzo and large chunk of content was removed like thisMarkaz Articleeven though he could have taggged it for ref or for source but due to hate for these articles he always just removed content directly.Today itself ,I have added this relevant info[148] after good research and also tried to add sources for my various editing. At last I request neutral and un involved admins to understand the crux of the problem and don't pay heed to motivated biased ANI of Lukeno.Any action on me will leave a free and open field for MezzoMezzo on Islamic pages related to Sufism and Barelvi movement to add and remove content from these pages thus making them non neutral and compromising Wikipedia's position.A situation very difficult to understand though it will look normal to non Muslim editors.Msoamu (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I just find this stuff more amusing than anything. Hopefully, I can get this out of the way here and not deal with it again, though as a Wikipedian I find it sad that I have to speak about my personal beliefs here.

• I am not a Salafi. I told Msoamu and his sock account Shabiha many times to stop saying that. I don't hate Salafis or Sufis but on a personal level, I want nothing to do with movements.
• I don't love Wahhabism. User:Toddy1 also protects that page from Msoamu's POV-pushing with sock accounts, yet as far as I know Toddy isn't even Muslim. Will we accuse Toddy of loving Wahhabism too?
• I dislike Madkhalism intensely. The fact that I wrote that article and have avoided POV-pushing or bashing the movement, I feel, is another sign that I am here at Wikipedia to provide information only. If I really wanted to push a negative POV, it would be on Madkhalism, not Sufism or Barelvi. Yet I haven't.
• I seriously don't care about Barelvis. It's a Muslim religious movement restricted to South Asian and I have no desire at all to ever take a vacation in South Asia, nor do I have any close friends from that part of the world. I learned about what Barelvis are through Wikipedia, I don't care about them and the only reason I've dealt with the article for six years is simply because I hate POV-pushing. And I have never, ever seen POV pushing to the level I have at that article.
• A Salafi Wikipedian thought I was Salafi. On social media, Salafis have also called me a Sufi. A Deobandi called me a Wahhabi. An Ash'ari declared me to be an apostate infidel. In one instance, a Salafi called me a Shi'ite and Shi'ites have called me an infidel more times than I can count. The problem isn't movements or me, it's zealous, extreme people and my inability to keep my mouth shut when I see someone saying bigoted things.

The root of this problem is Msoamu's POV. He only edits articles related to Barelvism and only edits Wikipedia in order to push an ultra-positive POV about the movement. Because of that, he assumes that anybody who edits an article about a religious movement must be a part of said movement, otherwise they wouldn't take interest. His accusation of me being a Madkhali is clear when I have no shyness saying I really, really, really don't like Madkhalism and on a personal level don't like being around Madkhalists. (Biased? No. As Stephen Jay Gould said, objectivity is being fair despite bias, not denying one's own bias. I don't like Madkhalism, but my edits to the article have been fair.) I created that article because mainstream publishers took interest in the movement in 2012, and noone else had written an article yet. That is all.

Given that Msoamu's POV is so incredibly strong, and he has made multiple sockpuppet accounts in order to push that POV, I see no way around a topic ban for all articles relating to religion. The guy can't even wrap his head around the fact that someone can edit articles about religious figures and groups without holding strong opinions. That alone is enough, though the sockpuppets to push POV and the number of ANI threads he is involved in bolster the case as well. Baboon, I thank you for your attempt to mediate, but you're not the first to try and if we don't slap a topic ban on Msoamu, you won't be the last. If Msoamu slips up again and creates more sock accounts to get around the ban, then perhaps an indefinite block would be in order. But if we just start with a topic ban, then nobody can say that we didn't try. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Msoamu's statements here should only strengthen my case. Edit warring has happened from all parties, that is correct, but note in this report that I haven't cited edit warring by you, Msoamu, as a reason for this block. And User:Baboon43, Msoamu can end up being quite disruptive on talk pages - note that at least one of my provided diffs is a talk page diff. They make no effort to get a consensus for their edits, they just blindly wander in and nuke things, simply because MezzoMezzo wrote them. MezzoMezzo has not "harassed" many editors, and I'm fairly sure the majority of those editors you refer to are your blocked socks anyway. What is also concerning is we have an editor of 6 years plus who STILL doesn't know the difference between WP:CSD (speedy deletion) and WP:AFD (articles for deletion) - I've barely seen ANY cases where MezzoMezzo has CSDed any of these articles. And you still seem incapable of realizing that MezzoMezzo only either inserts sourced information, or removes unsourced (or poorly sourced) information, whilst you do the exact opposite. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I'm not a Muslim, and definitely not a Wahabi/Deobandi/Sufi/whatever. In fact, the only one of these I'd heard of prior to joining this dispute were the Wahabi sect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

WTF? The last block wasn't indefinite? With a drawer of socks, all of whom do the same POV pushing? Block now, block indefinitely, if socking continues ban. The diffs provided by Lukeno above are ridiculous to be the first things after being unblocked for edit warring and POV pushing. I don't have time right now to decide if I'm WP:INVOLVED (though I did block before), but please, someone take care of this and don't waste any more of any neutral, civil editor's time. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I did query why it wasn't an indef block, but if I ever got an answer, I didn't spot it. It was just a 2-week one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like it was explained, albeit a few days after I asked: "This is the first time he's been blocked for socking, and we generally give second chances. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)". My apologies to Reaper Eternal for suggesting that they had ignored my comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please could he/she spend a few months editing non-religious articles, so he/she could learn to edit with a neutral point of view. A three month topic ban would be a way of achieving that.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I see consensus is shifting towards non indefinite ban..what will that achieve? it will just pick up again after a few months..if msaomu accepts my proposal, i believe that will be a better approach for him, the article & other editors involved. as far as the talk page incivility thats a minor issue..if there's more discussion it should ease the major disruption which is edit-warring. ill also offer to mentor mr msoamu. Baboon43 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus isn't shifting toward a non-indefinite ban; one person suggested that. Another suggested an indefinite block. Several others suggested a permanent topic ban. We need more feedback before a definite community consensus can be reached. As for easing the disruption...won't happen. Were this the first, second or even third incident, yeah we would need to try. It's been six years of edit warring against various consensuses through sockpuppets, and right after another block he started edit warring immediately. That's in addition to the refusal to get to the point and the competence issues. Nobody can say that we didn't try everything we could, multiple times. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I've already said this, and any short-term topic ban is simply not enough/not going to work. It either needs to be long-term (a year) or indefinite, because this is a 6 year old dispute, and Msoamu is clearly going to wander straight back in and be disruptive again. 95% of what this user has done is disruptive, be it on talk pages or elsewhere - their constant accusations against other editors, their POV-pushing edits, their edit-warring, sockpuppetry (which I'm willing to believe is now in the past, at least for now)... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lukeno94! In writing this comment you deleted one of the comments by another editor in the section above this. I don't know how that happened, but you should restore it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If he/she is given a "second chance", then it needs to come with strings. One way of doing that would be three month topic ban. I have no objection to a longer topic ban such as: six months, one year or two years. I am sure that the "second chance" needs to come with strings - if it does not, then the difficult editor will just continue as before. (I am not arguing against a permanent anything. I am only saying what I think needs to be done if he/she is given a "second chance".)--Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Formal proposal

I propose that Msoamu is topic-banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia relating to religion, broadly construed, for a period of six months. For clarification, broadly construed means anything even slightly related to religion--this includes articles about religious leaders, groups affiliated with religious standpoints, history topics if the point being edited is related to religion, etc; it also includes other namespaces such as article and user talk pages. The following conditions are also applied:

1. If Msoamu violates the topic ban, he will be given escalating blocks, starting with 2 week blocks, with the six month topic ban being reset to the beginning of each such block.
2. If Msoamu socks to get around the topic ban (including clearly editing as an IP), he will given escalating blocks, and the topic ban will become permanent.
3. If Msoamu edits appropriately for the next six months, but continues the same disruptive behavior after the expiration of the topic ban, any admin may reinstate a new topic ban to be of at least one year.
4. Msoamu is strongly encouraged to obtain a mentor, ideally while the ban is still in place, so that Msoamu may be guided to editing that conforms with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

• Support as proposer. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support as the best way forward. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support because if it works then great, and if it doesn't work then nobody can say that every option wasn't tried. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban in principle though I think the inclusive nature defines "broadly construed" in overly broad terms.--My76Strat (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I find the use of sockpuppets to be the most deleterious form of POV pushing because it basically destroys the notion of collegial consensus by allowing one user with a lot of time and no hobbies to pour a dozen fake arguments to derail something that probably woudln't even be controversial without such buffoonery. I think we should really consider strengthening the mentorship provision. We shouldn't force on one him by any means but if someone is willing to volunteer we can get this person to reach out to him and take the intiaitive so perhaps he will be serious about it. DrPhen (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I want longer, but I'm clearly not gonna get that. So I'll agree with this as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

4 Socks

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

---

Koertefa (talk · contribs) Borsoka (talk · contribs) Fakirbakir (talk · contribs) Norden1990 (talk · contribs)

Disruptive similar patterns on Eastern European articles. Hortobagy (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not Socks I've had enough expierence with these editors to know that they aren't socks. It should be noted that Hortobagy started editing only a couple days ago, with little editing outside of Hungary-related articles, and has already been accused of sockpuppetry by one of the editors in question. I believe a Wp: Boomerang is just around the corner. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please file suspected socks at WP:SPI and not at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've full protected one page you were edit warring on. I think I counted 7 reverts in 24 hours. If I see edit warring elsewhere, regardless if it breaks 3RR or not, you can expect to be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I am not even surprised that user Hortobagy has "forgotten" to notify the editors in question (for example, me). (S)He is indeed quite suspicious, as one of her/his main activities seems to provoke edit wars. (S)He has violated the 3RR today at two articles here: [149][150][151][152][153][154][155] (7 reverts) and here [156][157][158][159][160] (5 reverts), despite warnings [161]. If you take a look at the Talk pages of those articles (and may be this one, which looks like a hoax), you can see that (s)he mostly gives non-constructive, evading answers and does not intend to discuss the issues seriously (for example, by citing reliable sources which would support her/his point of view). I myself find her/his behavior quite disturbing, but I may be too sensitive. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And what about your reverts? You and your socks or puppets made an edit-war! Hortobagy (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Ignoring the fact that Hortobagy is in the wrong place for this, they've provided absolutely no evidence that any of these users is related. Now, does anyone know of any sockmaster Hortobagy may be related to? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Abuse at Don Gerard AfD

I'm not sure if this is the right place, since there are elements of sockpuppetry, vandalism and conflict of interest here. In the last hour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard has twice been closed [162] (by Dgerard65 (talk · contribs) whose username matches the subject of the article) [163] (by 174.253.17.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). The user alleges that the nomination was made in bad faith (which may well be true) but also claims there's a strong consensus for keeping the article, which is not at all true. In both cases, the attempted closure is the user's only edit of Wikipedia; but vandalism of the Don Gerard article including some from the same IP range [164] has led to that page being semi-protected. (Note, though, that the diff I just linked added content to the article that was negative in tone towards Gerard so the closing of the AfD, even though done in Gerard's name, may be an attempt by somebody else to discredit him.) I have additional concerns about the COI editing of DonGerard65 (talk · contribs) and DonGerard (talk · contribs) who have both edited Don Gerard and nothing or little else. Semi-protection of the AfD page would seem to be reasonable. Dricherby (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note Previous related discussion--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There were two further disruptive closes by IP editors overnight, which resulted in the AfD page being semi-protected. I'm disappointed that the disruption was able to continue after I raised the issue here but, since the immediate issue has now been dealt with, I think this thread can be closed and I'll take up the sock-puppetry at SPI. Dricherby (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Holodomor

This article likely needs someone conversant with translations to see if an apparent edit war (one editor being accused of being a sock) has any value thereto. I warned the IP editor previously about doing multiple reverts - but the editing has taken more twists than a maze at Hampton Court. No editor is being accused of anything by me, but this is an annoying enough situation that eyes would likely help. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting some uninvolved editors with the required linguistic skills to step up for adminship? This has been going on for years, it's getting silly. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The likelihood is proportional to the number of editors who know about "self-flagellation" in at least four languages. Collect (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Both translations ("death" or "killing") are equally possible. This depends on context. Words "man-made" in the phrase imply intent, and therefore "killing" or "extermination" is a better translation. However, making reverts with misleading edit summaries like here is not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur that both translations are acceptable. I'm afraid this is a political issue and not a linguistic one. USchick (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of people who can vouch for my "self-flagellation" in at least three languages :-) USchick (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually have no preference on the exact translation of the term "Holodomor" - whether it is "death by hunger" or "murder by hunger" (both of them, etymologically are justifiable) - which is what this particular round is about, not the "man-made" stuff. But regardless, the user account involved in the latest spree of edits is very obviously a sock puppet of indef banned User:Jacob Peters, one of the perennial "POV pushers banned long ago for good reason who just don't give up". He comes back to this (and some other) articles with a pretty well defined regularity.Volunteer Marek 05:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I happen to be an admin with corresponding linguistic skills. Marek, My very best wishes, and USchick are absolutely correct, both translations are acceptable. There is no difference between "to kill" and "to murder" in Eastern Slavic languages.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Marek about multiple accounts. For example, one could compare these edits by Rediscoverer and Volunteer Eddy (who apparently mocked username of Volunteer Marek). Both tell "In 1960, an estimated 60% of agricultural land in northern China received no rain at all." There was also User:Rediscoverer2. This is already on SPI though. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Davidcole1992, the return of Whitechristian2013?

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

---

Davidcole1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Ani#Whitechristian2013_and_the_Turk_Nazi_Party for background.

This new user's first contribution was a repeat of blocked user Whitechristian2013's addition of the putative "Turk nazi party" to the List of white nationalist organizations. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Likely Sock Pretty much the same information. A CU would be helpful, but I think we can assume this is probably Whitechristian. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 21:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is very possible, but it is better to file this at WP:SPI and let us watch it a day or two, as with any case you think someone is a sockpuppet. It is hard to tell from just one edit, at least with the certainty required to indef block someone or to convince a CU that this warrants running a checkuser process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Although I seriously doubt this is actually him, David Cole is a rather infamous Holocaust denier, just google "David Cole Nazi" and see what pops up just in the first page. Considering the one edit and that username, surely this user qualifies for a username block at least? Heiro 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  Nah, David Cole doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article. Since there are approximately 2,605 David Coles in the US, let's AGF and assume they're a David Cole that was born in 1992. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  You beat me to it, and said exactly what I was going to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Try googling "David Cole 1992" and see what pops up, a series of videos at Auschwitz featuring his Holocaust denial. Heiro 22:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's wait a bit. What's it going to hurt? Either the user will be productive and we'll be glad that we didn't block him, or he'll clearly show himself to be a sock and we'll have no problem hitting the block button, or he'll cause problems somehow else and this discussion will be irrelevant. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

removal of comments

Bbb23 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing comments of myself, IP 24.61.9.111, and Little green rosetta [165] [166]. My reference to applicable policy on their talk page [167] was not responded to. I'd like the comment restored.

Prior discussion regarding closing may be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_10#archivetop_and_collapse_tags. NE Ent 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• You invoked WP:TPO in your question to Bbb, but I don't see how this noticeboard is a TP, v/r. There was a thread asking for admin intervention, none was forthcoming, an admin decides it's not actionable, end of story. Asking Arthur Rubin to explain Arthur Rubin's edits on Arthur Rubin's talk page seems like a good idea to me. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not how Wikipedia works, Drmies. Wikipedia makes decisions based upon consensus, not individual administrative opinions. Administrators only implement community consensus, they do not unilaterally makes up rules as they go along. I am concerned that you think there is some great divide between administrators and editors. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the lesson. Should every admin bring every single block to this board for your approval? Drmies (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• This and this are in absolute violation of policy. Bbb23 is warned against further violations of policy through editing and/or removing comments that are not his. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing what's wrong here. The discussion was closed, and Bbb23's comment seems to be entirely appropriate. Now, if someone had reopened the thread, then it wouldn't have been so bad - and I'm surprised neither LGR nor Ent took that route. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My comment was rhretorical stating in not so many words that if AR did not use any admin functions, so he was not required to give a response per INVOLVED. For the record, I'm ok with bbb23's comment removal per his edit summary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's common to be reverted over a closed discussion, at times drop the stick must be enforced without blocks it seems that the discussion ran it's course. Why keep adding fuel for the fire Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Just another voice echoing that its pretty common practice to revert comments made after a close, and that those comments could just as easily been made directly to the person's talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The close was not modified in any way. Additional comments were added in the same section but under the archived messages, as is consistent with policy. It is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy to remove comments from other editors. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Removing comments that were made after a section is closed, in the same section, is not a policy violation and it is done as a matter of course as it is, in fact, continuing the closed discussion. If the discussion is to be continued it needs to be unclosed, or to be re-started in an entirely new section - "tacking on" to the bottom of a closed discussion is acting as if it were not closed and is asking for the comments to be reverted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• And now Arthur Rubin himself is violating policy by removing comments. Interestingly, he only removed them after he commented and didn't like the direction they were headed. Additionally, AR is making wildly inappropriate sock puppet allegations. This is now three policy violations on the part of AR, WP:3rr, WP:TPG, and WP:HARASSMENT. The questions remains will anyone pull the block trigger on AR because he is an admin despite clear and unambiguous violations of several policies? My guess is "no". 24.61.9.111 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a wild ass guess that AR is removing your comments because he possibly thinks you are an indeffed user and effectively banned.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you were just talking about the importance of coming to consensus, and there's clearly no consensus forming to support such a block, so that was a pretty good guess. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Block 24.61.9.111

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

---

I guess my original wild ass guess that this ip belonged to User:StillStanding-247 was incorrect. A quick look at the edit history of our ip user above, it is most certainly the same person behind the account of indeffed User:Basket of Puppies. Both the account and ip have shown an overwhelming interest in Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak. Hopefully a passing admin will block and someone else will make this section go blue and that will be that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am neither of the above. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin and Little green rosetta. Per their constributions I have blocked this IP as a sock of Basket of Puppies. De728631 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User Watti Renew

I added a comment (permalink) to Watti Renew (talk · contribs)'s talk page considering his behaviour. In Finnish Wikipedia, known there as simply Watti, he has been involved in two RfC:s (1, 2) regarding his/her disruptive editing and neglect of article scope. He/she also seems to continue his/her old habits in English Wikipedia, too. Please be careful about this user's contributions. --ilaiho (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Behavior on another project is not (yet) relevant here. If you have something specific you think requires admin intervention, you may bring that up. Without such specifics (that is, specific problematic edits that require some kind of action), this reads like blackballing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  In my comment at Watti Renew's talk page, I linked to this and this edit as examples of contributions to en that resemble those that were considered problematic in fi. I am not sure if this is the correct place for this thread, there are lots of different noticeboards in English Wikipedia. I just want to advice English Wikipedia admins to not allow the situation escalate to the same point as happened in Finnish Wikipedia. --ilaiho (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

user:203.62.175.4

203.62.175.4 (talk · contribs) is vandalising pages by inserting/replacing/adding different names. [168] Delljvc (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Report is stale, i.e. the IP hasn't edited for 6.5 hours and has received multiple warnings on the user talk. No need to take action here. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

... and, for future reference, if it had been current the place to report it would have been WP:AIV. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:SarB752

The user User:SarB752 is engaged in vandalism / edit war on Lashkar-e-Balochistan despite several warnings .. The user is removing sourced content and then adding unsourced things and calling it Revised information ..

Besides, I tried to contact the user but no reply is given ; the user continues these edits ..

I gave several warnings to the user on his / her talk page .. Admins may consider taking action against this user according to Wikipedia rules ...

Thanks ..--Maxx786 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious edits in the Balkan region

I'm not sure what all of the edits by Atillat7 (talk · contribs) are all about, but at least one of them (to Istanbul, here) is very suspicious. Their other edits involve apparent spelling changes, some of which very unhelpful. This is not my area of expertise, and besides, I'm about to make like a tree and leaf. It is entirely possible that they are trying something in good faith, of course. In addition, I wonder if some of you can have a look at the recent history of Istanbul, since there's been a lot of traffic, not all of it helpful. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You should undo any bad edits and warn them of the relevant policies using user talk. Unless you suspect a sockpuppet, a modicum of WP:BITE still applies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on "Greece will receive Constantinople in 2014 and Russia will help them", from the diff above? Or on these spelling changes? I have no idea what the user is trying to do, and reverting saying "test edits" isn't very useful as an explanation, but that's what I'll do with this one. I was hoping for something with more explanatory power. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty unambiguous case of POV-motivated vandalism, I'd say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the POV, Fut. Perf.? Someone's spelling is being given preference here--where does it come from? (Joy, that's what I wanted the expert opinion for.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume the POV is a "Greece will receive Constantinople in 2014 and Russia will help them" which appears to be making a political statement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FPS. That "Greece will receive Constantinople" statement is obvious considering the Greek/Turkish border dispute. De728631 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Sigh) I'm asking about the Khagan spelling issue. "Greece will receive" is not a POV, it's a (silly) claim. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

:OT. Sorry, but I do like this rather pot-boiler section title Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is unclear to me too, but it looks rather like a good-faith attempt of finding a specific title, or some testing of which page names might exist on WP. De728631 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the naming of parts is a hotbed-issue in that area. Which language to use for geographical entities, for people, for titles? The language of the ruler? of the present time? of whoever claims to have gotten there first? The person who can say "Oh, that's the name as is used by party X in conflict Y", that's the expert I was hoping could weigh in here. Alan, I do what I can on a budget. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassing editor making false accusations

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

---

User:SudoGhost is behaving aggressively at Talk:Iron Man 3, including by making a false accusation about edit-warring. Rather than discuss the issue of his behavior, he wrote, "[I]f you think I am 'harassing' and 'bullying', you are more than welcome to take it to WP:ANI," so even though I'd prefer to discuss, this is his demand.

Rather than go into a long description here, I'll simply point here to his accusation of edit-warring after I had made precisely one (1) edit here at Iron Man 3. I informed him [169] that I found it harassing that he'd post a long edit-warring note and accusation on my talk page after one edit.

He removed my comments from his talk page [170]; I subsequently removed his from mine. [171]. He then falsely accused me a second time of editing-warring, after I had made a third-party comment, as is not improper, at a 3RR he brought up against another editor. The string, with difs, here cover that.

As I said, I'd have preferred discussion; it was at User:SudoGhost's insistence only that I bring it up here. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If "I don't like that comment" turns into "they are bullying and harassing me" then most of Wikipedia would be blocked from editing. If at worst I was just incorrect and editors haven't been blocked for edit warring for making a single revert (they have) then I'm wrong, but being wrong is not bullying or harassment. The editor saw that there was an ongoing discussion, but decided to comment and then remove the content, which is odd because they then reverted an edit I made on the basis that "there's active discussion on the talk page" even though they had just removed content despite active discussion on the talk page. Is this a double-standard, or was it a "well I'll revert you back" edit or meant to be done in a WP:POINTy manner? Since we're being dragged to AN/I since Tanbrae won't stop making these accusations on any page he can, I would love an explanation as to this. It's also odd that a single edit continuing an edit war is not edit warring, but a single notification (which is required to report an editor, which he requested I do), is harassment.

The editor then said that "If you believe I am edit-warring, then report me here. Otherwise, we do not make such unsupportable allegations" which is almost right (as one must be warned before they are reported), but otherwise a fair point. However, that point falls flat then since then they then use talk pages to throw around accusations of harassment, even following me to AN3 to accuse me of harassment there but stopping short of "reporting" anywhere appropriate, only accusing in every other location, yet they would like the courtesy they are not willing to do themselves?

After contuining to accuse me of less-than-honest behavior they then went to canvassing the only other editor that agreed with him (he didn't provide a "neutral notice" to the editor that disagreed with him). I'm fine with plenty of things, but this double-standard behavior doesn't really make me feel terribly compelled to sympathize.

Tenbrae knew there was an ongoing discussion, made a comment, and continued the back-and-forth by reverting to his preferred version despite that. If that is not edit warring, fine. However, by continuing to revert they lost that excuse, and they have far surpassed that single "false accusation" with wild accusations of WP:OWN, WP:Harassment, failure to WP:AGF, and the editor's canvassing. - SudoGhost 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Another false accusation. I'm losing count. Going to one editor and writing neutrally, "As a past participant, you're invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iron Man 3" is not in any way canvassing.

I reiterate: Jumping onto someone's talk page after one edit and posting a warning symbol and a long claim about edit-warring is deliberate, bullying, harassing behavior intended to intimidate another editor from making editos SudoGhost happens to disagree with.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Going to one editor and writing a neutrally worded comment is not canvassing. However, only posting a "neutrally worded" invitation only on the talk page of the editor who agreed with you is. It doesn't matter how the message was worded, it's who the message was sent to (and not sent to) that makes it canvassing. According to WP:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior", yet to my knowledge I have never interacted with you before, and that talk page message was the first thing I've said to you. You then accused me of harassment after that single message. With that in mind, do you still assert that it's harassment? - SudoGhost 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassment "can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." It logically follows the same can be true of the next step, where direct communication has taken place. Harassment also includes "[p]lacing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page." I'll leave it up to an admin to decide if it's perfectly reasonable and perfectly permitted to place any false or questionable warnings on a user talk page. Also, canvassing, by definition, involves contacting than one person. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassment is a pattern, not a single instance, and following my edits to continue to attack me is itself more harassing than anything I have done. If you're going to quote WP:Harassment out of context, you should probably at least provide diffs to show how I have been hounding you without actually interacting with you, which is what that is saying. If a single edit continuing an edit war is itself not edit warring, then at worst I am just plain wrong. However, when you flew off the handle and accused me of harassment, bullying, and being "WP:OWNy" while engaging in the same behavior you felt I was wrong for, you lost any merit you would have had in complaining. I've gotten templates and messages I disagreed with. Those people were not "harassing" me. What you're saying is that any unwanted comment is harassment, and not only is that wrong, that perception does not give you license to engage in WP:POINTy behavior and WP:Canvassing, which says nothing about "more than one person". You left a talk page message on a specific editor's message to influence the discussion to your benefit, and avoided leaving one on the talk page of the other participant, who disagrees with your position. That is canvassing. - SudoGhost 23:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your false allegation of edit-warring was the first thing you said to me, so I'm not sure it's fair or reasonable to say I "flew off the handle" when you initiated contact by accusing me of something I did not do. And an "unwanted comment" is one thing — a warning symbol and a false allegation are something far beyond an "unwanted comment." "Accusation" and "comment" are words with two different definitions. As for the canvassing claim, let's let an admin decide if contacting one person neutrally is "canvassing." See the dictionary definition of "canvassing." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, continuously accusing someone of harassment at every opportunity for a single comment is flying off the handle, given that for that single edit you threw that accusation on your talk page, in an edit summary removing that discussion, on my talk page twice, and following me to an AN3 discussion to accuse me of such there, on an article's talk page, and here, despite the fact that leaving you a template on your talk page is nowhere near harassment. By continuing to edit war by reverting the content, you were edit warring. You came nowhere close to 3RR, but editors have been blocked for a single revert before, so it's hardly a "false allegation". I probably shouldn't have put the template on your talk page, but your reaction and subsequent behavior have been disproportionately hostile, given the number of times you have repeatedly accused me of harassment today (which by my count is close to a dozen separate times). I did not "harass" you, certainly not be Wikipedia's definition. I want you to please stop making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.

As for splitting hairs about the dictionary definition of words, that is irrelevant. Wikipedia uses Wikipedia's definition of canvassing, not whatever dictionary definition suits you at the time, and under that definition there is definitely the appearance of canvassing, since you only notified the editor who agreed with you, and failed to notify the editor that did not. Wikipedia also uses Wikipedia's definition of harassment, and you have yet to show how you were harassed in any way under that definition, yet you continue to attack me under that pretense. Please stop. - SudoGhost 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my answers. Please remember, it was your idea to bring this here. And I'm sorry you disagree with someone using words precisely: I'm a journalist, and I believe being accurate in one's wording is extremely important. In any case, as I said, let's let an admin decide. I'm signing off from this for the night — you can have the last word. Try to make it reasonable and I'll try not to respond till tomorrow. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It was my idea to bring it here because you continue to attack me despite no evidence to back your claim of being harassed. You being a journalist or not is irrelevant since this is not Wiktionary but Wikipedia, and we use the consensus-determined meanings on Wikipedia, not "dictionary definitions". As you said, being accurate in one's wording is extremely important, yet on Wikipedia you continue to do otherwise. You were not harassed, but your subsequent behavior in response has been entirely inappropriate. Do you have any evidence that you were harassed in any way that would meet WP:Harassment? - SudoGhost 01:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, being on Wikipedia doesn't mean creating our own language and words no longer having dictionary definitions — this isn't Through the Looking Glass. And I have to ask: What word would you use to describe an inaccurate and unprovoked accusation intended to intimidate and create a chilling effect? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So...what you're saying is that no, you were not harassed in any way that falls under WP:Harassment, but you believe that any unwanted comment on your talk page can be labelled as harassment based solely on your interpretation of some vague undefined dictionary definition? That's not how Wikipedia works. Harassment on Wikipedia is defined at WP:Harassment in the very first sentence, and since what you're saying does not come anywhere close to that definition, that pretty much confirms that your comments are personal attacks as they lack evidence of any kind that anything of the sort took place. If you have a problem with the definition of harassment on that page, discuss it on that talk page, but unless consensus changes what that page says, your comments about dictionary definitions do not have any merit in regards to what harassment is on Wikipedia. You have not shown that the comment was inaccurate, and it was not unprovoked. It also was not "intended to intimidate and create a chilling effect" by any means (I'm at a loss as to where you came up with that); it was intended to get you to comment on the talk page instead of pushing contentious changes that had been reverted by several editors. Despite multiple requests to do so, you have not shown in any way that you were harassed in the slightest, for the obvious reason that you were not harassed. So stop throwing personal attacks at me; either back up your claims or stop making them. - SudoGhost 02:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an old debating tactic, taking what someone says and then rephrasing it in a way that says what you want it to say rather than what's being said. Admins see that all the time and aren't fooled by it. Bottom line: Wikipedia doesn't let anyone go around making false allegations against another editor. As well, I don't have to prove a negative, that I didn't edit war — the burden of proof is on you to prove I did edit war. And since one edit is not an edit war, yes I have "shown that [SudoGhost's] comment was inaccurate."

We can keep going round in circles or we can let an admin read this increasingly long and repetitive argument and decide for him- or herself if your initial attack on my page — your false allegation of edit-warring, designed to chill debate — was harassing or not. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you believe that the template, which was written by a consensus of editors and directly asks you to discuss the content, was intended to stop you from discussing? No. It was intended to do the opposite. You got offended when you were notified of edit warring, and started throwing around personal attacks. You were not harassed. Show that you were, or stop saying it. For someone so concerned about "false allegations", you'd think that wouldn't be a difficult request. That way there doesn't need to be "an old debating tactic", you can actually address your claims. Were you harassed under WP:Harassment and if so, how? If you're so concerned about being harassed it would help to show it instead of just attacking others, because that's a poor tactic for those with nothing better to say. Please, show that you're not doing that and back up your claims or stop making them. - SudoGhost 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You're saying it's perfectly OK to go to another editor's page and flat-out lie that they were edit-warring, even going so far as to post a warning symbol? Wow! I'd love to see an admin's reaction to that assertion! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you two want to argue with each other, pick one of your talkpages. If you want input here, it might help if you'd both shut up and wait for someone else to comment. I've lost interest myself, but perhaps it's not too late for someone else. --Onorem (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Edokter at Doctor Who

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

---

• Edokter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Doctor Who (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edokter has made edits through full protection at Doctor who[172], claiming that they are "fair game". He was already aware that this edit was controversial from his comment at WT:PROTECT here [173] He has been asked to revert on his talk page and has refused [174] [175] Edokter is using his admin tools to make controversial edits through full protection, without getting consensus on the talk page first, and is involved in the article.Martin451 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaining once more: I made one edit, removing one word ("twelfth") that was unsourced. Removing unsourced information in itself cannot be controversial. The edit had no relation to any content dispute that triggered the page protection. I was asked to revert, but without any arguments partaining to its content, but merely on the fact it alledgedly violated WP:FULL. In its current wording (there is an ungoing discussion going over that), uncontroversial edits are allowed on protected pages. I am more then willing to revert, once the content of my edit has been disputed. — Edokter (talk) — 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is precisely the behaviour being discussed at WT:PROTECT. Another admin made an edit, then reverted when asked to. You then undid that revert, and undoing that revert was a controversial edit using your tools to bypass protection. You were already aware that editing the article had been discussed, and the particular edit raised, but went ahead and changed the it anyway. That was controversial. We are not a newspaper and the edit should have been discussed first, or waited until protection had expired. You were asked to revert on your talk page and refused, and are now acting as a superuser.Martin451 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That all still does not address the content of the edit, which was not what the page was protected for. The only issue here is procedure. However, procedure means nothing if the actualy content of the edit is not under discussion. Until you have a dispute with the content of the edit, this discussion is WP:BIKESHED. — Edokter (talk) — 19:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got a problem with that edit. The original sentence was complete unsourced speculation, the amended sentence is fact (or, at least, sourced to the primary source). That's a perfectly good edit, and even if it doesn't completely fulfil WP:FULL, WP:IAR applies in terms of improving the article.See below. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What Black Kite says. Storm in a teacup. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, having now read the talkpage, the consensus is that any speculation should be removed, so in fact the edit does conform with WP:FULL. I think this can be closed. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energetically modified cement (2nd nomination)

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

---

Can an admin close this please, one way or the other? It's been a farce from start to finish, and it's getting worse and worse. It's been open for eight days, and if it closes as delete, keep, or no consensus, I don't care - just please, get it done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

IP genre warring

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

---

I am an idiot. Sorry. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This IP's contribs could probably use some admin attention. I suspect a tie to this mess of days gone by, given the articles involved. This address may be abandoned shortly, but please leave this thread open in case others pop up, which is this individual's MO. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Septa14 (talk · contribs) looks to be involved as well, as the IP above undid a revert of that account's edits at Led Zeppelin. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 81.138.2.36 (talk · contribs), I'm 81.138.2.36, sorry if I caused some trouble. I thought due to the 46.189 user I could help but sorry if I caused a bad amount of mess. I won't do it again, I was trying to help you and SabreD, sorry for the inconvenience. 81.138.2.36 (talk · contribs) Just to note, I'm not the 46.159.112.165 guy.

Gonna try not to flub it this time. The actual culprits look to be Septa14 (talk · contribs), METALMAN2488088 (talk · contribs), and a host of IPs. 81.138.2.36 (talk · contribs) is here to help. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now notified those two registered accounts. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I meant to do the same but was busy trying to track down a source for something else. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Septa14 is a new editor who had never been warned over their contested edits, so I'm asking them here to use reliable sources for the changing or adding of musical genres instead of editing without any summaries or references. METALMAN2488088 has had ample requests and warnings at his talk page and received a final warning notice on 7 May without any effect. I have therefore blocked him for one week. METALMAN2488088, please note that the mentioning of musical genres in Wikipedia articles is not to be attributed to our own research as you stated in this edit summary, but it should only reflect what has been written elsewhere in reliable sources. Our own opinion is irrelevant for writing any article content.

Evan, as to the hosts of IPs, is there any special article you've noticed a recent surge of IP activities or was that just a general observation? De728631 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm misjudging a lot of things today! :) In IP 81's contribs I noticed he reverted 108.208.170.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and a few others. You can check his edit summaries where he reverts the ones I suspected were related (historically the genre warrior in question -- see archived thread I linked to -- has lingered primarily around articles related to Led Zeppelin and Uriah Heep). It's primarily the range of interest of those IPs that made me suspicious, but it could just as easily be coincidence. Not enough for an SPI or CU or anything, I'd guess. Thanks for your help! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:74.62.246.170

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

---

This IP had been blocked 10 days ago and continues to vandalize pages, the one I caught was of The Powerpuff Girls today, I was going to leave a notice about it but saw all the ones already in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked one week for persistent edit warring. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

TheWikipreditor

Moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#TheWikipreditor. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I spotted some blatant advertising by TheWikipreditor (talk · contribs) and went back through his submissions. They had all been declined but I blanked most of them as near- or actual-blatant advertising and clear violations of the NPOV policy. Just wanted to give you all a heads up in case anyone asks about it. I've also raised issues about his username ("Wiki PR Editor"?) on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good call on the blanking, I've just found at least two containing copyright violations. His username has already been reported to UAA but a block was declined by the patrolling admin. Pol430 talk to me 09:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this has been moved here; the editor has stopped editing. Now that they have been 'educated' and gone away, perhaps they will one day return with a clearer idea of what Wikipedia is and is not. I don't see a pressing need for sanctions at this time. Pol430 talk to me 11:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanatkorn International

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

---

Do do doggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created Thanatkorn International and recreated Thanatkorn International (TNKI) with unambiguous advertising content copied directly from http://www.tnki.biz/index.php for his dad's company (per his user page). This behavior has continued despite multiple warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

And now Thanatkorn International co,.Ltd has been created, and of course deleted, as well. The user doesn't seem to be listening. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ProudIrishAspie

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

---

ProudIrishAspie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added flags to approximately 2600 infoboxes in the last month, despite four warnings from two editors flagging up the WP:INFOBOXFLAG policy. He has not responded to the messages and continues to add flags. Final warning has been given. Span (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Have they added one since that final warning? I mean, that's eminently blockable, but if they haven't added any then your warning was heeded. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• There seem to have been a couple more since the final warning, but ProudIrishAspie seems to have moved on to other editing. So, it's not a crisis, but... I think better communication is needed here. bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, you're right--didn't see those. Tell you what, I'll say it out loud on their talk page one more time, and next time they get a 31-hr block. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• More and more flags after warnings ... Benea (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, I have implemented a 31hr block for disruptive editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Lectonar. It had to happen, didn't it. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I have kept about half an eye on him since the thing with his userpage, so yes, I agree, it had to happen....but see my talk-page now. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Qworty's talk page protection

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

---

User:SB Johnny took it upon himself to protect Qworty's talk page thereby shutting down ongoing discussions about what to do with the user's page following his banning. There was no vandalism. There were no attempts by Qworty to edit his talk page. SB Johnny's comments upon protecting the page were "Giving this page a few days off. Move on, the encyclopedia isn't being written here." I requested SB Johnny undo his page protection, but he declined citing IAR and "possible BLP violations" (really? where?). So - here we are. I'd like to see the edit protection removed from the talk page and for SB Johnny (or me) to get a better understanding of the community's norms and expectations. At present, our standards read thusly: [176]Rklawton (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Other people discussing whether Qworty deserves a special place in WikiHell not even typically reserved for far worse abusers of this site is not so terribly important.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hard to parse. Do you mean "It's not so terribly important to permit discussions by other people about whether Qworty...abusers of this site"? If I understand you rightly, I agree. Talk pages of blocked users are to enable them to request unblocks, and for other people to communicate with them and vice versa; discussions about the user are only appropriate elsewhere. None of this can happen with someone who's gotten himself a block without talk page access, and protection is appropriate when misuse is definitely happening. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't have access to his talk (see block log). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood; that's why I said "None of this can happen with someone who's gotten himself a block without talk page access". Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be what I am saying.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(after e/c)I protected in the interest of drama-stomping, and discouraging the "grave-dancing" (horrible expression). No big deal for me if it's undone, but honestly the wider discussion about Qworty (and his userpage) should be elsewhere. See y'all in the AM. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I for one am pleased to see the "manifesto" ("Qworty is a shtick") blanked from the user page, with cutesy picture and all. Editors banned for what Qworty did don't get to use their old user page for such self-congratulatory fake-postmodern BS, for a bunch of words that are but a lousy excuse. As far as I'm concerned, his talk page gets blanked for the same reason, and protected from editing. It's not all a game. Nyttend is quite right, and the gravedancing argument holds water as well; note that his talk page is completely useless since an unblock request will have to be initiated via email to ArbCom. The discussion that RKlawton seeks can be held elsewhere--and we're here already, so we could: I support blanking of the talk page per WP:SOAPBOX and indefinite protection given the likely possibility of gravedancing and the uselessness of said talk page for the editor himself. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just as the talk page is pointless, so is any attempt to wipe out its contents. Let his comments remain and the few comments others made, we don't blank them for banned editors who have and still do, through sockpuppets, far worse things. We can just full-protect both user pages indefinitely.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why his comments should remain. They're no explanation anyway--they're just a smokescreen and, for Qworty, a badge of honor. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of those situations where the right thing to do is blindingly obvious. Blank the user page and talk page with appropriate notices and fully protect both, but do not revdel unless absolutely needed so journalists doing research can follow what happened by looking at the history. When revdel is required, make sure the edit comment explains why with a minimum of wikijargon. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend and Drmies and I think SB Johnny did the right thing. User talk pages are for talking with an editor, not about them. If a discussion about the ultimate fate of Qworty's userpage needs to happen, there are better venues for it (e.g. here, AN, MFD...) 28bytes (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • What 28bytes said. (ie: what Nyttend and Drmies said) Unusual circumstances call for unusual actions and this seems to be the lesser of all available evils. No need to allow his talk page to become a dartboard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Now that I have read up a bit more (really, I completely avoided the previous discussion...wow) I think Drmies may be is completely right that blanking is appropriate, and I would support indef protection as well. No need for the talk page to be either a trophy or a dance floor. This can always be undone if he is allowed back, although I won't hold my breath. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• From my perspective that sort of blanking is effectively like trying to nullify an editor's existence to punish them, or sweep it under the rug whatever the case may be.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• And under normal circumstances, I would agree and we wouldn't have needed to even take away talk page access. Then there are exceptional cases with some community banned users, like this, which I feel warrant it. A rare exception, but reasonable. It is as much to prevent others from dumping on them as it is to disallow them to continue using their talk page as a soapbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Indef protection is fine to resolve those concerns. The idea that his missives are so horrible that we can't allow people to see them unless they search for them is really quite silly to me. What does it actually prevent? Seems people who support this mainly support it out of spite, which is not how we are supposed to do things.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• What did I say that made you think it was out of spite? And your opposition is because you don't trust the motives of those here? I didn't even know who he was until today so I'm pretty sure my motives are not "spite". I'm still inclined to blank. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 04:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe not you, but it seems to be the primary motivation. There is no real purpose to blanking his talk page except to bury everything else about him in a revision history and leave only the tag of shame.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Their existence and edit history can't be nullified (well, unless they're vanished--is that a transitive verb yet?), and that's not what blanking a talk page does. Dennis's phrasing (neither trophy nor dance floor) is pretty apt. And seriously, "It’s time to get over the Internet. It’s time to get over ourselves." So it was all our fault, for believing that the articles we wrote were actually textual? That's the kind of thing we shouldn't be propagating. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Blanking of user and user talk pages and indefinite full protection per Drmies, Dennis and others above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Drmies is simply taking the easiest path to preventing martyrdom or disruption of Qworty's page. The subject is still under BLP and given the dispute; and not even the public nature of ANI prevented a rather venomous personal attack. The media is probably watching this still and reading our responses to see how we handle this. It may be drastic, but the actions serve to protect both Qworty and Wikipedia's image by not allowing editors a highly visible place to vent their frustrations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support blanking and enforcement thereof. The community does not need to discuss stuff indefinitely—some may want to do that, but please do it elsewhere because it is distracting when on-wiki (distracting because such endless discussion/bickering makes people forget that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia). The page is being blanked to avoid misuse of Wikipedia for gravedancing or grandstanding—if someone outside Wikipedia thinks it is for spite they are mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• OK, if now is too hasty, perhaps tomorrow someone can blank the talk page, leaving some appropriate "courtesy blanking" notice or whatever. Maybe Chris is right and I opted for the easiest path--it'd be a first. I don't object to the latest edit by User:BullRangifer on the user page and I will go ahead and protect that right now (AN is probably the best venue to discuss issues pertaining to the user page). The talk page could maybe use something similar, some kind of explanation with perhaps some links (though the box on the user page covers it, methinks); I'll leave that for others to decide. And then we move on. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose blanking of the page and support reverting it to this version. Partly per TDA, with whom I agree when he says "There is no real purpose to blanking his talk page except to bury everything else about him in a revision history and leave only the tag of shame." and partly per ChrisGualtieri (I know he supports blanking), with whom I agree when he says "The media is probably watching this still and reading our responses to see how we handle this." Blanking this page is the wrong move from a PR perspective (the coverup is worse than the crime). If the media is watching then the chance that they'll know how to look through the page history is small. It just looks like a coverup. Also, the original version of the page as left by Qworty has been quoted in two articles already, with doubtless more to come. For an institution that makes a talisman of the phrase "the sum of human knowledge" to even seem to be covering up what is now a primary source for a notable episode in its history not only looks bad, it is bad. Obviously there are no BLP concerns. The guy put the stuff on his own user page. Presumably the most respectful thing to do is to leave it alone. To call it "courtesy blanking" is especially bad. It's not a courtesy if the editor hasn't requested it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Courtesy blanking" doesn't mean "courtesy to the editor"--the term applies also to attack pages, copyright violations, etc. A permanent link to this discussion, with an explanation perhaps, undoes the cover-up bit. BTW, there are BLP concerns, since Qworty now has a real name as well; on the other side, the soapbox side, there's the "shtick" section, which in my opinion is inappropriate. Alf, I often agree with you, but not here. And now I will drop this particular stick--sorry for being so verbose in this thread. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Chris and John both cite stopping discussions on the user talk page as a cause for blanking, but this purpose would be served just as well by indefinitely full-protecting the page in its current state. No need for blanking at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• On a further note I see Rangifer has once more restored the completely absurd and redundant tagging of Qworty as blocked and banned together with the list of links, while Drmies went in and full-protected the page in said state. The reinsertion of the links was undoing an action by the original blocking admin Ironholds that he explained well enough. You two and any who support you should start heeding his words, not because of any special authority he is perceived to have, but because he is right and it is right. This whole debate and any action that endorses the current state or compounds upon it by blanking his talk page as well, serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. His punishment has been meted out in spades: harassed, outed, his misdeeds exposed to the press, banned, tagged, and the community turned against him. Why is that not enough to sate your blood lust?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen Ironholds' comments on the talk page when I restored the links. I left out the sentence/phrase that offended someone. I hope everyone noticed that. It's not a complete restoration. What's left is totally neutral and useful information. Leaving it there will help to avoid misunderstandings. Readers and journalists who are not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia will not know how to find this information and may write inaccurate things that will do no justice to Wikipedia or Young. If anyone has objections to the neutrality of the links, then let's discuss it, but just deleting without policy-based reasons is not a good option. This is an exceptional case and therefore we're doing something a little different this time and it does no harm at all. On the contrary. Try to AGF. There is no attack or harassment in this action at all. Otherwise, blanking of the page and leaving tags happens to be totally normal practice here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Only the banned tag is normal practice, not all the tags added after that. Not even sure why we have the block tag and we certainly don't need it when there is already a ban tag. As far as "does no harm", I imagine you would have a different perspective were you on the receiving end and are right now being clouded by your malice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• The page now states that "Sockpuppet investigation revealing the many sockpuppets used by Qworty/Robert Clark Young." The problem is that the list of possible socks was stale, and no sleepers were found. [177] Without a CU there are many accounts there that may well be socks, and did seem to act like them, but there are also some which feel less certain. I'm not sure that we should be linking to that with the description that that it revealed the socks, when a CU wasn't run. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Link should just be titled "Sockpuppet investigation (2013)" Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, but it's a moot point, now that the page has been completely blanked. Unfortunately the lack of information will contribute to confusion in the public and journalists, who will likely make mistakes due to lack of information. This lack of helpfulness will not improve the reputation of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support blanking both userpage and talkpage, per my statement here. Ironholds (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a fan of censorship at the best of times, & doing this when greater offenses haven't produced this result is an overreaction & unjustified punishment. It makes me wonder why. If an uninvolved editor, like myself, can come to the discussion & suspect (rightly or wrongly) the decision makers had a bias, then the process is flawed & the decision rendered certainly is. That outcome is not good for WP. Neither do I think that was the intended outcome. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• lock it down I'm looking at User:Essjay, which is fully protected in a more egregious state, and it seems to me that leaving this locked, without all the "helpful" links, is as good a state as any, and would give people an opportunity to find something useful to do. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Whatever the outcome, it is best given BLP, that people stop discussing that person there. People may discuss reliable sources and encyclopedic phrasing on the talk page of that subject's BLP article, if it remains on the Pedia. Or choose other forums off the Pedia for their general opinions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To reply to the matter of full protection, the user page is typically wiped clean as in the case of Bambifan101 and other LTA accounts, but the talk page often remains. Full Protecting the talk page I guess works out, though it leaves that little 'essay' and gives easy access to links which attack him. The matter of it being done off-wiki and that the user cannot remove them is of slight concern to me. Also, the page on the subject has been essentially trashed and links back to the user page. If full protection is what the community decides then I am fine with that. Qworty's stance and essay are one thing, but given the subject's page is referenced back from the article and the content is negative (even if true), it does not seem that this current drama is worth expanding to non-editors. The subject is under BLP all the same, and a permanent page full of dirt on this matter will be seen by many people who have to work with the editor as part of their career. Most sockpuppets don't have this off-wiki drama attached to their block, Qworty does, the fact the article was axed and throws the 'Wikipedia' controversy back seems to be Wikipedia's own way of preserving the conflict. And I'm not saying sweep it under the rug, I just see no need for it to remain given the nature of this dispute having a major off-wiki presence which will impact the subject's real-life and career. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I've boldly added the {{subst:courtesy blanked}} template to both the user and talk page, and extended the full protection to indefinite. No tag of shame, no one gets the last word. The editor is community banned, meaning they are no longer a member of the community. Terms like "censoring" have no meaning in this context as non-community persons don't share the same rights to opine that community members do, per WP:BAN. Of course, this doesn't mean we can justify anyone dancing on their graves either. None of the history has been deleted and anyone needing access to the previous information can with a single click. Assuming he doesn't start sockpuppeting, no tag on his user page is likely needed as any admin that sees that tag knows to check the history before unblocking. This addresses the concerns expressed above about it being used for shame and being used for a soapbox in the most neutral way. I have no opinion on the validity of the ban itself, and I didn't participate in that discussion. I understand some may disagree, but at the end of the day someone has to do something and this seems to be the best compromise that fits the consensus while addressing the real concerns expressed herein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse protection/Support blanking If you look at the talk pages of other banned users, you will see massive amounts of grave dancing and martyrdom. If the page is protected and blanked now, we can prevent this kind of negative energy for arising in the first place. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 14:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support the move by Dennis as a suitable compromise.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine with me as well. DA, in regard to your comment above, I don't wish to break a lance for any template/box. I had no problem with it being there, I have no problem with it being removed. Now that the SPI has (just) closed with the note that no obvious sleepers were found, certainly that link does not deserve a prominent place anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy today. I fully approve of the resolution here... apologies if I caused drama while I was trying to stifle drama ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN on 2013_Moore_tornado by United States Man (talk · contribs)

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

---

A major edit war (something that would go at WP:AN3RR), but it involves an ownership of articles. I count 22 reverts in the past 36 hours on a number of articles, hence implying an ownership. I also suspect some borderline personal attacks. I could link to the all, but his contribs page says it all. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you select some of the worst problems, provide diffs, and a brief contextual explanation as to their problems? I see a LOT of editing by that editor on the Tornado article, but that's not unusual. The fact that someone is making a lot of edits is not itself a sign of ownership, nor is reverts, per se; a fluid article on a recent news story attracts a lot of editing, and not all of it is good. I have seen nothing in scanning his recent contribs list that stands out as problematic, at least as self-evidently as you seem to imply it is. If there are problems, it would help if you gave actual diffs of the worst of the worst and explained what is wrong. --Jayron32 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is what happens when people forget that this isn't a newspaper and think that being first somehow makes it good. We should have a rule forcing a 24 hour wait on current events. Since we're WP:NOTNEWS, it really wouldn't hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

YE always seems to revert any changes I make to articles like this. Why he does that I will never know. Anyway, I would love to know how WP:OWN applies. YE started an edit war with me because I took something off the talk page that was WP:FORUM. The rest was reverting rating and death toll changes to the tornado. I don't think I did anything wrong - other than the mess with YE. United States Man (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally gave the editor a 3RR warning for a rather pointless sequence of reverts where he removed improvements to the article's infobox, with the excuse that it was "taking up space": [178][179][180][181]. He proceeded to blank the warning, and engage in a low-grade revert war on his talk page about removing the warning, then followed by a straight revert of a good-faith wording change by an anonymous user, which caused another round of reverts.[182][183] Add to that incivility in the article's talk page, and it seems to me that the editor needs a break from the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the biggest sign of ownership is this, wanting to get two articles he edited extensively protected so nobody could revert his changes. I think this edit summary was not the best as it come close to WP:CIVL IMO. Ditto this as per Wikipedia:Freedom of speech. While I am gald he is trying to resolve that matter to some extent, this was not the best talk page message ever. I am aware that this is technically allowed, but I don't think this is exactly encouraged. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

(ec)I will admit that those reverts were my fault. I repeatedly asked what was being changed by those edits. When the user finally explained I realized that I was wrong and backed off. The thing with the talk page was that I did not know that I didn't have the right to take those off of my talk page. I see others do it all the time. I did end up archiving the thread and all is well there. Whenever I get mad and start something, I usually try to fix it. United States Man (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The only edit that I see that was wrong with the list Yellow Evan gave was this, which was sort of harsh. The application for protection was because people kept putting in wrong ratings and death tolls (sometimes just plain vandalism). WP:OWN does not apply there last time I checked. This was not being hateful, but rather being in a hurry. This was nowhere close to WP:CIVL, just asking what difference it made, which I would have known if I had looked hard enough (again my fault). These are just examples of me being a little aggravated, that's all. United States Man (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the talk page, you don't "the right" since editing is a privilege not a right. You are technically allowed to remove warnings off your talk page, but it is not encouraged. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

I am not aware of any encouragement to keep such notices on one's talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct in one - removing a talk page notice is tacit acknowledgement that you have read the notice. You can't say you missed it later when we have a diff of you removing it, after all. But that goes both ways - you really can't get off with ignoring it either. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• US Man, those two editors that reverted your edits to your talk page have been told that they had no right to do that. See WP:OWNTALK: you have the right to do with your talk page as you please, pretty much, and don't let them tell you otherwise. [OK, that's obviously not Bradspeak since there's a ton of things you can't do (see WP:TALKNO), but none of these things were happening here.] Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked over all the actual diffs that were posted.... I'm not sure how much further one's expected to dig into the edit history on something that's barely 12 hours old... I don't think removing a large criticism from your talk page is good form, but it's allowed, nor do I think the other edits are particularly bad, nor do I think their removals are explained (at all). This is stupid btw... this is a pending natural disaster, there are hundreds of people hurt, and you guys are bitching over absolutely nothing of substance. Grow up and do some good with the article. Whatever "not news" therefore we shouldn't talk about anything current (let's make it a year, for fun) talk is above, that's not how we work, and people look to wikipedia for useful information. I don't see anything admin worthy here [yet], but you two need a strong slap on the wrist. None of this should have ever been brought here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Shadowjams here. I was hopping for more on the [[[WP:3RR]] side of this, but I had no idea there was some encouragement against recent events. However, since we are clearly getting nowhere, I withdraw this request. I am not here to fight people 24/7 I am here to wrtie articles and build an encyclopedia after all :) YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 12:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Natus Vincere

Can I request someone to take a look at this article please? I don't know the subject matter, it looks like it is riddled with vandalism and I can't find a clean point to revert it to. It may need a semi-protection too. It has had several new contributors and multiple IPs changing it with about 50 revisions in the last week. However, going further back through the last couple of months of revisions I can't find any point where I can clearly see the article as being a good copy. Apologies if this is posted in the wrong place. Thanks in advance QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the vandalism bit - though I see how it might look that way. This is just in a more....informal style than is appropriate. It is odd indeed to talk about notable events with chaps like Kuroky and Hireling, though. Adding to the fun is that many of the sources are going to be Ukrainian or Russian, which limits what I can do there. I didn't see anything particularly obvious as far as vandalism goes, could you point it out? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding: Threat and follow-through

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

---

User:Steelbeard1 openly threatened to commit Wikihounding against me back in April. He was warned by an admin at that time that his behaviour "is indeed considered wikihounding". Eventually I stopped hearing from him and I thought it was over. On May 21 he started confronting me again and promptly admitted that he has been following my edits with the intent of giving his input in any "editing disputes" I am involved with.

• [184]
• [185]
• [186]

It is abundantly clear that he is once again wikistalking me, and is not only vowing to Wikihound me but is clearly following through on that vow. He is also threatening retaliation if I report his behaviour:

• [187]

ChakaKong^talk 13:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I follow any editor who makes obviously false edits if you recall from his glaringly false edit in the MGM Music article. Because he got involved in an editing dispute which I hoped I settled in the Black Sabbath (album) article, I had to settle things there. If you read the top of his talk page, the statement he made regarding his involvement in editing disputes is very hostile and he refuses to apologize regarding his hostile reply to my polite pointing out the faulty edit he made. I think the problem with with Kong, not me. See [188] Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While I have not yet looked into the underlying edits, I will say this: Steelbeard, it's not your job to police another editor's edits. If Kong repeatedly posts false information, we have places to report that sort of thing. But vowing to "keep doing it until you apologize" is the very definition of wikihounding. Who gives a shit if they apologize or not? Clearly they will not discuss the matter with you, so let it go, report it, and move on. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Kong - I don't know that Steelbeard is wrong about the MGM Music thing, though - what was the deal there? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@ UltraExactZZ: Here is the edit he's referring to. An anonymous IP added unsourced content and all I did was revert that edit per guidelines. That's all I did. Steelbeard1 is somehow interpreting that as something terrible. I didn't actually add anything to the article. If there was incorrect info there, it was added previously by someone else, not me.

*[189]

ChakaKong^talk 13:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What Kong should have done is insert a tag to request a citation. When I reverted his faulty edit, I added the citation. My issue with Kong, again, is his hostility regarding faulty edits when they are pointed out to him. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly describing edits as "faulty" also comes across as rather hostile. Dricherby (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What other word should be used to describe an obviously false edit, Dricherby? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Obviously false" is even more hostile and suggests that the editor was lying (perhaps you're not a native speaker and didn't intend that meaning). In the case of the edit [190] linked above, removal of unsourced material seems to be a valid option and is certainly not "false". It was just an edit you disagreed with. Dricherby (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with the edit, it that the edit was just plain wrong, false, incorrect, untruthful, etc. Those already familiar with the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks know that Time Warner sold Warner Music Group in 2004 and Warner Music's license to issue the material has expired. Here is the edit which is at the core of the problem which is at [191] in which ChakaKong reverted an uncited, but true passage which created an obviously false passage repeating what User:Superastig, who is notorious for making false edits, made at [192]. I follow Superastig as well because of his questionable edits. If you look at his talk page's history, he deletes comments about his faulty edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing a message from one's talk page is clear and documentable evidence that the editor has seen the message, and may be presumed to have read it. There is no rule that prevents editors from removing messages from their talk pages, unless it is a block notice or reviewed unblock request and they are currently blocked - and that caveat does not apply here. Did ChakaKong continue to revert on MGM Music after you added a citation? You mention questionable edits, plural - what other questionable edits do you refer to? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I made no aditional edits to MGM Music after Steelbeard got upset. If he has ever had an issue with any other edit of mine, he hasn't stated it yet. ChakaKong^talk 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My issue with Kong is his hostile reply to my pointing out the problem with his edit as well as his posting on the top of his talk page to all who have issues with his edits which I consider to be hostile. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, that (the talk page thing) is not really that unreasonable a concern - and you may consider ChakaKong to have been made aware of it. You cite no diff for the other thing. Now, I'm going to ask you to voluntarily ban yourself from any sort of interaction with ChakaKong or any discussion in which he is already involved. You have been wikihounding him for no clear purpose, and that needs to stop right now. If you are unwilling to voluntarily stop and walk away from this, it is likely that you will be subjected to an involuntary ban - one with far stricter constraints on your editing. You may even be blocked from editing. Please end this. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here user Steelbeard1 clearly admits that the "faulty edit" which has driven him to wikihound me was actually done by another editor and not by me. ChakaKong^talk 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, clearly in reverting an unsourced change you reintroduced incorrect information to the article - and I find your lack of perfection in your editing appalling enough to recommend an indefinite block. How DARE you make a mistake? What nerve. See how dumb that sounds? In all seriousness, reverting to the status quo was a reasonable edit, and what errors were introduced were not introduced by you AND were rapidly fixed by Steelbeard when he posted the correct info with a source. That's the way these things work, and I for one have no problem with that edit. You're good. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this previously came up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#User_talk:ChakaKong, about three weeks ago. It was closed without action. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of whether the reversion of the IP was sound or not, there is clear evidence of Wikistalking by Steelbeard. Ergo, I propose that a final warning be given to Steelbeard. If they continue their stalking after said final warning, then further preventative measures shall be in order. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to see Steelbeard's response to my question, above, but yeah - I'm leaning that way as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Give him some time, I'm sure he's very busy combing through every edit I've made in the past six months in an attempt to find an example of imperfection. ChakaKong^talk 15:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I've seen enough - and have asked him to voluntarily enter into an interaction ban with you and pages on which you are involved, as per WP:IBAN. If he does so - or if we have to impose such a ban - would you do me a favor and keep your distance from him as well? No need to poke at it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I will very happily keep my distance from him. ChakaKong^talk 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it was just that one edit and the more recent edit dispute I ran across. My issue with Kong is his downright hostility when I pointed out that first faulty edit to him. Let me ask this question to the administrators reading this thread. What would you do if you found a faulty edit, politely let the editor know he made the faulty edit only to receive an angry and hostile response which greatly offended you. I had stated that I would let the matter slide if Kong apologized, but he refused to. So now it led to this moment where I may be punished over Kong's open hostility to me. Let's make a deal. If Kong apologizes to me, I will unwatch him. There may be a remote case where he makes a disputed edit in an article I am already following, but I can't help that. I hope this satisfies everyone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to see a diff of this hostile response from ChakaKong. As to your question, though - if someone made a faulty edit and I called them on it, and they left me an angry note about it? I'd probably reply with something along the lines of "OK, dude, whatever." And then I'd let it go. If they attacked me personally, I'd leave them an NPA warning. But I would not waste my time following them around. Our policy on Wikihounding does not include the language "Wikihounding is prohibited unless the other editor said a mean thing to you." Now, ChakaKong may have been out of line in saying whatever it is they said, or they may not have been. But your conduct has been unquestionably out of bounds - and reaffirming your intent to continue that wikihounding in a statement on ANI is singularly unwise. You may wish to reconsider that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@UltraExactZZ: Here is the diff of my "angry and hostile response" Steelbeaerd has been so offended by. I simply told him that my reverting an unsourced edit was a very poor reason for him to leave a warning on my talk page. The entire exchange can be read here. ChakaKong^talk 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I had noted Kong's goof at [193]. When I asked administrator Gfoley4 at [194] what the proper procedure to let an editor know that an edit was glaringly incorrect should be, he replied that what I did was fine and proper. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Steelbeard, to be honest, you demanding an apology for some vague slight against you that you haven't bothered to illustrate does not reflect well on you. My good faith advice to you is just to get over whatever it was and go about your business, and leave ChakaKong alone. Dayewalker (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, administrator Gfoley4 informed Steelbeard that "your behavior is indeed considered wikihounding. This is disruptive, and you need to stop. If you don't, further consequences may be considered". Funny how that got left out. ChakaKong^talk 16:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If was Gfoley4's posting on the original complaint page that inspired me to ask the question on his talk page as to what the proper procedure to let an editor know an incorrect edit was made. I also asked him on his talk page to add his input here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(OD) Steelbeard, you're trying to justify your actions by quoting an admin who told you a month ago [195] that you were hounding ChakaKong, and to leave him alone. Let it go, man. Dayewalker (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That is why I asked that admin what the proper procedure to let an editor he/she made a faulty edit should be and I did do that. But Kong's reply was far from receptive. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, multiple editors have pointed out to you that you're clearly and unashamedly stalking another editor, and you should stop. Your actions here aren't helping anyone, most of all you. At the most, this was a minor miscommunication. Dayewalker (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this, with some notes.

  Final warning to Steelbeard: your response was way over the top. I see no "hostility" in this response--it's perfectly valid and plenty neutral. Continue to follow ChakaKong and you will be blocked. And really, if that note was hostile to you, good luck in the real world; I'm surprised, frankly, that ChakaKong followed up in a relatively calm manner to your passive-aggressive comments and actions. Chill out. In general, and especially in this case.

  ChakaKong, I suggest that you remove that rather childish "warning" from the top of your talk page. We're not in middle school anymore; this was bad enough and this just made it worse. Talk pages are made for whining and bitching: get used to it. A notification like that serves only purpose: to piss people off before they even get started. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Bidgee

I would like to inform the admins of what I believe to be continued uncivil behaviour and unfounded complaints, of which I am at the receiving end at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#AUshielding_conversions.

The entire thread should be read through in its entirety, but there are quite a few diffs are supplied below with some specific edits:

• [196] - pure adhom.
• [197] - topic discussed has nothing to do with US Roads anyway.
• [198] - attempt to move the discussion to more suitable place thwarted with claims of "forum hopping".
• [199] - threats to stop contributing content if I dont fall into line, dismissal of official noticeboard for WP:OR.
• [200] - conspiracy claims, continuing about images supplied
• [201] - issues with unrelated topics
• [202] - more, continued conspiracy, likely unfounded claims of COI in a recent ACR i took part in

I have already removed myself from an RfC due to claims that I personally am trying to force a specific change, which is probably the basis of the conspiracy mentioned above. I probably did make a few nieve mistakes at that RfC, but these shouldnt follow me to other discussions, and they certainly should derail them to the extent they have so far.

I will comply with any and all requests for my own behaviour to be modified aswell. -- Nbound (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Murrallli and WP:BLP policy.

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

---

User:Murrallli appears to have been repeatedly adding 'Category:Indian fraudsters' to articles in circumstances where the individual concerned has not been convicted of such an offence, in clear contravention of WP:BLP policy. See for example [203],[204],[205]. After the matter was first raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#troublesome mass addition of cats, User:Murrallli has also chosen to issue what might possibly be interpreted as a (somewhat farcical) legal threat on my talk page: [206]. Can I ask that this matter be looked into, and appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it - but right away I see that English may be an issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I cannot see a legal threat but that could be just my eyes (long day and it ain't even half over yet!), can you provide a specific diff please? Never mind, found it - diff of comment being removed. GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fierce as I am in defending my fellow editors, I have to agree that the remarks don't constitute actual legal threats. I think, Andy, that the editor (whose English is sub-par) is threatening to report you to your supervisor or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After taking a gander at that lovely message left on Andy's talkpage, this looks more like Wp: CIR and WP: NPA problems, IMHO. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

user grumpy is wasting administrators time and my time, with trivial personal grudge on me, I am not even editing those articles now, he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true??? time waste Murrallli (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot to be concerned about in your edits - this removed comment, for example, would have gotten you blocked outright had you not retracted it. Of greater concern, to me at least, is that you responded to questions about what you were doing and why by flipping out and saying a lot of really angry things. That's a problem. Do you understand that this is now how things are accomplished here? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has to be concerned over my edits, I dont understand, my english is better than u, that user's interpretations are sub par, user grumpy is wasting administrators time and my time, with trivial personal grudge on me (about categories), I am not even editing those articles now, he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true??? time waste Murrallli (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the incoherent statement above, I think we can assume that this editor is either trolling or just doesn't get it. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 15:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Yet here we are. If you can calm down and discuss Andy's concerns about your edits, maybe you might find that there are better ways to accomplish what you want to accomplish. Everything here is decided by consensus and discussion - getting angry when questioned about an edit is not going to get you anywhere. He questioned your edits to categories, you responded by threatening to go to his house. That's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please stop repeating yourself, comments like "he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true???" do not make any sense in English. You need to listen to the good advice you are being given, or you might end up being blocked GiantSnowman 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin? Competence block? Looks a slam dunk to me.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it not a disparagement to refer to User:AndyTheGrump as "grumpy"? Please do not use such derogations against fellow editors. DrPhen (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not when Andy self-identifies as a grump through his username. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've no objection to being described as grumpy - but can we try and stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

On topic, they seem to have stopped editing for the moment, and their contribs in mainspace (other than the category thing, which they said they stopped) seem to be okay, so I'm not sure a competence block is indicated quite yet. If they come back posting the same thing yet again, then probably. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a contributor who shows no understanding whatsoever of basic Wikipedia policy, resorts to threats and claims of a conspiracy when challenged, and spams pages with self-evidently-false claims regarding skills in the English language [207] doesn't look 'competent' to me. As of yet we have had no acknowledgement whatsoever from the contributor that their edits were improper, and nothing to indicate that a similar problem won't arise in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And the instant that editor posts another aggressive or attacking comment, I'll betcha you have half a dozen admins who will indef - myself included. But that editor does have a history, over the past few months, of good editing - so I don't think the situation is beyond salvage, as yet. One calm "Maybe I overreacted, won't happen again, etc etc" comment here coupled with an agreement to stay out of the whole category issue, and this goes away. A return to form, and we get to click "Block user". Not entirely sure which it will be. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As Ultraexact said. Given that they've stopped, at least for now, we can afford to pull our punches a bit. If they continue being disruptive, then yes, blocks will be issued. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Indef for a vandal at Obama Sr's page

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

---

• Bananaboyzz (talk · contribs)

Obviously not here to contribute, has a fixation on Barack Obama, Sr., changing the name of the president to "Dictator Barack Hussein Osama-Hitler-Stalin Un]" and racist overtones as well, altering Sr's cause of death to "too much KFC". Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. AIV may have been just as quick, but this works too. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Himesh84

This is user has now removed referenced content three times (1, 2, 3) from Jaffna kingdom which is a Good Article. I have tried explaining on the talk page the need for references and that his actions amounted to original research but he just ignores me. This editor has a long history of ignoring core content policies (see user's talk page) and has been blocked a number of times. --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 72 hours, for edit warring and disruption. The bright line wasn't crossed, but it's edit warring nonetheless. Note: one might expect a longer block, given their rather extensive log, but I see no evidence of name-calling or the use of racial or other slurs, which is what prompted earlier, longer blocks. If I missed them, feel free to lengthen the block. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was looking at that and debating action myself, not convinced a "Dear friend" letter was going to do the trick this time, so I have to agree with the block. I'm a bit concerned about the overall clue with the editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Parrot_of_Doom

I came across User:Parrot_of_Doom while browsing the DR/N @ Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#A_Momentary_Lapse_of_Reason. I have no stake (nor opinion) in the actual content dispute, and note that User:Pigsonthewing is not blameless, but Parrot has a massive failure of several policies WP:3RR WP:CIVIL WP:OWN WP:NPA. This failure seems willfull, per the notice at the top of the user's talk page : " One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. [...] Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else."

His fundamental point may or may not be based in policy (Do featured articles have a higher standard of consensus/quality for incoming edits?), but his application thereof seems highly inappropriate.

and edit summaries such as "This is a featured article, either cite thing correctly and consistently or I will revert your changes. I make no apology for protecting an article against degradation like this"

or comments such as "Take your threats and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. If you want to add material here, do it properly, or lose it"

A few other choice diffs regarding previous warnings of policy violations [208] [209]

And it looks like he has been reported here quite a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=parrot+of+doom&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+noticeboards+%26+archives&fulltext=Search Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock creating doppleganger? acct and trolling admin

See [210], would someone like to step in and block some IPs and this acct? dont think the user is online at the present. Heiro 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The account is blocked. Not sure about blocking the IPs, probably too big a range. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Heiro, How you doing?? and Oh Hi zzuzz. Need any assistance in blocking me? Heiir0 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)