Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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

    User:Maunus is using IPs

    Although using IPs while still having a valid non-blocked account is okay, I am objecting User:Maunus's this act because of the reasons that i mention now. Maunus is now using IPs 68.9.182.96 and 128.148.231.12. He admits that here and at the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.9.182.96/Archive. He was recently (17th May 2013) blocked for uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. Previously in May 2011 while the user was admin, he had imposed a self-block for "preempting incivil behavior at multiple takpages". Block log. Now whether the blocks are self imposed or forced by other admins doesn't change the fact that this user makes personal attacks on other editors. As mentioned before, using IPs is valid. But using IPs thus wrongly attributes such personality-wise editing habits. The SPI can not take any action in this case. That's why i am here to note this point and get other admin's opinion and attention. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    so let me see, your argument is that because I have previously made personal attacks I should be exempt from the rule that allows editors to edit as IPs? Is that even an argument? 68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought they had declared that they were doing thus, in a similar manner to what I had to do earlier this year? There are some situations where people might find it awkward to log in. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also said that it is acceptable. But edits done through IPs aren't attributed to the right person. I am not caring about edit counts. I wouldn't even care of any constructive edits if the user himself has opted for not using their account. But non-constructive edits, like may be vandalism, multiple votes and personal attacks, should be attributed to the right person. Such behavioural attributions are helpful. The duck test relies on such behavioural features. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what the duck test is about. It is about determining whether two accounts who do not acknowledge they are used by the same editor are in fact operated by the same sockmaster. Since I have acknowledged that I am using those two IPs, and probably will use more of them since they are dynamic the duck test is entirely irrelevant.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He cannot login in to his account as he has the enforcer enabled, as you linked to the SPI you must know that? He first posted from his place of work and then from another location later, he stated on the talk page that it was him, he has done nothing wrong here and this is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maunus in the guise of an IP puts a clarify tag here in the article they later revert me without giving any reason only to be reverted by another editor.Later they start to edit war over another section here most importantly they say that we should not revert without giving any edit summary [1] however if you look here they reverted me without any edit summary. The edit war continues where the IP/Maunus also crosses 3RR limit [2] and may be out of frustration they just blank the whole section [3]. All this while the IP user never informed that it was Maunus because if it was informed then they would have been blocked for such disruption. This was very clever tactic by Maunus. Recently Maunus was blocked for incivility and here he calls another editor a joker.-sarvajna (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He also explained on the talk page why he did it, he has not done anything wrong here and this is as already stated, pointless. Please explain what policies he has violated and maybe you will have something, right now all I see is, "this guy pissed me off". Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @DS: Committing to crime later on doesn't undo the crime. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If Maunus did breach 3RR then that is a valid concern, although I'm not sure why it is brought here rather than taken to WP:AN3. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did break 3rr because I was being reverted and warned for invalid reasons - the information I added was fully sourced. the reversals was not based on having read the actual material, and the rationales given were incorrect. And Ok, I got angry.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Blanking a section without discussion, breach of civility by calling other editor a joker even after being blocked for incivility, breach of 3RR. Did he not indulge in vandalism? -sarvajna (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The section blanking was based on discussion. Darkness shines said that the sources were unreliable, which of course should mean that we dont use them. Calling someone who makes jokes a joker is not a personal attack.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)@Sitush: I did not bring it here to get action on his 3RR. I brought it here to get admin's opinions of how rightful attribution of edits should be done. We are in a way collecting feathers here to make a full duck. And its just a coincidence that his all colours are brought forth. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I see. Well, all I'll say now is that the more times contributor behaviour relating to the Narendra Modi article is raised here (see above thread), the more likely it is that someone with a mop will decide it is time to do some general cleaning. I doubt very much that the cleaning would be restricted to a single contributor. But if you want to push it then I cannot stop you. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... if that ever happens and wrong people are sacked for no reason, we at least would now be able to make reasonable guess as to who could be behind it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? Please, do tell me! - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Although it's not sockpuppetry is it unnecessarily disruption. "I can't log in because of the wikibreak enforcer" isn't a good reason -- if Maunus has changed their mind about taking a break they should get the enforcer removed and log in with their account. NE Ent 09:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He has to do no such thing, there are no rule saying you have to be logged in to edit, so I just logged out to do this. 212.183.128.186 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, but why happens when you cause disruptions without logging in? to whom should I attribute that disruption to? -sarvajna (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would note that although I agree that editing as an IP is fine, historically certain admins and members of the community in high positions feel otherwise. The primary reason I created this account was because when I was editing as an IP several editors used it as an excuse to say I was socking...and the community didn't debate that or indicate it wasn't ok to block me for editing as an IP. Now even in my RFA some said I was socking and pointed to those IP edits. So unless the member wants to be called a sockmaster they should edit using their account if they have one established. Kumioko (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im not an admin, but just to weigh in on the IP/user thing. The reason why it is discouraged is that for the average user there is little or no way to discern if an IP belongs to a user. This can obviously be used to to give undue weight to things said by editors who engage in this behaviour. Essentially, User:Foobar12345678 could edit as his IP, and back himself up in a discussion. If his internet connection does not use a static IP, then each time he reconnects, it will be yet another user. Obviously some users may not think this through, and may do it inadvertently, but there is little difference between this and actual socking. -- Nbound (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the enforcer - if you want to disable it, all you have to do is turn off JavaScript in your browser, then log in, and remove the enforcer script from your .js page. The enforcer doesn't actually block you from editing - it just lets you log in, and then automatically logs you out again, via JavaScript. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am kind of liking IP editing. I think I'll continue to do that and just leave my account behind. Thanks for the attention.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're still editing as an IP while you have the enforcer enabled, I think it is a sign that you are well and truly addicted to Wikipedia, and that you should either just come back and use your account, or ask Dennis Brown for a self-requested block. I'd prefer the former, but it's up to you... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking as someone who accidentally stepped into this dispute while huggling yesterday, I will say that I found Maunus's multiple-IP editing disruptive. Not because he wasn't using his account, per se, but because a) he was using two IPs essentially at once (notice how the contribs of IP 128 and IP 68 cross within minutes of each other, making the same arguments, without identifying them as each other or himself until well into both the edit war and the talk page debate, after the article had been protected and he'd lost his advantage in reverting there); and b) he used that IP editing to get something resembling "extra chances" from, at least, me. As a naive admin not otherwise involved in the dispute, with no indication that I was dealing with not only an experienced editor but an ex-admin, I warned him about our BLP policy and then stuck around to try to explain it to what appeared to be a newbie who needed help understanding, rather than just blocking someone who was edit warring to insert a what looked to me like a pretty egregious BLP violation. Similarly, as an IP he got a warning and extra revert chances on 3RR that he wouldn't have gotten had it been known that he was not only the other IP, but also Maunus, who knows perfectly well about edit warring policy already.

      If Maunus wants to edit as an IP now rather than using his account, he's free to do that - but he needs to be up-front about using multiple IPs on different ranges in the same discussion, and the playing "dumb" about policy to avoid sanction needs to stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My name is Maunus, with two u's. Read the sources and you will know why it was not a BLP violation. Block me for 3rr or more personal attacks or disruption if you wish, or give me a topic ban for any topic of your choosing, but PLEASE could we get some qualified admin attention to those pages already?68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there are two Us. Sorry for the misspellings; I've corrected them above. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to place this diff here [4] .-sarvajna (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your diff and I raise you with this one[5]68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctantly, given the blatant edit-warring and general disruptive editing via IPs, I think there should be serious talk about sanctions against Maunus. Edits such as this are very much not ok in the first place, let alone something to edit-war back in or double down on, and his bizarre comment about DS being an admin, together with the responses to that on the IP talk page definitely create the impression of an effort to evade scrutiny. All of this is very much unbecoming of any editor, least of all an admin.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I'm sure you're very reluctant. I am not an admin btw.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks][reply]
    I actually am reluctant. Also, I forgot that you resigned the tools.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then maybe it will be less bizarre for you to believe that I mistook Darness shines for an admin when he was not.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was responsible for the page protection of Narendra Modi; I then had a quick check back through the contributions of Maunus and his IP addresses, looking to see if he was using the IP accounts to edit whilst blocked or evade sanctions. I came across the last block ([6] - he was blocked for 48 hours at 03:04 17th May) and any edits after 03:04 on 19th May are perfectly acceptable. It wasn't until I went back and looked did I see one single edit [7] from 18th May 2013 from one of his self identified IP addresses. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Wikibreak enforcer thing, but I'm now more concerned about this edit in light of the entire ANI thread here, than I was when I initially came across it yesterday. I'm not sure what action if any to take, so I'll toss it over to the community here to see if they think it warrants attention. Nick (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not my edit. That IP is from my job, the anthropology department at the university where I work, where several people work with India related topics. The edit is adding a space. Not exactly my kind of edit.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks][reply]
    • I have done a bunch of stuff thats against the rules, and I will humbly and calmly accept any and all sanctions taken against me. But please can we have some attention to these articles and the editing behaviour of the particular editors I am mentioning. They are not breaking any redline rules, but they are a real threat to wikipedia. I would think much more so than I am, but that is up to you to decide.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks][reply]

    You have not produced a single source of comparable quality to any of the ones I have just presented, and you wouldnt recognize an "expert" (or a reliable source) if he jumped from behind a bush and bit you in the ass. You are the worst kind of threat to wikipedia: an administrator who will wilfully abuse and misrepresent our policies and lie and slander honest editors while doing it. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    — User:68.9.182.96 13:57, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

    This is 100% Maunus. Why no blocks yet, for Incivility perhaps if not anything else? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not deny having said that, and that it may be considered a personal attack. But it is accurate, and warranted based on the editor in questions own style of interaction, editing and argumentation. He has shown me no good faith and thus can expect none from me.68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the rules clearly state that it is allowed, that is safe to assume.198.7.241.250 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[Me, Maunus, editing from yet another IP...][reply]
    Well of course that’s what you think. I want some admins to agree here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just that, are we going to tolerate editors using multiple IPs for disruption and acting like they are new comers ?-sarvajna (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if you want someone to sanction me you should start by proposing a sanction based in some kind of policy that I have violated? Just a suggestion. 128.148.231.12 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the disruption in the contributions of the 198.* IP? Whether it is Maunus or someone else, the point being made about Rajiv Malhotra is a perfectly reasonable one. The man (Malhotra) has no academic standing and cannot be used to undermine the reliability of an academic source. This seems almost like an attempt to filibuster stuff, using any straw that can be clutched. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should this even be part of this discussion? A specific content? And you would decide who is academic and who is not? and how? are you a "neutral reliable" authority on deciding the persons credentials? Both section of people above have reference to mouth pieces and every author of these reference can be demeaned as needed to make an argument, and every editor admin who has replied in this post is as involved and seemingly biased as Brutus in the murder of Julius Caesar. Why are you so pushy to pain NM in a negative light? Whats wrong in keeping the tone of the language in the page on a neutral side? If I had my way - Every one in this discussion should take a mandatory break from Indian political pages for a week or probably a month and reconvene with cooler heads. Will some admin please do it? because editors here wont do it themselves Amit (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike that for irrelevance. We are not talking about any Malhotra here. We are talking about disruptions like blanking sections. More disruptions already submitted above. Also that pretence of being a newbie and unaware of rules is playing foul. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indulge me. My point was not well put. Basically, this thread has been open for a while, various people have said various things and the outcome until the 198.* IP began contributing seemed basically to be "tut-tut, but it is ok to edit as an IP". I've not bothered checking whether this one might be Maunus or not because it is irrelevant: whoever it may be, the point that they are raising is not disruptive. Any disruption that you may think had gone on before has already been commented on by numerous people. This latest complaint, in other words, is unlikely to go anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, did you even check the timings of my comment above and the appearance of 198 IP on the talk page before making this comment? I made the comment well before that IP came to the talk page, are you trying to divert the discussion here? -sarvajna (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's just that this discussion is effectively dead and should probably be closed. No admin has taken action yet and so it doesn't look likely that they will. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you thought to come here and incite it a little bit more? LOL.... There are too many admins already who were here and left (and were too involved to even take any action). If any editor above invites an admin it would look like the admin was biased too... so what is the conclusion on all this? Amit (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Sitush somehow felt that I made a comment because some 198 IP who is Maunus as written by the IP here commented on the talk page, Sitush, I am speaking about the disruption which was caused by Maunus when he started using the IP, he has broken rules, please check the top of this section, I have given diffs, please do not bring content disputes here. -sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pointing out my opinion that keeping this thread going seems to be futile. I predict a shed-load of blocks and bans being handed out before too much longer and that is why I have generally been trying to keep out of it here and on the talk page recently. The drama levels etc are high enough without putting yourself in the spotlight. And with that comment, I shall leave this thread: I've tried and, obviously, failed. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for leaving! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maunus continues his personal attack, he calls me a paid agent, again. here .-sarvajna (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Answering again. The policy states very clearly that it is allowed to use multiple accounts when they are not used disruptively. I have not used multiple accounts, I have edited logged out, I have not deceived and I do not consider my self to have disrupted. If you can show evidence that I have either edited logged out deceptively or disruptively you have a case. But it is not against the rules to edit logged out.68.9.182.96 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Asking again, as my past question was drained by jibber jabber.) Seeing no actions taken by admins against Maunus and his various IPs, shall we assume that using multiple logins is allowed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What I would really like

    What I would really like is a lot of uninvolved admins and non-admin editors to take a look at the articles Narendra Modi, 2002 Gujarat violence and other pages related to Hindu-Nationalism and communal violence in Gujarat. They should pay special attention to the editing of a group of editors including User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, User:Yogesh Khandke, User:Mrt3366, User:Dharmadhyaksha, User:Kondicherry, User:OrangesRyellow User:A.amitkumar (perhaps not, he only seems to have gotten involved yesterday) and administrator User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (reverts all edits from new editors to the article, even when reliably sourced and well formatted (often without edit summary), then proceeds to warn them om their talkpages). These editors, many of whom are SPAs relating to Hinduism, are working very hard to keep all criticism of Modi out of the article about him using every kind of spurious non-argument available, but usually just sheer force of numbers. There is a huge amount of behavioral issues for admins to sort out, walledgarden, opwnership, misrepresentation of sources, extreme pro-Modi bias. I additionally have reasonable suspicion that some of these editors are editing in coordination, and that some of them may in fact work for Modi or for his RSS organization known to have many fulltime activists paid to publicize propaganda. In short there is a lot of reasons as many administrators as possible should take a look at this article and the editing behavior there.

    So why should there be critical information about Narendra Modi? Easy question. Because the overwhelming majority of sources about him are highly critical. He is described in literally dozens of reliable peer viewed sources as having been an "orchestrator" of the 2002 massacre against Muslims in Gujarat. He has been accused of personally intervening on the side of the mobs, even by people who are his supporters (they have been filmed praising him for it), he has been denied visas to USA and Britain under a law meant to target individuals who infringe on the religious freedom of others, he is almost without fail described as the most controversial politician in India, he has given his name to a brand of politics now called "Moditva" (mixing his name Modi and Hindutva, described by reliable sources as populist, virulently anti-muslim hindu nationalism combined with liberal economic policies). See this write up for a review of some scholarly sources about him, none of which are currently used in the article.

    Right now the article doesn't even describe the fact that the BJP and RSS are Hindu nationalist organizations and gives no description of his politics. There is a section on his "personality" that builds entirely on news sources, all of which are highly critical of Modi. One would not realize that from reading the article though, because in the section they are used only to cherrypick minor positive details. For example a source that is criticizing or even ridiculing Modis poetry is used to source that "he writes poems in gujarati". A source that critiques him as being virulently chauvinist and Anti-Muslim is used to source that he is a vegetarian. And a source that says says that he is considered an autocrat by his opponents is used only to source that that his supporters see him as a Protector (which in fact is a misrepresentation of what the source says). Whenever a critical piece of information is entered (even the fact that he is a hindu-nationalist) the mentioned editors show up and remove it (often using rollback or twinkle with no edit summary, they then proceed directly to warn the editor who makes the edit), and then when a discussion starts they argue that the critical information is not notable (even when it appears in ), is not backed by reliable sources (even when the same sources are used by themselves to source other pieces of information) or that it is inaccurate (usually not backed by any evidence or supported by blog or news column sources). Then the editor who inserted the information gives up and leaves and everything is back to "normal". The result is that no other living politician with a comparable degree of contentiousness (having been publicly accused of aiding and abetting genocide, having been denied visa to several foreign countries, having been the object of Supreme Court Investigations, strong nationalist and fundamentalist viewpoints, being described having some degree of involvement in sectarian violence in almost every single reliable source that mentions him etc.) is being treated with a similar degree of reverence. Might it be because this particular politician is supported by a large and well paid staff of propagandists?

    This is not how wikipedia is supposed to work. And I humbly ask for all of your help in coming to the article and assuring that we achieve an article that gives a critical but fair article about this highly controversial politician that represents all the available sources about him.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: As this big essay is about the article and not about the IP usage issue i have raised above, i am separating it. There is no need to nest this topic in the topic thats going on above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT mess with my formatting again.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A Big piece of crap... just because I raised a sockpuppet investigation against you... and for a discussion which you couldn't be civil enough and i put a NPA comment... LOL... Hey where are your buddy admin's and users. I dont have to explain myself but i will do so.. i reached the NM page through an edit i was doing on digvijay page which i reached due to some date related cleanup i am doing all across WP... (see year maintenance tag removal history by me in my contribs). And here i meet this bunch of edit warers and got into this mess of war between BJP and congress activists... though what you may say might be true about other editors... this seems true about you too... is some one paying you? Remember WP is filled with so many rules and quotes that every rule has a counter-rule that i can quote, so it is many times best to maintain your civility which i did and you did not. What you claim as reliable sources are political mouthpieces in the same way as the other waring editors are using their mouthpieces... so how are you different from them? you are just another side of the same coin... Amit (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    May I remind you that you were arguing that we could not mention the political stances of Modi or any of the parties or organizations with which he is affiliated because that would be libel. I have never heard a more absurd argument. As opposed to most of these editors (I think yuo may be an exception as well) I have a long history of editing many other topics on wikipedia and writing large amounts of article content, not just maintaining articles about my favorite politicians. That is the difference between a pov pushing single purpose account and an actual encyclopedic editor. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the discussion I was mentioning about LIBEL due to edits that you had done here and for the addition of party agenda details i said - wiki reference to those party pages should take care of it instead of explaining it there and at this point i also compared it with Sonia Gandhi page saying congress agenda is not summarized in that page so why are you so much into this person alone... at which point you did seem get to enraged... irrespective of all this... lets say my arguments were not sensible... so is that what you would do? call me a joker? and you expect me to take it lying down? i put a sensible NPA comment on your page which was removed later here and when looking at the IP's i notice two IP's one identified by your id and another IP making the same points across the whole NM discusison page, I put a sock puppet investigation too.. i feel my actions are reasonable... where as yours were not surely cool headed.Amit (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now presented an array of some 10-15 academic peerreviewed sources at the talkpage most of them published within the last 4 years. The aforementioned editors are now arguing that these academic specialist sources are "obsolete" because the Indian government in 2012 released a report exculpating Modi. Some of these sources are critiques if that very report and the modus operandi of the investigation team (who rejected most of the testimonies of hundreds of eye witnesses, and let the murderers free on bail letting them threaten and silence key witnesses etc.). If these editors are allowed to call a 1 year old peer reviewed source by a professor specializing in the topic obsolete, then we can take our policy on reliable sources and use it for toilet paper, and just hand wikipedia over to the POV pushers. Administrator User:Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is among the worst to misrepresent and undercut our foundational policies about sources in this case.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Maunus, but you are handling this very badly. If your real concern is that certain articles need admin attention, you should file a separate report, and include some diffs. By adding sections titled "What I would really like" in a thread instigated to review your behavior, it looks like a desperate attempt to avoid scrutiny. Then concentrate on responding to the issues about your behavior in this thread. As an experienced editor, you should know this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How would I avoid scrutiny when I have admitted to all the allegations of wrong doing? Block me, ban me or topic ban me I deserve all that, but please take a look at the long term abuse that is going under the radar at these articles. Trust me I have tried all the options, BLPN, NPOVN, RFC at the talkpage etc. and I got NO outside attention whatsoever. Yes, this is my last desperate attempt at getting some outside attention to solve the problem, because I realize that I am likely to be facing sanctions. Sadly admins these days only react when brightline rules are broken, because thats what they know how to handle, and they can be easily proven with a diff. When wikipedia is systematically abused by organized interest groups there is no way for them to act without getting their fingers dirty with actual content work, and lots of tiring back and forth at ArbCom. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ANI is not the place for this. I doubt that the editors identified above by Maunus would accept me as an uninvolved admin. I don't doubt that Maunus has really good points to make but, as SPhilbrick says, this is not the way to get something done. I do believe that there is way too much fishiness going on in that article and on the talk page, and I believe that this should be taken to a different/higher venue. It's time that this matter be dealt with and an end come to the disruption: I agree with Maunus that the article is far from being neutral, and I'm trying to phrase that delicately. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know ANI is the place to request administrative intervention, which is what I request and what was requested against me (I supposed although noone ever actually made any proposal for any specific sanction). There is no other place for this short of arbcom and who has time for that?68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is always WP:AE (cf. WP:ARBIPA), if the editors you report have already been notified that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the topic area they edit in. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well for those who have not they should be per principles 1, 3 & 4 Any admin got the time to wade through the talk page morass? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is safe to assume that (no particular order) I, RegentsPark, Maunus, Drmies and Sir Nicholas doo-dah ("Nearly Headless Nick") are aware even if we have not had notification. Some of the rest certainly should be - Mrt3366, Yogesh Khandke, Ratnakar/sarvajna etc. In any event, no-one need notify me. This thing is a mess and it is unfortunate that when various issues have been raised in an attempt to seek wider community input there has been, well, very little of a substantive nature. We seem to be heading from content dispute to AE almost in one step and, of course, there is a reluctance to deal with content issues where ArbCom is concerned. To be honest, the lack of swarming that usually accompanies controversies raised at ANI about major political figures mostly reinforces my opinion that we do indeed have a massive systemic bias here. Modi is potentially the next prime minister of India, a country that comprises around 20% of the world's population and thus knocks the UK, US and indeed probably most of the EU into a cocked hat. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and if anyone thinks that the systemic bias is limited to WP then take a look at this op-ed. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone with zero evidence writes "...I additionally have reasonable suspicion that some of these editors are editing in coordination, and that some of them may in fact work for Modi or for his RSS organization known to have many fulltime activists paid to publicize propaganda..." The community takes to these conspiracy theories like fish to water, and I am the one who gets a nasty looking warning. Very intelligent. Rhetoric and propaganda can work wonders on the WP community.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just delete the warning, sometimes it is just good to clean the garbage in your page. It is just seems like a WP:POVPUSH by some user who is trying to use WP:INTIM and WP:HUSH. If you feel this is WP:MEAT you should report it - which though I doubt but I am not sure about. Amit (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What an utter waste of everybody's time. If the IPs or a registered editor did something wrong, report it so it can be dealt with. Otherwise I suggest we should all get back to doing some editing. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats what is reported at the top of the main section; the destructive edits and pretending to be new on WP. This is the strategy; they will talk about weather & Margaret Thatcher & what not and no one will take any action. Its not the first time that such acts would go without any actions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The opening section has not one diff showing a destructive edit by any of those IP editors. You opened it complaining about user Maunus supposedly being the one behind them and nothing more. Again: if you find a disruptive edit by anyone (be it an IP or a user with an account) report that and let some admin handle it. Otherwise please carry on with article editing. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasnt supposing anything. And thats one sample for you. Blanking section. And the discussion has dragged probably just because of editors like you who arent admins, who cant take any actions anyways, who dont even care to read but have big words to spout out anyways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing a section written based on unreliable sources is not disruption.128.148.231.12 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)::::: Please care to read my first comment, I have given diffs and explanation also read the comments by other un-involved people like A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, The Devil's Advocate, Nick. -sarvajna (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dharmadhyaksha, first: just because an IP claims to be a registered user is not proof that it actually is. Second: again, if you have issues with the edits by an IP then open a report showing clearly the disruptive diffs and nothing more. The fact that nothing is being done is because you keep trying to bind this to user Maunus. If an admin believe the edits are in fact disruptive then he/she will block the corresponding IP. It is really that simple (here is a good example). Third: I have read through this enormous waste of time and the only thing I ended up with was regret of having wasted my time. Fourth: in case you haven't noticed, 128.148.231.12 IP is clearly trolling you. Last: any editor is allowed/welcomed to comment on ANI, I'm sure you are aware of that. Regards. Gaba (talk)
    If you doubt I am who I say I am you can request a Checkuser, otherwise I'd request you to assume good faith instead of engaging in absurd speculations. I am also not trolling Ratnakar, I disagree with him on content issues and believe that he is likely to be a paid activist (which of course I cannot prove) pushing a religious and political POV across a range of articles (which should be obvious to anyone who checks his edit history).68.9.182.96 (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Have fun trolling each other. I bow out. Gaba (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maunus, I would consider your previous comment as a personal attack,don't forget you have already been blocked for Civility issues. -sarvajna (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider it what you will.68.9.182.96 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats and anti-semitic slurs made by User:Sallieparker against me

    Warned by Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • User:Sallieparker made the following comments, which include several anti-semitic slurs and implicit threats ("Eh, boychik?" and "Marxist"; "I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!") over this editor's attempts at whitewashing the Joseph Breen page. I am not going to deny that I responded in measured but colorful language but as far as I know making a blatant threat ("I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!") against another editor is grounds for, at minimum, a lengthy block.
      • 1) "It is concerning to me..." Your comment was not adequately referenced at all, let alone "fully referenced." Eh, boychik?
      • 2) And WHO are you, exactly, "Quis separabit?", other than a contentious little anti-Catholic Marxist?
      • 3) Yes, please do "monitor" my edits, and I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!

    Quis separabit? 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • The entire thread being cited above appears on the users talk page and can be seen here. In my opinion, these are inappropriate comments and Sallie would do well to strike them and refrain from such comments in the future. Quis separabit? should also watch him/herself and avoid Sallieparker's user page and stick to content only comments on the article talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like an editor that is crossing the line with aggressive accusations of bad faith. See, for example, THIS exchange with Richard Jensen. More of the same ominous "We'll be watching" bullshit... Carrite (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And HERE we have the editor white-washing sourced material documenting anti-semitism with an ultra-aggressive edit summary, although THIS from the New York Times makes it pretty clear that the sourced information was actually correct. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said above, User:Sallieparker should be blocked as appropriate for issuing blatant threats against other editors, just as I would be if I left a message stating "and I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!". Quis separabit? 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody gives a shit about this kind of abusive behavior, it would seem. Let's recite a magic incantation three times and see if anyone wakes up to the problem here. "Wikipediocracy! Wikipediocracy! Wikipediocracy!" Carrite (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kira Reed - anyone care to apply pending changes and do some mediation?

    Kira Reed is an actor/television host. There has been a long-running but slow-moving edit war over the inclusion of material about her start as a porn performer. User:AdamC90 is a single-purpose account who appears to have some connection to the subject. Lately they have taken to simply deleting sourced material about Reed's past. The material is soon replaced, often by User:HairyWombat or User:David in DC (who have also expanded this section to the point that it dominates the article). Perhaps someone could undertake to get the parties involved discussing the issues rather than edit warring? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked User:AdamC90, on his talk page, to join this conversation. I've also tried to suggest a better approach than blanket deletion and assertion that sourced information is libelous or slanderous. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also added to the lede, and done some copy-editing and re-arranging to try to respond to the phrase "...to the point that it dominates the article." Please review this diff and accompanying edit summary. Thanks.David in DC (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It it not just User:Adam90 that is attempting to sanitize this article; other single-purpose accounts are: User:173.196.204.154 , User:KiraFan, and User:MrCharlieMeats (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 6#Kira Reed for a summary). The problem, as I see it, is one of notability. Kira Reed is notable as a porn actress; she is not notable for anything else (see Talk:Kira Reed#Notability for a summary). Her hard-core career, with her then husband Dan Anderson, is a large feature of this because they were very innovative in their marketing and this shows in the secondary sources. I don't believe this section has been given undue weight in the article. Finally, there has been ample opportunity for the single-purpose accounts to engage in discussions on the article's Talk page. Hopefully, they will now do so. HairyWombat 02:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just tired of seeing it pop up on my watchlist and wondering if there isn't some way to end the edit warring through discussion. One of the reasons I suggested pending changes is because of the possible sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to report sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdamC90/Archive. Nothing was done. (User:KiraFan has appeared since then.) Pending changes looks like a good idea. HairyWombat 03:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, User:AdamC90 seems to be making constructive edits to address WP:UNDUE and is no longer blanket-reverting. I've cleaned up a little after him, but it seems his objection is to the words "hard-core" and "sex". I think we may be making progress, with at least one SPA here. David in DC (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have serious doubts about that. The editor is here to edit these two articles, and that is it, textbook WP:SPA. In 5 years the user has never once used a talk page, either for articles, other users or their own. They have ignored all warnings, advise, and attempts at communication. They are censoring sections, stating "slanderous information" and "libellous" or "wording" as an excuse to remove cited content in opposition to WP:NOTCENSORED. Not to mention marking these edits a minor. Editor needs a wakeup call. Heiro 04:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They couldn't even be bothered to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lorsch, for one of the two articles they edit (which was relisted 4 times to generate discussion before it was kept as "No consensus"). Heiro 04:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got a point and I hear your frustration. But please consider what I've said on the article's talk page, here. David in DC (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Kira Reed is only notable for her career in pornography. To remove the word "sex" from such an article is silly. Hard-core porn, with her then husband Dan Anderson, is a notable part of her career, so using this term seems inevitable to me (and not using it contrary to policy). HairyWombat 19:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation is now going on in two places. I've replied to your similar talk page post here. David in DC (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Block request

    No administrator action required ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am requesting a block for Johnleeds1 (talk · contribs) for repeated violations of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:VERIFY, particularly that cited sources "must clearly support the material as presented in the article". He has been warned by 10 different users, (User:MatthewVanitas, User:Daniel J. Leivick, User:Tgeairn, User:Dougweller, User:Faizhaider, User:Cplakidas, User:Sodicadl, User:Toddy1, User:Saintali and myself) and today in this edit he added references which do not support the claim. His talk page is littered with complaints and there is a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue.Pass a Method talk 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looking at the surface (not that many clear links were given) I see several book references (he uses Hadhrat Ayesha Siddiqa By Allamah Syed Sulaiman Nadvi Page 44 several times) and what appears to be someone who is trying to work in good faith, even if some of his work isn't up to snuff. I see you have thrown a couple of template on his page, but I didn't see you link to where it was discussed with him. I see some problems, but the kind of problems that call for discussion, or maybe an RfC/U, or a mentor. I don't see the links to where all this has been explained in greater detail. Blocking someone is a last resort, after discussion has tried and failed to resolve the issues. I can't see blocking at this point without much stronger evidence being presented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really need to be more specific here. The diff you provided has three different sources, some of which aren't viewable online, and you have provided no context. If you are asking for an admin to block someone, the violation has to be crystal clear and spelled out, not buried in a pile of links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm here because of this related thread on my talk page. I checked the links (The first of which wouldn't display the relevant page) and they seem to support the half of the sentence saying that Sunnis follow the Hanafi method but not the half that Sufis follow it. This could be an oversight on the part of the author, or perhaps it was so clear to the author that they didn't bother with a citation. (I actually don't know if Sufis follow the Hanafi madhab.) Anyway what I wanted to say here is that all I can see from the diff provided is that Johnleeds1 was reverting what appeared to him to be unexplained blanking, since the diff was a revert. You'll need some better diffs if you want to show that Johnleeds1 was deliberately misrepresenting sources. Also it would help to remember that Johnleeds1 is still kind of a newbie around here. Hitting him repeatedly with the same templates isn't going to teach him to edit better. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you track back, Johnleeds actually added those sources. Also i was going to communicate more but Johnleeds isn't much of a communicator and tends to ignore posts. Dougweller has also warned him about a lack of communication. Adjwilley, are you saying that nonsense edits are fine as long as its a revert? Pass a Method talk 16:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he is saying the same thing I am, that this would have to be a CIR block since odds are that the edits are in good faith, even if wrong. There isn't a case here for CIR yet. More discussion must be tried before a block can be considered. Most people don't reply to a template, maybe trying some actual verbiage on his talk page is a good place to start. I can't speak for other admin, but I'm not going to block someone for making what seems like good faith errors when no one has taken the time to explain it outside of a template. We have to give them a chance to learn and conform. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pass a Method, you might note that in addition to Dougweller, I too have tried to get the user to be more communicative (see User_talk:Johnleeds1#Edit_summaries from back in January). Also, would you mind removing the personal comments about me from your close of this thread? They are unrelated to the topic and consensus that was formed here. I suggest something simple along the lines of "Request withdrawn, pending further discussion" if you think a close is required at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, I have modified the closing note above from "Attempting more discussion, but i hope Adjwilley would in the future avoid gatecrashing threads by making distinctions between reverts and edits when no such distinction exists AFAIK on wikipedia guidelines." to "No administrator action required". I feel that it is a more succinct and neutral close. As for making distinctions between reverts and edits, I would argue that in practice there is a difference, but this is not the place to argue about that, and I'm happy to agree to disagree. Cheers, ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just noticed that the user Pass a Method has put a block request against me. Is there anything that I have added that needs changing. I am happy to make changes. Pass a Method you should have talked to me and explained what you wanted changing. Why do you wants me blocking. Do you want me to add some more references. On my talk page you left the message--Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC):[reply]
    I think it will be useful for you to read the links under WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I constantly see you adding undue content or info not in line with policies there. Also read WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR and WP:RS. Pass a Method talk 16:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 21:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    You are the subject of a discussion at ANI. Pass a Method talk 22:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    But you did not explain what you wanted me to do or what mistake I made. I made the changes in good faith. I did not intend to upset any one. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just noticed that that Pass a Method left the following message on my Talk page and then 20 minutes later put a block request in. People have jobs and don't just sit on Wikipedia all day. It's very unfair giving people 20 minutes to respond and then putting a block request in. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    John, you used the following 3 sources to claim that Sufis follow the Hanafi madhab One, two, three. None of those sources actually say that. Can you tell me why you used those sources please? Pass a Method talk 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    Then Pass a Method tried to block me 20 minutes later at 17:30, 28 May 2013
    I was working in good faith. If he gave me time to add references I would have done so. I have also been very busy at work and do not always get time. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Johnleeds1, don't worry, this thread has been closed and you're not going to get blocked from this. I apologize for any hostility you may have felt; It's a common problem on Wikipedia for new editors to get "bitten" because they are less-than familiar with our policies and guidelines. I suggest that the next step would be for you to provide sources supporting the diff that Pass a Method gave above, and either post them at Talk:Islam with an explanation, or add them to the article itself. I also recommend perusing the links in the templated warnings that were left on your talk page. Good luck with your job, and remember that real life comes first :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Adjwilley, Pass a Method appears to have deleted the content, even the content with lots of references, I will add further references over the weekend, Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:STONEWALL

    I request something please be done re the shameless WP:STONEWALL and WP:GAME on the Syrian civil war article. In spite of truly numerous sources [11] that unambiguously indicate the involvement of Israel in the conflict, it is not possible to enter that country into the infobox - most likely due to the extreme negative pr the rebels would receive thereby. The entry would also be in complete accordance with the recommendations in the template guide. Again and again, edit-warring is used as a method to suppress sources, all under the banner of a supposed "no consensus". As a "consensus" is not clearly defined on our project, participants game the system by never yielding that an opposing "consensus" has been reached, giving way to infantile WP:VOTE counting. Further, reverting is restricted on the article, allowing disruptive users to undo in concert and freeze their position in place by threatening others with reports and sanctions. This pattern of disruptive behavior has successfully kept sourced material out of the article for months now.

    With news sources now brimming over with reports of Israel's actions in the Syrian civil war, by excluding mention of the country our project may be viewed as displaying overt bias on a very sensitive issue - something that I'd hoped can easily be avoided through simple, "standard" implementation of our policies, and the sources which they advise us to follow. A constant barrage of highly illogical "non-arguments" follow, each as overtly flawed as the next - and each, in my view, displaying the excessive bias with which this issue is being viewed and treated by certain participants. Such as e.g. demands that sources be found using the specific word "combatant", when no other participant in theinfobox (arguably on this entire project!) is held up to such standards, etc. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't forget the similarly-stonewalled dispute over Kurds and the third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    There is no stonewalling. There are more people against it than for it, but more importantly there is a larger variety and depth of arguments against it.

    DIREKTOR's proposals have gone through both dispute resolution and Request for comments, both times ending with no consensus. He accuses other editors such as myself of stonewalling because he believes his proposal is clear cut. However this is not the case for most other users. Sopher99 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only do you suggest that we should follow user votes in determining content rather than sources, you are also incorrect in asserting predominance in votes for your point of view. Six users currently support the inclusion of Israel, while five oppose it. On some occasions the numbers were clearly against you yet you continued to edit-war. But I will not engage in another such absurd vote-counting squabble. The sources are not ambiguous, and neither are the policies of this project. -- Director (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. "There are more people against it than for it, but more importantly there is a larger variety and depth of arguments against it."
    Furthermore you. Funkmunk, Emersik, Al Ameerson and Baboon43 support the inclusion, while I, Futuretrillionaire, Pug666, mikrogoven, philip, and GabrielF - so its 6 oppose 5 support. But as we said, not a vote. But still no consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, when the goal is to ignore sources, users often shift from one baseless argument to the other - as each is shot down in turn. You don't :). You just repeat the same ones over and over and over again, even though they've long-since been answered and effectively countered (which, in my view, is classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU, i.e. disruption). (You're also clearly not counting Lothar.. [12])
    I think you and I have talked about this to exhaustion, however, and this is not the place to continue. -- Director (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And again, no one wants to touch this mess with a ten-foot poll... The article has tremendous traffic, and yet has been disrupted beyond functionality by partisan POV-pushing. Am I the only one who cares that combatants in this conflict article are not determined by sources, but rather by "who can revert the most times"? -- Director (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Further breach of BLP topic ban

    STALE
    Nataev advise to unwatch pages they're topic banned from. Concerns about sockpuppetry should be addressed at spi NE Ent 22:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Nataev is topic banned from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum anywhere on Wikipedia.[13] He has been blocked already for breaching this ban[14], and was recently the subject of a discussion at ANI regarding further alleged breaches, as a result of which the ban was further clarified and explained to him.[15]

    This edit[16] would seem to be a further explicit breach of the ban, and his contributions to the subsequent discussion could also be construed as furthering the discussion which led to the ban. Since reminders, polite requests[17] and clarifications do not seem to be woking, it would appear that Nataev needs a more forceful reminder that this disruptive editing is unacceptable. RolandR (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again. I responded to a message that was addressed to me. I edited the talk page of the article on Plaut. So, it doesn't constitute a breach of the topic ban. Moreover, my edits are not disruptive at all, far from it. You can't seem to stop stalking my edits. You, the Jewish guy, and Nomowhatever have been trying very hard to bait me and get me blocked. Why do you all keep writing messages addressed to me? I'd say this is unacceptable behavior. I hope admins will analyze this issue in its entirety and proceed accordingly. Nataev (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot breach a topic ban merely because someone linked your name and triggered a notification - that's not how it works. But that does raise an interesting point - why the hell would they reference you in a discussion from which you are banned? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, but what I wrote isn't a breach of the topic ban. This is not the first time they've tried to get me involved. In this edit I responded to a message that was addressed to me. These edits have nothing to do with the topic ban. Nataev (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on the second two edits, those do not seem relevant. And I'm not entirely convinced that that first diff is a violation, either. But no one seems to have linked your name to trigger a notification, and the comment to which you were responding was from 15 May - so why bother? If they are baiting you, as you claim, then why give them the satisfaction of rising to the bait? Unwatch the pages, even of those persons tangentally related to the topic, and move on. Seems simple, but that's me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed. You're quite right. I noticed the message addressed to me only today. I didn't look at the date. These guys seem to hate Prof. Plaut. It's really troubling to observe that a group of editors who care deeply about a certain subject can abuse the system to their own advantage by doing all they can to get blocked anyone who disagrees with them. I'm sure this can't last forever. But I guess for now I'll just have to unwatch the article on Plaut like you said. Nataev (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit to which Nataev was responding was made two weeks ago, immediately after the topic ban was imposed. Since then, Nataev has unsuccessfully appealed against the ban, been blocked for a breach, and taken part in an earlier discussion on the scope of the ban. Had he responded at the time, this breach of the topic ban could have been overlooked; to respond now, in terms making it clear that he is continuing the behaviour which led to the ban, and following the subsequent developments and clarifications, can only be seen as a deliberate and provocative breach. RolandR (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how you see it. Given that you seem to hate Prof. Plaut and have been trying to get me blocked for a very long time, your intentions are all clear. Let others decide. Nataev (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's not clear whether user רסטיניאק that Nataev was addressing is or isn't Goldblum (despite the long thread about this at COIN), an explicit interaction ban between Nataev and רסטיניאק seems the simplest way to go here, short of just blocking Nataev. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just took a look at your contributions. You also seem to care deeply about this subject. I'm afraid you cannot comment on this issue impartially. I'm convinced that I haven't done anything wrong. Nataev talk 06:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? I was willing to assume that an editor with your edit count would not make unsubstantiated comments like that. My only prior involvement in this are a couple of comments at a SPI yesterday. I've not edited anything about Israel, Palestine etc. It seems that in every controversial area on Wikipedia, whenever I make an uninvolved comment, some deeply invested editor immediately switches to full attack mode against me. You deserve each other. May the wikiwars eat all your lifetime. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't look closely at your contributions. I just saw your comments from yesterday. I think you took it too far when you wrote "Short of just blocking Nataev." I'm not deeply involved, actually. Thanks four your warm wishes. Unfortunately, wikiwars won't take up much of my time. Nataev talk 07:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I came back here to ask some admin should advise both editors not to conduct sock-puppetry investigations on a BLP talk page [18], with allegations against the subject. But I guess that's par for the course in this area. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegations are untrue and libelous and exposes Wikipedia to a lawsuit. I think they should be moved somewhere more appropriate. Nataev talk 07:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous. If anyone should be considering libel action regarding the Runtshit account, it should be me, the target of several thousand obscene and clearlu defamatory attacks, and not a person suggested as being behind this. (And, to remove any possible doubt, I am not considering taking any legal action against either Wikipedia itself, or any Wikipedia editors) RolandR (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it looks like Runtshit is an invented character. Many unrelated people attack you, and then you claim they're sockpuppets of Runtshit. So, to you and your army of biased editors anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet of Runtshit! I mean, how come you guys claim Runtshit has thousands of sockpuppets? There's no way one can have so many sockpuppers. It's just physically impossible. Nataev talk 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather uncivil remark from User:Nataev. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, yeah. Only those who care deeply about Israel/Palestine chip in here. I doubt that there will be a single unbiased comment in this thread. Nataev talk 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nataev, answer me this. Would a person who never even knew Runtblank existed attack someone, then claim they are the sock of him? Also, be nice. 173.58.99.74 (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, not over 1,500 times from a thousand different places! You'd have to spend millions to travel so much. So, you guys are just making wild assumptions. Nataev talk 22:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you never heard of proxies? RolandR (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure have. But this doesn't make your allegations any more convincing. First, it's not so easy to determine that a user is editing using a proxy. Second, a person smart enough to use proxies wouldn't do a dumb thing like opening 1,500 fake accounts. He'd quickly realize that it is better to edit constructively for a while with one account and then start writing about whatever he originally wanted to write about. Nataev talk 20:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nataev, to be perfectly blunt you have no clue what you're talking about with regard to serial socking. Is this discussion even relevant to the original topic (that being whether you have violated your topic ban)?--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that serial socking is impossible, I'm just saying that the allegations of Roland and the Jewish guy that Prof. Plat is Runtshit and that I might also be related to that vandal (!) are simply untrue. And yes, this is not entirely relevant to the original topic of this thread. Well, I'm convinced that I haven't done anything wrong. I'm afraid I can't afford to spend any more time on this. Admins will make a decision. Nataev talk 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the article on Runty, I'm sure that it's one guy or one group rather than random people. 173.58.99.74 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Administrator keeps attacking me and article

    DrKiernan blocked by Dpmuk. I would note that the pattern is disturbing, and is short of our expectations for admin conduct. Our policies clearly state: Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. and four total blocks, including two in the last 6 weeks, fails that standard miserably. I would strongly suggest DrKiernan reconsider his methods, before the community decides stronger action is needed. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This administrator DrKiernan seems to have a problem with me and the living person, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. He attacks any editing I make on the article, weeks ago we solved this out but he seems to want to create the same argument with me on Wikipedia again so I would stop editing on wiki or be blocked...He keeps removing important info from the lead which has been on the article for years, he's reason is because it's irrelevant, which is a lie because other royalty articles have the same thing in the lead. Can anyone else deal with this who's higher than him, it's been going on for far too long? (Monkelese (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    1) You're required to notify that user that you have brought their name up here.
    2) You're both edit warring, I'd recommend that the both of you stop and establish consensus on the talk page. It would be best if you, and DrKiernan, stopped making edits to that page altogether. --Jayron32 20:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The info he removed from the lead is important...he keeps reverting the info and it seems to me its because of the animosity he has towards the living person...the info should be added... I thought this wasn't a fansite, however he's making it out to be one. (Monkelese (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    No, what is most important is that you don't fight. Don't justify it to me. I could care less one way or the other. What has to happen is you need to stop editing and start discussing on the article talk page. --Jayron32 21:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Monkelese blocked for 24 hours for edit warring/3RR by reverting again after receiving two warnings on their talk page. DrKiernan blocked for 72 hours for their five reverts in 24 hours (longer due to their block history). Dpmuk (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be concerned enough that an administrator such as DrKiernan should be blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations, but what really worries me is that looking at his block log this isn't the first time and it's the second time in 2 months. Now this isn't a case of him abusing his administrative powers, which he hasn't, but I do find 4 blocks since becoming an administrator for edit warring concerning. Canterbury Tail talk 22:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If he submitted for an RfA now as a non-admin there is no way he would pass. If the President of the United States murders someone he would be impeached not because he was corrupt or a poor President but because he violated the laws he was sworn to uphold. Admins likewise are put in the position to uphold the laws, but this admins has repeatedly violated them. You still think he's got what it takes to be an admin? 50.140.166.14 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm no Learned Hand (yes, that was his real name), but I think it would be quite the opposite. There would be insufficient "nexus" between that and what was contemplated in Article 2, section 4 "high crimes and misdemeanors" provision. From what I've read, the section deals with malfeasance specific to the office: they would more likely be tried in a court rather than by Congress. (Then again, who knows? The more I look, the more the nature of the office of the President looks like a fossilization of the executive powers of a 18th Century British monarch.)--Shirt58 (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Recurrent personal attacks against a named WP contributor on an article Talk page

    On the Talk:Bicycle helmet page there have been recurrent personal attacks made against a WP contributor (me) who is identified by name, by User:Harvey4931. These attacks incorrectly and, I feel, maliciously, allege undeclared conflicts-of-interest and personal biases against me as a researcher, which are bordering on the defamatory. I deleted the material, but it was restored by its author User:Harvey4931 (and I subsequently deleted it again). The material in question can been seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_helmet&diff=557185303&oldid=557183020 The unacceptable nature of such personal attacks was made clear on the Talk page at Talk:Bicycle_helmet#No_personal_attacks.

    The opinion of experienced WP editors and/or administrators on whether such behaviour is acceptable on WP would be appreciated. Tim C (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I barely read it but there is definite outing going on by Harvey4931 (I've corrected your links above to the user.) Another admin may judge if there are personal attacks, but the outing is definitely not on. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you can explain, Canterbury Tail, how "outing" is involved when Tim C. openly identifies himself by name, career, and published articles he's written on his user page? I see no "outing" and also no "personal attack" in this linked exchange. Where is the evidence of malicious intent? What I see is an editor with a clear POV strongly in favor of mandatory bicycle helmet laws arguing with an editor with a POV opposed to such laws, about whether or not conflict of interest has been properly disclosed. How is that a personal attack? The relevant question is whether either editor is capable of editing in accordance with the neutral point of view? Tim C., if you ran across discussion here of bicycle helmet laws that did not include the strongest and best referenced arguments against such laws, would you be sure to include those arguments and references? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or to advance a point of view? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Outing is not an issue because I do indeed use my real name on WP. The issue is the attacks against me as a person, rather than discussion of the edits I make. I am a researcher, involved in research about bicycle helmets, and I have been contributing to WP articles on this subject, helping to ensure that the articles reflect all the available scientific evidence, regardless of what that research shows, and not just selected bits of it which happen to support a particular POV or set of beliefs. It is not my fault that a great deal of the published scientific research finds bicycle helmets to be effective. WP is supposed to reflect the scientific weight-of-evidence, not a balance between personal beliefs or points-of-view. My objection is that User:Harvey4931 is making assertions about me as a person, which question my integrity as a researcher and as a WP editor, rather than discussing specific edits I have made. My understanding is that discussion of WP editors, as opposed to discussions of the edits they make, are not acceptable on WP. Am I mistaken in this understanding? Tim C (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please explain, Tim C, how it is a "personal attack" for another editor to express a concern about whether or not you have adequately disclosed your conflicts of interest? And can you please consider answering the question I asked above? For your convenience, I will repeat it for you: "Tim C., if you ran across discussion here of bicycle helmet laws that did not include the strongest and best referenced arguments against such laws, would you be sure to include those arguments and references? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or to advance a point of view?" Thanks in advance for your frank answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I would and have been sure to include discussion of all scientific and policy evidence that meets WP criteria for reliable sources, regardless of whether it was favourable to helmets or not. As far as I know, that has been done - just about every peer-reviewed scientific paper on helmets is mentioned (or included in summary papers such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses). However, all arguments? No, because WP is not an encyclopedia of arguments and opinions. Anyone can argue the case for or against just about anything, or come up with just about any plausible-sounding but untested hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that view or belief or hypothesis should be reflected in a WP article. If data has been assembled and analysed, whether it is scientific or policy or social data, and reported via reliable channels, then yes, it deserves a mention. Bt no, not every argument. That is what I believe WP policy to be, in any case. Tim C (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another question, Tim C. Both you and I have freely chosen to disclose our real life names here on Wikipedia, which I consider admirable of you. My real name, by the way, is Jim Heaphy. More formally, "James Cullen Heaphy III". Once we have made that free decision, do you think that either you or I are entitled to any protection against heightened levels of scrutiny of "a WP contributor (me) who is identified by name"? I don't. Do you? Anyone can Google me or you, and research us as they see fit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. If someone asserts "WP editor Slartibartfast is biassed and is funded by XYZ industry and all his edits are biassed" it is one thing, but making the same incorrect assertions about James Cullen Heaphy III or Tim Churches is quite another thing. But that is beside the point: WP policy clearly states that Talk pages are not to be used to make assertions or comments about WP editors, only to make comments about WP content. That's the very clear policy, and it applies equally to pseudonymous editors as well as real-life editors. Tim C (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Jim, I misread your question - I thought you were asking if real-named WP editors were entitled to heightened levels of protection against personal attacks against them on WP. My answer to your actual question, whether real-named WP editors should be entitled to heightened levels of protection against scrutiny (for instance, of potential conflicts-of-interet), then my answer is no, definitely not. In my case, I consciously chose to use my real name because I wanted to contribute to WP articles in areas in which I have co-authored scientific papers that need to be cited in those articles. I had to add them to the articles, because no-one else had, but I wanted any conflict-of-interest in my doing so to be crystal clear to other editors. I also took pains to declare all relevant conflicts-of-interst on my user page at User:Tim.churches, last edited in March 2013 BTW, long before this issue of attacks against me arose. I think it is fine to ask other editors whether they have conflicts of interest with respect to specific edits they have made, particularly if such potential COIs are not obvious (for example, if the editor making the edits is pseudonymous). But that is quite different from questioning that editor's motives and generally impugning their integrity, which is just not on, as far as I am concerned. Tim C (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it me, or is this beyond expressing a concern about someone's conflict of interest, and entering the field of soapboxing against a person? When someone starts a header on an article talk page with the sole purpose of discrediting another editor and drones on about it, it is inappropriate. The goal doesn't seem to address any point, but instead appears to be an attack on his character. If Harvey wants to take the issue to WP:COIN, then he should do so, but in this context, Harvey is clearly soapboxing against Tim and doing so in a disruptive manner. Obviously, everyone has their own POV there, but comments need to be limited to the merits and not the editor. Harvey might find a more receptive audience if he toned back the personal observations. At the very least, the entire purpose of Harvey's post was ad hominem. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 08:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just you. That is beyond the pale for an article talk page for the reasons you and others outline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Perhaps it would be useful to start with a bit of context.

    A few years ago, I observed Tim C argue about bicycle helmets in a never ending manner on a bicycle forum called SydneyCyclist. He was famous for his strong views on bicycle helmets. He came across as somebody on a mission to convert others.

    A few months ago, I noticed Tim making many frequent edits in Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia. I noticed that many edits were biased in favor of helmets.

    I noticed an attempt to discredit material (regardless of its intrinsic merit) from one of the main sources critical of pro-helmet studies, BHRF, on the basis that their position does not seem to be neutral. That seemed a bit odd while pretending to be neutral. Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#RfC:_Can_the_Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation_web_site_be_considered_a_reliable_authority_and_source_of_references_for_this_article

    Tim suggested to put critique of papers in footnotes. I warned that this would result in a misleading article. This was ignored. Tim subsequently used footnotes to bury material critical of pro-helmets studies.

    Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Trial_of_footnotes

    Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Using_footnotes_or_generic_statements_to_give_undue_prominence_to_misleading_claims

    I noticed that many misleading studies had been added by helmet advocates. This inevitably led other editors to add counterbalancing arguments, leading to confusing and overwhelming material for the reader. I mentioned this in two separate Talk sections, pleading for focusing on readability. However, Tim refused to get rid of contentious material that was more confusing than informative.

    Talk:Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia#Wikipedia_is_not_a_place_for_advocacy_or_for_over-detailed_argument

    Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Wikipedia_is_not_a_place_for_advocacy

    Over the last few months, I have warned in the Talk pages about questionable practices making the article misleading or confusing. This made little difference, the misleading behavior continued regardless. That required other editors to make frequent corrections. None are as dedicated as Tim is though. Most have given up now.

    Other editors have been frustrated by this behavior, especially when Wikipedia rules are abused to game the system. Some of this behavior has been described in by another editor, User:Kiwikiped:, in this talk section

    Talk:Bicycle_helmet#Attribution_of_articles_published_by_the_Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation_.28BHRF.29_in_this_article

    It was out of frustration over these repeated abuses that I started the contentious talk section, as Tim had failed to disclose several conflicts of interests. Each conflict of interest mentioned is true and verifiable. Evidence has been provided in the deleted talk section. However, I admit that I have gone too far in regards to usage of the Talk page. I'm not sure what is the best way to deal with this situation though.

    The key issue is: how to deal with an advocate using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy while pretending to be neutral?

    Wikipedia states as one of its key rule that it is not a place for advocacy. I'm not sure what mechanism exists when this policy is violated. I noted the mention of the WP:COIN page. Would it be the most appropriate in this situation? Harvey4931 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uninvolved admin here with a general opinion from perusing the talk page: there's a lot of back-and-forth COI accusations from both of the two sides in the debate. The diff that Dennis Brown pulled out is pretty extravagant, but on the same page, I've seen Tim C pulling the exact same "declare your COIs!" trick with User:Colin at cycling, so it is sort of going both ways. In terms of Tim C's alleged COI: in a situation where there is a person with expertise on a topic, to the point of being, say, an academic researcher or scientist affiliated with a mainstream research organisation shouldn't have questions about their funding brought up as negatives. There's skepticism, and then there's ad hominem-based idiocy and conspiracy theory. I think User:Tim.churches has been more than up-front with potential COI by listing his institutional affiliation on his user page. Comments of the form "ah, but you get paid to do research!" are just bad form: people get paid for all sorts of things. I saw a similar thing a while back when someone accused User:Jmh649 of having a COI on the topic of CAT scans because as a doctor he had a financial motivation to send people for CAT scans. There's a lot of playing the man rather than playing the ball going on here, with people shouting about imagined COIs. That needs to stop if anything productive is going to happen on that talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know that the WP policy of respecting anonymity of editors is paramount, but there isn't there also a policy of requiring editors to declare COIs with respect to the edits they make, or if they don't wish to do that because it might undermine their anonymity, to refrain from making edits with which they have a COI, such as repeatedly deleting references to published critiques of papers which they have written? Tim C (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tom, I agree there is concerns on both sides, even if it has been more lopsided as of late, which is why I haven't been quick to jump to action. I'm not sure what the right solution is here, and there some good points mixed in with that ad hominem. Obviously, the issue needs to go to WP:DRN to hash out the merits (and the merits are not something we want to discuss here at ANI), but the behavioral issues seem perfect for WP:WQA, which doesn't exist anymore. ANI is a terrible place to work out those kinds of issues. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I decided I needed to read the actual article. It is one of the worst articles I've seen in a long time, to be honest. The amount of trivial detail is nauseating. Literally 75% of that material needs to be deleted outright or simply summarized, as is what we expect from an encyclopedia article. Sorry to be so blunt, but reading it as a casual reader is literally painful. No wonder there is disagreement. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Good gracious, me! Dennis is being kind. To call this article abysmal would be an insult to abysses everywhere. Over this article we're wasting gazilions of electrons that could better be spent on articles about new Pokemon characters?! I think the article needs serious pruning, by an uninvolved editor or editors who knows nothing about bicycles, helmets, bicycle helmets, or Australia. Who has no passionate attachment to the topic or its tangents. Who's not graph and stat-happy. Truly, this is worse than what I usually see when I hit the Random article link. If I get time in the next couple of weeks, I'll revisit the article and try to prune back this blight. I'd urge others to try to do the same. There's probably something worth saving here. But it will take a full scale excavation and rescue team. And beer. Lots of beer. David in DC (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nnamdjou possible legal threat

    I have blocked Nnamdjou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive editing, but I set the time at indefinite due to this, which to me could be considered a legal threat. I bring the legal threat part of this block here for discussion, and if consensus is that his statement could not be construed as a legal threat I'm more than happy to shorten his block (or someone else may do so). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment User:Nnamdjou has made legal threat against me and User:MelbourneStar at Talk:Nima Namdjou and Talk:Care4Chairs also.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff you posted is pretty borderline as a legal threat but this edit is pretty explicit in their use of court order. However, I think they need some pointers about "bots and spam" as they call it as well as notability. Blackmane (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment Both you and Melbournestar deserve to be thoroughly trouted for your overbearing attitude to a new editor. Throwing templates at a newly signed up editor who began today is about as big a case of WP:BITE as I've ever seen. I'm dropping an explanatory message on their talk page to help them understand how WP works. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When asked to stop removing the CSD tags, they ignored the messages, and persisted with removing tags. So I don't need a lecture, especially from someone who has obviously not reviewed the situation properly. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough, I've looked through all of Nnamdjou's contribs and your communications with him, all of which were templated warnings. In fact all of your last 2,000 edits have been automated (I stopped going back through your contribs after 4 pages, so how many thousands of automated edits you do I have no idea). Consider, how would you feel if, within your first 50 edits to wikipedia, the only communication you received were automated warnings? Perhaps if either of you had actually tried to discuss with the editor about what was wrong with their article to begin with rather than just straight up send it to CSD with only more automated templates this would not have happened. Blackmane (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to communicate him without template messages also. But he just choose to probably ignore. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that, but as it was buried amongst a couple of other templates, he probably didn't see it and deleted it along with the templates. Blackmane (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus what is the problem is using template message. They are so politely worded and read the same way, as a non template message. Moreover I communicated with him on talk page of his articles also under the assumption that he may not be reading his own talk page.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally I wouldn't gripe about using templates, a succession of them to a new editor, particularly one who has never encountered the wikiediting environment will only see a bunch of automated warnings. The wording is all so similar that after a while it seems like someone is just copy pasting them onto their page and they become intimidating. After a few months of browsing through wiki one may become familiar with wikijargon but getting slapped by all sorts of templates and warnings right off the bat is pretty harsh. Blackmane (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blackmane - automated messages or not - those messages were quite clear. Nnamdjou had no intentions of discussing on the article's talk page - as is required, if you'd like to challenge a CSD tag. Now, you claim that s/he are not familiar with wikijargon. So, what don't you understand when a template message says: "Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says:..."? Does it say remove the CSD tag if you'd like? of course not. These messages were appropriate, they were polite (especially the first few) and they were straight to the point.
    On Nnamdjou I don't believe they should be indefinitely blocked - I think like everybody else, they can easily understand wikijargon as time goes on - but nobody has learnt that by dismissing important messages and calling them spam; and then making baseless legal threats and accusing others of vandalizing.
    And on the CSD tag, the rationale for the speedy deletion tag's do not need a rocket scientist to understand. They are quite clear too. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) a bit review. Initially this user was given welcome messages coupled with CSD notifications. So that is usual routine. Later when I noticed that one of the article is autobiography, then another welcome coupled with autobiography message was given. again no prob. This whole thing of so called biting started when this user started attacking me. He came to my user page, picked first article in a list and blanked it. What do u expect in that case? Further he kept on vandalizing my other user pages. When MelbourneStar reverted his vandalism on my user pages, he started attacking MelbourneStar. Went on to vandalise his talk page, blank ARV page, reported MelbourneStar to ARV, telling us that using some american law he will drag us india and Australia into american court. Now, if a lawyer does not choose to read a message, what can be done? If he can see, how to contest a speedy deletion nominations, then of course see that he knew that he was not suppose to remove the CSD tag. And in no way it meant that he could blank other pages. We did not blank his page. And I am sure, he must have failed to notice or choose to ignore that I had also fixed some syntax error in his article which improved the overall look of his article. He was given personal message also and the so called templates started much latter. There is no solution if one person, even if a new user decide to behave in an aggressive manner.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, rather than fight over differences in style (I've almost never used automated templates for anything) and approach, I'd be ok with letting bygones be bygones and agree to disagree. Yes, he was notified and then made various disruptive edits, vandalised here and there and got himself blocked after a legal threat, but with a bit of time, I can probably nurse this thorn out and we can move along on our merry way with little more than a few ruffled feathers. Would this be acceptable to everyone? Blackmane (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone will be happy if he constructively edits. A block was necessary to put a break, not to prevent him from editing. But I think instead of time limiting the block, he should understand his errors and demonstrate some understanding of WP policies. But it is upto admin guys to decide this. My previous comments here was in response to your suggestion for a "thorough trouting" and not about Nnamdjou. I can only hope he become a better editor.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You're right. We all mustn't get confused and argue over differences, because at the end of the day, we all want the same things achieved on the project; we just have different ways of showing it. I believe your approach that you're undertaking right now with the user, is really appropriate, and I'm glad someone's doing it. I also understand your contention with in regards to template messages - I however, find them more appropriate and easier to understand (because I don't believe I'm too straight forward at times). I believe that this is a case closed, and hopefully Nnamdjou can put this insignificant moment behind him/her, whilst acknowledging our policies. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no intermediate between a minnow and a WP:TROUT so I may have thrown larger fish than I really should have. Maybe a perch? On a serious note, I think I'm making some headway and may get a retraction of the legal threats. I've asked Peridon, who deleted his article, to userfy it for him if he wants to work on it although I'm hoping he realises that it's going to be a very hard task to get that kept here but rather than being discouraged he will go on to work in areas that he has familiarity with or is interested in. Blackmane (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are doing good work as I see. Kindly explain him the difference between something being significant (as he described the work of his chair4care thing) and notability (in WP terms). On a non-serious note, no more fish today, had Sushi for lunch. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He's fully retracted his legal threats and also asked for a name change. Given that the reason for his block has been retracted, I believe it would be reasonable to grant him the name change and an unblock as time served. Blackmane (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur (and kudos to Blackmane for positive engagement of a new editor). NE Ent 09:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocking is fine, but I do not think he has actually understood what he has done, what others did and what he is still doing. Just look at his talk page : Care4Chairs will be in so many articles and so many publications that the naysayers will eat their own words, I can only pray that God has mercy on them for their ignorance, for I forgive for they know not what they do. I will look into this this Userfy from your associate Peridon, who must be related to God by blood or marriage, hopefully he can fulfill his destiny and Userfy care4chairs. And his talk page is full of such nonsense.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?

    NO ADMIN ACTION
    Noting that: a. original poster has reverted Collect's edit and Collect has not edit warred and b. there's no discussion on applicable article talk pages, discussion on ANI is premature. NE Ent 12:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Today, out of the blue, Collect (talk) shows up on two pages he has never edited before and deleted several passages of text that I contributed and have been on the page for some time. Moreover, the edit summaries do not reflect the scope of the deletion of material from the respective articles, or otherwise provide an adequate rationale. [19][20][21]

    Earlier today there was been a discussion between Collect and I in relation to an accusation made by talk regarding tag teaming on this page Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Xenophrenic.

    Recently I have been involved in a discussion here in which Collect has been arguing against the consensus, NPOV Talk:Fascism#.22Opposed_to_socialism.22_in_lead with respect to "socialism" and "Peronism" in relation to fascism.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I have not had as many disagreements with Collect as other users (though I have on matters of the left-right spectrum), and thus not much animosity with Collect, evidence of Collect following Wikipedia users is not a good sign. Collect needs to be given a clear warning by an administrator to stop doing this immediately. If Collect continues to follow users around to different articles to argue with them as Ubikwit has described, interaction bans may be advisable.--R-41 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that correcting misuse of sources is not harassmanet, and that my overlap with Ubikwit is on a total of three pages here -- for each of which my edits were per WP policy and guidelines. And that you were, indeed, CANVASSed to come here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have eduited several thousand pages. HOUNDing is a serious charge and requires specifically: the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated ... Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor and I suggest my edits hould not make anyone feel harassed or intimidated by a mile. What I did was point out that flickr is not a reliable source for claims of fact. If you wish to assert that flickr is a reliable source, then please post at WP:RS/N and make that claim. SXSecondly - it was you who made the assertion that I was part of a "tag team" for which you provided absolutely no evidence - and you are fortunate that I did not bring that scurrilous act to AN/I. [22]
    Also Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I suggest that using flickr is a problem on Wikipedia, by the way'
    What Ubikwit has done here is massively WP:CANVASS at [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30]. I suggest this blatant CANVASSING is contrary to Wiki polocy. He also [31] reinstated his use of flickr as a source, [32] reinserted a claim that Western architects used Masonic symbolism, and the fact the "Freemasons are buried in Nagasaki" which I regard as being a claim of no value, and [33] reinserting a "quote" of absolutely no encyclopedia value other than to show that people actually referred to the Bible. In short - no "harassment" of any sort whatsoever -- followed by massive CANVASSing of people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke

    TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Added for clarity Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a new situation with the prolific TJ Spyke yet again. Despite countless warnings and requests to stop "fixing" redirects per WP:R2D/WP:NOTBROKEN, this editor continues to make these edits at a rapid pace (he uses AutoWiki Browser to really speed up his violations). His edit summaries often misleadingly suggest that he is performing "cleanup" when they have not been shortened to simply a period (".") or comma (",") which he presumably does to save himself time.

    I'm currently trying to work with him to develop a set of proposed exceptions to the rule because I think there are some very valid reasons to bypass redirects on occasion, and I think we should bring them before the community for discussion. While this discussion is going forward I have asked TJ Spyke to stop making further edits of this kind but unfortunately he seems to be incapable of controlling himself. Our discussions began in early April and he has dragged his heels on it through all of April and May and I'm now much shorter on time than I was previously. Consequently I can't provide nearly as much oversight for the harmful edits he is making. I need help dealing with this. I've previously contacted User:Amalthea about this resurgent problem here, and I'll inform both Amalthea and TJ Spyke about this thread. Something needs to be done because TJ Spyke has demonstrated a real inability to make changes unless severe penalties are applied. For reference, here is a list of his prior warnings about this issue:
    2007

    2008

    2009

    2010

    2012

    2013

    And here are his prior AN/Is on this topic:

    • 1 - This is really connected to the terrible problems he was having with revert warring, but it importantly demonstrates his willingness to violate the redirect-related rules over and over again based on his own personal preferred usage of terms.
    • 2 - His last R2D-specific AN/I

    And finally his block log which demonstrates that real penalties with real impact are required to make any kind of impression on this guy.

    Again I don't have the time to deal with this any more and I need administrative help at least until September when I'll have more free time. I'll continue to try to work with him toward developing a set of good exceptions to NOTBROKEN, but in the meanwhile he may need some discouragement in the form of blocks to stop him from violating the guidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the only penalty left is an indef block at this point really. The edit summaries alone are disruptive enough but to continue the behaviour that has lead to not 1, not 2 but 6 separate blocks is taking things too far. If people still want to allow the user to continue to edit I would suggest an enforcement of not allowing them to use automated tools, a strict promise to always use proper edit summaries and a formal agreement on redirect editing with failure on any one leading to an indef block. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user's block log is a long, sorry read, with well over a dozen total. I suggest a preventative block of one year, to prevent any further consumption of editing time by the community. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 21:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been reading over this since it first hit the page, going back through edits and there is a pattern of deflecting criticism and WP:IDHT. The last in a very long string of blocks was 35 days, with previous blocks ranging from sock puppetry to 3RR and obviously, lots of problems with improper redirect "repairs". I'm thinking there is little choice but to block here, for a minimum of 90 days. An indef might be the better choice because previous blocks have had no effect in changing behavior. I'm not sure, but it almost like the edit count is more important than the edit quality here, and Wikipedia isn't a video game. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any particular reason as to why the latest block increments for this users have been 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 35 days when so many users end up with increments like 1 day, 4 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 1 year, then indef? Is there the slightest reason to believe that the 32nd block will change his behavior when the first 31 blocks failed to do so? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've also taken a look over this and come very close earlier to indeffing myself but decided I wasn't quite ready for my first indef block for something other than copyvio (especially after my first admin block of the other day). That block log is atrocious and I think an indefinite block is the only answer as they have a serious case of WP:IDHT. The obfuscating edit summaries are the final straw. Dpmuk (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boy, I'd really hate to have to drop an indef block over something as stupid as redirects.... but, honestly, if it's been this many years with this many blocks, all for the same thing? I don't know what other option is available. I'd like to see TJ's response to the above, but I am inclined to block in this case. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think someone hit the nail on the head and it seems it's more about edit count and pride of place in the top editors list that meaningful contributions or helping to genuinely improve the project. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also waiting to see if they are wise enough to come help us understand before resuming editing. And Guy, I can't speak for other admin, but the idea of how to escalate blocks has evolved over the many years. Also, the violations are problematic but not the most disruptive type of problems that admin see, so I'm guessing that played a part. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Steeletrap refuses to stop posting to my talk page

    Steeletrap warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note that Steeletrap is mad at me because at this diff where, after quoting, NPOV Dealing with biased contributors, I quoted her May 28th most recent derogatory comments about certain Austrian economists to explain her strong POV vs Hoppe which continues being disruptive. I've repeatedly asked her to discuss all this at the talk page but she continues posting on my talk page despite my repeated requests.

    Request: Could someone please explain to her why this is uncivil and harassment? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted Steeletrap's latest edits to your talk page and warned them not to post there in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:THC Loadee

    And we're done, for a week. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Based on my interaction with him, THC Loadee (talk · contribs) is here to push an anti-religious agenda. As he stated on his own talk page, "Once again, there is a wiki for religious folk. It's called Conservapedia. Try it. You might like it better than Wikipedia. On Conservapedia, they don't like facts very much." He also has referred to other editors as "fascists", but now thinks we are "authoritarian" instead. He also was edit-warring well over 3RR at Coconut oil and only stopped very recently. I reported him to AN3 several hours ago for the edit warring, but nothing has been done yet. THC Loadee is completely dismissive of religious viewpoints (... religious beliefs are opinions and can't stand up to the light of facts...) and is clearly demonstrating his unwillingness to edit from a neutral POV. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He has now reached about eight reverts here. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    THC Loadee's definition of "religious beliefs" appear to be "those beliefs that disagree" with his.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Just be aware that he's stated in the past that he will "re-appear" if blocked in this diff  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    Personal Attacks

    Blocked for 60 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I hope I've come to the right place. I didn't revert the IP, but I warned them of a personal attack with a level two warning and added a note regarding it. They then replied with the finger gesture. It didn't offend me or anything, but it is not appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. - Amaury (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Copyvios by User:Faizanali.007

    About two weeks ago, I left a final warning for copyvios in Qaiser Naqvi, Samira Fazal, Barkat Ali Siddiqui and Rehan Sheikh. His most recent creation, Tarang Housefull, copies from [34]. The user is generally unresponsive (3 user talk edits).

    A contributor copyright investigation is already open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007. MER-C 12:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked him. He had his chance to address the concerns and chose to continue violating the rules. Wizardman 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fayetsl

    Mass revert needed for all edits by User:Fayetsl. 82.132.234.106 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    More harassment, User:Quis separabit-related

    HIT THE ROAD, JACK
    ...and don't you come back no more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Quack quack! Following the User:Sallieparker incident mentioned above, I received THIS message on my talk page, which I will quote in full:

    Stop supporting bigoted and Anti-Catholic editors

    Don't think we haven't noticed your posting on the ANI noticeboard in support of Quis separabit? and against Sallieparker. Are you another Anti-Catholic Marxist or are you a fellow member of Quis' tribe? In any case, consider yourself warned. We don't want to have to take severe actions against you, but will do so if forced. User:NYFinanceGal (talk) 8:38 am, Today (UTC−7)

    Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack... Quack quack quack!!! Quack-quack? Quack! Quack quack quack quack quack quack quack...

    I will notify User:Sallieparker and User:NYFinanceGal momentarily, although that seems rather redundant. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In making the notifications, I notice that the latter is already indeffed today, the former is only warned. If anybody wants to make an SPI complaint, please do. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, blocked for all the very obvious reasons, and Alf was way ahead of us both on starting the SPI. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Muy goodo, thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Right here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sallieparker FWIW. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm blocking Sallieparker indefinitely for the obvious reasons: repetition of those slurs, socking, continued POV disruption at the article--did I miss anything? Sallieparker can accept the standard offer if she's interested. Also, I've semi-protected the article so Sallie can travel the world without missing anything. If any admin thinks that's too much and/or too long, feel free to tweak. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the article needs protection, but the remedy is obvious and on-target, in my opinion. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Run for admin and revert me... :) Drmies (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Swedish Resistance Movement

    Not a matter requiring admin intervention. FWIW, the IP is correct. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    i righfully replaced "nationalist" with "neo-nazi" in the article Swedish Resistance Movement but user:jcc does not seem to respond to sources see http://www.nordfront.se/motstandsrorelsen-nationalsocialisternas-alternativ.smr in which it clearly shows who they are. Istead he gives me a notice saying my edits are not contructive http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:95.195.223.226&oldid=557543537 95.195.223.226 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you discussed this with the user in question? This is a content issue, what JCC has done does not constitute vandalism. If discussion does bring resolution, try engaging editors at WP:RFC or a relevant Wikiproject. It is certainly not something administrators are any more empowered to deal with than any other conflict resolution process. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have replied on my talk page (and you haven't replied to despite a talkback) , "They describe their opponents as Nazis and that they are trying to fight them. I quote from the source. "No one chooses to give everything for what you believe in the 'Nazi Resistance Movement!" I know that this can be read as that they are Nazis resisting other parties but isn't that a bit odd saying that they are an offshoot of the Nazi party in 2013? " Anyhow, you didn't reference it and you should have joined it together. Also, the source is by one editor who is comparing themselves to Nazis, and most certainly not supporting the Nazi way of thinking. I sincerely hope other editors see my point of view, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continuing disruptive and ownership problems with Junebea1

    Junebea1 (talk · contribs) has been blocked before for disruptive editing on Bad Girls Club-related articles (e.g, Bad Girls Club (season 10) and Bad Girls Club (season 11). He continues to revert my edits of removing cast members last name per WP:BLP which are sourced to twitter accounts and YouTube videos. There was a edit war involving Junebea1 here about Nicole's last name (which was changed frequently) as reported here and here is just one example of unsourced additions of last names being changed by new users. Among the BLP issues that are constantly being ignored, Junebea1 shows signs of aggression to users who do not agree with him Junebea1 exclaims he will block others if they do not stop, another example and six others of the same issue. Instead of discussing ways to improve the article's page, Junebea1 tries to intimidate users to stop editing Bad Girls Club-related articles and here's another example. I've tried throughout the year to discuss with Junebea1 about his edits and tried to encourage him to join in discussions instead of violating the WP:3RR rule and posting user-warning templates. I don't want Junebea1 blocked from editing as he has shown improvement since the last run in with him, if he continues down this path of revisions I have provided, I believe a topic-ban would be more suitable until he is ready to be a team member and join in discussions with other users on the talk pages of those articles. Best, jonatalk to me 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The user also attempts to keep IPs from editing the pages, by requesting page protection. 81 of their 2402 edits are to the RFPP page. I almost always decline their requests for protection, because for the most part the IPs are attempting to make good-faith edits to the articles, not vandalising at all. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have also noticed this, and for my part have also almost always been declining his requests, but even leaving well meaning hints is to no avail; the user will just re-request protection some days later. A mentorship combined with a probable topic ban might be a way forward. Lectonar (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted his edit, but the only thing that was changed the second time was the infobox color. I left the last names out per his request. Also, when I put in requests for page protections, nobody looks at the articles' history to see that the IP's (most of them) are vandalizing. user:Ajona1992 has frequently attacked me and has tried to get me blocked because of his own personal vendettas. Thanks Junebea1 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hengistmate and civility (yet again)

    This reversion, in conjunction with the content, is particularly unimpressive (per uncivil hounding, dickish behaviour or whatever you want to call it). This is a long-term pattern from Hengistmate (talk · contribs) and it might benefit from a quiet word with a cluemop.

    For clarity, I have no dog in this particular fight, although I've frequently been on the end of Hengistmate's taunting in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:N-HH - automatically assuming bad faith, combative uncivil behaviour in violation WP:NOTABATTLE

    I recently opened a discussion on problems I saw with the intro on the talk page of the Fascism article with repetition on points. N-HH has responded by automatically assuming bad faith on my part, accusing me of wanting to take over the intro, and presumably that I am not open to criticism for intro content. I will admit that in the past I have perhaps gone too far with WP:BOLD when I have seen material lacking in intros and main bodies of articles. However this accusation that I am trying to take over the intro is not rational when I specifically opened a talk page discussion on the subject.

    All of these problems with N-HH started when I got extremely angry and uncivil at him at one point when he was accusing me of incompetence. I reported myself for incivility, and have since apologized on N-HH's talk page, and taken a long time off Wikipedia with some intermitting returns, and am only showing up to advocate changes I view needed. I believe that this is a long-term problem, that N-HH has neither accepted my apology nor has been willing to move on, and that this behaviour may indicate that he is holding a grudge towards me.

    Still the main issue that I am addressing here is the automatic assumption of bad faith. The following two diffs demonstrate these automatic assumptions: [35], [36].

    --R-41 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see what's ANI-worthy here. What action do you want against me? Even if there had not been a pattern of previous behaviour on your part – ranging from mild article ownership and disruptive editing all the way to random abuse and sockpuppetry – it would not be illegal to politely raise a query about actions and motives, while nonetheless focusing, as I have been, on article content. And, in any event, the second diff clearly shows me rowing back from any assumptions about your intentions. N-HH talk/edits 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno -- but perhaps you might try finding compromise edits instead of using the revert button so readily? Sometimes intermediate wording can solve issues far better than reverts do. And charging anyone with "ownership" and the like requires quite a bit more evidence than you muster. If you wish to start an RfC/U on R-41 - do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there were serious problems with parts of the Fascism lead as was, some significant changes and improvements were made and then, as you know, we had an RFC on the difference, which pretty unanimously backed the version that I've since been sticking up for over the past couple of months. Most of the edits since the RFC have been politically motivated borderline vandalism (eg "fascism is socialism!") or barely improvements at all. Reverting those seems fair enough to me; and my having done that a couple of times over several weeks is certainly not something for ANI. As for dragging other users to noticeboards or into the bureaucratic stocks, I have neither the time or inclination. I'd sooner rely on people being persuaded that not every contribution they make is as helpful as they might think it is. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I used an anon account as part of WP:CLEAN START, so that I would not face prejudice for previous editing actions. But that didn't work. During that incident several months ago, when I reported myself for my inappropriate statements I made, N-HH got angry at administrators and accused them of being friendly towards me in a way condoning what I did, an administrator responded by warning him about the fact that he was not adhering to WP:AGF of the administrators, and asked approximately "did you leave your AGF at the front door this morning?". N-HH is doing this again, and I believe that it is possible that N-HH is doing this because he may be holding a grudge towards me over what I said several months ago. Therefore I repeat: I apologize for my extremely inappropriate comments I said several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actions that I request should be undertaken: I want a clear warning to N-HH on his behaviour: to stop posting automatic assumptions of bad faith on talk pages that are about article content that aim belittle the content of what I have added based on implicit accusations against the nature of my character that could manipulate other users' perceptions of what I have contributed. If N-HH continues to post automatic assumptions of bad faith on article talk pages after being warned, I believe a 24 hour block should be put in place, hopefully to demonstrate that automatic assumptions of bad faith are not accepted on Wikipedia, and to encourage N-HH to change his behaviour. If it continues afterwards, I will request stronger sanctions. These public declarations of automatic assumption of bad faith on my part by N-HH has gone on for months now, in spite of me having taken long breaks from editing and apologizing for earlier unconstructive behaviour, this needs to end.--R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If he really believes that I am acting in a damaging manner to the Wikipedia Project, then he open up an RfC/U on me, and request administrative review of my actions. He should not be posting his perceptions of the nature of a user's contributions on talk pages about article content. --R-41 (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder of what AGF actually says: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism ... Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others". You know, like constantly asserting that I am "holding a grudge" against you. N-HH talk/edits 16:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Automatically assuming bad faith that you have done regardless of what I am contributing is not productive, especially posting accusations of the nature of my editing behaviour on article talk pages about content to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions. There is a place to make such complaints: that is RfC/U, but that should not be posted on an article talk page. Instead of discussing with me how to get the best ideas of all the editors involved in discussion and providing constructive criticism, you are combative, as Collect has mentioned above you simply revert my edits and condemn my edits for mistakes rather than working constructively. Also, take a look at WP:GRUDGE, I think it is reasonable to observe your user-to-user behaviour with me and make the conclusion that you are holding a grudge because you are still holding me in contempt for what I did several months ago.--R-41 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    N-HH has added new combative accusations against me on Talk:Fascism at this diff: [37]. N-HH's combative accusations are that I am making "arbitrary" searches that are "without any regard" for the text. I have read material on Mussolini's speeches before, including in a university course where I read that exact quote. I have Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 right in front of me. Yes I use Google Books because the content of those are easily verifiable by people who may want to investigate the content of sources used. N-HH needs to engage in more constructive behaviour, if N-HH has constuctive criticism on what I am proposing that could involve co-operative effort on working out how to improve content, that would be the best course of action. But these combative accusations about the nature of my behaviour need to stop being posted on article talk pages on content, if N-HH believes I am damaging the Wikipedia Project in such manners, he should open up an RfC/U.--R-41 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This section was not closed and the issue is still ongoing. I am re-posting this. N-HH has posted further combative remarks at me, and keeps using hyperbole that exaggerates things. I have requested him to cease using combative uncivil remarks and have said that I will accept constructive criticism by him, he has not done so, instead he has escalated the combative uncivil remarks that is now at the point of breaching WP:NOTBATTLE. It doesn't matter what I seem to post, he always finds fault in it that he combatively condemnds me for, and exaggerates it through hyperbole that effectively insinuates that I am grossly incompetent, malicious, and a person not to be trusted that he publicly conveys on article talk pages to influence other users' perceptions of my contributions.--R-41 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=557596198"