Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nightscream (talk | contribs) at 04:44, 24 May 2013 (→‎70.148.147.138 persistent unsourced content: Discussion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I think that would be best, but I'm not exactly unbiased here. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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:
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose á la flying off the handle with this one. Basket Feudalist 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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

    Note That copyvio was made with the creation of the page back in 2007. [3] It is not the editor's fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per Black Kite. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per Black Kite and Bishonen, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)"[reply]
    endrant

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Support User is clearly far from ready from even providing input on AFC. I encountered this edit on Country Crock connected to the 'Sketti' article BlackKite mentioned a couple weeks back going into detail about the 'recipe' on that reality show and a highly inappropriate hypothesis that the product is mostly used by low-income households. I reverted it because it seemed ridiculous to mention it in a product article, especially as it could be 'made' just as well with generic margarine (though I'd also delete it on the margarine article just as well), and the financial wellness attack. The user's page is filled with deleted or AfD'ed articles. If they're not even ready to edit in article space on a regular basis (or in template space), they should be nowhere near approving articles for creation. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    An admin to close this topic ban proposal one way or the other, please. Also, as far as I can see, Lx 121 has two !votes in here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    What POV in it? Those are facts. Do you wanna say those numbers are wrong? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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[4]. 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[5], but this is a kind of communication that is vital for wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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:[6][7][8] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Fair enough, however you have tried to involve more people [9], [10] .-sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Fucking get on wiv it then Basket Feudalist 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Solving the dispute by editwarring and slandering others....Thatll work....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    And that would of course include your twinkle reversion of my first edit to the page[11] (a clear violation of WP:VANDAL which should cost you your access to automated editing tools) and your subsequent unmotivated threats on my talkpage[12]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am going to leave this diff here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    /edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A few other one-off mistakes: [13][14][15][16][17] Here is your admission[18] that you know [[User:Kondi] personally. User Kondi who showed up out of nowhere[19] 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)[reply]

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

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

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)— Lazarus the Lazy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    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 [20].
    • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Your answer does not require a reply as it teases back itself! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a reply below! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Anyone who understands English knows that Sitush did not speculate any such thing. Competency is required. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    read this -sarvajna (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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:
    Believe me: I had no previous history of interaction with anyone of them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Many diffs are provided with proper explaination by Dharmadhyaksha in the beginning of the section.-sarvajna (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, is
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That the "more neutral venue" agrees with my and others' reading of "deface" should tell you something. I'm surprised you keep pushing the point when you so obviously made a mistake and all you had to do is apologize--or at least not whine and forumshop about it. It's obvious that being pissed at me and Sitush is the only reason you're in this thread; you have no clue what this is all about. That's trolling.

    "BTW I have an impression that the user talk:Drmies page is used by the clique to coordinate attacks against disagreeable contributors."--that's just a stupid remark. If we were coordinating attacks we wouldn't be doing it on a talk page with hundreds of watchers including, apparently, hard-hitting superheroes who come here to right great wrongs. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, notice Drmies’s edit summary to this posting (and simultaneous one below):
    two for the price of one. who reopened this misery? why no blocks yet?
    Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what's your point? He's not the only one who wishes this thread was closed (see Dharmadyaksha's comment above for one example). The "two for one" thing referred to his making two comments in one edit. It's his opinion that some people should be blocked, but as he hasn't acted on it himself (which may or may not be an involved action), there's nothing wrong with him expressing that opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 judgmental. 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)[reply]
      • I don't know, Yogesh, what you think Situshs's "beliefs" in regard to Modi are. Why would he even have any? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that "belief" isn't the most appropriate word in the given context, I have used it to avoid using negative sounding words like "prejudices", or "preconceived notions" etc., Drmies I'm not a mind reader what I write about Sitush is what is manifest to me from the way he deals with a particular subject. Again it is my perspective. I see the need to be able to be neutral while editing, I see that is an area that needs to be addressed. I see the need to be able to separate grain from chaff. Wikipedia isn't "my way or highway", he needs to understand that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • So now I apparently need to address my neutrality? There have been numerous different claims made here regarding the nature of my contributions to Wikipedia and I'm still waiting for someone to clarify what exactly they want an admin or the community to do here. A topic ban from Narendra Modi was mentioned somewhere above but the range of reasons and the vague references to my manner of contributing in general seems to have turned this discussion into a "take a pop at Sitush if you feel like it" thread. Please will someone say what they want to happen using the format of a formal proposal. Otherwise, this thread is pointless. I'm happy to walk away from the entire project if that is what the community want, so feel free. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think they want anything Sitush. This is a content dispute that is spilling over onto ANI. The key is in the very first sentences where the original complainant doesn't seem to have a problem with your suggestions, rather he appears to feel that the level of quality you desire is only necessary for articles under GA or FA review (The article is not in GA/FA review and doesn't need so much of strict reviewing). Though one would hope that quality is independent of any formal star system, apparently not everyone shares that view. Personally, I think it worth arguing over every point as long as we're all able to move on to the next point so I wouldn't do anything different if I were you. And, since this is a public venue, let me say that your contributions to Wikipedia in general, and to various India articles in particular, are, in my opinion, invaluable. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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):

    • [21] - 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.
    • [22] - allegations about editors religious stances, allegations of POV pushing, failures to abide by consensus.
    • [23] - various unsourced comments, more allegations of POV pushing.
    • [24][25] - 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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 [[26]],Madkhalism[27] 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[28].

    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 [29],
    • [30],
    • [31],
    • [32],
    • [33]*Mohra shareef here
    • Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [34]
    • 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[35] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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.

    Holodomor

    This is more of a content issue than incident. Several of the named parties are already blocked for socking (by me) and a couple more will likely be if they edit again. Any new socks can be taken to SPI or you can ping King of Hearts or myself since we are familiar. I recommend taking this to the talk page and using the standard editorial process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • This is sort of a POV trojan horse, a Ukrainian-nationalist tinged phrasing for the mass starvation of 1932-33, which some Ukrainians claim was an intentional incident of national genocide against the Ukrainian people (neatly ignoring the fact that more than 1 million ethnic Kazakhs and ethnic Russians also died in the catastrophe). I would neutrally translate "Holodomor" as "Time of Hunger," if that's the question, but the word itself has a extremely strong nationalist vibe which implicitly links the episode to Hitler's Final Solution. The 1932-33 catastrophe is a complex historical phenomenon — a gargantuan body count and a scholarly literature sprinkled with extreme and politically-inspired interpretations. It's a swamp every bit as deep as editing on Palestinian-Israeli topics, etc. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, upon further review, a translation of Holodomor which gets closer to the meaning would be "The Hunger-Extermination." Carrite (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be the case if it came from verb "umorit'". However, the noun "mor" can mean death from natural causes. However I agree; this certainly mean killing in the context. There are no serious disagreements among historians that these deaths were meant by the Stalinist government: so many people died because numerous military/NKVD detachments were dispatched to prevent people from escaping regions affected by the hunger after requisition of grain. The only controversial matter if this was planned specifically against Ukrainian people. Here the opinions by historians differ. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, that's wrong, the question of intent if not culpability is the matter of historical debate. But this is not the place to argue that. I'm sticking with "Time of Hunger" as an NPOV rendition of Holodomor and "Hunger-Extermination" as pretty close to on the mark as its actual meaning. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually "The Great Famine" also works as an NPOV rendition. The point is that this very term implies intent and is POV on the face of it. But it is an article of faith among Ukrainian nationalists that there was genocidal intent, thus the heated editing atmosphere... Carrite (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispatching of military/NKVD troops to prevent movement of people from regions affected by hunger on the Ukraine was made on orders from Stalin/government (i.e. intentionally). This is a matter of historical fact. No one seriously disputes that. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Well, it looks like I jumped the gun on this one. Oops. We are discussing the concept of a script blacklist here, so that will help with these inexperienced reviewer issues. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock creating doppleganger? acct and trolling admin

    Non-admin closure: Socks put into their draw by several admins. Closing to prevent further disruption. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See [36], 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)[reply]

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

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

    And another one (User:Zuuzzz) blocked. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all User:Mailersonly. He's only about the 400th person to get a thrill from discovering that he can make sockpuppets. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get a checkuser to shut this down at the source? --Jayron32 23:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally believe this guy is the 100003020240th guy to get kicks from socking. 1st place goes to BambiFan101. 173.58.104.137 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Gounc123

    Gounc123 has been warned. Continued creation of fansites or WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior will lead to the editor being blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gounc123 has made several unsourced edits to various wikipedia pages and incorporated lots of original research into what he contributes. I've deleted the content several times and he just continues to replace it claiming it is related - which it is, but there is no sourcing for it. I'm not the only editor to have removed some of his edits due to the sourcing issues and original research: 1, 2, and 3. I've posted on his talk page several times about his edits and that I want to talk about the edits in question (1 and 2). However, he just deletes my posts, along with the other editors who have posted on his talk page, and refuses to talk and maybe come to a compromise. He posted on my talk page (here) and he uses language that is offensive and directed towards me as an insult. He has also posted on the talk page of another article where he is clearly mocking another editor or insulting (here). He also posted on that same editors page here and seemed to lash out again.

    Most recently I've removed a lot of information from the 2013 North Carolina Tar Heels football team page where I found the material in question to be unsourced and largely original research, and there is still some material I left up on the page (mainly the position chart since he says he based the depth chart off of previous seasons and the spring game roster). In my edits to the page I explain why I delete the information - or atleast I believe I have. At first I let it go by since he was new to the site and everything, but his constant adding of unsourced and original research has gotten out of hand in my opinion. His conduct has also been stretching the boundaries. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from goUNC123: I am energetically going to "discuss" this issue listed above (this comment from 5/22/13) as one editor who consistently goes around deleting information with no reason and offering to reasonable explanation is launching a full-out campaign to get me to stop contributing to Wikipedia. I have no problem when "editors" make well-informed edits/deletes that serve to add to the quality of the page, but I do think that it is a large problem for all of Wikipedia, not just me, when people just go around deleting so that they can feel some personal worth deleting content from a bedroom in their parent's house.
    This is an interesting campaign from this editor that has to be under 15 years old. For one, it illustrates the vagary of the editor landscape on Wikipedia. Some editors will propose deleting an entire section by putting it on the talk page – a form of a compromise. Other editors will lash out at deleted entries that don't have a sufficient explanation. I think this dynamic can add value in some cases, but when the editor is simply deleting to feel some form of power – THAT is a problem for Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gounc123 (talk • contribs)
    There is definitely a protracted problem with WP:OWN and WP:NPA here. The only time this editor has ever used an article talk page is Talk:2013 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship which amounts to a personal attack on Giants27 (talk · contribs).
    The ad-hominem attack on Disc Wheel above based on his/her age is a great example of the problem.
    This rant on his talk page, tells me that this user has no intent to contribute constructively and interact with other users. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After his/her last comment, I don't think there is much else for me to say. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering: why did you say "Yes I'm the master and commander"? Drmies (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of warnings have been left for Gounc123 (talk · contribs) on his/her talk page at this point and this discussion that s/he is aware of is unambiguous. Continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or creation of fansites should result in a block. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Vtatultiwari move mess needs fixing

    Issue resolved. User pages restored to proper format by User:Scott Martin -- Alexf(talk) 18:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Vtatultiwari has been making a mess of moving his user page to other namespaces. So much so that it got me conused and now we have two user pages, one in user space and one as: Wikipedia:User:Vtatultiwari. Granted, I believe it was done in good faith, just as a misguided user. Could use some help in cleaning it up as when I tried to undo some of his moves I may have broken it somewhat. I am not used to moves and definitely not to the Wikipedia project space where this does not belong. Anybody can take a look? Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 11:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. — Scott • talk 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Ricose

    This user is continuously vandalizing articles even after repetitive warnings. His trait has been to remove the references as well as the referenced contents from an article and leaving an edit summary like removing peacocks and puffs or anything that would misguide other editors. Most recently he has been doing that in Joya Ahsan. I have successively warned the user with 3 vandalism templates on his talk page for his edits [37], [38], [39] but he kept on vandalizing the article. Further, he also went on to put a similar warning template on my talk page here. I have also found his edits being reverted for possible vandalism in the articles Tasbiha Binte Shahid Mila, Stoic Bliss etc. --Zayeem (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    hmm, interesting that you come to report me for "vandalism" when you're the one who was previously warned by both me and another administrator for continuously re-adding puff, peacockery and original research to articles? at the risk of repeating myself for what seems like the 100th time, wikipedia is NOT a place for inflated superfluous verbosity and personal advertising!Ricose (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add any puffs or peacocks rather I just reverted your massive content removals in those articles. Though the articles were in quite bad shape and you were really removing puffs and peacocks from those articles but as I mentioned before you also removed many references and contents that were not puffs which you continued to do even after repetitive warnings. YIn this case of Joya Ahsan, you are simply vandalizing the article by removing the references and referenced contents which can be seen in the diffs given. --Zayeem (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence of vandalism here, Zayeem. Vandalism has a very specific meaning here. Removing unsourced or promotional content is not vandalism. Let's start by assuming good faith and then move on to discussing content disputes civilly on the article's talk page. Vandalism templates and reports to this drama board seem like an over-reaction to me, but maybe there is something that I am not seeing? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take a close look at these diffs [40], [41], [42] you will see the user is just vandalizing the article Joya Ahsan by removing the references and the referenced contents and leaving some misguiding edit summaries. He actually doing these things since February (when he created his account) and continued to do so with some small breaks in between. Initially I assumed good faith and advised the user several times to change this trait but he kept on doing. My posts on his talk pages can be seen here. However, I was forced to use the vandalism templates when I was annoyed by his recent edits in the article Joya Ahsan which are clearly nonconstructive (diffs are given above). Moreover, its not just me, he was also warned by other editors before me for similar reasons which can be seen here and here. --Zayeem (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP reverting all edits by User:Trivialist

    A user with a dynamic IP seems to be reverting all of User:Trivialist's edits. A couple of IP addresses have been blocked, but I fear that the only way to stop this may be a range block. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All four IPs blocked for 1 week each, though I agree this probably needs something stronger. GiantSnowman 15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple more:

    --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked these two. -- Alexf(talk) 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting my range block 81.17.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These IPs belong to a company called "Private Layer INC". A few minutes Googling this name suggest the possibility that these IPs are associated with an anonymizing proxy. If so (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to confirm), then perhaps this range and other related ranges should be blocked for longer than 12 hours. Deli nk (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree this line of inquiry merits further investigation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also noting that I've blocked 81.17.31.192/26 (talk · contribs · block log) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also just noticed that the range I blocked just came off a 6-month block, which expired two days ago. So I'll be extending that one to 1 year. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's one I found: 46.19.136.189 (talk · contribs). All of their edits were reverts/undos of Trivialist's edits. Worth a look ... --McDoobAU93 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Organization: Private Layer Inc, Switzerland, net: 46.19.136.0/21 Thomas.W (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the host, they have dynamic VPN really cheap. These are a common source of COI paid spammers as well. I wouldn't be opposed to a long block of their entire range(s). Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken out 46.19.136.0/21 (talk · contribs · block log) until I (or someone else) have had a chance to have a closer look at their ranges. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect this may be related to my removal of affiliate links from articles about adult websites; I was contacted by an editor asking me to leave the affiliate links undisturbed. I'm not positive, but it seems possible. Trivialist (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Which editor? GiantSnowman 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    An anon using IPs; see my blacklist request for secure.vivid.com, and the anon edits I reverted on Tera Patrick and Rocco Siffredi which added linkfame.com affiliate links. Trivialist (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    More reversions:

    Trivialist (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting my year-long rangeblock of 80.82.68.0/24. I see most of the linkspammers are also on anonymisers. It's proxytastic. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    delete my AC ASAP

    I can't tell if it's simple trolling or lack of comprehension, but I've blocked for 24 hours to stop the ongoing disruption. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: now blocked indefinitely by Ed, as was Enderchestfrantic1 (talk · contribs). Drmies (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Look yeah...

    I don't belong here

    So delete my AC ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wat r u waiting 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by their edits, this person has either WP:COMPETENCE issues or is not here for the betterment of the 'pedia. Can someone step in and give them the block they seem to be requesting? Heiro 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    I just wan some RESPECT. Anyway, who was meant to understand those anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    209.23.200.194

    School block applied. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    209.23.200.194 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

    Looking at this users history and block log, is there any reason we shouldn't just block this IP for a year? Poking around the contribs, I found nothing of redeeming value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP traces back to dexter-southfield.org - if disruption continues, I would recommend an extended {{schoolblock}}, given the edit history and block logs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at only the edits for 2013. Because I found a couple that weren't blatant vandalism, I blocked the IP for six months instead of a year. I don't see why we need to wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problem with Admin Cuchullain and Magic Hat Article

    Case belongs in WP:DR. Not a pressing case for administrator's attention. -- Alexf(talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It appears that the admin involved in this case, Cúchullain, will not allow the wording to change on the Magic_Hat_Brewing_Company article. The references clearly state that the Brewery is Costa Rican. Yet any attempt to allude to the Brewery initially as a Costa Rican one is immediately removed. While the article does state eventually that the Brewery is owned by a Costa Rican company it initially appears to be an american brand. This is strangely dishonest at first glance. I'd like another admin to take a look into this.... The Edits in question follow::

    not the right way to list diffs
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • cur | prev) 18:00, 22 May 2013‎ Cuchullain (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,103 bytes) (-64)‎ . . (Not an improvement. The current version already makes it clear the brewery is owned by Florida Ice & Farm) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 17:22, 22 May 2013‎ Lbparker40 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,167 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Grammar and Punctuation Lbparker40 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)) (undo)[reply]
    • (cur | prev) 17:11, 22 May 2013‎ Lbparker40 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,167 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (Corrected article for misleading wording... The brand and the brewery are owned by) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 15:04, 22 May 2013‎ Cuchullain (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,103 bytes) (+1,179)‎ . . (Some rewriting per talk) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 14:38, 22 May 2013‎ Cuchullain (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,924 bytes) (-209)‎ . . (rv) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 01:46, 22 May 2013‎ Cheddarpants (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,133 bytes) (+209)‎ . . (Updated page to reflect current corporate

    Lbparker40 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're in the wrong place. Try WP:DR. (Though, at a cursory glance, it does seem to me that "American brewery" is correct. Might be owned by a Costa Rican company but the brewery is in Vermont.) --regentspark (comment) 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lbparker40, ANI is for problems that need an admin to get involved in, not for content disputes. The link above, WP:DR is for content disputes. It doesn't matter that he is an admin, this is about the article, not about administration. It looks like you are talking with him on his talk page, which is a good place to discuss the difference of opinion, but not at ANI. I suggest closing and let the regular dispute resolution process take place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unusual situation...

    ...and to all a good night. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Barbarianbort is an account that was created April 5, 2012. Said user then created an account that failed AFC, disappeared for two months, added fake content to an article, reverted it, and was warned for it, disappeared for a month, posted a nonsense talk page comment, and disappeared for a month. Upon his next appearance, he attempted to redirect William Cosby to Bill Cosby by blanking and redirecting, and using deceptive edit summaries to cover his actions four times over a six month period where those were his only edits (for which he was not warned at all despite the edits being reverted), used another deceptive edit summary to vandalize an article, blanked a page, disappeared, vandalized a page again, and finally, posted some unconstructive/unhelpful talk page comments on several pages.

    By and large, none of the above occurred in a grouping, and some actions really should have been taken at the time and and were not. Nevertheless, the above is an accurate representation of the user's entire edit history over the course of a year. The user has shown no inclination to be an regularly active participant on Wikipedia, and on the rare occasions upon which the user has "participated", his "participation" has been detrimental to the encyclopedia. The edit pattern indicates this editor will never edit enough to either incur 3RR or be reported on AIV. Is there enough of a pattern of history to block the account as vandalism only anyway? MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    bort not Bort: Barbarianbort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll fix that. MSJapan (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted article was List of unfortunate names. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, what do AFC, 3RR, and AIV mean? Also, Miss Japan, do you have citations for what you're reporting or are you just making things up? Barbarianbort (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem 1, he restores an apparent hoax. Problem 2, mentioned above, he redirects an article about a politician to an article about a TV personality. Problem 3, Problem 4, Problem 5, Problem 6, ditto #2. Problem 7, bizarre addition with deceptive summary. Problem 8, testing at Test. Problem 9, adds random text to the Betelgeuse article. Problems 10 and 11, not appropriate for a talk page. Problem 12, seemingly trolling someone who resolved problems #10 and #11. I've looked at all his non-deleted contributions, and from these I strongly suspect that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Barbarianbort, see WP:AFC, WP:3RR, and WP:AIV. The first is a place for getting articles reviewed before creating them, the second is a rule saying not to revert (undo someone else's actions) more than three times in a day, and the third is where we report blatant vandals. Your actions aren't relevant to any of those, but your editing appears to be typical of what our disruptive editing page is talking about. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    MSJapan points out my error with problem #9; it's actually Beetlejuice, some movie, not the prominent star. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Beetlejuice, some movie"?? [Can't believe my eyes.] Best movie ever! Bishonen | talk 19:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jonathan Yip not over?

    Recently, I noticed IP 12.53.78.125 making unconstructive edits at airport articles on my watchlist, such as this edit made to San Francisco International Airport, which adding false statistics was a reoccurring pattern of vandalism and disruptive editing that Jonathan Yip had. And as you can see, a suspected sock (which was just blocked). Unfortunatley for the IP [which is shared, but is one that Jonathan Yip seemed to have used], constructive edits have to be reverted, since it is made by a suspected sock of a banned user. Is there any way to see if there are still socks out there (both IP and users, since he had abusively used multitudes of both). Thanks for all of the help. Sincerely, WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 00:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Yip socks should be blocked on site and all edits reverted. Nothing good comes from this socker. If a shared ip gets blocked, its no different than a school block. The integrity of Wikipedia is more important than a few ip edits. JOJ Hutton 01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but my main concern is that this might receal that there could still be more socks. Other than that, I agree. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This really belongs at SPI, so that the issues can be documented for next time. --Rschen7754 08:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI has been done to death on this character. This is mostly about enforcement. Best thing to do is to just get an admins attention on the matter and the suspected ip or account will get blocked. Preferably an admin familiar with of history of JY.--JOJ Hutton 13:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent socks of Jonathan Yip have been mixing in some needed/constructive edits. I don't think we should do blanket reverts without regard. HkCaGu (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    HkCaGu, this is true. However, per policy, even constructive edits of banned editors and there confirmed or suspected socks have to be reverted. If needed, we undo the edits per policy and we can add it ourselves, so it does fit policy, while improving the articles. Thanks, HkCaGu. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 21:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, nice to meet you. I'm WorldTraveller101 and welcome to ANI. I regret to inform you that User:TheSyndromeOfaDown is a newly emerged suspected sock (confirmed pending Checkuser). Similar editions as JY and the IP, what's new? It's been mentioned at his SPI case, after the user requested a unblock. Anyway, good bye and have a lovely day. Gracias. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do with BLP urgent issues?

    I've posted to The WP:BLP board and WP:RFPP for protection of Wade Robson (in recent news for suing Michael Jackson's estate, accusing him of sexual abuse). This page has been vandalized repeatedly for going on three weeks without protection. Maybe I'm antsy after only a few hours, but I feel biographies should get quicker attention than what is recommended on the talk page templates. Ultra Venia (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, BLPs are among the most sensitive articles on Wikipedia, and we do not as much to protect the subjects as we ought. Take this as a request for people to get more active there. Collect (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Protection was denied for no good reason I can see, and vandalism continues. Collect, you are right, apparently at Wikipedia, the right of IPs to vandalize is greater than the right of individuals not to be attacked on their own biography page. It's a sloppy and unprofessional approach to encyclopedia-building. Ultra Venia (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to try at their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I appear to have stumbled into a sticky situation at GigE vision. While doing RC patrol, I noticed a revert on the article by User:TeslerB, who removed links to various open-source implementations of the standard, claiming that they were "illegal software." A quick check found no reliable reason to believe the software was illegal - in fact, one of the open-source implementations has been used and cited in a scientific paper published by CERN, so I reverted and mentioned on his Talk page that he needed to contact Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel if he believes the links to be illegal. Other previous edits from the TeslerB account appear to indicate some sort of COI link between him and the Automated Imaging Association, which owns the standard - he has edited a number of pages related to the group to insert registered trademark symbols, claim "illegal content" and other such edits. He has reverted the open-source links a number of times, and possibly here as an anon.

    User:TeslerB has continued arguing that the software is illegal - supported by nothing other than his own assertions - and has begun to verge on making legal threats. I have advised him twice to contact legal counsel for legal matters, and warned him about the no legal threats policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I would imagine the previous IP edits, which I reverted, were also this user. --Leigh Hamilton 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this violates WP:NLT. No threats have been made; This is an issue between two independent parties, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia. However, I would support a block if the edit warring continues - or Full page protection. Mdann52 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments like this are borderline. There is no direct legal threat, but there is an attempt to persuade others into complying due to an implication of it being illegal, and the product being illegal. This as a chilling effect, which is part of the reason WP:NLT exists to begin with. I don't think it breaches WP:NLT but it isn't wise. Concerns like this are better made at the talk page, in a calm manner, and not in an edit summary when reverting out a link. Edit warring is a bigger concern, but we haven't crossed a threshold there yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:Gaming the system by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

    I have uploaded non-free image File:ShashiKapoor.jpg.jpg for article Shashi Kapoor. The image is tagged as disputed. I have given my reason on File talk:ShashiKapoor.jpg.jpg and also posted general question regarding such circumstance here. But reported saw only one general reply by user, took decision about disputed image and started reverting my edits on article Shashi Kapoor. I reatedly contested that deadline is 19 May and admins have not taken decision. But above user kept overriding admin powers. I was caught in 3RR, above user reported me for edit war, I gave my reason but I was blocked for 48 hrs. After almost 4 days, above user has again removed image from the article. All non-free orphaned images are deleted no matter whether they fulfill nfcc or not. and it looks above user is creating another reason to delete image.

    In short, above user is overriding admins powers and is taking unilateral decisions and is gaming the system by citing MCQ which had only one reply at that time and which was long befor 19 May deadline. neo (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neo. simply refuses to accept that a nonfree image may not be used to illustrate a BLP absent extremely unusual circumstances, especially when a free image is available. They were blocked for edit warring over the image just a few days ago [44]. Discussion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Review_of_non-free_image_for_future_uploads_and_certainty has gone uniformly against their position. If this user, still adding back nonfree images to at least two BLPs (also at Meenakshi Seshadri, doesn't accept the clear language of WP:NFC#UUI, the rejection of his position at MCQ, the removal of the images by multiple editors, the legitimacy of their first block over these images, or the clear requirements of NFC policy and the overwhelming consensus supporting it, I'm afraid summary action has become necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one user had replied on MCQ at 13:14 18 May. You treated it, and still treat it, as 'consensus' and started edit war. I am again and again repeatedly saying that image is tagged disputed and admin decision is awaited. If I have uploaded image, I must link it to article because orphaned non-free images are deleted whether they fulfill nfcc or not. Unfortunately no admin is listening and reported user is on rampage. He just reverted my edits. I request admins to make it clear whether users should link non-free images after upload or wait for permission of some admin. I am being flamed and dragged in edit war. neo (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin but, as a content issue, it's not really an admin decision. HW is correct, if there's a suitable free image it should be used in lieu of a non-free one. NE Ent 11:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a free image, we shouldn't be using a non-free image when one is available. GB fan 11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Free image of the subject is taken during his old age retirement period and ill health, sitting on wheelchair, visibly looking ill. Reader can't associate this visual with contents which describe his work which he did during his youth(1961-1985). Linking bad image of the subject is vandalising the article. (2) As per policy, non-free image should not be orphaned until decision or deletion. I am just doing that. But reported user has somehow his own policy to push. neo (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy says that we need to keep a non-free image in an article until a decision has been made? GB fan 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've provided a source that states that a key to his success was his "boyish good looks" in the current discussion. There are a massive number of such sources that use words like "heartthrob" or otherwise make it plain his looks were key to his success (also make it plain he was a good actor). That _should_ end the discussion per NFCC which specifically allows a non-free image in that case. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lord, no, that's a grossly inappropriate interpretation of policy. Just because a source (particularly an opinion piece) comments on a subject's physical appearance isn't a justification for overriding NFC limits. Otherwise we might just as well scrap NFC as it applies to performers. It's not like "boyish good looks" is a description that can't be reasonably understood without an image, after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed this discussion because it was just mentioned on the file talk page. The uploader claims that he can't edit discussions if they are longer than 5000 characters, so I'm including an extra section header below, hoping that this will make it possible for him to return to the discussion.
    I would like to point out that 19 May is not a deadline. That was just the earliest date on which the image could be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. Sometimes, deletion is backlogged, and Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files shows that there currently is a huge backlog. If a deletion category is backlogged, then it only means that the decision will be made a little bit later. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    Finally Admin User:closedmouth has executed image citing nfcc 1. My image was nfcc 1 compliant. Showing the image of old-ill subject in the article is another form of blatant vandalism. Such images do not illustrate article and do not serve encyclopedic purpose. General reader simply can't associate such visuals with contents of the article. I protest this Admin vandalism. neo (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Throwing around "vandalism" like that is a fantastic way of ruining any case you have, when neither thing you describe as vandalism is, in fact, vandalism. If there is a free image, no matter what it is, then a non-free one cannot be used. There is no grey area, it's a concrete policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment - If there is a free image, no matter what it is, then a non-free one cannot be used - is clear in the minds of admins but not in print in WP:NFCC which confuse users. If there is consensus, why not write in print? But arguing before admins is frustrating and useless. Compared to 2007 user traffic to wikipedia has gone down. It will go down further. Bye. neo (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been a long-time problem, does a terrible quality or inappropriate free image automatically trump a significantly better non-free image? My feeling is that it should not, but NFCC-absolutists insist that it does, without (as neo points out) any really specific grounds for that belief in policy. If anything, BLP policy would seem to imply that presenting the best possible image of a living person is preferable to presenting one which shows the subject in decline or well after his or her prime - that seems akin to including negative (but true) facts, which we often exclude on the basis of both WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. We would, after all, generally chose the best presentation of the subject between two free images, and not deliberately misrepresent the subject. To my mind, that's much more important to our status as an encyclopedia than adhering to an ultra-strict interpretation of NFCC, especially considering that NFCC is already significantly more restrictive than it needs to be according to US fair-use practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with you and I think it is also worth emphasizing that the policy is No free equivalent. "Equivalent" is somewhat vague, but in the context of this BLP, the free and non-free images are of the same person, but they are by no means equivalent in relevant ways (e.g., one is of an older person and the other of a younger person). So, I would say that there is a very good justification for the position that there is no free equivalent in this and many other cases.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Breach of BLP topic ban

    Advice given. If followed, nothing else needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nataev (talk · contribs) was recently topic-banned from edits relating to Amiram Goldblum. He was subsequently blocked for breaching it; despite repeated disclaimers that he is "not interested" in the topic, he can't leave it alone, apparently out of deep frustration emerging from his belief that User:רסטיניאק is Goldblum himself. In that context, I'd like admins to consider this post on the user-talk page of רסטיניאק. It would have been reasonable for Nataev to make a polite request along these lines, but the message as a whole is an unwarranted attack and (imo) another breach of the topic ban. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, then you're admitting what I've been saying is true. Anyhow, I ask you to leave me alone. I don't give a fuck about this topic. Just leave me alone. Nataev (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, how can I stop some radical users from bugging me? A bunch of extremists keep getting on my nerves. They're doing their best to get me blocked. In this edit I asked to be left alone. I just want to be left alone. Nataev (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What reason did רסטיניאק have for for linking Nataev?? If an editor is topic banned then linking their name in a unrelated discussion (turning on the red notification thingy) is at best unnecessary and pointless and at worst baiting. I'd suggest folks just leave Nataev alone. NE Ent 12:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A recent one is here. My guess is that רסטיניאק (a relatively new editor) doesn't quite understand what happens when using wiki markup in mentioning another editor's name. That's why a polite notice would have been appropriate. It's certainly not baiting, and Nataev's post was a gross over-reaction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "turning on the red notification thingy" - Exactly! It's very annoying. I'd ask people to stop baiting me. Thank you, NE Ent. I hope this is the end of it all. Nataev (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that רסטיניאק was not baiting you and your post was highly inappropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, opinions vary on what level of civility is appropriate but it wasn't horrendous by Wikipedia standards and it definitely wasn't a BLP topic ban violation. If רסטיניאק will stop with the linking and Nataev stays off their talk page that would resolve the issue, right? NE Ent 13:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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 supplied below with some specific edits:

    • [45] - pure adhom.
    • [46] - topic discussed has nothing to do with US Roads anyway.
    • [47] - attempt to move the discussion to more suitable place (WP:OR, DR/N), thwarted with claims of "forum hopping".
    • [48] - threats to stop contributing content if I dont fall into line, dismissal of noticeboard for WP:OR.
    • [49] - conspiracy claims, continuing about images supplied
    • [50] - issues with unrelated topics
    • [51] - 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 allegations that I personally am trying to force a specific change (I dont agree with the allegations of course). That would be the basis of the conspiracy mentioned above. I will openly admit 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)[reply]

    Note: Case lapsed into archive - Nbound (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I glanced at it last time. When you tried to call the first link an ad hominem attack, you lost me, and I stopped reading any further (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was tossing up to link these diffs in actually, you do have to read the entire thread to even have the slightest at whats going on. I only added them as user complaints are supposed to have evidence (Though I forget which policy/where i read that though!). -- Nbound (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a storm in a thimble to me. Bidgee looked to get excited, but there is nothing really problematic here. I would not block Bidgee for this. Just keep discussing your differences in a civil manner please. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Im not looking to ban Bidgee, hell he contributes some pretty good content. The main issue was the continued completely unrelated disruption and utterly baseless claims made in the thread. To be honest, bringing it here has had its desired effect (he's stopped, at least for now). If the behaviour continues to the point where I would consider it harrassment (rather than maybe the results of bad day IRL), I'll bring it back up. Feel free to close :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Is there somewhere separate that responds to "lesser" (non-banning) conduct complaints. Its out of the purview of DRN, and some editors seem to place little value in the opinions of others. (I offered to take this to DRN and/or WP:OR relatively early on, but was essentially told its all just opinion). Im not looking to take this there now, but in future it could be handy - Nbound (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately not anymore. WP:WQA was shut down without replacement -- well except for ANI here; depending on the vagaries of who responds first you might get a little help or you might get some variant of There's nothing here requiring admin action!!! NE Ent 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't block Bidgee for this, but it does look he is more interested in obstructing rather than discussing. There is some ad hominem sprinkled in there, but I hear worse daily. I would just ignore him and move on and work with others, going to WP:DRN if you need to. You can't dictate his discussion style, consensus doesn't require unanimity, and while his tone is rude, it is short of personal attacks, so there isn't much an admin can do except chat with him, and I get the feeling that would make the situation worse. WQA would have been the right place, as Ent points out. I'm not sure what else we can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon

    This is tiresome and unecessary and Apteva has just been sanctioned at AE for similar spurious complaints. This is such a massive time sink and topic bans seem to have no effect on this that I have blocked Apteva for a month to demonstrate that this behaviour must cease. Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dicklyon (talk · contribs)

    User was reminded by WP:AE action on 13 May 2013 of "avoiding gratuitous comments on contributor in discussions related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, and that failure to do so may result in the imposition of standard discretionary sanctions." and the following is about as gratuitous as it gets:[52]

    So why are we having an RFC again here? To test the ban boundaries, to see if advocating deleting reference to the MOS is OK as long as the MOS is not mentioned in the process? In a desperate attempt to find an editor who will jump in and advance his losing case? Or what?

    While I have been a constant target of this editor, I am not the only editor they have chosen apparently randomly to treat in this manner. Instead of following advice to avoid the word you in discussions they have just made it into a joke.[53] The two words that trouble me the most in that post are the words "last summer" as that was posted in May 2013, and my first interaction with Dicklyon on the issue was October 2012, after summer had ended. This editor is one of many "crusty troublesome editors" that Wikipedia has picked up over the last dozen years, set in their ornery ways, unwilling to listen to suggested better ways of participation. I will not mention their latest tag team partner as that editor indicated they did not want to get dragged into ANI, but Dicklyon's behavior spreads like a cancer to new editors, creating and maintaining a toxic atmosphere that makes editing very difficult. There is an ongoing RFC to determine how to enforce civility, but in this case, the answer is clear, Dicklyon was reminded in no uncertain terms to avoid gratuitous remarks and has continued as though nothing was said. It can also be pointed out that the reply to the warning also contained a gratuitous remark about an "unfortunate disruptive mess", still maintaining the charade that I was the one who had created the "mess" when the facts are that all I do is edit. I fix messes, I do not create them. We avoid using the word "you" for the simple reason that it diverts discussion away from the topic and onto the participant. There are two methods of group decision making, consensus and parliamentary. Consensus is about 400 years old, and parliamentary about 200 years old. Neither allow directing comments to or about participants, both for the same reason. It does not work. From Roberts Rules of Order (summarized), "All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!"[54] Within the Quakers, the first to adopt consensus decision making, there is an appointed group called Ministry and Council, whose members are the only ones permitted to "offer guidance to those whose messages seem inappropriate to a meeting for worship". All members, though, are expected to not need any such guidance. "Those who rise to speak in the meeting for business should distinguish carefully between remarks which bear directly and helpfully upon the business and those which are tangential or distracting and should probably be left unspoken."[55] In a discussion at WP:VPP, I counted the word you used over 120 times. We are not banning the use of the word you, but we are suggesting that it is better to avoid the use of the word. And FYI, using an editors (user)name is 1000 times worse than the word you. Apteva (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The background includes the January 2013 topic ban of Apteva followed later by this clarification by Seraphimblade, the admin who closed the topic ban discussion. (There is currently an AE appeal which is not going Apteva's way although not yet closed.) Apteva has continued the same battle, which initially focussed on dashes, into the larger question of the relationship of the MOS to article titles. As Seraphimblade noted back in January, this is a violation of the original topic ban, even if Apteva is not explicitly discussing dashes anymore, it's the same battle and Apteva apparently is going to continue to test the boundaries of the ban. Apteva has previously been blocked for two weeks for this behaviour since the topic ban. Despite Apteva's productive edits to articles when not engaging in battling, I'm sorry to say I suggest a long block for Apteva. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 11:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Long or not, some further sanction or block to let Apteva know that we are serious about seeing him drop this campaign seems to be in order. He does not get that his sequence of deletion-fight, AE, RFC, ANI, etc. is exactly the kind of disruptive ask-the-other-parent pattern that wore through the community's patience months ago. I believe I have been civil in my reactions, though I have not bought into his model that I'm not allowed to comment on his campaign when he opens these disruptive discussions. Others such as AgnosticAphid have done so, too; Apteva's removal of civil on-point talk in WT to advance his case is more the problem, as here and here. Dicklyon (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, civility issues also play a role in a court, so you can also consider the following solution. Editors who are not capable of communicating in a civil way could be assigned a "lawyer" who will do the communicating for them. In practice this will mean a ban or topic ban but with the provision that the editor can edit indirectly via his/her representative editor. They then commnicate off Wiki, via email and the editor representing the editor with civilty problems uses a special account (in this case it could e.g. be "Dicklyon's representative"). Count Iblis (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Without wanting to come across as dismissing a thoughtful suggestion, Count Iblis, I'm going to suggest that if editors are having problems with Dicklyon's interaction style that they bring it back to AE or start an RFC/U. I also would strongly suggest that it not be Apteva that initiate it. Apteva may not believe that their attempts to get Dicklyon sanctioned in multiple venues ([56] [57]) is part of battlegound behaviour, but some thought must also be given to how it appears to other editors. (It was Dicklyon who initiated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva which received broad support that Apteva's style was a problem.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Apteva is desperate to drive other editors away from the discussion. Out of context the text looks bad, but it is not even the full post. This is the diff and the inserted piece was taken out of context to purposely to try and get Dicklyon sanctioned here at ANI. The matter as discussed in the posts shows a concerted effort by Apteva to abuse the process, and given the history is likely a bad-faith attempt to punish Dicklyon. Seems like a case of WP:BOOMERANG is in order because Apteva should know better to remove or take others comments out of context to advance an agenda. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And the above is an example of the sort of behavior that is intolerable. "desparate", "drive others away"? No, an RFC is to bring in editors. I am not the subject of this thread and it is inappropriate to try to make it that. Pretend I did not sign the opening statement and decide the case solely on its merits, without regard to who brought it up. As to out of context, there is no "context" that makes discussing another editor appropriate on a guideline appropriate. If multiple editors are getting out of hand a simple "stick to the subject" comment is directed not to those editors, but to everyone. Apteva (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you bring accusations against someone to ANI, your own actions will be under review as well, as often the case, "it takes two to tango". --MASEM (t) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that Apteva objects here to being accused of trying to "drive editors away", when he routinely uses that very same argument against other editors on his talk page "Is it your idea that you can chase me away...". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What relief is sought here? Apteva states that Dicklyon was reminded on May 13, but the Smokey the Bear "you"/"last summer" incident was May 7.[58] Glrx (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The relief sought is sanction for making gratuitous remarks. While it is true that I have given up all hope of reforming Dicklyon's reform, if anyone else would like to initiate an RFC/U, this can be closed. I will likely not even participate. It is the results that I am looking for, no calling me by gendered pronouns, no calling me you, no talking about me in a discussion about something else. The RFC/U against me was initiated because I pointed out to Dicklyon that there was nothing wrong with my conduct, and that if they thought there was they could start an RFC/U, which was rhetorical, and obviously had zero effect, because no I do not and did not think there is or was anything wrong with any of my conduct on Wikipedia. But as to cleaning up the you's all over the place, that is something that can be addressed in the civility RFC, but please, sanction Dicklyon or open an RFC, as the current conduct of this editor is completely inappropriate to the functioning of Wikipedia. Bringing it back to AE is out of the question. AE clearly stipulated that if the conduct continued that "may result in the imposition of standard discretionary sanctions". "May be ignored" is not the flip side of that word "may", as that simply serves to encourage, and as noted, spreads to other editors. An RFC/U, though, will be Dicklyon's third. Judging from the second one, at least I have not been called a worst name anyone can think of. Basically, instead of topic banning everyone from everything we just need to enforce civility, and delete on sight all offensive posts, preceded by a note on their user talkpage. Apteva (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it was a mistake for the AE case Apteva filed against Dicklyon previously to not result in a straightforward topic ban from MOS discussions for Apteva, barring those needed to explain edits made to articlespace. This complaint is frivolous and exemplifies battleground behavior regarding the MOS. I would encourage any reviewing admin to consider invoking the WP:ARBATC discretionary sanctions and imposing the aforementioned topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ohwrotcod

    Can someone help walk a new editor through some issues around deletion policy and more? Earlier today, 41.132.117.15 appeared on the scene and soon took some offence at some of my recent edits: see User_talk:DonQuixote#Possible_vendetta.3F (which implies the editor isn't that new, but there are no edits prior to today from this IP address, so I don't know who they were previously).

    I've been mainly working through one category of articles relating to Dr Who. 41.132.117.15 felt this was a "vendetta" and started working through a different category of articles that s/he felt I was favouring (there is some rivalry in Dr Who fandom between the two categories of releases), tagging them all as being of questionable notability, and then moving on to re-directs and PRODs, as you can see at Special:Contributions/41.132.117.15. Said user then created an account as User:Ohwrotcod (I think some automatic system saw them as adding too many external links and had blocked them?) and continued.

    In particular, as Ohwrotcod, s/he PROD'd several articles. I removed the PROD tags as I feel they are wrong. Ohwrotcod re-added, I re-removed. Ohwrotcod started calling me a "persistent vandal": [59]. I have sought to explain at User talk:Ohwrotcod how PRODs work, but I kinda get the feeling that Ohwrotcod isn't going to listen to me.

    I'm too involved here to guide this person and I'm going to run into WP:3RR issues. Many of Ohwrotcod's edits are entirely fair; others may reflect more emotion than Wikipedia policy. Some are clearly wrong under policy, but that appears to be out of ignorance. Could someone help &/or monitor them, and also could someone tidy up all the contested PRODs? Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and there's now this: [60] Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles with contested PRODs are Cold Fusion (Doctor Who), All-Consuming Fire, Toy Soldiers (Doctor Who), Just War (Doctor Who) and Return of the Living Dad, I think. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm being harrassed with very offensive posts to my talk page

    Spekkommissie warned about personal attacks and communicating in other than English. Further problems in those areas should lead to an indef block. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Todd, I'm sorry to overrule you, but this is a bit more than a personal attack--this is racist trolling and I'm going to block the Spekkommissie indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor concerned User:Spekkommissie (has been notified) I posted what I believe is friendly advice to a new user who was doing what appeared to be unintentionally unhelpful edits, but the editor's responses and other subsequent edits have revealed that the editor has a political agenda. The editor has retaliated against my reversion of their edits (and my advice on their talk page) by posting extremely offensive comments which contain ridiculous fabricated allegations against me to my talk page. The posts are in Afrikaans so I asked an uninvolved editor to translate them to English for your convenience. The material concerned is in the collapsed section at the bottom of my talk page. Other edits by the user are also relevant, so please examine their entire contributions record. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That user is new with just 10 edits and seems he don't know how to write in english. Ignore for the moment. But one of his edit is funny. neo (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me but I take offence at this comment. There is absolutely nothing funny about the allegations the editor has made about me. How would you like it if someone posted on your talk page: "Hey dude I remember you from back when we was in the Klu Klux Klan together - we sure had fun beatin' up them niggers"? There is seriously nothing funny about that! If User:Neo is an admin I'm frankly shocked at his/her attitude here. Editors expect their matters to be treated with seriousness and respect here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    neo (all lower case letters) is not an administrator, and an admin will surely deal with this situation in an appropriate manner.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please ignore Neo. Looking at his block log, he's had quite the troubled past with Wikipedia policy as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    99.129.112.89 sockpuppet

    Blocked a month, last sound heard was "quack". Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A purely disruptive IP address, User talk:99.129.112.89, has been blocked numerous times for being disruptive. In particular, he has a propensity to call people fags. It appears he has a sockpuppet - IP address 99.169.181.209, who just recently went on the talk page of 99.129.112.89 and said "You're all self-righteous wiki dick sucking losers"; his edit summary was 'fags'. It is very clear this is a sockpuppet, so another block for both IPs should probably be in order. Toa Nidhiki05 18:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Gounc123

    Blocked 31h for WP:DE Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gounc123 (talk · contribs) is continuing the WP:BATTLEGROUND discussed in the the section about him or her above, this time on my talk page. (The legal threat bit is pretty far out there.) Being that this last bit is directed at me, I'd appreciate it if another admin took care of this as discussed in the closure of that section please. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User: 109.77.xx.xx and the indefinite article

    An IP who uses addresses in the range 109.77.xx.xx has been changing a to an before acronyms (and occasionally the other way around) which I and several other users have reverted. Discussion has been initiated at User talk:109.77.131.0 and User talk:109.77.143.236 but they have not replied and possibly have not even seen it, nor are they likely to see it anytime soon if at each logon they use a different IP in the range.

    The latest batch was from 109.77.8.128 [61]. I have now attempted to start a discussion at Talk:XMPP#Please discuss changes to the indefinite article, which they may see, but there's no evidence they have yet used any talk page, so again they may not.

    Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP may be related to Mr. Bumble in Dickens' Oliver Twist, who famously said, "...the law is a ass—a idiot!" Perhaps that quote will attract him/her :) Rklear (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They do appear to have had the same teacher. (;->
    But seriously, there's no evidence that this is other than good faith. But there is a growing risk that someone will jump on the contributor as a vandal (again in good faith).
    Plus, of course, it's a nuisance! Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at your "latest batch" of edits above, I see that Resource Reservation Protocol has been hit 5 times now since the first of the month, twice by IPs in the 93.107.x.x. range. This means that the IP range is wider than first indicated, but it also means that the user is rechecking his/her work. Linking to that talk discussion in the undo edit summaries, if it's done over and over (which it obviously has to be), might get some attention. Rklear (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a big, loud editnotice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is Vodaphone, on 109.77.128.0/20 I think. 4096 addresses. I checked a couple of the /24s within that but not all. Some traffic but not tons. Blocking isn't a first resort, but those IPs rotate frequently, so talk page messages aren't much of a help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor

    classic edit war, both parties blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wanted to report a disruptive editor, Jennie. She has recently begun heavily padding the Beyonce article which she herself repromoted to GA, and reverts edits by me that follow protocol she herself sets. See [this].--Aichik (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Nerfmaster8

    User:Nerfmaster8 appears to have developed a personal issue with me after an editing conflict on Nerf Blasters, as evidenced in the article's history. Yesterday, he posted his displeasure of my edits on my talk page, but I deleted his post because, quite frankly, it wasn't worth arguing about. He then ranted to me about deleting his post, which I promptly deleted because I simply had nothing to say to him. Nerfmaster8 then went on and complained about me to McGeddon, which forced me to defend myself of these petty accusations and simply tell him to let go of the issue. Unfortunately, despite having already warned him of inciting a personal attack and advising him to read Wikipedia:Etiquette, he refused to let go of the issue and proceeded to create a lengthy section about me on Talk:N-Strike, on the grounds that I posted "leaked" information on Nerf products that Hasbro had asked several fan blogs to take down. Even though I acknowledged the fact that I posted such information here, he still continues to hold a grudge on me, claiming I have zero knowledge of Nerf products. I've tried to be very civil about this, but he left me no choice but to file this report on him. - Areaseven (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What outcome are you looking for? Best way to proceed is to continue as you have been doing -- ignore the personal comments and just focus on article content. NE Ent 01:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All I want out of this issue is an apology from Nerfmaster8 for falsely accusing me of having a lack of knowledge and to delete every single post targeted toward me, plain and simple. - Areaseven (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    i never accused you of adding those leaks until you mentioned it in this post, my main problem which i did clearly explain on the N-Strike talk page was over your reverts of my edits that were justified. When you reverted my edits, you gave me the impression that you did not know the most recent information regarding this topic which is why i brought up that you had a lack of knowledge on the topic at hand.Nerfmaster8 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that the title you used on your discussion clearly shows that you have a problem with me and not the content. And the other problem I see here is that you are obviously taking my edits too seriously, even after the number of times I told you to let it go. So for the last time, let it go. - Areaseven (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a simple content dispute. Tell you what, since sources and information are the root of this problem, how about I try to assist by digging up references and doing a quick 3O on the matter then. Blogs are typically not reliable sources; a new editor to Wikipedia will not know our complex and confusing policies and guidelines. Let's not go biting the newbies or escalating tensions on either side. This problem is relatively easy to fix at this early stage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In looking at the problem, it seems that the information about the "leaked" information on an upcoming product is the key part of the dispute. Per WP:NEWSORG, "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." Which sadly isn't covered by the obvious search of WP:LEAK. The information that was released seems fairly credible, but the sourcing is not, even the blogs are concerned about it being fake. Until it gets official RS, this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Though such instances with Apple products were widely publicized and carried through main stream media, a Nerf gun covered by only blogs is not capable of meeting inclusion requirements. And secondly, those pages need more citations. A lot of it screams WP:OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite requests and reminders by myself and others ([62]), User:QM400032 has not restored the userpage links to his custom signature ([63], [64]), in violation of WP:SIGLINK. I’m not sure if this is the most appropriate place to take the issue after trying the user’s Talk page; if it isn’t, I’ll apologize and move it wherever it fits. —Frungi (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is the right place. They need to insure their signature does include a link to either their talk page, user page or contribs page per WP:Signature, which is a real guideline and states: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page" It doesn't say "may" or "should", it it says "must", which is a rare word in policy and guideline and used for a reason. Maybe they didn't know, or accidentally messed up the links, but refusing to do so will get someone blocked, so hopefully they will show up here and figure out how to fix it so it does comply with our guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Just an observation, but I find it interesting that the word "must" is used on something "...that editors should attempt to follow..." :) Rockfang (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I was wondering about that too—why isn’t that requirement on a policy page? But obviously this isn’t the place for that. —Frungi (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The template uses 'should' as it is generic template and there are very few policies with 'must' on Wikipedia; WP:SIGLINK is one of them. WP:NOTBURO cuts both ways, just because the template on top says 'should' doesn't overrule the actual 'must' of the policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been particularly concerned with this editor lately as a lot of the templates that they are making have been taken to AFD. Also, there's a userbox he has that says he has been blocked before, but his block log is clean. --Rschen7754 04:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm most concerned about this because of one minor issue. I keep getting edit-conflicted by SineBot whenever I try to immediately reply to a question from him. I know that is a minor gripe, but it's still pretty annoying. TCN7JM 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    70.148.147.138 persistent unsourced content

    70.148.147.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Previously blocked for persistently adding unsourced content to Dominican Republic. After block, repeated addition of unsourced content: [65]. Further warned: [66]. Further repeated addition of unsourced content: [67], [68]. Vague statements about "other sources" or "another study", without citing any, are typical. – Wdchk (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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 ([69],[70]), 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    I apologize for not having responded earlier before the discussion was archived. The miniscule amount of time we are given before bots archive is astounding. I also apologize for the length of this post, but this problem has being going on for years, and hope that if you truly care about improving this project, that you read it carefully.

    It does not matter what Wikipedia:Verifiability is clear about, nor does it matter whether I had doubts about the source. If Alan or Hobit want to have a discussion on WP:V, or on my criticism of problem editors or one-off IP editors who can’t write a coherent sentence, then they are free to engage me in a discussion on that topic, provided they do so in good faith and with intellectual honesty and decency. But those are separate discussions.

    This discussion is about one thing and one thing alone: Alan’s long-time habit of attacking his critics and those he disagrees with in his edit summaries and elsewhere (including in this very discussion), lying about the editing record, and smearing those he disagrees with by any means necessary, including bringing up past discussions with other editors that do not directly bear any relevance to the one at hand.

    First, he compounds his earlier attack on me with similar comments here, when he claims, rather inanely, that I am “upset” and “bothered deeply” when sources are added to articles, when that is the precise sort of thing that I want to see occur in articles. The fact of the matter is, I remove unsourced information and original research from Wikipedia every day, and when I do so, I do so rather dispassionately. My removal of the content from the Red Bank article was no less dispassionate, and not motivated by any “malice”, nor does Alan have any basis for arguing otherwise. (Admittedly I have been more critical of editors who exhibit ignorance of grade school writing skills, and while I do criticize this, I don’t make false accusations or claim to know their emotional state.) Note that Alan not only tries to minimize the seriousness of his earlier comment by euphemistically calling it “snarky” (it wasn’t, it was a direct violation of AGF and NPA, and was far more malicious, ironically, than any content removal by me) but that in referring to his “comment” in the singular, he is indicating that he is not also including his comments in this discussion in his “apology”. (Indeed, why would he, when such behavior is his m.o. during ANI discussions?)

    Second, he outright lies about the editing record, including his own edits and mine (not the first time he has done this).

    He claims, “Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification.” Alan did not offer any “explanation”. What he did do was simply refer, in passing, to the material as being “sourced” in the edit summary in which he restored all the information, including the portion which was not sourced. In the first place, the mere fact that he asserts something (or even “explains” it) to be true does not make it true. In point of fact, his initial revert did not include any addition of sources; he just reverted my edit. You don’t have to believe me. Just go to the article’s edit history, and compare the version before my removal of the material and after he restored it. If he added more sources to the article, they’d show up in the diff, wouldn’t they? But in fact, they don’t. None of the changes he made included adding more sources. And by reverting my edit, he re-added the unsourced material: Namely, the mention of "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". He eventually made another edit in which he added yet another source, one that did mention Garmany and Broad Street, which I did not revert.
    He lied when he claimed that I “blindly remove content”. I think I’ve demonstrated here that I examined both the content and the sources that were cited in order to determine which bits of information were supported by those sources and which weren’t, so unless he is using a definition of “blind” that I’m ignorant of, I think that falsifies this claim fairly clearly. Alan, unfortunately, likes to reuse certain stock tactics and accusations, and one of them is to repeatedly accuse other editors of “blind” reverts. Don’t believe me? Check out this ANI discussion to see how often the word “blind” shows up on his messages. Hell, just count how many times it shows up in his very first message in that discussion. You could practically create a drinking game out of it. (The other editor targeted, User:AdjustShift, denied Alan’s accusation.) Since Alan knows that I read the sources, and that I found that they did not contain some of the material in the passage, this illustrates how he likes to toss accusations around in knee-jerk, indiscriminate fashion, without even giving any thought to what he’s saying.

    Third, Alan tries to smear his accusers or opponents by bringing up extraneous past conflicts in which his accusers have been embroiled, apparently in the belief that merely having been involved in numerous conflicts somehow discredits the accuser and falsifies the accusation. This is false. Any editor who has done heavy editing over the course of many years is going to find himself involved in numerous conflicts, especially if he or she is an admin enforcing policy. Bringing up past problems is certainly legitimate if it is directly relevant to the matter at hand, but Alan does not recognize this as a criterion, since he chooses any ol’ editor at random who has had “concerns with my editing practices”. If you want to falsify Accusation X that has been leveled against you, then do it. But bringing up Other Accusation Y against your accuser does not do this. It’s simply employment of the Tu Quoque fallacy. If Alan, or anyone else, wants to start a discussion here about my conduct, then let them. But such a discussion would be separate from this one.

    This problem isn’t new

    This would not be that big a problem if these behaviors were new. But they’re not. Alan has been troubling the editing community here at least six years, and when one looks through the numerous times he’s been reported here at ANI, ArbCom, etc., one sees an unfortunate pattern. Here are some examples from that pattern:

    In this September 2007 ANI discussion, an editor accused Alan of using deliberately misleading edit summaries. The ANI participant who gave the most responses in that discussion, Persian Poet Gal, agreed that Alan was guilty of this, while two other editors, User:Fram and User:Wikipediatrix, observed that this was not a new problem with Alan.

    Alan was the subject of a 2007-2008 RfC in which entire lists were compiled showing his personal attacks, AGF violations, questionable summaries, failure to acknowledge his violations and canvassing.

    In 2008, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan for his incivility, personal attacks, violations of AGF, etc.

    In this February 2010 ANI discussion, three editors, User:postdlf, User:Good Olfactory and User:Ncmvocalist observe Alan's problem with incivility, failure to adhere to AGF, personal attacks, making his accusers the subject of attacks, and stonewalling. User:Eusebeus concurs with this at a related Wikiquette Assistance discussion that same month.

    During a September 2007 ANI discussion, Eusebeus pointed to a number of recurring tendencies on Alan’s part, and I’m quoting Eusebeus here:

    1. A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
    2. A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
    3. A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
    4. A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
    5. A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.

    Clearly, this is an ongoing problem with Alan, for which he has previously been seriously disciplined, so it’s unfortunate that once again, those at ANI have refused to take decisive action, as seen by Hobit’s response, in which he talks solely about WP:V, completely failing to address or even acknowledge the problem of Alan’s serial behavior, and Guy’s inane suggestion that we have a beer or chat offline. It reminds me the bit in the comedy show Bill Cosby: Himself, in which one of Cosby’s children steals a toy from a sibling, leading to a fight that awakens Cosby from sleep, and when Cosby smacks both children equally, and the indignant sibling complains that he/she was struck even though he/she was in the right, Cosby responds, “We don’t care about justice! We just want QUIET!” That’s what you guys are doing. (A pity that Lukeno94, who stated that Alan was out of line, but made no response following Alan’s.)

    Seriously, why do you people participate here on ANI if you’re so incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff, and simply informing policy violators in no uncertain terms that their disruptive behaviors must cease?

    Summary and Conclusion: An Offer for a Resolution

    This must stop. Now. Those of you hold yourselves up in a position of authority here, capable of addressing problems here at ANI need to inform Alan, in no uncertain terms, of the following:

    • That his viewpoint of WP:V, or any guideline, does not empower him to attack another editor with false accusations, or fabricate imagined emotional states or motivations, and that such behavior should not be minimized with euphemistic labeling like “snarky”.
    • That he has lied about his and others’ editing records, and that this behavior is unacceptable, and must cease.
    • That when he is accused of wrongdoing, his obligation is to falsify the accusation, and not to respond with ad hominem attacks directed to his accusers, engaging in the Tu Quoque fallacy, or any other type of fallacy.

    These resolutions must also be enforced, so that if Alan continues to violate them, that his editing may be revoked. If he does not respond positively to these instructions, then he needs to have his editing privileges taken away from him. Should you refuse to revoke his privileges, or even pursue this matter further, I will be forced to go to the Arbitration Committee to report Alan there, and pursue more a more decisive resolution. (Eventually, I will also be calling for administrator reviews of those of you who have aided and sheltered Alan by refusing to take action to stop his serial abuse, both in regards to this discussion and previous ANI discussions involving Alan, such as the one last July.)

    Keep in mind that ArbCom is not ANI. Those at ArbCom tend to get things done. The last time Alan was brought before them, back in 2007, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan, and since Alan has filled the intervening six years with more of the same violations that led to that restriction in the first place, it would not looking good for him. I will contact the other participants in those RfCs and ANIs to comment. And believe me, smearing his accusers will not improve his chances of coming out of any ArbCom investigation unscathed.

    Keep in mind also that the last time I spearheaded an ArbCom intervention regarding a serial policy violator who had been disrupting the site for several years, that policy violator, Asgardian, was eventually banned from Wikipedia for a year, and eventually indefinitely.

    Alan, I want you to know that this is not a threat. It’s simply a statement of my intention. I am no longer going to allow you to attack others or engage in willfully deceitful behavior. I would far prefer not to go to ArbCom, both because you are capable of being a good editor when you want to be, and also because of the amount of time and work that would go into producing an ArbCom case. Although I don’t harbor tremendous hopes that you’ll change at this point, I feel I’m obligated to give you a chance. The three behaviors I have summarized above have been established by virtue of evidence and reason. You can freely acknowledge, without euphemism, logical fallacy or rhetoric, that you have committed those violations repeatedly, acknowledge that this is unacceptable, and that you will categorically cease doing so immediately. In return, I will not pursue this matter further, nor reference it in the future (provided that it does not become necessary in light of a repeat of the same behavior). If you do not do this, and the ANI admins refuse to hold you accountable, I will go to ArbCom. And I don’t think the chances that you will come out of that without a severe blow to your editing privileges are that great.

    Please think it over, and let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=556535018"