Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing

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

---

I am reporting Darkstar1st for violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behaviour here Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. He is pushing the idea that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society, and is cherry-picking sources to support his view. Darkstar1st's proposals have been unanimously rejected by all other users, and his usage of sources has been strongly criticized, but he refuses to accept consensus, and continues to push the issue.

I strongly believe that Darkstar1st has anti-socialist political views that are influencing his edits, he repeatedly edits articles in a manner that would appear to present Marxism-Leninism and fascism including Nazism as the major manifestations of what socialism is. The most important evidence I can provide of this is a cynical sarcastic-appearing remark recently made by Darkstar1st where he said "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action.", here's the diff [1]. He also has said in the past on the Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge, saying "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's the diff [2]. I believe that his intentions on Wikipedia with regards to material related to socialism, are to present socialism as a whole as totalitarian and linked with Marxism-Leninism and fascism.

He has been warned in the past to desist from similar behaviour on articles pertaining to socialism, and considerations of topic bans for Darkstar1st on socialism-related articles have been considered, as shown here: [3], where he was given advice by me on how to improve his understanding of socialism to avoid such assumptions of socialism being totalitarian. He has not heeded the advice or warnings of anyone there.

He has completely expired community patience at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. Many users there are aggravated with his pushing of the issue. Multiple users at the talk page are openly angry with his behaviour, some have called it "trolling". Darkstar1st neither listens nor cares about their criticisms, he just keeps pushing the issue.

Since he was warned to desist from such behaviour here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, and has completely refused to accept consensus, I believe that indefinate topic bans for Darkstar1st on all articles relating to: socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism, is the minimal of what is needed. I advise that users here talk with other users who have been involved with the discussions here: Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I fully agree with this summary and this complaint. Darkstar is an exceptionally disruptive and tendentious editor. He constantly plays fast and loose with sources, he initiates long and repetitive discussion threads, and then, weeks later, when the issue has seemed long closed, he returns and repeats his intention to carry out disputed edits, he refuses to accept consensus, and he attempts to wear out other editors by repeatedly making the same contested assertions. He appears to be here mainly to push his personal political beliefs, to attack socialism and justify nazism. Although the RfC has been open for six weeks, he has failed to respond, except for one edit in the wrong section repeating his content argument. Several editors (myself included) have reached, and gone beyond, the limits of their tolerance in dealing with his behaviour, which now verges on trolling. I am convinced that an indefinite topic ban is required in all articles and talk pages relating, however tangentially, to political issues. Then perhaps the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i have no idea what you mean about my page identifying me as an opponent of communism, or any comments i made confusing totalitarianism and socialism, please provide difs or withdraw your accusation. the edit i propose, "the USSR was the first socialist state and the USSR was the first socialist society. here are quotes from the 6 RS i presented, none of which have been challenged as a RS

• The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
• For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
• The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
• Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
• the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
• Soviet...the first socialist society.
• With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking me for a diff for a quote of what you said. Are you contending that you never said this: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action."?--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i said it. how does that make me an opponent of communism or think all socialist are totalitarian? much of the modernization of Russia can be attributed to socialism, which is what i meant with the words "shinning" and "action". perhaps you have simply read too much into my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can say such convenient stuff now when your editing is under observation now, but I am familiar with your editing history as are many other users, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It's all here as recorded by the user TFD and others: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. I read exactly what you intended to say, in context of what else you have said and how you have edited, you view the Soviet Union as the epitome of what socialism is. On your user page you are photographed in front of a building in Hungary where fascist and communist regimes tortured people and say: i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people. So by your own words, if the Soviet Union is the "shining example of socialism" and you went to a place where ""liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people", I can see no other meaning other than that you view socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical. Since you wanted a diff, here is your edit where you said that: [4].--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

so a photo in front of the house of terror makes me an opponent of communism? I read exactly what you intended to say, you should stick to reading what i write, not what you think i think. if you have a dif of me confusing totalitarians and socialist, plz provide here or withdraw your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people are not my words, rather from the article about the terror house. since the USA has also tortured/killed people do you think i am also anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalin "liberated" around 6 million of his own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are here because you have grossly violated WP:DISRUPT involving failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You are here for that. I have adjusted my statement in accordance with your concerns, but it is my firm belief, regardless of your attempts to deny it here to avoid topic bans, that you are anti-socialist. You appear to have indicated at Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge in your view, you said: "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's your diff [5]. Regardless of whether you are anti-socialist or are not, I may be mistaken but I doubt it, your edits on articles related to socialism have been highly disruptive, you have ignored consensus and have pushed issues after consensus has rejected them. This is a long-term problem, identified by the user TFD here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, you did not heed the warnings nor advice by TFD, me and others there and have continued your disruptive editing behaviour. Again, that is why you are here.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has continued to argue a case despite no other editor agreeing with him. This is disruptive and I would agree to a topic ban as suggested by R-41. TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar is persistently tendentious; he falsifies discussions (see his mendacious nonsense above about the six purportedly reliable sources he uses to push his spurious agenda, which have long since been rejected by all other editors in the discussion); and he has a severe case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban would be a wonderful idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from both the talk page and RFC discussions linked above that Darkstar1st's edits have been completely rejected by other editors, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't know how to actually understand, interpret, and weigh sources on this subject. Offering rhetoric from the Soviet Constitution claiming that it was the first socialist state in history as a RS for the factual claim that it was the first socialist state in history shows incredibly poor editorial judgment and a misunderstanding of core WP policies. The Soviet Constitution is a reliable source for its own content, and that's it; it's not a reliable source for verifying claims it makes about facts external to the Constitution itself and it should be obvious why this is so.

Maybe a topic ban is appropriate now (maybe he isn't WP:COMPETENT to edit Wikipedia at all), but I'd like to see a clear statement of what he understands consensus on the matter to be and what he intends to do next. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i understand consensus is against the proposed edit. the edit is a bit redundant anyway since the article already has an entire section dedicated to the 1917 revolution in Russia. the same claim (and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state) is made on the October Revolution article in the Soviet historiography section, so i really did not expect this kind of resistance. many people think there were socialist societies and states that pre-date the USSR, why are they absent from this article? wouldnt it be an improvement to note where socialism began? i plan to work on the tamarindo, costa rica article next. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st, you have said that you understand that consensus is against your proposal but you are still pushing for it to be included in spite of that. You have effectively admitted then that you have knowingly violated WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and you are still rejecting consensus.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Postdlf, from what Darkstar1st has just said, I think it is time for topic bans to be organized and implemented.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

what i meant by redundant is the edit i proposed in talk, is unnecessary and not worth perusing further, sorry for the confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the article taklk page when Darkstar first offered this justification,[6], Darkstar here is completely misreading the article on the October Revolution, where the view he offers as neutral fact is explicitly presented as the position of Soviet historians concerned to demonstrate "the accuracy of Marxist ideology". To offer a misreading once could be ascribed to a lack of understanding and an inability to read text critically; to offer this justification a second time, at AN/I, after the error has been pointed oiut, can only be seen as deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead readers. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looking now at the October Revolution article for the first time, but it seems obvious to me your explanation is correct, that it is not claiming neutral fact for the "first socialist state" statement, but instead attributing that to Soviet historians. Particularly given that the section is titled "Soviet historiography", and the sentence about the "first socialist state" claim opens with "In this view..." as a rather obvious qualifier. To miss all that takes some rather serious carelessness or fundamental problems with reading comprehension. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you could see the section of the October revolution title Legacy which has same claim without the qualifiers. The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus you have proven to us that you have wasted everyone's time with pushing this within your proposal when it actually was referring to "the first large-scale socialist state in world history" that you misleadingly used to say that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society" in history. Now I am certain that topic bans are absolutely needed as a minimal, and considering that Darkstar1st has inadvertently shown that he either is incompetent or unwilling to use material in the correct manner that it is worded, I would propose that it would be beneficial if Darkstar1st be indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether because of this level of complete incompetence or misleading behaviour (whichever it is).--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

but i never cited the article as a source in my proposal, only here as an example of how similar articles have similar claims. i have also said i am no longer pursuing the edit which was two-fold and had sources for both state and society, so i only meant this as an example relating to state. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am really getting frustrated. Darkstar1st, do you realize the level of trouble you have put yourself in because of pushing the issue in violation of consensus? Do you realize that by the fact that you have admitted that you know that your proposal was against consensus, but you still kept pushing, puts you in deliberate violation of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU? Do you realize that you have made multiple users so frustrated with you because of your editing behaviour involving pushing proposals against consensus, that they are all agreeing in calls for you to receive topic bans? I am asking you this, because it seems that you do not care at all about these issues of serious breaches of policy at WP:DISRUPT, and are just attempting to side-step them.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i am sorry you are frustrated. i am also confused that you think i am still pushing the proposal when i have said twice now i am no longer pursuing the proposal. i do not intend to edit the socialism article or talk now, or in the near future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that going to resolve your long-term disruptive editing behaviour? All that does is let's you off the ticket on this one instance of such editing behaviour by us taking your word that you won't edit it now or in the "near future" (whatever that means), and I can tell this is going to happen again by the behaviour you have demonstrated today, and in TFD's report that shows you doing the same behaviour in multiple other articles. You have failed to adhere to the advice in TFD's report, you have expired the patience of multiple users with your consensus-violating behaviour. Why should we believe that such behaviour by you on Wikipedia is going to stop now when it hasn't despite people repeatedly telling you to cease such behaviour in the past?--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i hav e resolved my long term behavior by not wanting to edit articles in which the sources i present are not accepted contrary to my opinion. each article i have edited, as well as the articles i have authored have all included sources. some, like the mexican constitution in the article i created, Immigration to Mexico, are allowed as sources, some arent like here. i see the other editors point that maybe the soviets were lying to trick people into thinking they were the 1st socialist state. perhaps someone here knows the real answer to who was the 1st socialist state, what a great way to end this debate, with a simple answer to a simple question. happy new year all, if we are still here, we must be the only/intelligent friends we have left, egészségére! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable

per wp:disrupt, i have presented 7 verifiable sources on the socialism talk page, yet made no edit to the article unlike R-41's recent massive rewrite of the lead. [7] the editor who reverted wrote this, Reverted R-41's mess of the lead. You've been warned about this already. You need to get some form of consensus on the talk page before altering the lead.

• source one, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within, source rejected, no where in the book does it state the Soviet Union was the first Socialist society.
• source two, The Constitution of the USSR source rejected, Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed.
• source three, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2011 source rejected, "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism" If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought.
• source four, Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia source rejected, Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society"
• source five, Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy source rejected, Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning.
• source six, Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921 source rejected, THE SOURCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE FIRST SOCIALIST SOCIETY. IT STATES THAT SOVIET HISTORIANS HELD THIS VIEW.
• source seven, Contemporary World History, 2009 source rejected, Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not put the material back in and even though I disagreed with the user, I listened to the user and opened a discussion with that user on the topic. You on the other hand have not listened to any users on the talk page. You have refused to accept consensus that unanimously rejected your stance, not one single user agreed with you, but you keep pushing the issue, even here - that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy regarding failure or refusal to get the point, that I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR all agree here about what you have done. You have cherry-picked sources to promote your view while having little to no understanding about the source - what it was about, what the context is, and who is saying what you have noted, etc. and multiple users have criticized you for that. But you neither listen nor care about the unanimous rejection of your proposal, nor multiple users' requests for you to cease pushing the issue; instead you keep pushing it. This kind of behaviour has gone on too long to be tolerated any further, and that is why I as well as TFD, RolandR, and Orange Mike are supporting topic bans on you.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

the point i was trying to make is i made a proposal on the talk page for a few words to be included in a subsection, you made a massive rewrite of the article lede without discussion, even tho you have been warned before not to do so. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference here is that, both here and elsewhere (Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original research, Talk:Socialism#would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?, Talk:Nazism#Rationing and shortages and many more) you have engaged other editors in exactly the same tedious time-wasting debates about misreading of sources, the origins of socialism and fascism, and other issues; that you consistently fail to hear what others are saying; that you repeatedly refuse to accept a consensus (even wheen you are the only editor in disagreement); that you will not drop an issue, but belabour it long after others have grown weary of explaining the same things to you time after time. You have exhausted other editors' patience and goodwill; R-41 has not. Your behaviour causes so many other editors to waste so much time, energy and emotion preventing you turning articles into a poorly-sourced POV nightmare thsat it is way past time that you were sent packing, enabling the rest of us to edit, and even when necessary to disagree, in a collaborative fashion. You are a drain on this project, and a net liability. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

actually the main difference is one of us attempts to win consensus in talk before making an edit, which once it became clear no amount of sources would satisfy, i never made edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that I began a discussion with the user to resolve his disagreements, the issue of my edit is moot because it has been resolved, your long-term disruptive editing behaviour involving violation of policy at WP:ICAN'THEARYOU on Talk:Socialism and multiple articles is what is at hand here, and it has been recognized by multiple users here as a problem.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i heard you several times, however since you have not read many/all of the sources to which you object, i did not feel it quite time to close the thread. you are also a socialist according to your home page, which perhaps explains your sensitivity to this topic, i truly am sorry for any discomfort my proposal caused you. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Darkstar1st's obvious refusal to accept consensus and stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd support a topic ban on Socialism articles (broadly construed). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

actually i have accepted consensus and agreed not to pursue the proposal further, see above. please note no edit was ever made, rather a collection of RS presented on the talk page when editors objected to the previous sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about any edits, so bringing it up is odd. I only speak of your tendentious and persistent inability to accept consensus. And I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

the incident here is concerning wp:disrupt, according to the complainant. wp:disrupt does specify the term edit. each source should be given examination according to wp:weight. it was my sincere belief with the right source the edit could be made. perhaps an easier path would simply add what the sources did say, since so many think i have taken the words out of context. or maybe the topic simply isnt relevant as one editor suggests. i still feel it would serve the article by identifying the 1st socialist state however i understand it is the consensus to not include such and see no reason to continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting Wikilawyering, particularly examples 2, 3, and 4 shown in the intro of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. It says that technicalities cannot be used to justify actions that violate the spirit and underlying principles of Wikipedia. Regardless, your claim of making a distinction between "editing" of articles as being distinct from that on talk pages is inaccurate, Help:Editing includes a section on "Talk (discussion) pages". The intentions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are clear, that failing or refusing to accept consensus is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. You have repeatedly ignored consensus when it has rejected your assertions.--R-41 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i wish i could be more clear, i am sorry for the distress i caused you, i will not pursue the proposal further, i have no intention of editing the article or talk page in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouting in bold and offering promises that you will not do it again are not convincing to me and appears to not be convincing to HandThatFeeds, you have ignored all complaints by multiple other users about your failure to accept consensus on multiple articles in the past. It is not a matter of distress by me, that is trivial and I am not distressed; nor is it a matter of the proposal alone; it is a matter of long-term disruptive behaviour by you on Wikipedia. I and other users are seeking a resolution to this long-term problem of you refusing to accept consensus on multiple articles. Hours ago you attempted to say that "editing" doesn't include talk pages in order to avoid responsibility of violation of WP:DISRUPT on a technicality, I showed that the technicality was false. Now you are attempting to bargain by offering promises in order to avoid topic bans that I and several other users here all agree are necessary. If you had listened to the advice by TFD, me and others in TFD's report that explicitly warned you about your behaviour and gave you one last chance to desist in such behaviour, then circumstances would have been different now, but you did not listen and continued your disruptive behaviour. The fact is that the patience of multiple users with your conduct has expired, I, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds all agree that topic bans should be applied, along with the administrator Postdlf saying he may endorse a topic ban. HandThatFeeds said to you "I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters", I agree with HandThatFeeds' conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling like this should perhaps just be closed now, and I'm not 100% convinced a topic ban is necessary at this point (though I can't say I'm actively opposed to one either). He says he'll drop it, and that promise in the context of this ANI (in which everyone commenting has agreed there is a problem) should be considered a serious one, with serious consequences if he breaks it. If he does break it, or continues the same kind of tendentious and poor editing at other articles on the same subjects, just come back to ANI and I think a topic ban then might be imposed in short order.

I'd also recommend to Darkstar that he look into a WP:MENTOR, because as I've said above, his demonstrated ability to interpret and use sources (and relevant WP policy) seems lacking. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at TFD's report and look at the multiple incidents TFD has noted where Darkstar1st has violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. It shows that multiple users been over this with Darkstar1st over and over again. I was the most liberal of them in that report, I gave him advice on how to improve his understanding of socialism amongst other advice, but he didn't listen to anyone and he hasn't changed his behaviour. Neither I nor HandThatFeeds trust his promises. There are limits to patience and trust given behaviour. Also, look at how he is approaching this: hours ago he attempted to use a technicality to avoid responsibility for violation of WP:DISRUPT, saying that talk pages don't count for "editing". It is my belief that he is tactically bargaining while having no real intention to change his behaviour. Accepting his promises will cause this whole thing to have to be restarted all over again, plus multiple users here believe that topic bans are necessary - me, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I just had a look at Darkstar1st's edits. It's pretty clear that he has wasted much time and effort being tendentious, and will likely be so in the future. I support a broad topic ban to prevent further disruption. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

no i will likely not be so in the future. one of the Wikipedia articles i created is considered high-importance, i plan to spend my time creating new articles of equal importance and leave the well established topics to the editors above. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, why are you so opposed to a topic ban? You say you have no intention of again editing articles relating to socialism or nazism. Some of us, who have requested a topic ban, doubt your ability to self-police this undertaking, and are requesting a topic ban in order to formalise a situation which you say that you respect. Opposing a topic ban suggests to me that you still intend to edit relevant articles or talk pages.RolandR (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you say you won't edit them and you say that you recognize the harm of your actions, then why not take both responsibility for your actions that have exhausted patience and trust by other users, by accepting the topic bans as a form of insurance that will guarantee that you will not be able to edit them? Promises with no enforcement risk violation. So if you accept the harm of your action, you should accept the responsibility of having exhausted the patience of multiple users, and accept the topic bans on political topics, as RolandR has proposed, as insurance to guarantee your compliance.--R-41 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

you have been reverted twice this week for editing the lede of the very article we are discussing as your edit violated wp:weight [8] [9]. normally editors discuss major changes to established articles before. i sincerely thought the edit i proposed for a minor section would not be opposed. each time there was an objection to the source i presented, i found a different source thinking it would clarify the previous. now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) This is ANI, not the socialism-hair-splitting page. Whether any state has ever really been socialist, and if so, which one was first, is not something anyone reasonably expected to see discussed in earnest here, much less resolved. No-one is obliged to answer your riddles. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To: Darkstar1st: Now you have jumped back from offering apologies to denouncing me and all the users at that talk page, who you just apologized to, indicating that we are "conspiring" against you because you "now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor". Wow, what a reversal in your attitude towards the other users on that talk page that earlier offered your "sincerest apologies", in only a matter of hours. And all because of a comment I said that simply asked you to accept a topic ban to provide insurance to your statement that said: "i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages".--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, i take back my apology and everything i have ever written you have read and every thought you think i thought: "I am familiar with your editing history, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. I read exactly what you intended to say" [10],. we will never cross paths again on ANY article of any subject, live long and prosper. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a gross overreaction, but interesting to note that you are saying that you have taken back your "sincerest apologies" a day or so after you gave them. Yes, I do not trust your behaviour given your long-term editing history on those topics, I have strongly disagreed with other users but have trusted their behaviour. But don't make this personal, plus you are not in a position to complain about aggravated about this situation you are in, multiple users are extremely aggravated about this situation, their patience has expired with your tendentious editing behaviour, and they do not trust your behaviour given your repeated violations of policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

perhaps, but it would be better for us to simply not interact. you have made several claims about my beliefs, none of which i agree. you are a socialist according to your own page and think i am anti-socialist which i disagree with as well. it is impossible for us to interact with this gulf, therefore i choose to not edit articles you edit. so long, no hard feelings. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop trivializing this as being personal. Multiple users here have called for topic bans on you for your disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

nothing personal, we just shouldn't interact. you believe something about me which i do not, therefore we are at an impasse. since you are a socialist, and care about this topic perhaps more than others, i now choose to avoid it so i may avoid you. i assume you have no interest in the other topics i edit and will be fine working on those, or i may quit entirely. after almost a decade here i am beginning to lose my zeal for the project. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to work on other topics than political topics, and claim that you will avoid such topics given the situation that your violation of WP:IDIDN'THEATTHAT has created, then why not accept the topic bans on political topics as a form of insurance to guarantee your compliance?--R-41 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I worry for the future of articles like Nazism. Perhaps you missed this edit, or maybe not? the nazistic overtaking...the first real nazist... [11] the source listed refers to articles in the German language wikipedia. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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

---

This is going round in circles, like every other discussion involving Darkstar. In the discussion above, six editors (myself, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You and FurrySings) have all expressed support for some sort of topic ban. I therefore formally propose an indefinite topic ban for Darkstar1st on all articles and talk pages on political subjects, to include ideologies and individuals as well as parties RolandR (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as explained above. RolandR (talk)
• Support as explained above.--R-41 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as explained above. TFD (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm familiar with Darkstar, and they are a unique editor and have some uncompleted edges, but I've seen their edits to be sound and well sourced. I have given the situation only quick read-through and it appears that the edit that they were trying to make is very well sourced (that the assertion the USSR was the first socialist state exists, not necessarily that it is determined) and actually required by the weight aspects of wp:npov. I saw some pretty wild looking arguments contrary to their proposed edits. One was that, contrary to what the sources said, that the USSR Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics was not socialist, another that prior situations were Socialist even if the sources did not call them such, but that the sources "meant' to say that they were. Those are wrong on two levels....editor debating the source, and then editing against sourcing/wp:npov. If Darkstar has any "offense" it appears that it was that they caved to the tyranny of the majority in that particular venue, not that they didn't cave quickly enough. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you believe that accepting a consensus decision means accepting a "tyranny of the majority", maybe you should discuss your theory with those who founded Wikipedia. Wikipedia is founded upon seeking consensus. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You are defending his motives while ignoring the manner in which he acted.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many flaws in what you just said, but I'll go to the main point. In this case by "tyranny of the majority" I meant folks in a particular venue "voting" to override policy. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls here on ANI are regularly used. They are not binding to enforce any action here, but they do show administrators what users want to be done. The administrator can look at these, evaluate their validity, and then take discretion on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Also, on process grounds, ANI is not the proper venue for discussing such an immense wide-ranging whack against someone. Due to it's orientation for individual incidents, it has neither the structure and timetable for proper review and as a result not the participation (in any one thread....usually just the original combatants plus or or two people that run across it at ANI and chime in) for proper review of such a weighty wide-ranging proposal. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. His content may even be accurate (in that it is a theory widespread enough that it deserves mention). --Nouniquenames 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (Removed comment as per request by user, I questioned if the user had two accounts based on similarity of three colours used for each word in their user name that both had no spaces, I have no reason to assume any closely similar editing behaviour, so I am removing it.)--R-41 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Surely you know where SPI is. If you don't want to make an accusation, I'd request you strike the question. --Nouniquenames 05:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I will assume that you are telling the truth and remove it, but given the close similarity of the user name templates, the question was reasonable.--R-41 (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support at least until we get a clear undertaking that the behaviour will cease. S/he goes on, and on, and on, and on .... ----Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: There are two types of editors taken to task at ANI: (1) "I'm very sorry; I was wrong, and I won't do it again." (2) "Here's why I'm right ..." (several hundred words later, and repeated over a dozen or two posts), followed by "Okay, okay, I'll stop, you meanies." How very many times have we seen that #2's contrition is forced, unwilling, temporary and abandoned the moment the coast is clear? No. This matter is not moot. The easiest way to ensure that this editor stays away from such topics is to declare that he is to stay away from such topics. Ravenswing 06:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As an editor who gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with on account of his editing behaviour as exemplified above, I would support a topic ban to prevent other editors from going through that experience. Kudos to TDF and others for putting up with it for so long, and for keeping a calm head and staying rational in their interaction with this editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Tendentious left-right fisticuffs at such venues as Talk:Socialism and Talk:Nazism abound. All parties need to knock it the hell off, and that includes editors from both the left and the right. Wikipedia is not a political blog. It is not a venue to declare black white and up down and to enforce that with 5 to 1 votes or whatever. It is not a place for trolling. Get busy writing articles and stop "debating" on big topics, all of you — that's my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is to do with a user repeatedly violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st have been identified on several articles for many months, in a RfC/U initiated by the user TFD.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support because of his long term behavior during his long running disputes, and the responses that he gave here. FurrySings (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's apologised and said that he isn't going to do it again. That's enough for me.  Tigerboy1966  22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Other users don't trust his apologies given his behaviour, such as the users Ravenswing and FurrySings here. Plus Darkstar1st keeps changing what he is saying, yes he claimed to apologize, but then later he accused all the users of refusing to hear him out, which is not true. His stances were criticized. I strongly suggest you look at the links to the discussion and the user TFD's RfC/U that are linked in the intro of this. TFD has been following Darkstar1st's editing behaviour longer than I have and has identified repeated examples of Darkstar1st violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans are not the proper means to remove an editor who is acting properly in a content dispute. The principle is to work towards consensus, not "declare a consensus first and remove those who disagree". Collect (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a content dispute, nor is this about removing an editor. This is a dispute about editing behaviour, he has repeatedly violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT on several articles, even after being informed in the RfC/U that he was violating it. The proposal is the application of topic bans on political topics, removal is not the proposal here, the user can continue to edit non-political topics. Other users agree that this is a dispute over disruptive behaviour, such as User:SMcCandlish who has commented below in another section.--R-41 (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this particular example, this user simply took part in a very long discussion at article talk page. I saw much longer discussions on other similar pages, and no one was reported. Are we going to report all such participants? I do not mind, but this is hardly consistent with policies. Now, speaking about the essence of the content dispute, every Soviet textbook claimed USSR to be the first socialist ("first stage of communism") state after Paris Commune which was first socialist government, not counting "primitive communism" societies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, this is not a content dispute here. This is about editing behaviour. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, he kept pushing the topic after it had been unanimously rejected.--R-41 (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the above - the area is populated by extremely opinionated users all round. Youreallycan 02:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Cynicism about users being opinionated does not justify ignoring clear and repeated examples of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st that have been noted by multiple users, and the multiple violations have been noted in the RfC/U filed by the user TFD, who is known to me to not be a highly opinionated user, but a user who seeks to follow Wikipedia principles to the letter. You should speak with TFD about Darkstar1st's behaviour, as TFD has been monitoring it longer.--R-41 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I consider that a topic ban is not the way out yet. I understand that, from what I've read, it seems to be the easiest solution; I find it a bit egoist. Maybe a formal case at ArbCom if DRN hasn't been proven yet would be a better path. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Moot

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

---

I commented at the RFC/U and didn't know it was duplicated here. It appears that their insertion was a well sourced minority viewpoint and a valid insertion per wp:npov even if more folks there preferred or felt that it not be in. There is a provision in the quoted-in-the-complaint guideline (which at the opening above was mis-identified as policy) which identifies and protects this. Either way since Darkstar has doubly given in on this wp;anI appears to be a moot point. RFC/U would be the only proper (and properly thorough) venue to pursue things outside of this now moot/resolved incident. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is not a response to one content dispute; it is a response to persistent tendentious editing, over several months and several articles. RolandR (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an open RFC/U for that. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR. I said in the proposal that this is part of a long-term problem and I proposed topic bans for several topics to avoid future problems altogether. Darkstar1st ignored the basic request of the RFC/U report started by TFD, that called for Darkstar1st to accept consensus even when it disagrees with his stance, a call for him to adhere to the policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, but Darkstar1st failed to adhere to WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT after being informed by TFD and others of his need to do so. Darkstar1st attempted here to avoid responsibility for WP:DISRUPT on a technicality on what constitutes "editing", that was false premise. Then Darkstar1st has begun bargaining by offering promises. Multiple users here, including myself, believe that there is little reason to trust Darkstar1st's promises given the repeated nature of the disruptive behaviour of ignoring consensus in spite of being warned by multiple users not to do this.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

it is not moot because the RfC/U is on going and this is not a content dispute. TFD (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This ANI, within its proper scope, IS about assertions of behavior in a content dispute. The RFC/U is the proper & suitable place for the wide-ranging things people are bringing up here. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's about tendentious editing, it's about refusal to accept consensus, it's about failure to hear the argument and repeating the same point ad nauseam, it's about one editor who, for more than a year, over several articles and talk pages, has wasted the time and exhausted the patience and good faith of very many other editors, who want to put a stop to this. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My point / opinion is that ANI is unsuitable for such a wide-ranging agenda with such wide-ranging actions being sought. And that RFC/U IS suitable for such North8000 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This does not have a "wide-ranging agenda" or "wide-ranging actions". Topic bans have been proposed for political topics in response to this user's repeated violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Darkstar1st ignored all the material in the RFC/U by the user TFD who filed the report, that informed him that his ignoring consensus was a violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, after he responded to the RFC/U he proceeded doing exactly the same behaviour on Talk:Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, RolandR, you seem to be completely mistaken about what this AN/I is about. It isn't about whether Darkstar1st has sources that might squeak though WP:RS, or is bringing up a minority but non-fringe viewpoint that needs to be addressed. This is about disruptive user behavior. Darkstar1st could have 5x that many sources but that wouldn't make the behavior acceptable. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to refer to the user North8000, RolandR agrees that this AN/I is about Darkstar1st's disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC user not closed

• - Please note the RFC user has now been closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 08:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted YRC's closure, since it did not meet any of the criteria for closure specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing RolandR (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note , I closed the RFC user after a requestfrom one of the certifiers at WP:AN - see here .. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC - Youreallycan 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

From "sincerest apologies" to serious accusations

Earlier Darkstar1st recognized that his edits caused harm and offered his "sincerest apologies" and promised not to edit the articles socialism and Nazism, specifically saying:

"i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others"

Then when asked by RolandR and then me that if he accepted responsibility for what he did and the loss of patience amongst users caused by his actions, why would he not then accept topic bans as a form of insurance to guarantee that he would not do so. Then his response completely reversed from offering apologies to insinuating serious accusations. He has just said:

"now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)"

He is in other words accusing all users involved there of deliberately rejecting his proposal out of a refusal to hear him out, rather than out of criticism of what he proposed. He is also inaccurate when he says here that his proposal was to say that the USSR was the first socialist state, his proposal specifically said the first "socialist society". His proposal was unanimously rejected and his use of the sources he chose was criticized by multiple users.

He has gone from offering apologies to launching accusations against all the users in that discussion who had unanimously rejected his proposal. Should the users involved in the discussion be informed of this serious accusation by Darkstar1st and asked to respond?--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it as "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort". But the most folks here can just read it for themselves rather than you are or me telling them what "it says". North8000 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If what you said is true that he believes "even though it should be in there, I am giving up the effort", that does not demonstrate any respect for policy at WP:CONSENSUS or WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT at all, only an angry and reluctant tactical abandonment to attempt to avoid the imposition of topic bans that many users here believe are necessary. This is what User:Ravenswing above has stated, that this kind of response by Darkstar1st is common of users who have been caught violating policy who are only reluctantly claiming to abandon their ways, but then when they believe the coast is clear, the disruptive behaviour returns. Other users above have similarly said they do not trust his promises, given his long-term behaviour and his behaviour even on this noticeboard. He is clearly saying that people refused to hear him out, while neglecting to note that his usage of sources was criticized and he expired the patience of users by keeping pushing for inclusion of the material in spite of their criticisms, and opening up section after section to push it, in spite of unanimous rejection of his proposal by other users, a blatant violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. That policy specifically says: "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

R-41, look from my view, who would want to edit articles with this amount of resistance to ones proposals in talk? i really do plan to stay as far away from this type of situation/topic/article/etc as possible. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am particularly concerned by Saddhiyama's comment above, that s/he gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with as a result of his behaviour. That alone is sufficient to keep him away from sensitive articles. RolandR (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st: As RolandR has said, your behaviour has aggravated users like User:Saddhiyama to not even want to edit political articles where you have activity on them. You have repeatedly expired many users' patience on multiple occasions, and that is bad for the Wikipedia Project. Now if you really are planning to stay away from such political topics, then accept the proposed topic bans on political topics to provide insurance to concerned users here, that will guarantee compliance and the situation will be resolved. You could still edit non-political topic articles.--R-41 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If I have any quests in Wikipedia, one of the is against mis-using the system to conduct gang warfare against an editor who the gang disagrees with. And that is what I see here, including much spin in the comments. I'm familiar with Darkstar from both when we agreed and disagreed. Their style is brief (possibly overly brief) discussions and edit summaries that often need a translator (vs. engaging deeply in more detailed conversations). Their edits are very intelligent and Wikipedian/source-based. For better or worse, they usually don't "cave" to the tyranny of the majority (e.g especially in any small kangaroo court venue) especially when they have policy on their side. I think that they caved too quickly on an insertion that many sources consider the USSR was the first socialist state. If the anti-Darkstar folks persist further, I think that it is time to reopen that question to a new debate on the underlying question with broader participation. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, On the RfC/U I was firm, but I offered Darkstar1st helpful advice on how to improve his understanding of the topics, and to behave more constructively. He ignored the advice and continued his disruptive behaviour. The most spin that I have heard here is coming from Darkstar1st who keeps changing the nature of his response from apologetic and concessionary to accusative. Also he has refused to give any answer to I and RolandR's question that if he does not intend to edit those topics, then why doesn't he accept the topic bans for insurance that he will not edit those topics? He refuses to answer the question, dodges it every time it has been asked and changes the subject. Calling people like me "anti-Darkstar" and that we "anti-Darkstar" people have conspired using "gang warfare" to create a "kangaroo court" governed by a "tyranny of the majority" are extreme examples of bias and spin, attempting to de-legitimize and belittle the long-term problems being addressed hereby portraying all the people supporting the topic bans as corrupt gangster-like thugs. As for "anti-Darkstar" "gang warfare" - I hardly know many of the users who have supported topic bans on Darkstar1st beyond first meeting most of them right here in the past few days, I have strong disagreements with TFD on topics, but both me and TFD agree topic bans are needed here.--R-41 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying the intent of one dramatic term that I used, by "Kangaroo court" I really meant that the discussion there (and the group that moved here) it is a small isolated venue. The other terms I meant exactly as they sounded., North8000 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing to action here - and no community support for any topic ban - the report should be closed - keeping lengthy reports open at high profile noticeboards is undue and attacking in itself - this thread is over ripe to be closed.Youreallycan 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "no community support for any topic ban" ??? There are many users calling for a topic ban as can be seen above. Just a day ago, most users in the proposal for topic bans were in favour, now a few more people have arrived who are opposed, this is far from moot. I do agree that this has gone on long enough and that an administrator needs to arrive to make a decision.--R-41 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Either way this venue/format is not suitable for a discussion on such massive actions. North8000 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) - As you can see - there is little to no independent community support for a topic ban, and there are oppose comment, nowhere near any kind of consensus - even the RFC user has failed to attract interest and there is no current ongoing editing disruption back off from the dead donkey and allow this report to archive, its been open for over a week now. Youreallycan 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Seriously, what are you talking about? Look at the number of users who believe that a topic ban is needed. You say you want "this report to archive" - why are you so adamant for no action at all - not even minimal action - to be taken? Because it ticks you off that it has gone on for a while? The policy that I have referred to of violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT is valid, and multiple users here agree. An administrator needs to arrive to make a decision.--R-41 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) -There is no current ongoing editing disruption to the project apart perhaps for this report which Dreadstar is not responsible for. R-41 if you were at an RFA and were questioning anyone that opposed you would already have been warned about badgering. When there are issues and the community clearly speaks an admins shows up rapid to deal with it and close, when there is not a big issue they allow a bit of discussion and close when able, personally imo this has been allowed to develop long enough. - After over a week you have seven supports and seven opposes, its clearly no consensus please close. Youreallycan 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
          • • You are talking to me as if this is just some vain project of mine with no support. Have you spoken to TFD who has recorded Darkstar1st's repeated examples of disruptive behaviour on several articles and has written a report on it that I mentioned in the intro? P.S. I want an administrator to review this before it is closed, that is my position.--R-41 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
              • If it wasn't for your posts to this thread it would have automatically archived, like yesterday - try it, back away. Youreallycan 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                • First: Why are you threatening me by telling me to "back away"? Second: Why are you ignoring posts by others like RolandR and multiple others that occurred in the last two days?--R-41 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • Threating you? Yawn - Threads here archive after twenty four hours of inactivity, you are the only supporter of the topic ban that has commented in that period .. as for the previous comment .... You can't 'demand' admins comment about anything, in general they comment when needed. - Youreallycan 00:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • I am going to ask the user TFD, who is very familiar with Wikipedia policy, to see if your contentions are correct.--R-41 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • Just upon checking TFD's board, he already answered that to a previous query I had. Users can request an administrator to close a thread, which is what I will do.--R-41 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                      • Cool - Yes, please do. Youreallycan 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                        • Remember that what you consider "no support", is 7 people agreeing to topic bans and 7 people not agreeing to topic bans. A dead tie, that an administrator can decide on and close this thread. Given the amount of time it has taken here, I wouldn't be surprised if an administrator would reject it because all the discussion has stretched out what a straightforward request this was.--R-41 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                          • I have actually counted eleven editors who have explicitly supported a topic ban, either on this page or in the RfC: RolandR, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You, FurrySings, Snowded, Ravenswing, Saddhiyama, Dave Dial, SMcCandish. And I agree with R-41's request that an admin looks at this, and the related RfC, and decides how to close it. RolandR (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                          • I think youreallycan's attempts to shut this down are more without support than the topic bans, which I, for one, support.Assistant N (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
                            • Assistant N, I know it may seem like canvassing but since you have already said that you support a topic ban or topic bans, I am informing you of the proposal above by RolandR which you may not have seen because of how long this is. You may disagree with the scope of the topic bans, etc.. I am saying this here because there may be confusion over who is supporting RolandR's specific topic bans proposal, or the general proposal for topic bans in the intro, so that if you should support RolandR's topic bans proposal or not, that administrators will be clear on exactly who is in favour and who is not in favour of the topic bans proposal. If you or others deem this an inappropriate notice of attention, I advise that you tell me so, and I will remove it at once if it is deemed an inappropriate notice.--R-41 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting administrator to review and close the AN/I thread

As per above in text, the request has been made here: [12].--R-41 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did so as a no consensus at this time. I don't want to shut down discussion however; some serious questions were raised and only partly answered.

What would seem best would be uninvolved admins with some spare time (hah) going back to all the original discussions and sources and trying to separate out the actual issues from the factionalism.

While it is hard to avoid getting groups of people lined up against each other in some content or behavioral disputes, it does make it very hard for outsiders to separate underlying issues from the back and forth between groups. Particularly when both sides are wiki-savvy.

I know there is factionalism; I have seen some exaggerated claims; I have seen some substantiated claims; there are other claims that are unresolved. There is something clearly wrong here. The question is what, and what should be done about it. For that, I respectfully suggest that the fighting parties are not helping anyone else discern it at this point, and that uninvolved admins making a call is required.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As on your talk page you suggested that I address any concerns. Firstly, the serious issues needed to be defined in the form of questions with answers by users who are familiar with this. Secondly, the means of resolving these issues need to be addressed.

Question 1: At what point in time in context to activity in discussion does continuing to push an proposal despite a strong majority or unanimity of users rejecting the proposal, cross the line of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT?

Question 2: How should sources be used? For example, if the topic is on socialism, is a book on the Soviet Union or other very specific example involving socialism appropriate for determining material on socialism as a whole? Or should the source on such a claim be from a book about socialism as a whole? Can a universal clear-cut statement on the "first society of a particular ideology" really be claimed from a source given that the very definition of the ideology by different factions claiming to adhere to it, can cancel out defining it as such?

Question 3: What should Darkstar1st do, and what should Wikipedia do in regards to Darkstar1st, so that similar loss of patience amongst users from prolonged discussion involving Darkstar1st, does not happen again? A significant number of users have identified this as a problem.

These are the top three major questions and minor questions within them that I believe need to be addressed, particularly by administrators if possible.--R-41 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Since a lot of space has been taken up here, I suggest that this could be moved to a dispute resolution noticeboard or other venue. If you Georgewilliamherbert would support that?--R-41 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking mediation, or something informally like that, but DRN might work.

Regarding the questions - you're assuming a couple of the answers to the questions I would personally want to ask, in the way you phrased those questions.

My questions would come down to...

• Did Darkstar1st misrepresent sources, forge quotes or references, etc?
• Were sources that were real and accurately cited taken out of context in a significant way?
• What is the mainstream in these areas (in the US, in Europe, in academia vs independent thinkers, historians vs political scientists, how did this change over time, etc)?
• Does Darkstar1st's evident personal political position lead him to interpret works in a way that is in a minority fringe of say historians or political scientists, to the point that his usage of works is FRINGE?
• If this was not a FRINGE viewpoint, did Darkstar1st's personality cause excessive interpersonal conflict in trying to resolve a reasonable content dispute?
• If this was not a FRINGE viewpoint, do the "other side" bear responsibility for having personalized this against Darkstar1st and/or attempting to convert a legitimate content dispute into an alleged behavioral issue?

There is a huge body of ... aggressive discussion behind all of this, and digging down into it to root causes has been challenging.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, this particular case has long been moot, and there are only general claims (by the same combatants) about anything outside of this incident, with them requesting an immense action against Darkstar. This venue does not have the proper scope, processes, depth, substance in the allegations outside of the moot claimed incident, or level of participation to start gather the required specifics for a review of the claimed items (outside of the now-moot incident) to properly handle that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was putting my thoughts here publicly for the record, rather than drive the conversation somewhere else and put them there. I agree that this is the wrong venue for the conversation to continue on, whether that's DRN or mediation or an issue RFC or what.

ANI wrong place, yes.

Regarding the "moot" - the root of the displeasure seems to be behavioral, but it's not clear if the behavior was wrong or if it was a normal legitimate content dispute resolution gone bad. Looking at the facts is probably reasonable to try and establish a baseline for both sides' behavior. I don't presume either side was right or was wrong, to start with, on the underlying content issue. Laying it out there seems reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Um -- seems that posting thousands of repeated words about any editor impresses few people on this noticeboard. I suggest this be archived - have a cup of tea or so, and wait until you find a good reason to post another complaint about someone. If it is truly a behaviour issue, you will undoubtedly have another chabce. Meanwhile, it takes up way too much time for everyone wading through repetitious argumentation. Especially if they have just joined in on this mountain. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Current word count now on the order of 11,000 words. Collect (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr. I think ANI is simply not equipped to handle complex cases like this. The alleged problem can not be convincingly demonstrated using just a few diffs. This involves complex behavior patterns and a complicated subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line as Georgewilliamherbert says, is that serious questions about this remain and need to be resolved. I agree with all the questions that Georgewilliamherbert asked as being pertinent, and definately needing to be addressed in such mediation or dispute resolution. I can say I have seen such behaviour between Darkstar1st and other editors long before I had anything but the most minimal interaction with him, it was not personal to me beyond the fact that I had become aggravated with Darkstar1st appearing to ignore many criticisms of his proposal and how he kept changing what he was saying here to me and others at the talk page - that I must admit I as well as others like User:Ravenswing saw as manipulative and bargain-seeking. I leave it up to Georgewilliamherbert to determine whether mediation or dispute resolution is the better option.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Multiple Civility Issues relating to RFC on Article Talk page- Unsure How to Approach

Further information: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 116 § Removing Long-Term Unsourced Material is Edit Warring?

I'm not notifying anyone at this time because I'm not sure whether this is an issue where Admins should get involved and I have no idea who I could talk to in order to determine whether or not they should short of coming here. I was hoping this problem would remain an "irritation" to me rather than something that I felt necessitated intervention, but...well, here we are.

I recently opened an RFC at an article's Talk page and I feel that multiple users have engaged in personal attacks rather than focusing on the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of arguments being made. If I wasn't an involved editor and frequent target (i.e. if other editors were being targeted) it's the kind of thing where I hope I'd likely warn the editors to knock it off, but under the circumstances I suspect that would only aggravate the problem.

I'm well-aware of the requirement to notify users if they're the topic of a discussion, but I don't know how that would be handled in this case; i.e. whether it's sufficient to leave some sort of notice at the Talk page of the RFC or whether it's necessary to notify each user individually (and at this point there are a significant number). Ideally I'd like to just have admins look over the discussion and take whatever actions they deem necessary...even if that's telling me that I'm out of bounds and should drop the matter.

In other words, I guess I'm basically asking whether it's prudent to provide more information, notify users in whatever manner you would recommend doing so and get this hopefully taken care of, or whether this is a case where I should just try to keep the high ground and hope it blows over.

Thank you very much for your time, advice, and assistance. Doniago (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Synchronous motor#Proposal B, if anyone is wondering what this is about William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Quite the cesspool attacking an editor who actually believes that "verifiability" stuff. I've removed some of the more egregious personal attacks. NE Ent 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've restored them. It's time to take the encyclopedia back from clueless editors who hide behind tags and simplistic dogma, and "civil" editors who stifle any debate of this. This is an encylopedia and it is built of content. If you're not contributing to that content, you're not building it. If you're destroying that content, you're destroying the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And yes, clueless. The root of this specific instance here is that Doniago is self-confessedly ignorant of anything to do with the article subject, sees no reason to do a modicum of basic research before commencing, yet sees neither of these as any brake on his blanking of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no problem at Synchronous motor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (apart from the fact that some minor work by editors who understand the topic would be desirable). There was some confusion on the talk page where some editors gave the standard commentary that would be applied to a WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP issue (namely, contentious material must be removed until it satisfies WP:DUE and WP:RS)—however those comments are not applicable to the article in question where everyone agrees the text in the article is fine (although a little essay-like in some parts). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Your error is threefold:
  1. Assuming that you have the high ground in the first place. You do not.
  2. Not following verifiability procedure. The correct procedure, that was in our verifiability and deletion policies in the same step-by-step fashion for some years can be found at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. What you did, on the other hand, was laziness.
  3. Making the usual "People are telling me that I'm doing things wrong, so they must be personally attacking me." leap. The only thing that has come close to personal attacks has been someone foolishly throwing around the "dirty -istas" epithets, which have never improved a discussion, which I have been explaining for some years as having no basis in either history or analysis, but which you'll find almost no-one here will treat as personal attacks (because that would involve uprooting quite a lot of entrenched nonsense that people want to hang on to, because they don't realize that they were jokes, such as m:deletionism and m:inclusionism).
• You removed content that said that a motor comprised a rotor, stator, stator housing, and slip ring for being "without sources". Content is removed for being unverifiable. That's not the same as not having little superscripted numbers. As User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow explains, verifiability is the ability for readers to check Wikipedia content for accuracy. It's in the name. The correct approach to verifiability, and improving verifiability, is to attempt that check, and make the check possible for others if one's own attempt fails. If it turns out that one cannot make that possible, then is the point that one deduces unverifiability.

  Moreover, inability to make it possible here does not include mere inability to understand the subject on your own part. In any case: Knowing that motors have rotors, stators, housings, rings, and other parts is something that a ten-year-old with a build-your-own kit knows. Even I know it. It's outright stupid and destructive to remove such information from an article for supposedly being unverifiable. As was pointed out, there's scant difference in action and in effect between such an edit and the edits of section-blanking vandals.

  And it's lazy to then say that it's Somebody Else's Problem to deal with fixing the damage and not lift a finger yourself. Remember: When you say that "nobody cares to do the work" you are including yourself. If everyone around you is lazy and not working on improving the article, as is so often asserted by people in your position, then so are you. It's also seen as arrogant, because others perceive it as your setting the agenda for them, demanding that they work to it, without doing any share of the work yourself, and threatening that you will kick over the sandcastles if your demands that other people do work that you should be doing yourself are not met by your arbitrary deadlines. You are not apart from the other people whom you decry and demand should be working for you.

  This is why a lot of people are telling you that you are not putting verifiability and editing policy into practice, that your approach to editing is destructive, entirely uncollaborative, to the detriment of articles, and borderline indistinguishable from the section-blanking vandals in its practice. But since one person leapt to the "dirty -istas" epithets, you're ignoring the several editors on article talk pages and on noticeboards who have all told you how to put verifiability into practice properly, and concentrating on that one. It's the old they-told-me-I'm-wrong-so-I'm-calling-it-uncivil rubbish with an assist from one over-the-top fool. That one person used the "dirty -istas" is no excuse for ignoring the many people who have told you to pull your finger out, do what editing policy, verifiability policy, and deletion policy have always required from their very first versions — even though we mistakenly removed from policy the concrete step-by-step instructions showing how to properly go about it, leaving just the goal: an error that has caused a lot of grief since from the actions of people who couldn't figure out for themselves what steps to take — and not just sit on the sidelines doing nothing except demanding that other volunteers like you jump when you shout "frog!".

  Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • *applause* Nice. Puts me in mind of this edit claiming that a source was needed to claim positrons were involved in positron emission tomography... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy is fairly clear: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." NE Ent 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• They key word in that quotation is "verifiability". The content was removed for being unsourced, not unverifiable, and those are two very different things - it blatantly is verifiable. There are also riders on the second sentence, in that there is some content that does not need a source. It is plainly destructive to insist that unsourced material should be removed, even if it is blatantly accurate and can be easily sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think "fairly" clear is about as far as it goes. The policy is not absolute, it's not mandatory. It's permissive. As such, the policy necessarily assumes the exercise of sound discretion and judgment on the part of editors applying it -- both of which have been lacking in the reflexive challenges and excisions at issue here. The policy cannot mean literally for example that any fact nominally challenged by any editor, without any articulable reason, is properly removed if thereafter no citation is provided. That's a recipe for mischief. It's also important that the policy says that the challenged material "may" be removed, rather than "must" be. Automatic, unthinking removal of content purely because it lacks a citation entails no judgment and is not consistent with the premises underlying the policy even if the removal is permitted by the policy's literal terms. JohnInDC (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• No, NE Ent, you clearly don't understand how to put policy into practice, either. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means helping to improve articles, not sitting around claiming that the burden is on everyone else and that one's own responsibility is only to kick over the sandcastles and set arbitrary deadlines for volunteers. This is basic collaborative-writing stuff that's been in content and editing policy for a decade. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia can be destroyed by being full of crap just as easily as it can be by "destroying content." Here's more from our alleged verifiability policy:

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Emphasis original NE Ent 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the removed material -- rather than going on and on about how bad Donaigo is, why couldn't one of the editors actually spend 30 seconds googling a source (e.g. [13]) and just add it to the article? That would meet the requirements we are supposed to have and benefit the reader by providing a link to a more detailed explanation. Win-win. NE Ent 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• That question cuts both ways, and is more of the deflecting nonsense that so usual in these cases. Once again: Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem, and you are failing to ask "Why couldn't Donaigo actually spend 30 seconds googling a source and just add it to the article?". This is a collaborative project. And we're volunteers. Doniago had the itch. Xe should have scratched it, not tried to force the work onto other people. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am slightly troubled by the interpretation of the verifiability guidelines here. It does seem to be giving editors with general scientific/engineering knowledge carte blanche control over content on technical articles. It means they can create unsourced content that may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook, but not directly verifiable by the vast majority of potential readers. It seems to betray the central principle of Wikipedia: that articles should be constructed from published content, that can then be corroborated by the reader. It feels like the meaning of "verifiable" is being reduced to a game of semantics. It's reasonable for a reader to ask "Where did this information come from?" If editors cannot adequately respond to that question, either by providing a chapter or page number from a book or whatever, then a reasonable challenge has been raised to the verifiability of the content. In the case of the Synchronous motor, there should really be nothing in that article that cannot be found in a standard chapter of a standard textbook about standard synchronous motors: after all, this is an encyclopedia article giving a basic overview of the topic. Doniago is entitled to ask for a source, and someone should be able to give him a chapter or page number. That's all it takes; if there are then any claims that are not backed up by the main source, an editor should be entitled to remove those or request further citations. We are building an encylopedia, not a tutorial! Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't understand how to put verifiability into practice as an editor, either, and your argument is self-contradictory on its face. Think! Content that is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" is verifiable content. You just said it yourself. And reasonable challenge does not include "I haven't bothered to check anything at all or make any effort myself.". Accuracy is our goal, with verifiability as the only way to get there given that we're pseudonymous people using a fully open installation of MediaWiki as our writing tool. Verifiability is our best proxy for accuracy, and it is ludicrous to be so thoughtless in one's practice of verifiability that one makes no attempt onesself to determine whether content is accurate. Stop conflating "unsourced" with "unverifiable". If sources aren't cited but the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook", then the correct course of action, that was stated in policy directly in the form of how-to instructions for years before we made the mistake of taking out the steps to leave only the goal, is quite clearly not to remove the verifiable content, but to act like a collaborative editor and attempt to help make the article better still by looking for those sources and adding the missing citations. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And you are missing the point that verifiability is a process, and not a standard! Something that may be easily verifiable for someone with an engineering background may not be be verifiable for someone without one, and sourcing is the means by which such content is verifiable. They are not distinct concepts! You are confusing sourcing with citing, and while something may not be cited it may well be verifiable if a source can be provided for the article. No-one is expected to go through the article providing citations for each line, but it is reasonable to request a source for the content in the article, and it is unreasonable to prevent the removal of that content if the source is not forthcoming. We have a bunch of electrical engineers arguing for the retention of the content in the dispute, so if it is easily verifiable through a textbook why don't they just give us the name and chapter of such a textbook? If you cannot provide a source for the content how can you argue that it is verifiable? Just because you know something through your own knowledge or background does not mean it is verifiable through published reliable sources, so arguing for its retention on the basis of what you know is not a valid argument for the verifiability of the content. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't even reading what you yourself wrote, let alone what I did. Think, for pity's sake! You are the one who stated that the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook". It's right there, above. We don't have to argue something that you yourself stipulate. And it's downright daft to say to someone who is explaining how to put verifiability into practice that it's a process. Of course the putting of something into practice is a process. And it's a process that you don't have the first clue how to apply if you think that content that you've already stipulated to be verifiable should be removed from an article for being "unsourced". Once again, go and read the original instructions from the verifiability policy, preserved at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and learn what you patently have not learned: that the correct action, in a collaboratively-written project, when sources are not cited but content is verifiable is not to kick over the sandcastles and remove the content entirely.

        This is basic content and editing policy, and always has been. It's also good sense. Indeed, it's even in the {{unreferenced}} notice. It quite clearly says "Please improve the article by adding citations of sources." not "Please just wipe out verifiable content wholesale and then sit around demanding that other people clean up the mess and damage without lifting a finger onesself.". One of the biggest of the many discussions where your error here has been pointed out time and again is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Challenged or likely to be challenged. "[B]y definition Wikipedia is done by volunteers who work irregularly, who might not even be aware of challenges. Some of the worst work on Wikipedia is done by people who do rules-based work on articles where they do not know, or make effort to know, the pros and cons of what they are deleting." is one of the many statements there of how the robotic, unthinking, approach that dumbly section-blanks verifiable content, is wrong.

        Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

        • Amen. I could not agree more with everything you have written here. I just recently had to deal with this very issue in this discussion, facing the same attitude and same misinterpretations of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It would really help if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. Nowhere have I stated that this content is verifiable in a standard textbook. If I had a textbook that corroborated this content then I would cite it, and we would not be having this conversation. How do you know it is easily verifiable? Have you checked to see if it is? Are you assuming it is verifiable simply because a few engineers say it is? Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
          • "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" — your own words and description, right there. I told you that you aren't even reading what you yourself wrote. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No...you are taking my comments out of context. What I said was "may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook", which is an important caveat: the only way you can know if it is easily verifiable by a standard textbook is if you know of such a standard textbook. Those were my words, not the selective portion you took to make it look like I was making a statement of fact about the verifiability of the content. My point was—and remains—that if you do not know of such a textbook then you have not satisified the criteria by demonstrating the claims are verifiable, and the policy demands the information is verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation is really absurd. Look at the disruptive editing test which is codified in Wikispeak as TE - specifically This section:

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages.

If your argument is called out specifically in TE, recognize the absurdity of your argument and your mistake. This discussion should be closed as WP:V prevailing with Postdlf and Uncle G being just plain wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I suppose, given how my original request for an opinion on how best to proceed has already been derailed...and frankly, I thought I tried to bring it up as mildly as possible...that it would be pointless to note that my reasons for coming here were, as stated, related to civility, not content. If one wants to discuss the content concerns, there is the active RFC.

I also suppose there are some editors who will refuse to believe me if I say at this point that the direction in which this has gone was never the direction in which I wanted any of this to go.

Thank you to the individuals who have shown an understanding, or at least an effort to try to understand, if not agree, with where I have been coming from with regards to all of this. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you're discovering, that "civility" stuff doesn't apply to editors who swim upstream. Wish there was something I can do to fix that but realistically I can't. Sorry. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Only one person, the person who used the "dirty -istas" was even close to uncivil. Telling Doniago that xe is unequivocally and entirely wrong to make these sorts of edits is not uncivil. Our civility policy is not a suicide pact that prevents us from telling people when they are doing things wrongly and not working in a collaborative fashion to the betterment of the project. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nor do I see where the discussion was "derailed", given that this thread was built on a false premise. Moreover, if, as is suggested, there is such a cesspool of incivility on Talk:Synchronous_motor, I'd like to see individual diffs/examples of it. I tried to read the whole thing but found nothing objectionable, excepting the RfC in the first place, a huge time and electron sink. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As multiple editors have noted, the "huge time and electron sink" likely could have been averted had any editor cared to simply provide inline cites and consequently satisfied WP:BURDEN. It appears we all prefer to discuss the principles of the matter instead, so here we are. Doniago (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, here you are, still arguing that you were right when you were wrong, both in principle and in practice. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This diff shows some specific content that was directed at Doniago and not towards improving the article -- "Neener neener" (in my chunk of the world, at least) is taunting and referring to another human as "it" is objectable to me at least. NE Ent 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• A significant factor here is that Doniago is lecturing subject-matter experts upon a topic about which he admits to knowing nothing. His user page says that he is a member of WikiProject Film and so he presumably knows more about that topic area. That project states that "As of 8 January 2013, there are 96,508 articles within the scope of WikiProject Film, of which 169 are featured and 484 are good articles." This indicates that there's still lots of work to be done in this topic area where Doniago would be more competent. Perhaps he can tell us why he's gone into unfamiliar territory instead? If we better understand how this friction occurred, we may avoid such occurrences in future. Warden (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As I'm sure you're aware, there's no requirement that users publicly post anything regarding what subjects they are or are not familiar with; consequently, it would seem ill-advised to use a user's page to draw conclusions in such a direction, even if on occasion such consclusions are accurate. There's also, of course, no requirement that users limit themselves to contributing to articles that discuss matters about which they consider themselves knowledgable. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that editors' ability to contribute should be constrained in such a manner.

I'm not exactly sure when I "lectured" anyone on the subject of synchronous motors, but if you'd be willing to provide diffs I may be able to offer further comment.

Given that multiple editors have supported my changes in theory if not explicitly in practice here, at the RFC and even (in the abstract) in current discussion at WT:V, I would appreciate it if you did not paint this as a scenario in which I am the sole advocate for the changes that were made.

Personally, I think that, as Wikipedia is not intended to be a project in which articles are written to be understood solely by subject-matter experts, there is something to be said for hearing what non-experts on a matter think of an article that discusses it. It seems to me entirely likely that an article edited solely by experts on the article's subject might develop in a direction that makes it more difficult for a non-expert to comprehend. I also think it's entirely reasonable that if someone asks for sources then they should be provided, and I fail to see what the level of someone's familiarity with the material has to do with it.

I frankly have no idea how this article originally came to my attention. Possibly I was reading an article that linked to it. Another possibility is that I may have been pointed to the article by a friend or associate. I don't see how this question is pertinent to the matter at hand. Doniago (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Setup for suckers

Note the template which greets new editors on top of articles such as Synchronous motor

Notice how it says " Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."? It's just newbie baiting. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I do not understand why asking for citations is baiting new members. Please could you explain.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the point NE Ent is aiming for is that while the template explicitly states that unsourced material may be removed, when unsourced material is removed editors protest the removal, even if the tag was in place for well over six months and the material was moved to the Talk page rather than simply being deleted, and we end up with an RFC on the matter if the editors protesting the removal revert any attempt to uphold it. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "May" means "it is permitted", not "it must happen". I'm generally sympathetic towards the argument that editors should be permitted to follow accepted interpretations of the guidelines on unreferenced material without being abused by editors pulling rank and shouting "it's obvious so do the work yourself", but this particular case almost seems contrived to contradict that (a fairly banal description of a common device, sans inline citations that could almost certainly be trivially pulled from online sources, being gutted based solely on process). No, having five guys on the talk page saying "this is obviously correct so stop whining" is not a substitute in general for actual direct citation, but it at least indicates that the article is not another Seigenthaler incident waiting to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Five engineers knowing it is correct is a testament to its accuracy, not its verifiability. Many people who work in specialized fields acquire a sort of general working knowledge that may not be readily accessible in sources, since ground level principles can be sometimes pretty disparate. If something is easily verifiable it is generally not difficult to provide a source for it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is why the advice to Doniago, from people who are experienced writers, is that that, rather than wholesale section blanking, was and is the right course of action, and xyr action was the wrong course of action. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Thumperward said, you are mis-reading "may". It's a warning, not a direction to be slavishly followed. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A warning? To whom, about what? A warning to the reader they shouldn't believe what they're reading? NE Ent 03:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a warning, to editors, that if they add unsourced material it may be removed without further notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Provided that the material is first "challenged", a requirement that can apparently be satisfied by nothing more that the observation that the material is, in fact, unsourced. JohnInDC (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, right now it seems like you consider it an invitation to delete 3/4 of the content on the project. Is that what you are truly advocating? This is one of what? Two or three users on here that are actively working to prove this WP:POINT? Don't get me wrong, I disagree with this tactic and I think that once it crosses the line into disruption they should be blocked for as long as it takes to understand that it is disruptive. If the policy needs to be modified, let's do that. Until then, would someone please protect the content of the encyclopedia? - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (edited formatting) - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not helping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In all seriousness

How's about we change that final sentence to "Unsourced content may be challenged, and unverifiable content removed"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case I would argue that that's exactly what occurred. The unsourced information was challenged when the CN template was applied back in March of 2012. WP:MINREF clearly states that tagging material is a legitimate method of challenging it. Material that was not established to be verifiable between then and December was then moved to the article's Talk page. I emphasize that because I feel some editors are trying to make a case that the information was deleted from the article as though it would be a significant difficulty to locate it afterwards, and simply put, that's not the case. Any invested editor with the resources to cite the material could easily determine what had been removed from the article, apply citations as needed and reinsert the information. Sadly, it seems that in some cases even editors who possess the resources to provide citations would rather argue about whether the removal was justified than take action to improve the article itself. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MINREF indeed says that tagging suffices as a challenge. But as Template:Citation needed makes clear, a fact should not be tagged simply because it lacks a citation. "{{Citation needed}} (also known by the redirects {{Cn}} and {{Fact}}) is a template used to identify questionable claims in articles that lack a citation to a reliable source." (My emphasis.) I am still at a loss to understand how an editor can appropriately or meaningfully tag an article when the editor disclaims any knowledge of the subject matter at all, and, when pressed, cannot or will not identify what of the tagged material is in fact "questionable". JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe it was made reasonably apparent that at least some of the material that was ultimately considered questionable was the material moved to the Talk page. Clearly if the material wasn't being questioned, it would not have been moved. Otherwise, material could have been deleted for lacking sources, which also would have indicated that an editor found it questionable. Of course, if any editors had issues with the article being tagged, they could always have, y'know, asked for clarification. They had quite awhile to do so. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) First, the mere act of tagging something does not make it "questionable". That has the cart before the horse. Questioned ≠ questionable. Unverified ≠ unverifiable. Second. Editors did ask for clarification. Repeatedly. Your response was, you were challenging everything that wasn't accompanied by a cite. It's not - helpful, you know? You'd find editors a lot more willing to dive into the material and round out the sources if you would describe what seems wrong about it to you rather than just complaining generally. All that being said, this discussion has become as circular as the original tagging and I think I've had my say about it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer the original question, one should not notify editors when setting up an RfC (which is posted on the article's talk page), but should note on the article's talk page if one posts a discussion to a noticeboard. Interested editors have articles on their talk pages and notifying interested editors is canvassing. While you may remove unsourced material, continuing to remove material that other editors have restored is disruptive. Follow dispute resolution instead. TFD (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• There has already been a discussion of the warning text, Thumperward. Remember Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3#Seeking consensus on warning text? Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why I would remember a discussion from six years ago in which I wasn't involved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support suggested change (with wikilinks added). NE Ent 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I swear I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone. What the heck is going on in this thread? So, let's say I take a relatively obscure topic, and I add a whole bunch of info to it. A year later, someone comes by and tags it for being unsourced, then later removes it for still being unsourced. Am I allowed to bluster and revert war and reinsert the information merely upon the assertion that it is, in fact verifiable, that I know I've got the sources around here somewhere, just leave it alone for now? The above arguments basically boil down to, "If people say it's accurate, well, then, trust them." What the hell is that? I thought that was Citzendium's model--experts "decide" what's correct. And I thought we flatly rejected that model. Yes, the policy is "verifiable" not "verified", but that doesn't mean that unsourced content gets to sit there forever. The whole point is that a reader should be able to feel confident that the information isn't just something made up. How do they do that if the only justification for the info is someone(s) on the talk page asserting something is true? I really am shocked that people would defend the idea that unsourced information can remain in an article indefinitely merely on the say-so of some alleged expert editors on the talk page. I guess I should stop ever removing anything from Wikipedia, and just assume that whatever anyone adds is correct. Like, if someone adds, "The largest, most popular, best selling bakery in the world is BlahBlah bakery Barstow California", well, someone claims it's verifiable, so, well, I guess that's just the way things go... Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, to take another example on the same principle, when it's apparently perfectly ok to vote "Keep" at an AfD by saying "there are bound to be sources out there, so this is notable, but I can't be bothered to look for them or put them in the article" we are clearly not operating in the real world. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - unsourced material should be removed. I would much rather see shorter, well-referenced articles than large, poorly-referenced ones. GiantSnowman 09:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, too. The idea that unsourced material should sit there for ever is just weird and self-defeating. It would need a major community discussion to change this wording etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian, Black Kite, SNowman and Sitush. Shorter well-referenced articles are much better than some of the dreadful long unsourced ones we have. Black Kite, there is one AfD right now that might end up with an article kept on the grounds that although we can't find the sources right now, the subject's recent death will probably produce some soon. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Don't we have a policy on that one?. Black Kite (talk)

TeeTylerToe Block Appeal

• TeeTylerToe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TeeTylerToe has posted a block appeal. Since his previous block and appeal were a result of discussion here I'm posting this here for discussion. I talked extensively with TTT on the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. My personal conclusion was that while TTT has the potential to be a good editor, he is still unwilling to get past his disagreement with the consensus opinion on the S-76 article. Further I expect he will not be able to accept any consensus (on any article)-edit which does not agree with his opinion, and therefore I recommend against an unblock at this point. However this needs more input than my own so I am posting here. Please take the time to review. Prodego ^talk 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI TeeTylerToe has voluntarily suggested a topic ban on the S-76 article for himself as a condition of unblocking. I would be willing to do so under those circumstances, but I want to give some time to see if there is additional support before doing so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to point out exactly what Swatjester has; TTT suggests that he will be completely away from the S-76 article, consensus (which i take to mean the talk page) or dispute resolution regarding the S-76. This being the case, i would suggest unblocking ~ after all, he'll be watched, and he knows it, so surely wouldn't be foolish enough to venture back to that topic. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any potential unblock would need to come with a thorough understanding of WP:ROPE - and an understanding that it would be a very short rope provided. Topic-banning from the S-76 article would be a good start, although a very, very sharp eye would need to be kept out for that sort of attitude that led to the problem in the first place spreading elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe's record on Wikipedia is full of raging disputes. (He has only 13 edits prior to June 2012, so it is fair to limit your attention to the period since June 10). All his past unblock appeals are still on his talk page, and you can get an impression of his attitude by reading them. His tendency to make personal attacks has been noted. In my opinion it would be excessively hopeful that steering him away from a single article, S-76, will allow him to have a productive career. I recommend declining. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tentatively support unblock, with topic ban Oppose unblock for now (see below). I say this with some reservations, because TeeTylerToe has shown long-standing problems, really based on not listening, and has a pretty bad record of personal attacks. However, it was all related to the S-76 argument, and with a topic ban on editing that subject (I'd say indefinite), and on the understanding that any repetition of the same problems will lead to a speedy reblock, I think we should allow a new chance. I do have fears that the extreme battlefield mentality shown by TeeTylerToe in the S-76 dispute might emerge in any fresh dispute, but I think we should assume good faith and let's see - plenty of people will be watching, and it's easy to reblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've switched to oppose after reading the comments below (in the section "Unarchived") regarding TTT's discussions on IRC and apparently uncooperative attitude to mentoring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock, with topic ban and mentoring. Having come across TTT before on Higgs boson, he seems to have good intentions, but does not seem to understand WP's policies. Therefore, I think mentoring would be ideal in this situation; it would help him learn WP's policies on various things as to avoid future instances of this. Of course, the topic ban from S-76 would be necessary as well given his behavior there, but I feel that he has the potential to be a productive editor if he takes the effort to learn WP's policies. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Unblock seems fine and indefinite is not infinite. We should be inclusive and welcoming. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock' iff a mentor is found and TTT's topic ban covers helicopters broadly construed. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Any volunteers to mentor?

There appears to be broad consensus both here and on TTT's user talk page that supports an unblock conditioned on a topic ban broadly related to S-76. However, there also seems to be a subset of that consensus (without opposition so far as I can tell) that suggests strongly that TTT would benefit from having a mentor, especially as regards to policy, dispute resolution, and how to edit on articles one feels strongly about without edit warring. It would be best to try and sort that out now before he is unblocked. I unfortunately cannot dedicate the time; but would anyone else be willing to do so on? He'd stand to benefit even from just a small gaggle of admins willing to drop an eye on his talk page from time to time, if that's all we can drum up. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 12:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unarchived

I was asked over IRC to take a look at this. I unarchived it for further discussion since there seems to be a hint of something productive happening if it had more time --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I was the blocking admin here, and have commented on the latest unblock request (though I wasn't notified of this thread either on my talk page or on TTT's page...). While it's positive that TTT has agreed to a voluntary topic ban on anything to do with the S-76 article, I'm concerned about the lack of specifics in his response to the question I asked about what it was he plans to edit if the block was lifted (the response is here). This is especially the case in light of Prodego's statement that TTT was unable to let the S-76 issue rest in the IRC discussion; the extent to which TTT took this issue before being blocked was well beyond acceptable bounds. As such, it seems pretty much certain that TTT will end up being blocked again for further disruption if he was unblocked, and I see no benefit in exposing editors to this. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. I spoke to TeeTylerToe on IRC and told him clearly and in no uncertain terms what to do to get unblocked (see this message). I told him he needed a mentor but he kept skirting around that issue and eventually left the channel abruptly when I made it clear to him. I then see that he appears to have approached someone else on IRC afterwards. I'm a bit concerned he was forum shopping for an opinion he liked so he can avoid getting a mentor. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would support an unblock if TeeTylerToe agrees unconditionally to the terms laid out to him by Hasteur. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. If he's apparently trying to dodge mentoring at the moment, that's not exactly a promising sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I know nothing about this user or their history, but am I the only one who thinks their username is an obvious poke at User:Tiptoety? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Request Hold I'm trotting out the white horse and have put a proposal for mentorship on the user's page. Pending their acceptance, I request that the discussion be tabled for 48 hours. Hasteur (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate actions, including talk page censorship, uncivil and unfounded accusations and edit warring

Could I please bring attention to the actions of Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), which has included to date:

• odd bits of edit warring
• further edit warring and no attempt to take the matter to the article talk page.
• false accusations of edit warring; and
• further accusations of "disruptive editing", which led to:
• an implied threat of "acting like an admin", closely followed with
• a direct threat, despite there being no indication of any further edits about to take place (as the article was correctly formatted at the time). This was followed by:
• a false accusation of my "willingness to edit war", despite there being no need for further edits, as noted above.
• censoring the comments of others; not once but twice, despite being told not to (his reversions also constitute minor edit warring on this point also).
• uncivil and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry

I think that the editor has lost his sense of perspective over this and is throwing increasingly wild and ridiculous accusations around without any basis whatsoever. I asked the editor to withdraw his baseless accusation, but no retraction was forthcoming. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor has edited in violation of DATERET, despite being informed, and has been repeatedly uncivil to me, and has directly told me that I do not understand the guidelines of which I am partly the author. Given the behavior, I suspect the user is someone I have had a conflict with in the past under some other name. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the sequence of events:

• 23:02 3 Jan - Fanthriller removes a space in a category
• 23:05 - I notice the edit and revert it
• 23:08 - I notice the date formats are inconsistent, and reconcile the access dates to the majority format, fix one access date that it not in an approved format, and fix the ref marks. At this point the article has consistent access dates.
• 23:16 - Fanthriller does a blanket undo of my edits
• 23:30 - I restore it with more descriptive edit summary
• 23:47 - Fanthriller posts on Schrodinger's talk page
• 23:50 - I provide explanation of MOSDATE there. There is no problem at this point.
• 02:54 4 Jan - despite the explanation, User:Schrodinger does a blanket revert of my edit, including the other fixes I made. This is a problem.
• 05:57 - I notice the blanked undo of my edit, and restore the date formats to the consistent form I had left
• 06:00 - I also restore the other fixes that were removed in the blanket edit, but without touching the other edits User:Schrodinger had done
• 06:04 - After noticing the edit, I consider that the user may not have understood the STRONGNAT guideline they mention, so I draw their attention to it specifically, and the blanket undo
• 06:05 - User:Schrodinger undoes again, after being informed, and while discussion was ongoing on User:Schrodinger's talk page. This is a problem, in my view.

I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

herein lie accusations and discussions that OP is a sock, eventually resolved as most likely not true NE Ent 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These allegations resemble some past ANI threads about Gimme, that came from a now community banned editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, that was my suspicion. In particular, User:Schrodinger works with tables and sorbability, and even the format of this complaint, are similar to Merridew. I know that's not proof, but it's a similarity. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Gimme, could you please provide a sample of a Merridew complaint resembling the format used here by Cat? There are too many Merridew socks to sort through and find an example of the formatting in archives. What I noted is that the Cat frequents the talk pages of the same editors as Merridew's Wikiassociates, although curiously some of them don't show on the Editor interaction tool, and has similar editing interests as you point out. If a serious look is to be taken here, an example of the formatting issue may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive632#Gimmetoo.2C_again, for instance. I guess that doesn't look quite as similar as I thought. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Your lack of good faith in this is dispicable and you are clutching at straws after some extremely shoddy behaviour. 2 minutes checking would have shown that Brer and I are entirely separate individuals. He resides in the US and I in the UK. You did not even bother to check something as basic as that. You can look at the archived talk pages of Ian Fleming and Peter Sellers to see he and I arguing with one another about infoboxes, if you can be bothered. Perhaps if others have also complained about this admin then maybe, just maybe, his style of interaction with others and his inflexibility of approach is questionable? Alarm bells ring if he has been here more than once because of his style in dealing with people. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) You seem to know a lot about "Brer"; I didn't know he resided in the US, in fact, I thought he was British. Regardless, I suppose a calm look here by impartial and uninvolved editors would be most useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Merridew always sounded American to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, could you please provide a diff to the past discussions you reference above, where you argue with a Merridew sock? If a serious look is to be taken here, diffs will be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Rather than chucking around innuendo, why don't you provide diffs that back up these allegations. As yet all we've really established is that SC has filed a complaint about an admin that a banned sock supposedly complained about. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you could read more carefully before responding, so that this issue can be addressed calmly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC) First of all SchroCat is a respected member of the James Bond project who has successfully led many articles through GA and FA promotions, so he's not a troublemaking editor. Second of all, he did not initiate this dispute. The dispute started between Gimmetoo and User:Fanthrillers (another prominent member of the James Bond project) and it was only in this capacity that SchroCat became involved after Fanthriller's requested a third opinion (see [14]). He has become involved in this dispute through a completely natural process, the same process that led to me commenting at the talk page of Talk:Bond_girl#Dates. The dispute clearly revolves around the interpretation of WP:STRONGNAT, in which three editors interpret the guideline differently to Gimmeetoo. If this dispute resembles another dispute that Gimmeetoo has had with another editor, is it not possible that Gimmeetoo's interpretation of the guideline has led to a similar type of conflict? My suggestion is this: if Gimmeetoo honestly believes SchroCat is a sock (which I sincerely doubt) then he should file a case at the appropriate forum for dealing with such accusations. If Gimmeetoo believes that WP:STRONGNAT is being misinterpreted by three separate editors, then the best course of action for addressing the main dispute would be to initiate an RFC to see which interpretation consensus supports. But informing other editors that they are misinterpreting a guideline (because you helped author it) is not a trump card and entitle you to keep reverting, and threatening admin action in a case where you are involved in an editorial dispute is not really acceptable either. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Nice, but. It would be interesting to hear from uninvolved parties; in past similar ANI threads, certain editors could be counted on to weigh in, but if Gimme is again being hounded, a serious look by uninvolved editors is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'd just like to point that considering Schrodinger's cat is alive a sockpuppet of anyone is a serious lack of perspective. Also, we shall be discussing the issues brought by the user and evaluate if they require any action (against anyone who needs to be admonished or whatever needs to be done) instead of being throwing sockpuppetry accusations. I know that all the recent events led to an overall high level of suspiciousness, but that's no excuse, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Unhelpful. Considering the history, we owe it to both editors (Cat and Gimme) to get this right, without peanut galleryism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Exactly, we should focus on the issue brought here, and nothing else. Per the diffs provided by both Cat and Gimme, I have the feeling that both users did some mistakes. Cat shouldn't have reverted Gimme more than once, and the same goes to Gimme. I am aware of Gimme's actions (I mean, all the stuff about the dates on references and keeping the article consisten with its history) and i like it, although I prefer to talk instead of talk and revert at the same time, which is unproductive (and this goes to both users). — ΛΧΣ21 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'm confident everything will be looked at in due time; there is no rush. And I suspect you've never been on the receiving end of serious Wikihounding (I'm envious of editors who haven't had that particular joy). I have, Gimme has, and anyone else who has knows that pursuing these discussions calmly is warranted and helpful, and that all involved parties deserve that. If either has been unfairly accused, a calm discussion will benefit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed. I have been hounded just a couple of times, and not at the size Gimme has, thankfully. As I said, we can calmly evaluate this, although I think that this should have been solved on the talk page. Just a couple of I'm sorry for reverting, what about a coffee and a calm chat? would have been enough... — ΛΧΣ21 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I probably shouldn't have made the on-wiki mention of socking, though I won't deny is was going through my mind. The problems with Merridew strongly involved two actresses who played Bond girls. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Diffs pls Outstanding diff requests are: Gimme, do you have a diff of similar formatting in ANI archives? Now discussed above by Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, do you have a diff where you argued with Merridew et al? Provided below by Mathsci. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, how is it that you are familiar with where Merridew lives? In retrospect, this question was impertinent, but answered satisfactorily nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Does anyone know why the interaction tools aren't working in this case; [15] for example, they don't show the overlap of editors here. Gimme, the tools aren't working correctly for me, but it looks like Cat has been active at Bond girl for a while; what brought you to the article? Provided above in edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) They both edited Talk:Georg_Solti#Infobox, giving diametrically opposing views on info-boxes. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Helpful, thx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I'll take it as less likely this is Merridew. The Merridew dispute strongly involved two "bond girl" actresses, which is probably why that came to mind in this dispute at "bond girl". Gimmetoo (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Similarly they argue on Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_1#Civility, another discussion about infoboxes at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Helpful again. I'm still bothered that the interaction tools aren't working ... partly because Merridew had so many socks that they are practically invalidated, but there is a clear error in the diff I give above, where interaction on user talk isn't showing up in tools. Perhaps some techy type can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Based on editing style I'm quite certain they are not the same. Further, not sure where the hounding bit came from, but SchroCat seems to specialize on Bond topics, he did not follow Gimmetoo there. Amalthea 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Already indicated above that Cat did not follow Gimme to the article. Thanks, Amalthea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) As to his nationality, it was my impression based on email, or at least that was the strong impression I had from somewhere (possibly his spelling, if he didn't tell me directly). I'll point out that his ANI style is nothing to do with the unfounded accusation of being a sockpuppet: Gimme was rude enough to throw the insult out before the ANI thread started, so it's a bit of a non sequiter to say that my ANI style was evidence of being a sock. As well as Solti and Fleming, that people have outlined above, there is also Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#wives in infobox; should have dates, too. Notwithstanding all the above, the baseless accusation was only one aspect of the thread, albeit the worst infringement. There is also edit warring against the informed consensus, false accusations of edit warring , threats and the censoring of comments on a talk page. The further poor interaction skills with unnecessary snide and underhand comments ("I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" further highlight the unhelpful and confrontational approach taken. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) @ Sandy: it looks like the specific tool you were using only shows edits that are within the same 7-day period. It's a specialised tool that identifies edits that are close together in time. For a complete picture of editor overlap, you should use http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/ or http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php. The latter is in the quick links boxes at the top of my userpage if you need to find it in a hurry. -- Dianna (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute

There seems to a preliminary consensus that Cat is not a Merridew sock based on evidence presented. I apologize to Cat for my suspicions, but the similarities were there and had to be analyzed, and having been the subject of serious wikihounding for many many years, I don't blame anyone who begins to see shadows. Perhaps now folks can look at the underlying dispute with that in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also sorry for suggesting it. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apologies. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the original complaint. It looks to me like Gimmetoo may have gone to the Bond girl article under the mistaken impression that he had located a sock of Br'er Rabbit (Gimme's first edit to the article was on 3 January 2013). The material on the article talk page is reminiscent of my experience at Sean Combs, where there were extensive discussions about adding citation templates and changing the styling of the dates on the citations. The initial discussion is at Talk:Sean Combs/Archive 1#Date format change proposal and there's further stuff at Talk:Sean Combs#GA. In a nutshell, in a discussion closed by an uninvolved admin, a group of editors decided that the consensus for that particular article would be to add citation templates and change the layout of the access dates. Later, in July, Gimmetoo tried to revoke the article's promotion to GA, an effort which I undertook, with a GA review completed by a totally uninvolved editor. I had a heck of a time getting him to tell me what he thought was wrong with the article but finally he was satisfied or decided to walk away. My point of telling this story is that I think there's a pattern of behaviour here on Gimme's part, behaviour that's not conducive to collegial editing and cooperation among editors. He has also been involved in other recent imbroglios at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 106#user:GimmeBot and template:article history and User talk:NuclearWarfare#BN Comment. -- Dianna (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF; Gimme laid out the history of what brought him to the article, and bringing in a list of disputes that have nothing to do with this one demonstrates a further issue of good faith. Others are trying; perhaps you can, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. NE Ent 02:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

While Dianna's first statement (that Gimmetoo came to the page because of a Br'er sock) isn't correct, the rest of her comments are entirely correct and valid in this instance. There is an issue of his approach and behaviour, which is not conducive to collegiate editing and his comments above "I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" are indicative of highlight the unhelpful and confrontational approach. Statements like that are inflammatory and are always going to rile other editors. I'm glad—and also disappointed—to hear from Dianna that other editors have suffered this type of behaviour too. It's this approach that has led us here.

Perhaps, SandyGeorgia, when Gimmetoo came to your talk page you should have discussed good faith with him then and tried some for yourself too; and perhaps you could also let me know where we have negatively interacted before too. I am trying to keep a sense of good faith and perspective, but when I see interactions like this, I find that a struggle. - SchroCat (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa's statement is incomplete, in several ways, and also leaves the impression that it was Gimme that was seeking to change established citation style, etc. As but one example, here is the history of contributors to Sean Combs, and here is the history of contributors to the talk page of Sean Combs; Gimmetoo/grow had maintained that page for years (since 2006, as shown in the contribs history) when a group of editors appeared there wanting to change the citation format, per personal preferences, to a different one than that long established in the article. The contribs history show a number of editors appeared on Sean Combs in 2012, including Diannaa, a Mattisse sock, a Merridew sock, and others who are also present in some of the other discussions linked above.

Gimme has been followed in the past to articles he had long maintained, which is why the chronology of this dispute was important to establish (which we did above before proceeding to look at this dispute, and it was revealed that you had not followed him). But there is a years-long pattern that has happened elsewhere, as referenced in the now capped sections above, involving at least three socks or returning users, which is why there was a concern earlier in this thread.

As another example, the discussion of GimmeBot and articlehistory was one where many of the same editors sought a change in the bot processing of articlehistory templates that was established back in 2006 or 2007 when Gimme and others wrote the bot and the articlehistory template simultaneously. That name change request was closed on weak consensus, based largely on personal preference which would cause extra work for the bot with no gain, and which the closing admin noted, and included support from said editors mentioned above. The closing admin said he would reverse the name change if it caused problems and it has -- the closing admin has not edited since mid-November, so the name has not been changed back. At any rate, there has been a pattern-- not of Gimme causing changes-- but of a group of editors appearing in discussions involving Gimme and imposing personal preferences on citation style or personal preferences that make bot processing harder.

SchroCat, we discussed the sock concerns already here and on your talk. I did not say we had negatively interacted, but your editing had come to my attention unrelated to Gimmetoo; your user name is a bit unusual, you have similar editing interests and editing overlap, but evidence here indicates that you are not Merridew, and I have long since sincerely apologized (both here and on your talk) for the suspicion. I acknowledge that being suspected of sockpuppetry is unpleasant (it has happened to me, too-- it happens to many editors) and that it may continue to trouble you, and I'm sorry for that, again. I hope that you can set that aside and focus on how to resolve the current dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sticking to the point, and have not raised the sock issue above (although I'm still slightly confused as to why editing six or seven list articles with sortable tables makes me a Br'er sock suspect—it is still beyond me). However, the point still stands: can you please provide a diff as to where we have previously interacted? (I take your point about not having said there was "negative interaction", but it's not a massive leap when your response is "I also encountered problems with that editor"). My other original points from the opening of this thread and from Gimme's response still stand—can you also explain to me, for example, how "I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" is conducive to a collegiate editing environment? Could you explain how threatening editors about a one element of page that no-one has edited for around 40 minutes (and discussed on my talk page) is ensuring a smooth and enjoyable editing procedure? Could you explain how censoring the talk pages of others is somehow acceptable (twice?) To put the whole situation in context, I wake up one moring to find a discussion being held on my talk page in which one editor has left an inconclusive response to a third party. I reverted that editors edit on the article page in entirely good faith and find myself accused by him of edit warring. That is very poor practice. The editor then reverted—edit warring, no other way to describe it—without bothering to go to the article talk page. Talk me through how all this is acceptable behaviour in any editor, let alone in an admin. Explain to me how this falls into the expectation of being able "to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

02:54 This was a blanket undo of my edits, leaving the article with an inconsistent date format. When I fixed that again, your response was 06:05 to tell me "do not edit war with two editors" - for making the accessdate format consistent in an article where it was inconsistent, and where those two editors, including you, were restoring that inconstancy, and where you had not made the formats consistent. How is that civil and appropriate editing behavior from you? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you try and keep to more precise language, please? It wasn't a "blanket undo" of your edits, as I left the category pipe in place. As to the second edit: it was, rather obviously, an oversight. I would hardly have re-introduced a different format into the article under those circumstances. As to telling you not to edit war with two other editors, that is precisely what you were doing, without going to the article talk page to discuss it. While I was in the article making the changes, you posted a second response on my page, which was not seen until the orange bar appeared upon me saving the page. Prior to that, you had only left one comment on my talk page, which was subsequently rebuffed and refuted by myself and two other editors. So when I undertook my 6.05 edit, it was on the basis of one spurious comment from you some hours earlier, which the consensus (albeit very limited and local) had thrown out of court. Hardly any need to accuse me of edit warring, uncivil behaviour etc on that basis then, was there? - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) SchroCat, I have intentionally avoided commenting on the substance of the current dispute. I have a long association (since 2006) of working closely with Gimmetrow/too on developing and updating articlehistories and bot closings of content review processes, and maintenance issues related to both; he is someone I have worked closely with on Wikipedia, and I have had nothing but good experiences with his typically thorough and correct work. As a general principle, the actual dispute should be reviewed and addressed by uninvolved neutral editors (which, for example, Diannaa is not as she has been part of several disputes with Gimme, nor am I, because of our close working association, but if she is going to present a misleading or incomplete history, I will address that portion). My silence as to the current dispute is neither endorsement nor condemnation in either direction ... it is that I am simply staying out of that part of the discussion because disputes are best reviewed by uninvolved editors. When this thread appeared here, I was concerned about the history of hounding by socks, because there was a similarity and those were issues I have experienced that affected the work I did with Gimmetrow/too (where I depended on his bot for closings of content review processes and updating of article talk pages), and having also experienced hounding by socking, I acknowledge that one doesn't behave at one's finest under the circumstances. Again, your editing came to my attention in a completely unrelated manner (we can discuss it on your talk if you wish), we have not previously interacted, but I had watchlisted your talk because of the similarities I noted after looking into the articles above. I'm very sorry the original issue was sidelined for sock concerns, and I hope you are both able to resolve this dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On that same note Sandy you should keep in mind that many others have had positive interactions with editors which displease you. Be it Jack, Mattisse, or whoever your current "rant of the day" happens to be. It's hurtful to read disparaging things about people we've had good interactions with. Just something you may want to keep in mind for future reference. — Ched :  ?  09:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean to compare Gimmetrow-- a productive admin in good standing-- to two of Wikipedia's most prolific sockmasters, banned and indeff'd, or to take the original issue even further off-topic. But you did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(watching) I don't think that the word "compare" in the above is used as I understand it. I don't see any comparison, just a reminder of what I quote on top of my user (nod to Geometry guy): "Every editor is a human being." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo visited an article he had never edited before, edit warred to impose his preferred formatting style over the local consensus that was being created for a suite of articles, and threatened with blocks anyone who should get in his way. I find this behaviour to be extremely unbecoming of an administrator on this wiki. The fact that he may have thought he was dealing with a sock of a banned user might actually mitigate his actions or partially explain them, but since he was not, his behaviour strikes me as being super inappropriate. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of people whom Gimme's in conflict with, including two arbs, one of whom he threatened to block, it seems to me something needs to be done about Gimme, who is throwing his weight around no end. Sorry about changing the subject, but when the same people are going off all over the wiki, it's a waste of time to ponder each incident in isolation, which is perhaps the idea. I urge admins to consider gratuitous mentions or allegations regarding the editors mentioned above to be inherently disruptive because of their proven tendency to cause conflict. This includes somewhat clever means of mentioning them without really mentioning them, such as claiming "disruption brought on FAC by socks and enablers" and "attacks on FAC and me", especially when repeated and in the face of attempts by others to get them to stop.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for comment would be a good thing here? The bit on my talk page didn't bother me all that much, but if other users see it as emblematic of a larger problem, a concentrated effort to relay the community's concerns to Gimmetoo/Gimmetrow might be helpful. NW (Talk) 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone's an arb, and a little bit of intimidation can go a long way at a lower level.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing; I'm just explaining why I didn't take it further. NW (Talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the intimidation effect of actual use of admin tools should not be underestimated; removing talk page access from an editor you blocked simply for asking what policy supported the block can be very intimidating, as can the user of RevDel against a user who is in a dispute with one of your wikifriends (see User_talk:Wehwalt/Archive_13#RevDel_on_user_talk_page). Gimmetoo (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

None of that reflects badly on me, but perhaps Sandy should caution you about changing the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let genuinely uninvolved people comment, then, Wehwalt. In the RevDel case, you actually used admin tools, outside policy (as far as i can tell), in a way that could intimidate the person your wiki friend was in a dispute with. You just recently claimed I was "involved" as a TFA delegate and unable to schedule a clearly consensus TFA request from you, yet you closed a thread about me with a rather questionable "summary" [16]. Do you think either of these is, in your words, being "considerate of the feelings of others..."? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps Sandy should" again request that involved editors let uninvolved editors look at the underlying original dispute here; I'm seeing almost no discussion of the actual diffs, with plenty of discussion from involved editors (who btw don't include the kinds of disclaimers about their involvement that I did).

Wehwalt, did you seriously close this ANI thread with no regard to resolving the original issue, while including your involved summary of the off-topic socking portions? [17] That sort of thing is indicative of what has dominated many of these past discussion and has contributed to a festering situation. Indeed, if three of the frequent users dominating the discussions weren't blocked, banned, or absent, a calm look at the underlying situation would not likely be possible.

For example, the issue occurring with NuclearWarfare over a past CU (for disclaimer sake, NW is another editor I consider a close wikiassociate and with whom I have worked for a long time in the medical realm and whom I have supported as I have Gimme, and I am saddened to see a dispute between them that was fueled by another Merridew issue) was all instigated by another Merridew ANI dramafest years ago, resulting in a block and CU of Gimme simply because he couldn't get to his admin account to verify it was him, with a rebuke from a sitting arb about the block and the CU after it was over. Now, that kind of experience is likely to leave one with a very bad taste, and I notice NW isn't taking the hard stance on that issue that some others are, and has acknowledged he learned from that and it isn't something he would do today.

Again, would it be possible to allow uninvolved editors to look at the original issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NW, did that answer your question about why no one is eager to start an RfC on Gimme?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Sandy: You keep repeating that only uninvolved editors are supposed to be commenting here. In actuality there is no policy or guideline stating this; it's something you are unilaterally trying to institute on this discussion. None of us are topic-banned or interaction-banned from commenting on this or any other topic. Anyone and everyone can post to this thread, imho, and I will continue to do so as long as I feel my posts continue to aid the flow of information and ideas. -- Dianna (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which means I will continue to point out that this is a long-festering situation because involved editors dominate every conversation anywhere, every ANI thread, close ANI threads inappropriately, and do not disclose their involvement. None of that, of course, helps resolve the underlying issue, which I'm sure is your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose my name will forever be linked with that of Jack Merridew. But I am not sorry that I tried to help him; my only regret is that I failed. -- Dianna (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bravo Diannaa.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• @Sandy .. yea .. this "this is a long-festering situation" which you continue to feed". So .. I will continue to point out how toxic and detrimental you have become to our project. You denigrate and degrade people who have spent hours upon hours trying to improve our project. You continually insult people from without and from within. You constantly make degrading comments about DYK, students that the WMF is trying to recruit, and anyone who is not one of the "zOMG FA cabal". It's getting old Sandy. Up above you claimed that "I" tried to go off topic .. bullshit. YOU are the one that started the "I worked with him" topic. Well I worked with Rlevse. I worked with and LEARNED from Jack. BOTH did damned good work here. You do yourself no justice by insulting and hurting others Sandy. Yes, other people have made mistake .. so? Yes I know that you are one of the wikipedia:Unblockable people - but you really need to step back and re-evaluate. Tell me how we get to a point of understanding. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop betting too much money on the losing horses. Pumpkinsky gave up editing from that account after adminship was denied (great reason to just walk away, right?). Jack was banned after years of irritating the entire community, in spite of all the good he did here. Seek real compromise with those who don't agree with you. Like the ones that will still be around tomorrow. Doc talk 07:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"money", "losing horses"? I don't get the language. PumpkinSky gave up editing because he was accused of "myriad layers of deception and rampant socking" and more. I don't know if I had been strong enough to stay if that had been said about me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an idiom referring to gambling on horse racing. Someone who repeatedly bets on a horse that loses every race is unlikely to profit. The inference being that supporting someone who is unlikely to succeed, you're probably wasting your time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Doc, there's a lot to what you say .. but but there's a lot more to it all than that. RfA is a real "In your face" thing, no doubt about that. And if it's a few folks voicing their opinion .. that's just the way the wiki works. The thing is that when one or two people deliberately and actively try to hurt people ... then that's just wrong. — Ched :  ?  08:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you compromise with the unforgiving?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"when one or two people deliberately and actively try to hurt people ... then that's just wrong." Yes. When a couple people target and actively try to hurt other editors, and show up in multiple forums to attack those people, that's wrong, and it should stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you and your associates take your own advice on that, Gimme. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute 2

The biggest concern I have here is that it appears that an admin is threatening to block someone they are in a content dispute with. If Gimmetoo could clarify that that was not their intent, and/or acknowledge that threatening to block someone with whom they are having a content disagreement is not something that WP:INVOLVED allows, I think that would go a long way towards calming things down. 28bytes (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please state your position more explicitly. I find it curious that you have characterized this as a "content dispute". It is attempting to get a user to follow guidelines, though discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines were followed. It may have been through a different interpretation than the rather narrow one you tried to impose against the local consensus, but it was still an entirely valid interpretation nonetheless. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You accuse me of "simply repeating what has already been said" [18] yet that's what you are doing here. You had not made the date formats consistent at that article. After I edited to make them consistent, you claimed to remove yyyy-mm-dd formats from references with STRONGNAT as the basis. That is simply wrong. The STRONGNAT guideline clearly says that yyyy-mm-dd formats may be used in the references even if there are national ties; you cannot use STRONGNAT asa basis for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats from references. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, you cannot block an editor for disagreeing with your interpretation of the date format guidelines, and you should not threaten to do so. This is at least the second time this week that you've threatened to block someone outside of policy. You need to stop that. 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation, 28. it's what the guideline says, and I participated in the discussion that led to that part of the guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Gimme: it's your interpretation. I've provided you with another entirely acceptable interpretation. If it was the intention for there to be no flexibility, then the guideline has been poorly framed, but as it currently stands, there is more than one interpretation of it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"May", dear boy, "may". Not shall or will or must or have to, but the soft, flexible and lovely "may", which the OED kindly tells us is "a possibility", rather than anything set in stone; an inherent flexibility of approach enshrined in the guidelines which do not have to be slavishly adhered to regardless of all other circumstances. That aside, it was not the only basis as I have outlined to you previously on more than one ocassion. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes may; it is explicitly permitted even in articles with national ties. You cannot use national ties as a reason to remove them. And the access dates were not in a consistent format when I saw the article, despite your prior edits to the article. So why did you epeatedly undo the work of someone else? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The exact same question can be posed to you: why did you go against the very quick and local consensus and edit war to undo the edits of two other editors, after three people had rejected your reasoning? I have a strong defence in that I was toeing the line of the consensus that arose. You didn't. You chose to threaten, flag up your admin status in a content dispute, edit war and throw false accusations of edit warring and "disruptive editing" at others. And this is all before you decided to censor valid talk page entries. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, the consensus is reflected in the guideline, which says clearly that the formats may be used "even in articles with national ties..." You were agreeing with Betty Logan that you were removing the formats based on STRONGNAT [19]. Whatever "agreement" you had, the guideline rules this out as a basis. And the access dates were not consistent before I got there. But our exchanges here are clearly repetitive, so I'm done. You can have the last word. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's slightly disingenuous to keep banging on about one guideline when this situation is covered by a number of them. As I pointed out to you at the time on the Bond girl talk page the guidelines do allow flexibility: your much repeated assertion that you wrote them doesn't mean a jot if others can interpret them differently, it just means that whatever your intentions may have been, they are not enshrined in the guidelines. The interpretation of guidelines by those who wrote them in other spheres welcomes thoughts of separation of powers to ensure that things are neutrally interpreted, rather than you putting your spin on something you thought you meant to say. I'll also point out that there was no consistency in the article before your arrival and the local consensus was to eschew the shorter format and go with the British variant; that consensus—undertaken by local editors who have acted as stewards for some time—was agreed because the vast majority of high-grade (GA and FA) Bond articles are in the British (DMY) long-date format, rather than a generic international one (the ones that are not in the British format are those where STRONGNAT does apply, such as "You Only Move Twice". All this could have been properly discussed on the article talk page if you have opened a thread to talk about it, as you should have done. You didn't and instead resorted to inappropriate behaviour which in no way reflected acting "in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others", or interacted to show "appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors". I will not have the last word, that's not the purpose of opening an ANI thread and a number of others also appear to have raised concerns about your approach in other matters too, which shows that maybe, just maybe, you should consider that perhaps on occasion you do not act in a fitting manner? - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not good. Gimmetoo appears to be claiming correctness based on owning a MOS guideline I am struggling to figure out how you can so directly tell me, the author of a parts of guideline, that I don't understand the guideline. and that they can single handed declare consensus over three other editors because An agreement of misinformed editors is not a consensus. Interpreting how a guideline applies to a given context is an editorial function so, having taken a position on the matter, Gimmetoo is clearly involved; they implicitly acknowlege such with the phrase I may have to start acting like an admin. (emphasis mine) NE Ent 00:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

These are good observations, NE Ent. I would also like to point out that failure to follow the Manual of Style is not a blockable offence. -- Dianna (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I right to think that this have gone to far to grant an RFC (and maybe an ArbCom case?) about Gimme? I'm not questioning his actions on a personal basis (actually, although I have read all the recent discussions and I feel myself alarmed by the constant block threats, I am not able to make up a personal comment about the matter) but I see that it seems that, if perhaps a more commited approach to discuss is not available, we'd need then to start an RFC about it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat has asked for, and received community support. (Well, there was that ooh he must be a sock stuff, but that passed eventually.) Gimme has received feedback from multiple editors now. What's important is that as we go forward the behavior doesn't repeat, so I don't think any further action is required unless it does. NE Ent 03:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the "multiple editors" are involved. Indeed, user:Dianna insinuated about my motives above ("It looks to me like Gimmetoo may have gone to the Bond girl article under the mistaken impression that he had located a sock of Br'er Rabbit (Gimme's first edit to the article was on 3 January 2013)". One could view that as a personal attack. One could also ask why user:Dianna appears here, and in so many other unrelated issues user:Dianna was never involved in before; it smacks of battleground. As far as I know, user:Dianna showed no significant interest in templates until appearing at an AH discussion supporting the view on AH that inconvenienced me the most. Likewise, user:Dianna never edited at Sean Combs until getting involved in an unrelated dispute; there, user:Dianna was repeatedly non-responsive to issues raised about user:Diannaa's editing. Nor is there any good reason user:Dianna should have shown up here. The "dispute" between Schro and I is one thing, but there is another dispute piggy-backed onto this, and that other dispute should be addressed somewhere. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A check using the Toolserver edit counter shows I have 3005 edits to templates; Gimmetrow has 1040 and Gimmetoo 27. A more careful reading of Talk:Sean Combs will reveal that I repeatedly inquired (six, seven times) what Gimme thought was wrong with the article; I even had three people say they would have awarded me a Barnstar of Seemingly Inexaustible Courteous And Civil Patience, if such a thing existed, for my behaviour at the Sean Combs talk page. There's really no evidence that I have a battleground mentality; in fact I try to live my life in keeping with the precepts of the four role models at the top of my talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, neither 28bytes (as far I know) nor I am involved. Are you asserting that it is a legitimate use of the sysop bit to assert your interpretation of an editing policy? NE Ent 17:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dianna implicitly used sysop authority to run off an editor challenging a sock puppet; user:Wehwalt actually used RevDel outside policy, and user:NuclearWarfare actually made a number of admin actions outside policy, and recently, another admin blocked a user the admin was in an edit war with. Even in the best case, these involved "interpretation". Are you saying there is something wrong with their actions? Or that it's an illegitimate use of the sysop bit to prevent disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimme, Just so I can go back to editing articles without having to check up on the bile-and-spite fest that this has become (from all sides), perhaps you could just answer the damned question without pointing fingers at others while you do so? (And yes, I know others have been pointing fingers in the rest of the thread, but please try and ignore them just for the moment: I'd also be grateful if the other "involved" parties could just hold off commenting for the moment too - NE Ent has asked a straight question without an apparent agenda and I'd like to hear a straight answer from Gimme without evasion or another round of "he-said-no-she-said" from anyone else). - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a straight question. Indeed, it begs many questions. What I can say is I've opposed a number of admins who I thought were using their admin authority to push an editorial or policy POV. But admins can and should stop disruptive editing, even though many admin or editorial actions involve some interpretation. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase, it is not disruptive editing if there is a legitimate alternative interpretation of the guideline. It would only be disruptive editing if WP:STRONGNAT prohibited the British date format on this article. If a guideline has two valid interpretations then it is a content dispute, and if you do not explicitly give your word that you will not use your admin privileges in relation to this dispute, then we must assume the possibility that you will. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps going around in circles. Let's return to the sequence of edits:

• I make the access date formats consistent, when they were not previously, and other improvements [20]
• Fanthriller's undoes that edit, leaving the access date formats inconsistent and removing other edits [21]
• I make the access date formats consistent again, and other stuff again [22]
• Schrodinger undoes part of that, leaving the access date formats inconsistent [23]

Would we have a consensus that a consistent format is an improvement over an inconsistent format? If so, then the editors at the article were refusing to allow such an edit to the article. Is obstruction of format improvements in this way not a form of disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It absolutely does not matter. As a editor with sysop bit, you have two distinct roles. Once you engage in a particular area as an editor, you just can't act as an admin in the same area; so as annoying and bureaucratic as it may seem, if admin intervention is needed you have to request another admin take action. Admins show up here on ANI regularly with reports which include they explanation they're involved, and they'll usually get a fairly prompt response from another admin. NE Ent 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, and I rather like it, but it should be discussed and explored at the relevant policy page. If that idea applied to all admins I would, naturally, follow it. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not going around in circles, you are evading a perfectly straightforward question. The date formats were inconsistent, and you converted them all to ISO format despite the {{Use dmy dates}} template at the top of the article. There was some reverting back and forth, with SC putting all the dates into the format that were consistent with the editing tag and the consensus on his talk page: [24]. You warned him that you may block him after he had done this: [25]. The question is very simple: if a guideline permits more than one date format, and a local consensus agrees on one format, and enacts on that consensus, will you consider using your admin privileges to enforce another interpretation? If you agree not to then this can be wrapped up. If you reserve the right to overrule the consensus using your admin privileges, then it's up to the other admins to resolve this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found this, another content dispute by Gimmetoo, this time with Status, where he told the user: "This constitutes notice that if you continue to change the established style of articles, you may be WP:BLOCKed without further warning." As it was obvious no other admin would have performed the block, I consider that this should be brought to attention, as it is a similar case to what has been presented here by ShroCat. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimme, As you are fond of DATERET, could you have a look at the 28 March 2012 version version of the article and tell me how many—and which—date formats are in use? The efforts of fanthrillers and I to 'retain the existing format' may have been flawed in missing some of the more recent additions, but it was entirely correct. When you made this edit, not only were you in breach of DATERET, you also managed to overlook one of the dates (see fn 32, which remained throughout all the recent edits by Fanthrillers you and me as "32. ^ a b Macintyre, Ben (5 April 2008). "Was Ian Fleming the real 007?"". Gimme, you acted incorrectly here from the very beginning, and went against DATERET when you enacted changes against the earlier form. You compounded your error by edit warring against good faith editors who had demonstrated the local consensus which was entirely within the interpretation of all the relevant guidelines. You then went outside the comfort zone of many in using your administrator privileges and threatening a block in a content dispute, when you should have stepped aside and asked for outside assistance: another pair of eyes and another view from a neutral administrator would not have done any harm in this or in any other matter. - SchroCat (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is something new. Which part of DATERET do you wish to invoke? If you would like to invoke "first major contributor" and use the publication and access date format of the first edit that added such to a reference, whatever that was, that would be in accord with DATERET. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat, just so it's clear—and please answer the question—"could you have a look at the 28 March 2012 version version of the article and tell me how many—and which—date formats are in use?" Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA Project needs somebody to step in

There is a huge split in the project. A lot of articles are being put up for deletion which actually meet the notability requirements. Where one of the major problems is coming in is WP:NMMA says in order for an MMA fighter to be noteable he must have 3 professional fights for a top tier organization. The fights that happen on the Ultimate Fighter are professionally, sanctioned fights. If they weren't, they would be illegal. They are put on by the UFC, which is a top tier organization. We have people absolutely refusing to accept that they meet the requirements. We have tried to explain it, and it hasn't helped. I have tried to come up with another system for notability. They oppose it, so I keep asking them to come up with a compromise. They keep drawing a line in the sand and aren't wanting to compromise or work out something that the entire group can live with. I even have a couple of them threatening to try to get me blocked or get an admin review on me because I don't want to just drop it and do it the way that those couple people are trying to dictate. I keep asking for other ideas, asking for a compromise, but it appears as if there are a couple people who don't want to work out a diplomatic solution. I am just not sure where to go with this. What do you do when there are a couple people trying to dictate the project and don't want to compromise with the rest of us. If we try to change anything, they just create editing wars, which I don't want to get into. I think the MMA project needs somebody from outside the project to come in and help create a compromise that might not make anybody happy, but is something that the entire project can accept. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Consensus for WP:NMMA Vote Help up us out please. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this one ANI? Anyway please remember the basic notability requirement is sufficient coverage in reliable secondary source. If the criteria you're proposing doesn't tehd to only include people who meet the basic notability requirement, it's most likely flawed. In particular, any complicated 'point' based system is almost definitely not something we want. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Essentially what Nil Einne said. If these items are notable, go to their AfD discussions, and show they've been covered in depth by multiple reliable uninvolved sources. If they haven't, they're not notable and should be removed, whatever the MMA project's internal pages say to any other effect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have a dog in this fight (bad pun, not intended), but this MMA stuff keeps popping up over and over, and cursory references to GNG is not going to cut it. I agree this isn't an ANI issue, and am fine if someone moves it, but it seems clear that something needs to get concretely done about an MMA criteria. RFCs that matter are always horrific processes that have walls of text... I'm not sure we have a better method here. Regardless, MMA articles right now are being handled piecemeal at AfD with all the problems that go with that. It would be nice to have a consensus criteria that put some brightlines down, so at least the AfD discussions could have some anchors to work from, instead of the current mess they are. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's been proposed before, but (if I remember correctly) no proposal got consensus from the broader community; Example. There's been so much discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability that it has 7 archive pages. Personally, I think that project-specific notability rules tend to cause needless strife and wikilawyering, but I think it could be a good "tactical" solution in this case... bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah I'm aware there is/was an RfC about it. The extent of my involvement is that I think I've !voted in a few MMA article's AfDs, but that was when I was naive about the broader discussion. I agree with you that this issue, the RfC in particular, seems hopelessly deadlocked, but we've had these issues before. It's somewhat strange (maybe ironic) we're at this point, but Wikipedia has dealt with much more contentious issues too. I don't have a concrete idea of the way to fix this, but I think this issue can be resolved to all party's satisfaction better than some of our other more intractable issues. The RfC needs some really dedicated administrator (maybe a panel of administrators) that can corral that mess into a meaningful discussion. It's difficult, but not unique.
      I'm not sure what the way out of this is ultimately. It's not going to go away. This sport is essentially an equivalent to boxing, and there are tons of minor events that aren't notable, and lots of large events that clearly are. We need some logical way to deal with them. And doing it halfhazard at AfD is a really bad way to deal with them. It'd be nice if we had a better method than RfC, but short of arbcom, we don't have one for an issue like this. Shadowjams (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • An MMA notability guideline may be okay, if it's done with the right aim and designed at least partially by someone with a general understanding and experience of our notability criteria and how to write them. Proposal like the point system link above, well to be blunt while the editor may be acting in good faith, it doesn't help anything. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an impending incident that probably does need wider administrator attention is the current spate of immediate AFD re-nominations that are being made in this area as soon as AFD discussions are closed:

• Jamie Yager (AfD discussion) — renominated just over 24 hours after prior AFD discussion closure
• Antonio McKee (AfD discussion) — renominated just over two hours after prior AFD discussion closure

Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've watched passively for a long time about the constant war over the MMA articles, yes the project has had some issues with its own contributors, yes there have been some off-wiki canvassing by others, but there is also a concentrated effort by a few users to purge the content off Wiki. The simple fact is, that MMA project is decimated right now and many of the contributors have already left wiki leaving few people capable of actually making decent arguments about the material. Something needs to be done, but no one seems willing to take a stand and fill that void and at this point, who can blame them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion Close this WP:CANVASSING request with prejudice. OP doesn't like that the same proposal that's been raised 2 times previously (Both times since December 29th 2012) is getting shot down again for the exact same policy reasons as before. Consensus can change, but there should be a reasonable limit to how many times the exact same proposal can be floated without the proposer transcending to the "I didn't hear that" level of disruption. I suggest a reading of the {{Uw-mmawarning}} over the editor so as to make it clear that their efforts are disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur keeps repeating that same mis-information. The idea was brought up, there were mixed comments about it. I actually drew up a proposal and presented it and Hasteur threatened to turn me in for an admin review. There is no basis for this nor is it disruptive. I keep repeating that I don't have an issue with people not liking what I suggested but it is just a suggestion to try to move things forward with a compromise (I've even asked the people who didn't like my suggestion to propose a compromise). The only way this works is if EVERYBODY in the project compromises and comes to a solution that everybody can live with. The issue we are having is that one side refuses to compromise, which is why I requested that we get a mediator from outside the group to come in and try to work out a compromise with all the active editors. Willdawg111 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And here the first stone gets thrown. I cite Wikipedia_talk:MMA#MMA_notability where you were told no because it was too gamey (December 29th 2012). I also cite Wikipedia_talk:MMANOT#Doing_away_with_the_tiered_system as the second case where the exact list was used again and again I had to explain why the list and points are not appropriate. It is not mis-information if it's not incorrect. Willdawg111 wants to use a system of their devising using arbitrary points to brightline the Notability threshold. As has been explained 3 times before, this type of regime is inherently gameable as an individual fighter could collect the points they needed by fighing in 2000 of "Bob's Backyard Brawl MMA" events and would then be able to have the "He has the points" pushers to never let the fighter out of wikipedia. I call for an admin to review Willdawg111's behavior entirely to observe the personal attacks, snide remarks (even in his original posting here), disruptive pushing of ideas that were not appropriate, and intentional misstatemens of fact. Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Willdawg suffers from a bad case of "I didn't hear that". His latest example[26] is his persistence to claim that UFC TUF reality show exhibition fights can be included to justify a fighter's notability as per WP:NMMA. He makes this claim, yet again, even have it has been explained, multiple times, that these exhibition bouts are not "professional competition at the highest level".[27][28][29][30][31](There are also multiple AfDs Willdawg111 participated in where the same explanations were offered.) This is just a single instance of this behavior. There has been similar instances in regards to changing result table formats, rankings of MMA promotions/organizations and AfDs. (I can go find all the diffs if requested, but it's going to be a long list.) I'm unsure what the solution to this situation is, other than perhaps an uninvolved editor offering WP:MENTORSHIP to Willdawg111. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because a couple people keep telling me the sky is pink, doesn't mean that the sky is pink. It you look at it from the other side, it is you and a couple other people who suffer from "I didn't hear that". I have been trying to explain to a couple users that if the fights that occur on the TUF show weren't Professionally sanctioned fights, that the fighters and executives of ZUFFA would be criminally charged. I am a licensed judge/ref and have connections with state athletic commission officials. I understand how the sanctioning process works, and it is unreasonable to expect me to ignore the FACTS just because a couple annonymous people on the internet don't understand. I believe the refusal to accept the guidelines established by the group would actually warrant the need to assign TreyGeek a WP:MENTORSHIP. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur is exactly correct here. As I watch the AfDs, I find myself taken aback at some of the arguments. It seems to me that the entire MMA Project needs to take a close look at what they feel is notable, and what actually is notable. I don't know all of the personalities or their motivations. What I do know is under some of the logic I have seen in the AfDs, that my son and I would qualify for articles ourselves. Obviously it isn't that way with every MMA Project AfD, but I do think that perhaps they should have a conversation among themselves, with neutral third parties, and listen to what those third parties have to say. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment for sue You are one to talk about arguements. your arguement for deletion of Antonio Mckee was "not notable".

Could someone help Willdawg111 with their SPI report here. It appears to be improperly filled out as the accused sock puppets is not explicitly stated (though I think he is accusing me of being a sock of someone else). --TreyGeek (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the fact that some guideline needs to be made for MMA; the issue's gone on for simply too long. But nothing's going to happen here at ANI to help that, and this thread is not going to go anywhere. There should be a more visible RfC with specific proposals. And I would highly encourage the regulars in MMA notability to seek out some neutral admins to agree to help dig through an RfC that has specific proposals. I don't think that will happen at ANI though; maybe requests for closure. Shadowjams (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the MMA WikiProject is going to be able to settle on notability guidelines on its own. It's failed to come to an agreement in the last year even with the help of neutral mediators (notably Dennis Brown, as well as others). In my opinion, new notability guidelines for MMA will have to come from outside the project and dictated to us. I'm not sure if that's ever been done before or if it could be done at all. (I haven't done the research to see, ignoring the potential lack of knowledge of MMA outside of the WikiProject.) The various factions with the project are too at odds and/or too jaded that an agreement can be made on our own. Kind of sad. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the thrust (but not the idea that they can be set externally) of TreyGeek's comment it did seem like the project was moving towards a good proposal courtesy of the work of User:Kevlar at WT:MMA#Event Notability, however it all fell over; it seems to me the big sticking point is the pro-mma editors want a guideline that will guarantee a single page articles on (almost) all UFC events those in the opposing camp oppose any guideline that has a free pass on an article that does not demonstrate the lasting significance outlined in WP:NOT. ✍ Mtking ✉ 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had started working on an RfC, but stopped when someone jumped in with another. Part of the problem, honestly, is a lot of impulsive false starts by a great many participants. Too many insist on a quick fix, easy answer, and they always fail, and nothing changes. There is a drastic shortage of patience with MMA editors, making it a very, very challenging place to mediate. There are also a few obstructionists, one is particular that drove me off (and has since been indef blocked). I'm not sure what can be done because of the rabid impatience and digging in over there, and I've genuinely given it a lot of thought. My goal was to craft an RfC and do whatever it took to get a huge community wide turn out, which would establish a clear and overwhelming consensus on the issue. I really don't care what that consensus is, I'm just tired of the fights. Again, others keep short circuiting efforts with impatience and wikilawyering. If anything is accomplished eventually, it will require leadership from outside of the MMA community itself. BTW, I won't be around much for a few days, as our entire database system blew up this afternoon, so I will be doing double shifts for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"They keep drawing a line in the sand and aren't wanting to compromise or work out something that the entire group can live with. I even have a couple of them threatening to try to get me blocked or get an admin review on me because I don't want to just drop it and do it the way that those couple people are trying to dictate." Thats what so interesting about the situation. Anyone who dares to stand up for UFC articles is accused of being an MMA fanboy, sockpuppet or troublemaker. In any other realm of experience on Wikipedia, this would never be allowed to occur. Portillo (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quoting me and then you make a statement that has nothing to do with what I said or what I have tried to support. If you look at the discussion here and on the project talk page, you will see that I am one of the group of editors fighting to protect the notability of the UFC Ultimate Fighter show. I certainly have never, ever accused anybody if being an MMA fanboy, sockpuppet or troublemaker for standing up to UFC articles, because if I did then I would be calling myself out since I am one of those people standing up for UFC articles. I have opened 1 sockpuppet investigation, and it only took them about a day to confirm that the person was really a sockpuppet of a banned user. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Portillo. You must be new here. (In other words, yes, it has happened before.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Or many fringe subjects or global warming or just about every ethnic dispute or ... Ravensfire (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much there is no one except maybe myself and Wilddawg who are willing to debate, and compromise at the Wikiproject. Treygreek, Hastuer, and most of the others I see are absolutely not willing to compromise, and cling to their inherited notability arguements presented at WP:NMMA, which leads to people treating WP:MMATIER as the gospel. Even on matters such as formatting (which i don't have too much stake in). But I have offered my input in the past to formattting issues and the discussion seems to go nowhere. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

PortlandOregon has hit the point exactly which is why it was brought up here in the first place. If you read through recent posts on the project talk page you can see request after request for people to come together and compromise and work something out but it is always the same story. There are a couple of editors that refuse to work together with everybody and compromise. They resort to referencing links that don't apply to threatening to get us blocked or banned if we don't do what they want us to do. They are so quick to try to pull out links to guidelines if they think that it backs up their point of view but when somebody points one out to them, they will tell us that we should ignore it because it isn't really what somebody meant to write. One of the biggest that I have an issue with is the WP:NMMA in regards to the TUF fights. They have tried to argue the UFC is only top tier sometimes (top tier when it supports their side but not top tier when it supports somebody they want to delete). They have tried to say TUF fights aren't professional although I has explained to them that they have to be or it would be illegal. The list of failed arguments goes on and on. Eventhough with my credentials and knowledge I should easily be considered the project expert on MMA rules and sanctioning, they tell me that I am disruptive or refuse to listen because I won't accept statements and opinions of a couple guys that just aren't true. They are trying to tell me that I should accept these false statements because I am told to. Really? I don't believe this is how the project is supposed to work, and their refusal to compromise and work together has brought us to this point. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have a good argument, perseverance on talk without making the same kind of grade-school claims of persecution that led to most uninvolved editors dismissing the arguments of the "pro-MMA" side is the right approach. Whining about it on ANI is actively counterproductive. Stop blaming other editors and state your case plainly through the usual dispute resolution channels. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Willdawg has repeated virtually the same points that he made in the very first post, so I think we can officially call this thread full circle, and close it up. We all know there's deadlock (imho because nobody's actually arguing on merits anymore, just restating their positions over and over and over) and only a wide community RfC will fix that. ANI will not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If this isn't the right place, then please point us in the right direction please. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has. WP:Requests for comment. Requests for closure is the best of the AN boards, although at this point in the conversation that's premature. Shadowjams (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

User:Doncsecz is sending messages to Hungarian users [32][33][34] to influence the vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/László Kovács (writer), where the deletion of the article about László Kovács. a Hungarian writer, is requested. This comment "Yes, as the arguments for the deletions is nonsense, only the humiliation of the Hungarians or Europeans. " of User:Doncsecz has also to be noted Transerd (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The "nonsense" or "humiliation" words is not unethical words. See also other talk pages about other articles. Doncsecz^talk 13:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a battleground mentality, you see Wikipedia as a war betwen nations (Hungarians vs enemies) Transerd (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also in other talk page (see Syrian Civil War) was hard talk: in my talk page, which is shouting. Nonetheless i was not Judas, and not discloses the user. Ergo this is your personal action. Doncsecz^talk 14:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Enemies? No comment. I am a Hungarian. So what? I don't care your nationality and I have no enemies. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I only ask the users, as the wiki is great and is difficult to monitor everything. Transerd is new user, probably sockpuppet. Doncsecz^talk 13:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that? If so, then take it to WP:SPI. If not, I would stop with the accusations of socking. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Transerd is sockpuppet?

Transerd is a new user and suddenly joined a deletion. This is presumably a sockpuppet. How is the investigation? Doncsecz^talk 13:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you truly think that, then open a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI. Be aware though, that you will have to provide proof that he is sock puppeting. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Transerd indeed a sockpuppet. The owner is User:Iaaasi. See the User:Transerd page. Doncsecz^talk 08:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Try for an SPI -- than another editor who is not an admin sought to label a person as a sock does not make them one. See WP:SPI please. Collect (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did suggest that twice, but it seems to have been ignored. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You need specific evidence to say somebody is a sockpuppet other than showing that another editor has claimed they are. Claims do not equal evidence. Against the current (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Any admins with OTRS access (permissions)

Daffodil International Professional Training Institute is a CV of [35]. There is a message on the article talk page suggesting that permission has been emailed; in light of which, I've not CSD tagged it, but the talkpage post is dated 22 November 2012, yet the article was only created today. All looks very sus. If it is deleted there are several redirects from incorrect page moves in the page history. Pol430 talk to me 23:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've put a copyvio tag on it as an interim measure. Beyond My Ken (talk)
  • I'm nominating it for deletion as non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodil International Professional Training Institute. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• An attempt at locating the ticket proved unsuccessful. However, that does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist. KTC (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• It was also created, with almost exactly the same wording, in May 2012 by Alam5131 (talk · contribs). This is a single-purpose account that has edited almost exactly the same range of articles as Wikiwebsbd (talk · contribs), including Daffodil International University and Md Sabur Khan. Non-administrators may like to know that several paragraphs from that latter, Md Sabur Khan, can also be seen in Sabur Khan (AfD discussion), including "aimed to position his footstep" and "22 years of glorified career". Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Md Sabur Khan now G4'd. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Uncle G mentions, Alam5131 (talk · contribs) and Wikiwebsbd (talk · contribs) certainly appear to be the same person. They appear to be trying to create a walled garden of VSCA around Sabur Khan and the Daffodil Group. I'm looking through the contribs now. I expect to be nominating Daffodil Institute of Information Technology at AfD shortly. Pol430 talk to me 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits by User:Cantaloupe2

This editor has become tiring and tenditious constantly pushing his "America-centric" genocide obsession into articles destroying numeric charts and any technical example that uses numeric "America-centric" information. He was advised not to do this by several editors and yet he persists[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41].

When his edits are challenged or removed he progresses to tagging the article to excess despite being requested not to do that by other editors. Look here where his edits have been challenged repeatedly and what resulted to the article. What would readers think? An angry person was allowed to make a mess of WP?

When talk page discussions are initiated he attempts to confuse the issue with side-tracking issues(first and second sentence are not related or topic) and then avoids continuing to consensus or resolution.[42],[43],[44] This is not a newbie and these tenditious edits appear to be very WP:Pointy with his "America-centric" genocide article disruption. His attitude are pushing editors into just giving up.

Being followed around with many edits challenged with some new pointy policy angle seems like simple harrassment is just not worth the stress.

Here are my communications on his talk page. I named him in an IPsockpuppet CU, by accident (sloppy cut n paste) My apology and further request for him not to group large quantities of edits.[45] but it seems he may hold a grudge[[46]and it seemed another distraction from the talkpage discussion at hand. I attempted to stay on topic with.[47] [48].

I attempted to explain how I felt about his disruption of articles.[49][50] after his injection of facetious edit history comments and data. here - note history. He responded with rejection and this. I don't believe I made any ad hominem remarks and tried to only refer to his edits. He did comment on my mention of his "America-centric obsession" as a personal attack. "America-centric" is Cantaloupe2's favoured phrase and he admits it frequently in many edits and histories.

I feel I have attempted to resolve this matter amicably a few time to no avail. After seeing other editors frustrated by the same POV pushing I came here in a frustrated attempt to fix this waste of editing time. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 notified. [51] 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see a dubious pattern of edits on electrical engineering topics, but haven't yet seen anything about genoicide. Can you clarify? bobrayner (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I switched comment order for clarity (above) Perhaps "genocide" is not the correct term for this. Cantaloupe removes any North American references, especially numeric data from articles. Some conflicts I have observed of this was Compact fluorescent lamp [52] where he removed all dollar data from a financial comparison chart, calling it spam. Then he proceeded to remove referenced edits that used the American EPA[53]. A US Coast Guard reference was deleted claiming it was "political propaganda"[54]. US magazine Times online reference[55]. Notice the edit history[56] and how section motion hides edits. I mentioned this to him (see link above). Changes any numeric examples to "American" label referring to talk page comments that didn't exist. More pointy edits.[57] Then when the campaign doesn't get consensus from editors he begins flagging articles with pointy tags.

It should be noted that I am Canadian and have no interest in any particular AmEng bias. I want numeric examples as readers can relate to them better than abstract formulae (50%Va-b). I believe this area-generic POV is negative to tech article clarity. Invitations to add other area examples were welcomed several times, that I witnessed. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the admin SpinningSparks, I was advised it should be globally focused, and not just English language. In the article, complainant wants America specific hard numbers which were arbitrarily chosen historically. Of those, the user arbitrarily chose some applied examples such as 120:208, 347:600. The number pair maintains a relationship which is 1:√3. Since it was disputed by the complainant, I compromised with including both that and a region neutral numeric values based on % scale, so 100:173. Same issue in this article Delta-wye_transformer where the user inserted a list of region/Canada proprietary numbers. I find that such proprietary values are not encyclopedic and replacing them with universal formula ensures global neutrality. It would be a limited audience interest, such as for electrical wiring technicians in a relevant. There's no reason that people versed with enough prior knowledge to read this article needs a looong list of number tables to understand it. The article isn't a list of world's various voltages.To expand on actual technical implementation which an editor commented have no place in articles, the article would be filled with country by country list of every voltage set imaginable which is not informative in expanding in the contents discussed. But Wiki is not a directory.

Preference to build articles to revolve around one region is biased and is a neutrality issue. This editor also accuse me of incompetence while continuing to add free write contents based on anecdotes and personal experience which ignores the expectations of verifiability with in inference that the user itself is competent.

Addressing the CFL article issue, this is discussed in article Talk:Compact_fluorescent_lamp#NPOV talk. The complainant singularly objected based on unfounded reasoning "The average reader wants to know about the bottom line... money". I also removed references to price, because they are inappropriate web store links where items are sold, which is not permitted here as references as it is a magnet for spam. Expressing it in terms of $ and unit cost is like expressing a car's mileage in terms of miles per American dollar of gas at the day the article is written whereas my approach to simply list the watt is like approaching it in 100km/L which is not time sensitive. I removed a good chunk of article that was advancing political concerns which was straying off topic. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding this contention provided, go back one more edit. You corrected a spelling error, but along with it, you removed a "" tag from unattributed statement, but did not replace it with a reference. I restored the tag, because the statement was not referenced. Going back some more edits, you inserted a statement which appears to come from your thoughts without attribution.unreferenced addition. I asked you not to insert anecdotal evidence. When something is challenged, the burden is on the person restoring or inserting to WP:PROVEIT. Removal of reference requested tags without providing reference is nonconstructive. I tagged them, because I'm challenging the claim you're making. You claimed that this design may make it more susceptible to metering error, and that the resulting product 1/2*V(Ph to Ph)*√3 is inherently more uncommon than 1/2*ph to ph or ph to ph voltage. I'm not convinced and when I challenge it, the policy says you have to prove it. My guess is that you made common/uncommon based on comparison of voltages provided by such systems in applied actual technical practice in your municipality incorporation. Centering whats common and not common around your locale and applying to article that is supposed to be globally neutral is where my contention of Geo-centrism comes from. This is the kind of thing I believe VQuakr said does not have place in article here Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit where English is not mentioned at all? Was there another statement by Spinningspark other than his clarification of the guideline? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

correct. You also inquired who to cater to if it isn't for Europe or America. In the question you posted on SpinningSpark's talk page, he told you that it should cover globally here. When you constrain the coverage, it causes the language to be an envelope that distorts worldwide coverage. Some of the longest transmission lines are Russia, China, Brazil and such. Also, Japan has very well established electrical distribution system as well. All four countries I just mentioned ideally should receive equal weight. Some region centric examples you disseminate as common, popular, often used, etc are likely to be misnomer in world wide usage. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this was where contentions begun. An admin SpinningSparks mentioned article should represent global point of view. Before my edit, it was filled with examples, advantages, disadvantages that revolve around installations specific to US systems. I replaced examples with formulas. When the complaining IP editor expressed that reader may have trouble with formulas, I added a geographically neutral examples using percent scaled example. In my good faith edit, this was a better approach than addressing each technical variation for every country. An editor commented to me that actual technical application shouldn't stay in the article as well. The IP editor continue to insert first hand accounts and anecdotal interpretive statements and nagged me with WP:COMPETENT even though many of his additions are not verifiable. I am all about writing it so that it is region free and examples are not geo-centric to particular place and the IP editor contends I'm "obsessed with America centric".

While this is on the table, I would like to present my concerns with harassment from the complainant pejorative remarks such as "temper tantrum" "obsession" and misrepresenting me as "admitting to less than positive intentions". The diff in question. According to WP:TPNO his insulting, ad hominem attack left on my page violates WP:CIVIL policies. The comment was left on my talk page, perhaps by coincidence, shortly after I sought SpinningSparks comments over contentious comments on complainant's own talk page labeled interesting edits which includes contentious tags of other users, such as "agenda" "coverup" "competent" and even libelous misrepresenting another editor DieSwartzPunkt as: "admission of sock puppetry"(when the investigation found that editor not malicious). Since WP:TALK says general rules for talk page applies, I would think that his behavior of misrepresenting other editors fall under WP:TPNO behavior.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, Please do not canvass hostile editors as you did with this edit. See WP:Canvassing. I realise you are quite upset right now but a few hostile editors to attack me may complicate this process. This needs to be a learning experience for both of us so we may work in harmony later. I fear the editor in question has gone or morphed again and he was a good tech guy. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of canvassing. In my response, I addressed some behavioral concerns about you which includes your accusation of sockpuppueting towards the aforementioned editor and failing to assume good faith. Since that dispute discussed involved him/her, it was a courtesy notice. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IP, if Cantaloupe2 mentions another user in discussing your report (with its highly inappropriate previous title), it is perfectly in order for him to inform that user. Your comment about realising that Cantaloupe2 is "quite upset" is unhelpful and borders on harassment. The underlying issue of using country-independent examples concerns content rather than conduct, so can't really be addressed here. There is no need to add a signature (four tildes) to your edit summaries. Mathsci (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I understood these notices should remain in a neutral tone. I felt "One of the discussions I've added there is the sock puppetry accusation made towards you by the same editor." could be interpreted as an attempt invoke a certain response from an editor. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:POT: you're the user who wrote "genoicide" in the original title here; you're the one that seems to be collecting a laundry list on his user talk page. Please watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Facts:Several issues are getting discussed here. Of those issues, your accusation of him sock puppeting is the only issues that concerns him, therefore what I left him is consistent with notifying him that there is a discussion where he is mentioned, and how it pertains him. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

IP, please do not insert comments in the middle of Cantaloupe2's postings. It makes everything unreadable. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. I thought I saw a signature. Thanks for fixing! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that I have been referenced in this discussion. My comments seem to have been somewhat misrepresented. It is true that I have advised that articles should take a worldwide perspective.[58] However, this was in the context of replying to whether an article written in American English should use exclusively American numeric examples. I have not advised Cantaloupe2 (or anybody else) that algebraic examples are preferable to numeric examples. For what it's worth, I have given exactly the opposite advice.[59] SpinningSpark 14:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen Cantaloupe2 until a couple of weeks ago. Since then I've seen him trying to make a thorough mess of articles on cycling (Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic), bicycle wheel) and electrical engineering (synchronous motor & others) and even arcane Mac crypto, editing from a basis of blinkered, dogmatic policy recitation and a slavish avoidance of subject knowledge, whilst energetically attacking every editor who does know something about a topic. His editing locus bounces between a range of complex topics whose only common factor seems to be that he knows equally little about each. I'm reminded mostly of Oscar Wilde on cynics (look it up Cantaloupe, I don't expect you to know it, but we used to have an encyclopedia here).

The only question remaining would seem to be, When's he running as an Admin?

Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the synchronous motor article have ANYTHING to do with me? You know that addition of contents revolve around verifiability. You have some edits like this one where you make changes with assertion that "simply wrong", but don't leave proper reference to support your stance and rely on self confidence and accuse me of lacking knowledge. Wikipedia is not a repository of original research and if something is challenged, policy says that burden of proof is on the inserting editor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Having read the delta-wye and high-leg delta articles, they appear to me worse off than they were before the recent round of editing (not that either was a gem to begin with, but one-line sections with maintenance tags on the titles are just silly). Examples are meant to be just that – a small selection from practical usage. Just because an article doesn't list every voltage in use around the world doesn't mean that it's wrong, nor that one should remove such examples just because they're American (or Canadian, Ethiopian, Liechtensteinian, etc.). This being English WP, I don't see anything wrong with examples from only the U.S., U.K., or Canada. Anyone is free to add examples if warranted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Before it was an article written from first hand experience, so the whole thing bordered on original research. Do you suggest that we let a whole bunch of unreferenced anecdotal claims remain?

This is the before and afterwhere the dispute begun. The contents were so focused around North America that much of it didn't apply elsewhere. Before reversion by an IP editor, it looked there was no major POV. What is your input on discussion of "advantages" "disadvantages" that only pertains to American/Canadian technical applications but do not hold true worldwide? I know China, Russia have significant electrical infrastructure as well as india, but there is not equal representation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, they weren't great to begin with. A lot of the conclusions need either explanation or citation (preferably both) because they're not obvious. However, that's not the issue. I contend, as do the others arguing here I think, that "equal representation" is not required. If someone wants to add distinct examples for China, Russia, India, and Zimbabwe, they're welcome to it, though I expect some commonality might exist between at least some of them. The fact that those examples haven't been inserted is not a reason to remove others, though. Most articles do not, and should not, claim to contain exhaustive, or even equally representative examples. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so if the examples are not equally representative of every country thats that. If the prose paints the whole topic with the same brush based on local practices how would I best address it? Let's say article about steel bases its advantages and disadvantages about the whole article based on a specific usage without attributing to that specific usage Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Extreme POV pushing and disruptive editing by User:Borsoka

I am forced to report here the very disruptive editing done by User:Borsoka on the topic of History of Romania, especially covering the ancient times and the Middle Ages. One of the recent unacceptable behaviors is the redirect of the Daco-Roman article ([60]) as well as the repeated removal in mass of sourced content from it ([61], [62], [63]). The same has been done with the Thraco-Roman article: repeated redirect attempts to terrible choices ([64], [65]); repeated removal in mass of sourced content ([66], [67], [68], [69]). This was done without discussions, without proposing the mergers/redirects and without attempting to reach consensus. This is all driven by a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism on the Romanian history. The general idea of this POV/revisionism is to break or erase the obvious links (considered mainstream by most historians today), between modern Romanians and their ancestors, the Dacians, the Romans and the Roman Dacia time/space. One example of pushing these extreme views is the complete rewrite of the Origin of the Romanians by User:Borsoka from the Hungarian extremists point of view, an article which he attempts to also WP:OWN as you can see from the many edit wars. To support the ideas in this important article, other articles/concepts like Daco-Roman and Thraco-Roman cultures have to disappear or be pushed into obscurity at any price since otherwise they completely invalidate the claims of Hungarian extremists. A simple review of Borsoka's contributions shows that 90-100% of his "work" involves rewriting articles on Romanian history with an extreme Hungarian POV. If he loves Hungary and its history that much, I don't understand why he doesn't spend 90% of his time, in a positive and constructive fashion, writing great articles about this country's achievements and history. It is not at all justified and acceptable to spend one's entire time attacking and attempting to rewriting another country's history, causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing in the process. Another aspect of User:Borsoka's "contribution" involves a widespread trend of copyvio and plagiarisms, as can be seen in this investigation (see also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka). To me, all this activity is far from Wikipedia's goals, even though some parts of his contributions have merit and the editor has been around for a while. Me and many other contributors have tried to discuss the matters on the talk pages of some of the involved articles, have tried to solicit 3rd party opinions, but to no avail so far. The situation as it stands now it is far from being just content dispute on one article or another. Way too many articles have been attacked, rewritten with POVs, with copyvios, or hidden behind non-sense redirects for one purpose or another. As such I am forced to report the behavior here and suggest a thorough investigation and if considered fit, a topic ban. Thank you for your time. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, I think your above claims are driven by emotions which is not an issue, because we are human beings. Therefore, I would only like to reflect to one of your above points: plagiarism. Yes, there was a time when I was "green" and accepted other editors' push to cite verbatim in order to avoid any accusation of OR. I think my naivety is demonstrated by the fact that all sentences taken from the cited sources were properly referenced (I even added the relevant pages). If you think that any edit I made following the above investigation contains plagiarism, please report it because it should be fixed. However, I think no such a case can be demonstrated. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In-mass sourced content removal continues even after this report: [70], [71]. This is hopeless...--Codrin.B (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I think there is a misunderstanding. User:Borsoka is an enthusiastic, extremely hard-working and valuable wiki member. I have been following his editing for a while. He creates entirely new, neutral and well referenced articles (e.g. History of Christianity in Hungary) or gives us exceptionally useful contributions (e.g. Romania in the Middle Ages, Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages etc). User:Borsoka aims to be neutral with respect to other editors. Wikipedia members should appreciate and recognize his work instead of senseless accusations. That is not his fault that nationalist editors can not accept other options. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fakirbakir. Borsoka is the last editor, who may be accused of nationalism. His articles about Medieval Hungary are well-sourced, accurate and useful works. For example his article of Voivode of Transylvania is the most elaborate source about this function in the Internet. His ban would be a great loss to the English Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Codrinb. See unconstructive discussion with User:Borsoka. User:Borsoka has strong Hungarian POV (he/she wrote on NOPV English wp about highly sensitive article "this is a Hungarian context"![72]). Consensus-building in talk pages is impossible with this user.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrin, Omen1229, thank you for referring to the above cases. I think they properly reflect my habit when editing. Borsoka (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration. The modern Sibiu was never called under its present name until 1918. The Wikipedia is not should be the scene of the falsification of history... --Norden1990 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? "Sibiu" (or "Sibiiu") was well-established by 1918, and wasn't just invented out of thin air. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sibiu was the Romanian name of Nagyszeben/Hermannstadt until 1918. the Town belonged to Hungary until the Treaty of Trianon. After that Sibiu became official name of the town. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

AE?

The above discussion is covered by the arbitration case WP:ARBEE, which applies discretionary sanctions to articles which relate to Eastern Europe. All editors commenting above have already been warned about this case, except for Fakirbakir. The diffs provided by Codrinb do not appear obviously problematic from a conduct point of view, and because we do not decide content disputes, we cannot evaluate their merits in that regard. As regards the allegations of copyright violations or plagiarism by Borsoka, he has plausibly replied that he now understands copyright and has not violated it since the now years-old investigation cited by Codrinb.

However, the above discussion itself is possibly actionable. In my opinion, it shows at least two editors behaving uncollegially, misusing Wikipedia as a battleground, casting aspersions of grave editorial misconduct without adequate evidence, and/or making personal attacks on others:

• Codrinb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism", "pushing these extreme views", [rewrite] "from the Hungarian extremists point of view", " causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing")
• Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (" strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration", "falsification of history")

I invite comment by administrators whether WP:AE threads should be opened to examine the possibility of a topic ban or other sanction for these two editors, or whether a warning might suffice.  Sandstein  00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See my edits, I have no enemies and I don't consider the encyclopedia as a battleground. Yes, I reacted to Omen's writing, but he did not deny in his user page that he is a nationalist. I tried the neutral point of view of all my articles, I gave the names of the cities in different languages etc. I think, my punishment would be unfair. --Norden1990 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I would like to comment the above case. I think a topic ban would be an exaggerated sanction. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to speak in your own defense, admin or not. Reyk _YO! 04:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is an underlying dispute about ancient Dacia, where User:Codrinb holds a particular point of view. Some of the disagreement can be seen at User talk:Codrinb/Archive 2#Wiki-project Dacia. Codrinb is one of the supporters of WP:WikiProject Dacia, while some other editors who know about Eastern Europe disagree with his approach. I have heard that Protochronism is connected to the same debate. Our article on Protochronism says that "The term refers to perceived aggrandizing of Dacian and earlier roots of today's Romanians." With regards to the dispute beween Codrinb and Borsoka at Daco-Roman, a content WP:RFC should be considered as an option. Codrinb was originally notified under ARBEE by Jehochman as the result of a request for arbitration that Codrinb filed against User:Andrei nacu in January, 2011. You might notice some common elements between Codrinb's 2011 complaint to Arbcom and his ANI that he filed against Borsoka just above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been simply trying to report abusive behavior on part of another user. I am not interested in any battles and as you can see, I've been staying away from editing for quite a while, not trying to engage in any conflict. I pretty much topic-banned myself out of disgust, but it is hard to stay aside and watch how some users like Borsoka rewrite articles with a strong POV and no one does a thing. I think that the practice of shooting the messenger and ignoring the real abusers is unfair and will not solve anything... --Codrin.B (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. Discussing your behavior is relevant, and not "shooting the messenger." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think when Codrinb returns after a lengthy absence and finds articles he left in good shape apparently distorted, he is right to be alarmed. It may be the situation isn't as bad as it seems, but the reaction is understandable and Borsoka should give a fuller explanation of what is going on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above request. What should I explain? Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be helpful if you went to the talk pages of articles where your changes have alarmed Codrinb (for example, Thraco-Roman) and explained more fully what you are trying to do. You don't need anyone's permission to edit, but because other users are interested in those topics, and because they may be in rather sensitive topic areas, it helps increase good faith if you give some kind of background to what you're accomplishing. (That is, if it doesn't take up too much time from your editing.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for your above remarks. Please read the articles' talk pages. As to Thraco-Roman, there was a discussion on the topic (because I had once suggested the merger of the article based on the same argumentation) ending on October 10, 2012. During the discussion and in my last remark I reminded our co-editor, Codrinb to WP:NOR. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, month, year or decade before removing unsourced statements? Please also read the discussion ending on October 10 on the Talk page of Daco-Roman. Codrinb stated that he was working on the improvement of the article which in fact was a partial copy of an other article, Roman-Dacia. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, ...., .... before merging the two articles? I maintain that there is no point in maintaining articles copied from other articles instead of merging them. Would you like to pay twice for the same book under different titles? I would like to emphasize that the subject of the present debate on the articles and the debates ending on October 10 was the same: WP:NOR and a merging proposal. The first debate ended with a compromise: Codrinb would work on improving the articles. However, the articles have not been improved. Should I have started a new debate on the same topic? Why? For what purpose? In order to maintain pseudo-articles? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Codrinb knows more about this dispute than I do; let's see if he agrees with this presentation of events. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Auditur et altera pars. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't report this abusive behaviour and the breaking of many WP rules (in purpose!) just to help with some personal content dispute. I don't have the time or motivation to edit the affected articles at this time, but I can't stand by, looking at how extreme POVs are pushed and how the WP rules are not respected at all. I haven't seen any messages on talk pages about suggested merges, I haven't seen the WP:MERGE rules followed, I haven't seen civil discussions or attempts to learn how to edit. Instead I witnessed sourced content removal in mass (regardless or not it comes from other articles - this is allowed!), I've seen plenty of WP:EDITWAR and WP:OWN behaviours, I've seen a lot of copyvios and plagiarisms and a lot of generally unacceptable actions on User:Borsoka's side (as pointed out by other users as well), all driven by the desire to rewrite the history of Romania the way that some extremists want. Every time it suits him, User:Borsoka plays the rookie and the innocent (he didn't know this rule or that), but he's been around for a while now and he knows quite a few rules. Everyone is required to know the basics of WP:EDIT, WP:POV, WP:COPYVIO before contributing. You can judge me for the harsh statements I made on the user's extremism and agenda, but I've witnessed it for years now and I know it is all true. I don't know why some bring WP:DACIA into discussion here. A lot of people put efforts in this project to create positive content on less known topics which have virtually no English coverage. WP:DACIA has a constructive philosophy. No one is involved there to rewrite the history of some other nations who need to be minimized or obscured in order to push nationalistic ideas. The user in question here, is.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover tag removals

User:Tagremover is back removing tags (at Superzoom) without comment[73], then claiming "No details specified"[74] (ignoring details in talk[75]). Tried a change to "refimprove" tag based on the basic lack of reliable sources since the editor ceased input at talk page[76] and editor refuses to get the point of the need for reliable sources (even feigning ignorance of WP:RS?)[77][78].

The user's views on tags are expressed here, here, and at the end of this ANI. Tag removal has been an ongoing activity, usually without comment or attempt to improve the noted problem. I can't see the reason for the removal of many "Unreferenced" tags unless it is a further view that Wikipedia should be a work of original research. Other examples:

Examples of tag removals from Feb-March 2012

Lens (optics) removes tag without comment[79] Optical aberration- removes tag[80], removes again[81] Angle of view - removal of tag without comment[82] Summer Science Program - removal of tag without comment[83] Intel 8061 - removal of tag without comment[84] Image editing - removal of tag without comment[85] Color image pipeline - removal of tag without comment[86] Fisheye lens - removal of tag without comment[87] SteadyShot - removal of tag without comment[88] Aircraft industry - removal of tag without comment[89] Fuselage - removal of tag without comment[90] Narrow-body aircraft - removal of tag without comment[91] China Aviation Industry Corporation I - removal of tag without comment[92] Jet airliner - removal of tag without comment[93] Airliner - removal of tag without comment[94] Camera lens - removal of tag without comment[95][96], again[97] claiming its "unexplained" ignoring existing talk[98], again[99], again[100] Focus (geometry) - removal of tag without comment[101] Anastigmat - removal of tag without comment[102] Zeiss Sonnar - removal of tag without comment[103] Full frame - removal of tag without comment[104] Nikon 1 series - removal of inline tags without comment[105] Carl Zeiss AG - removal of tag without comment[106] Softune - removal of tag without comment[107] SPARClite - removal of tag without comment[108] NEC SX-9 - removal of tag without comment[109] Bayonet mount - removal of tag without comment[110] Streaming media - removal of tag without comment[111]

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the examples listed above are from nearly a year ago. However, Tagremover has been edit warring for the past week or so on Superzoom, repeatedly removing cleanup tags despite complaints from other users [112][113][114][115][116][117]. This is disruptive, and he clearly has a history of doing this as evidenced by the year-old diffs posted in the original complaint above. The username doesn't help. I have blocked Tagremover for 72 hours for edit warring. Future disruption of this sort might warrant a topic ban on removing cleanup tags. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Competence

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

---

I think we have a major WP:COMPETENCE issue with Klbog1987 (talk · contribs). This user has received notices since February for either overlinking, or linking to disambiguation page. Whenever the user receives such a notice for bad linking, he or she immediately blanks it off their talk page.

I checked their edit history, and literally every edit they've made in the past few months has been over-linking or incorrect linking (e.g. adding 16 Biggest Hits to Template:Collin Raye). On top of that, the user has a huge list of deleted articles, most of which don't have proper naming formats (e.g. BLP articles with lowercase last names).

In short, it's only blatantly obvious that this user has few to no valuable edits, and is outright refusing any suggestions to stop what they're doing. Not one of their edits has been useful, and the fact that they refuse to listen shows that they're not here to contribute in any viable fashion. Surely a block is in order. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• ETA: As further proof, they've blanked the ANI notice twice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • People are allowed to remove notices on their own talk page. Reyk _YO! 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)But the speed at which he does it, combined with the fact that he's not listening to what the literally hundreds of warnings are telling him, show that he's clearly throwing a fit. Also, as I pointed out, literally 100% of his edits are crap. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked at his edits, so I don't have an opinion there. If you remove a warning from your talk page, you are deemed to have read it, so if he's removing them without actually reading them he's only shooting himself in the foot. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is concerning; all of the talk space edits they've made are to either blank communications with other editors, or to work up a brief resume. (However, it's unnecessary to keep dropping AN/I notices on their page: once is enough.) I'm hesitant to block for competence before making another attempt to communicate with them. I'll drop them a note to see if they will consider responding here. 28bytes (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems to be a new editor with less than 1000 edits, virtually all to mainspace. Glancing at recent contributions shows a couple useful edits and a couple weird ones. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with 28bytes that we need to reach out on their talkpage before any blocking, so now I've done it too (getting an edit conflict with 28.) One of the articles, which admins can view, was apparently about the user themselves. Its brief content is also on their userpage, and has made a couple of widely-spaced visits on their talkpage.[118][119] In fact, it's the only thing they've ever written on their talk. All the talkpage blanking isn't necessarily meant in a bad way; perhaps they think read + blank is what one is supposed to do on a talkpage. But, well, so far their lack of competence and communication has wasted quite a bit of the time of editors and admins, and, as TPH points out, there are no helpful edits to balance that. The user has never been welcomed, or spoken to other than by template. Just sayin' — I don't mean to imply that sweet talk would necessarily have made any difference. But he has now got a nice message from 28 about ANI, and one from me (even nicer, to the extent that it doesn't mention scary ANI) If those messages should get blanked without response too, I guess I agree with the OP. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

• • And… that took him exactly three seconds to blank; so clearly the principle isn't "read + blank", as I optimistically suggested above, but blank without reading. I have blocked for 24 hours in the hope of getting their attention. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

It was actually 8 min from 28bytes message to yours to their blanking, but agree in general.

I am almost wondering if it's an unannounced bot?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good block, unfortunately. George, to me the resume-type talk page additions tend to point away from a bot and towards someone simply unfamiliar with what Wikipedia's about, but of course I could be mistaken. 28bytes (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DE points 4 and 5 of "Sign of disruptive editing" seem to apply. One cannot ignore every other editor and exist in their own little bubble here. Doc talk 01:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do they get one of the those block templates? NE Ent 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I quilted my own. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC).

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

Violation of WP:NLT by book publisher

Regarding the publisher's attempt to add a promotional announcement of a new edition to the The Stars My Destination article, a threat of legal action was posted to my talk page. I pointed them to WP:NLT and asked them to retract the threat, but the response was more of an attempt at a quid pro quo (retraction in return for allowing the promo), and not unequivocal. At this point, I'd like to move the discussion (which is here) off of my talk page and onto AN/I, and I will inform the publisher of the change of venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Account and two IPs notified.[120],[121],[122] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't an ISBN and publisher info be included? Maybe not in the prose, but it seems like valid infobox type stuff.--v/r - TP 02:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really: infoboxes should contain first edition info only, otherwise they become bloated. There is an argument for having something in the text, but only if it is somehow a notable edition, which I don't see as being the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not even in the adaptation section? Has anyone explained this to the user? I don't even understand their threat, what is the 255 number for? The only content I can see coming out of the book is 200 characters. I don't even understand the complaint. Are they arguing that Wikipedia does not have a right to have an article at all about the book? That would seem to go against the purpose of fair use.--v/r - TP 02:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) My reading of the "legal threat" is that this John Colby is threatening to remove the entire page if we do not do everything he wishes. He seems to think that he has an actual chance of winning that type of case, but as he doesn't own the copyright to anything we have on the page (as far as I can see), he can't have the page taken down. However, it is still a legal threat, and I think the 255 number is in relation to some sort of precedent (can't remember where I heard it) in relation to a % of a work that can be used under fair use at the original quality (of text for example). Just my two cents, but he should be indef blocked for legal threats. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's a re-release or release in a different format then it's not an adaptation. See MOS:NOVELS#Publication history, which would cover this: "you should briefly outline the publication history of the novel ONLY if there is interesting information to relate" (original emphasis). If there is something interesting to relate about this particular edition, it's not immediately obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate provides a "Publication history" section to include a list of editions with ISBNs, with the comment "major publication history to be included here, not everything if too extensive". A featured article on a comparable topic, Starship Troopers, contains such a section, as do other high-quality novel articles that I've seen.GabrielF (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That aside, as I've intimated on Beyond My Ken's talk page, I think the most significant current edition is not the one Mr. Colby wants to plug but the novel's appearance in the Library of America American Science Fiction: Nine Classic Novels of the 1950s. That perhaps merits a mention in the article, but I'm not sure that the iPicturebooks version does unless it is (if it indeed is) as the first e-book edition (as BMK suggested in his response to my talk-page post).Deor (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For a book long out of print I can see a current edition being listed somewhere, but the print history is not established here. This is unquestionably one of "the books" of speculative fiction history, but even for highly notable books one does not include every published edition.

I don't know that the ultimate answer is necessarily "no", but not the way they tried to source it, which was in the wrong place and overly promotional. The legal threat did not help. They seem to (I hope) be backing away from that, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the precedent that would be set. If we allow publishers to insert a squib about every new edition that comes out, it's going to clutter up our book articles without providing any real encyclopedic information. That's why the standard is that the edition needs to be notable or have "interesting information" attached to it. The publisher's response appeared to me to be an attempt to strongarm us; I can't imagine their appeal to the WMF [123] is going to get anywhere. (Their apparent refusal to engage here is also something of a slap in the face as well.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, but I do want to point out that similar to "We don't want to be forced to do something because a Publisher wants us to", we also don't want to avoid doing something because a publisher wants us to. The publisher's wishes shouldn't matter either way.--v/r - TP 03:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, I took a look on Amazon at the edition being referred to, and it still carries copyrights by Alfred Bester and his Estate. [124] I would guess that the publisher involved here is the "rights holder" in that they have negotiated permission to publish a new edition, but don't own the copyright to the work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is the usual situation for written fiction. Author holds copyright, they sell rights to publish it to publishers for a given period of time... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the case. In most instances the copyright is owned by the publisher, who receives ownership of from the author it in return for publishing the work. It's only well-established authors who have the pull to be able to retain copyright, or people who are so significantly well known that it's worth the publisher's allowing them to keep the copyright. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, that era is long gone, at least with books. Most authors I know retain their rights. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, that's good to know. Being an old fart, my information must have come from an earlier era. Sorry to have posted misinformation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Go and read Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works#Avoiding violating copyright, TParis. Uncle G (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

According to King of Hearts, the OTRS ticket number is Ticket:2013010810000717. Not being an admin, I can't see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please note how hot the publisher's representative was to insert an ISBN number into the piece. I repeat that these publisher bar code numbers are effectively commercial spam and should be stricken from Wikipedia. Serious people interested in finding a book at a library can easily do that by author or title. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• While they certainly should be used carefully, ISBNs can be useful. Considering that different editions/printings of a book may differ in layout and page numeration, being able to use an ISBN to locate a specific version may help readers in verifying information in an article. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Colby is a serial spammer, inserting gratuitous ISBNs of his e-book versions into articles willy-nilly (in one case, into the lede of a biography). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I assume they all have been reverted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and an IP purporting to be Colby left a snarky note on my talk page (q.v.). ----Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the two IPs that I notified about this report, since they were clearly being used by Colby or his employees. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an OTRS ticket on this, and it looks like there are eyes on the articles the publisher is targeting, so unless something else pops up, it's probably best to close this for the time being. Not "resolved" exactly, but also not needing immediate admin action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Continued Block Evasion by User:Postnoonnews, Personal Attacks and Issuing Legal Threats

A recently concluded sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Postnoonnews) verified various sockpuppet accounts were being used by User:Postnoonnews including many IP addresses. Even after all the socks were blocked this person has been continuing to make edits to the article talk page Talk:Vishal Kandukuri and violating their block and evading it. The following are the IP addresses, namely :-

• Special:Contributions/183.82.38.207
• Special:Contributions/124.123.2.235
• Special:Contributions/202.153.41.219
• Special:Contributions/124.123.53.142
• Special:Contributions/124.123.3.89
• Special:Contributions/49.207.108.242
• Special:Contributions/183.82.36.221
• Special:Contributions/49.207.127.104
• Special:Contributions/183.82.36.241

All of them trace back/geolocate to one single location (Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India). As more and more IP's sock and come into knowledge they will be reported here. I request administrator's to take the necessary and appropriate action. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

how can you say everything is a sock? i am an individual user over 80 % of citizens in hyderabad, AP, use beam telecom service, and this place has a population of 80 million & it is obvious that your behavior lead viewers to contribute their opinions, ^ the subject has hyderabad notability. how on earth, can you link all these to one user - whoever postnoon ?124.123.3.89 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC) . why weren't any of these present before January 3rd 2013 ? god save you guys. u cant just block every contributor, its against policy's.124.123.3.89 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The article itself seems to lack justification for inclusion based on notability, after perusing the sources. Lots of puffery. Doc talk 05:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Can an admin go and take a look at talk:Vishal Kandukuri - accociated with the sockpuppeter, and there are several ip socks which have showed up, one of whichis claiming that they have submitted a "special complaint", whatever that is... Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Various personal attacks have been made and legal threats been issued on Talk:Vishal Kandukuri against me and User:Bonadea by the IP socks. I request urgent administrator attention on this case. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing/Edit warring, Sockpuppetry, Incivility, and more at Theresa Spence and Hunger strike

There has been a content dispute ongoing recently at the Theresa Spence and Hunger strike articles regarding the nature of Spence's hunger strike and her other political positions. Several IPs (most notably 108.170.148.125 and 108.172.114.141) have attempted to insert claims that Spence's hunger strike is not a hunger strike because she continues to intake liquids (diffs: series of edits by 108.170, [125], [126], edit by registered (but unconfirmed) user Devy69, blanking of section at Hunger strike article, [127], [128], series of edits by 108.170, false claim of validity by 108.170, series of edits by registered user Skol fir, [129]), although this is common of hunger strikes and, as a result, most reliable sources are referring to her fasting as a hunger strike, which I and others have attempted to explain is the reasoning behind its inclusion in the article as such (diffs: [130], [131], [132]). There also have been other atempts to invalidate Spence's record with unsourced or primary-sourced claims of financial benefit, mostly claims added by User:Syncmaster941bw (diffs: first series of edits by Syncmaster, [133], gave source that did not include the information, by this point Syncmaster has violated 3RR, usage of primary source, another primary source, claiming right to use primary source, unsourced BLP vio by IP).

Moving on from the content dispute, we also have reasonable suspicion that the POV-pushers are using sockpuppetry to do so; this may be as a good hand/bad hand usage by one of those among us making the reversions of these edits or simple POV-pushing. The best evidence is that a question posed to 108.170 was subsequently answered by 108.172. Soon after, 108.172 admitted to having a registered account through which he/she would soon log in. I incorrectly implicated Jemmaca as a sockmaster with Ririgidi among his socks as well as the two 108 IP's, and after an SPI case I am convinced that they are both innocent. For that fuss, I am sorry to both of them. However, as more IP's and users have emerged, I wonder how many more socks may be operating at these pages, while the identity of the sockmaster remains a mystery to me. For more details on the sockpuppetry aspect of this case, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jemmaca/Archive.

Additionally, these are not the so-called "civil POV-pushers." They have in fact been quite uncivil towards myself and other editors, especially 108.172. This began with a little canvassing at my user talk page, hoping I would provide "assistance" in getting Theresa Spence deleted. However, this quickly escalated to the accusation that myself and User:Kathryn NicDhàna are "batshit crazy", with a suggestion that I am Kathryn's sock. He/she then claimed that Kathryn is my sock at the aforementioned SPI case against Jemmaca (closed, correctly, in Jemmaca's favor).

Overall, the issues at hand are the content dispute about Spence's hunger strike/"liquid diet" (as some have called it, contrary to sources) and her supposed financial connections, as well as obvious sockpuppetry by one or more unknown sockmasters, and obvious incivility and canvassing by at least one of the likely socks. The users who should have been warned have been warned: please see User talk:108.170.148.125, User talk:108.172.114.141, User talk:Syncmaster941bw, etc. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All involved parties have now been notified (that took a little while, since there are so many!) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

your issue is that you are highly supportive of spence and thus have your own pov agenda. You're edits have been one sided as have your content reverts and removals. There is no sock. Both I and the other ip have seperately explained this. I appears you just have a hard time believing that more than one other person dont share your admiration of spence and may be attempting to balance the article and ensure it is accurately representitive of only facts contained in reliable sources. You, and kathryn, also immediately ignored any obligation to find resolution through discussion on the talk page (all my edits were followed or preceded with talk entries) and instead rushed to my personal talk page threatning bans and making sock and vandalism acusations. I suggest that you may be too close or feel too passionately about the topics to be editing either of them. I have not made any edits since the initial confrontation you and kathryn initiated days ago and yet you try and drag me back n to this. I suggest you are the one canvasing for other editors who share your political views in hopes of just banning all those that might want to balance the article. Very frustrating. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been aware of a number of attempts to say that Spence isn't on a hunger strike because she is taking liquids, both on Spence's article and at Hunger strike which makes it clear that an ordinary hunger strike includes liquids. The sources used have all called it a hunger strike but this has also be ignored by these editors. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather childish discussion. Hunger strikes always involved removing solids from the diet. Then there are several levels of severity from water only, to adding salt, vitamins, minerals, sources of extra fat and protein (in a broth for example). I don't see the argument here. Chief Spence is on a hunger strike by definition. My only substantial edit was an attempt to help those who may not know what constitutes a broth (this single edit was summarily shot down by a registered editor because of "undue weight"). I never engaged in an edit war. Why am I listed above as having made a series of edits on this topic, when I made only one relevant to this discussion? Who's railroading whom? BTW, I never said it was not a hunger strike! My CBC source used the word hunger strike. I just added what was in her diet to qualify the term "hunger strike", and that was also tossed out by the same editor, thankfully to be restored later by a person who realized that something had to be said about what Spence was ingesting. Otherwise, one could assume her hunger strike was water and salt only, which is obviously not the case.

Finally, I did mention in my single edit that moose broth had been added to Spence's hunger strike, supported by a reliable CBC source- also shot down by the same editor. I guess that he/she (User:Ronz#NPOV+BLP) didn't want to admit the truth, and preferred to keep this under wraps. It sounds like this whole article has been created to promote Spence, and those in charge here want to avoid anything embarrassing to her. That's not balanced, if you ask me.

I have a reference for anyone interested in the various levels of hunger strikes at Anarchism in Action: Hunger Strikes. I have no further interest in adding to this discussion, as I really don't care what you do with this article. My only attempt to create some balance has already been squashed by a biased editor and I am not getting into any war of words. --Skol fir (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits regarding broth were not particularly relevant to Spence, which is why they were removed as giving "undue weight" (perhaps not the best description IMO) to the topic of her hunger strike. They would have been better suited for the Hunger strike page. Additionally, this has nothing to do with promotion of Spence; it's about neutrality and following reliable sources, which refer to this as a "hunger strike". You cited a source that referred to this as a hunger strike yet referred to it in the article text as a "liquid diet." That is a misrepresentation of sources. If you can find a reliable source referring to this as a "liquid diet" then feel free to add it. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

i would sugest that what the Hunger Strike page says is irrelevent. You cannot use wikipedia as a source nor can you use it to synth. Hungerstike, as it pertains to spence, can only be defined by the RS that report n it. In current form the article seems balanced on that single question (definition of hunger strike) as most coverage now provides the fluids explaination when stating "hunger strike". The broader isses come down to highly POV admins censoring the article and harrassing editors who add sources and nfo they'd rather omit from the page, specifically info critical of spence of which there has been tonnes of in the media. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

While I did not check every edit by the IPs 108.172.* and 108.170.*, one reason some editors reverted some of the edits concerned removal and re-writing of text by the IP but leaving the original sourcing in place. This created a disparity between information within the sources cited and the new text which was unsupported by the sources. The IPs (almost certainly the same editor for both IPs) were inserting POV information without proper citation. I don't think anyone would argue against inserting information "critical" of Chief Spence into the article but it still needs to be properly cited to WP:RS and WP:V sources. The IPs show a clear understanding of WP policies but chose to act as if they didn't apply to him/her. I don't have diffs to hand but I also seem to recall that some of the sources added by the IPs didn't meet WP:RS or WP:V criteria. If the criticism of Chief Spence can't be sourced well or is of distinctly minor presence in WP:RS to be found, I don't think it needs to be included just to provide a false balance. Personally, I think that criticism of Chief Spence can be well sourced; I think the info and sources are available (Although I admit I haven't seen much of it but perhaps I'm not looking carefully or thoroughly enough.) It puzzles me that the IPs prefer to argue rather than provide solid citations. IMO, that's what the editwarring boils down to. At this point, the IPs have shown a distinctly antagonistic rather than a cooperative attitude toward working here. They have already been warned multiple times about their actions. I'd block them at this point but I'm an involved party. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have checked every edit by both 108 IP's and as many as I can for other involved users and this appears to be the case with edits attempting to claim Spence's hunger strike is not a hunger strike. This misrepresentation of sources is an obvious violation of WP:BLP policies. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

108, you just admitted in that comment that most sources use the term "hunger strike." Therefore, there is no reason for the term to be removed from the article. Additionally, the idea of neutrality is not to add information critical of or promoting its subject in equal proportions (especially in BLPs, like the Spence article). I have added no promotional material to the article. However, you and others have added critical information, often without proper sourcing. Even if properly sourced, the critical information should then be presented neutrally, as opinions of its writers rather than as facts. Regarding your earlier comment, how can you claim "there is no sock" when you first answered a question posed to 108.170 at his/her talk page (showing you and him/her are the same person) and then said you have a registered account. These are both forms of sockpuppetry. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Veterans Today

It's JarlaxleArtemis. WP:DENY works. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am wondering if we could get another set of eyes in Talk:Veterans Today. It appears I have inadvertently put myself between two editors who have a pro-/anti-Israel dispute, and the newer of the two has reverted the others talk page comments and is instructing others to take action to discover her real identity: diff. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Looks like the editor may have already been blocked. Thanks anyway. Location (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The return of Bambifan101

Heads up: Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as Redcoyote18 and 98.196.49.127 and yet another WP:SPI has been filed on this case as well here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I thought my sock investigation request would go unnoticed. No official acknowledgement has been made so far. Thanks for reporting it to ANI for me. I've just noticed that a (suspected) Bambifan101 incident should be report here. I thought I should wait for the confirmation first, but maybe it's better this way. The behavior quack indeed. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

John Morrison (Montana politician): Revision history - User_talk:Correctfacts

I did a revision on the page but am meeting with pretty quick white-washing revisions from a single-purpose user whose entire edit history is getting rid of anything critical of the subject matter, done by User_talk:Correctfacts. I will warn them now; is there any way to stop this? Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Six years, and the only edits are to John Morrison (Montana politician)!? That's... dedication. My first assumption is that it's either an account passed around one of his staff or maybe himself personally. Has the possibility of conflict of interest ever been discussed? Salvidrim! ✉ 06:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Might also look into User:MTdem and User:Montanadem as well.--v/r - TP 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From a purely chronological standpoint, no overlap in editing between the three subsequent accounts -- every single edit to that specific article or its talk page (except for one in a related article), most of it possible white-washing... I smell paid PR, but while the editor hasn't declared a WP:COI that I'm aware of, assumptions can be dangerous and damaging. They have engaged in discussion and it doesn't seem to be excessively disruptive, so I believe letting it evolve may be the less bad option in this case. I recommend engaging the user in discussion about his motivations, however. I am going to leave him a second message, in hopes he will be able to reply here. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I went over and took a peek. I did a little copyediting to tone down the PR tone of the article and make it a bit more encyclopedic, but overall, the content as it sits today is accurate and in line with WP:BLP, so while partisans on both sides may have things to squawk about, the article itself is within wikipedia guidelines. FYI, I generally avoid editing the Montana politics articles because I actually have met many of these people IRL, but I do touch them up a bit when there appears to be NPOV problems or some sort of staff editing going on. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Sebrider

Sebrider has been banned indefinitely from the French wikipedia (see this discussion, and especially this vote) for multiple personal attacks (most notably against me, but also against whoever does not happen to share his (often highly idiosyncratic, and anyway highly personal) ideas about history, politics, "marxist science", communism, et.al.), POV-pushing, and so on. Take note that he has been banned not only for his behavior but for his tendency to promote his political ideas. Now he has imported here, on his talk page, most of the contents from his blocked user page, and also from various French article's talk pages. This includes several personal attacks against me, and another French user (Celette). All that he has written is in French, but it still constitutes personal attacks (including this one for which, if I am not mistaken, he got one of his first blocks in august 2011). Here he calls me "one of the most vulgar members of the French-language wikipedia". You could ask the French administrators what they think of his behavior : that might be instructive.

Even though his personal attacks are not written in English, they still constitute attacks and it is annoying to see this person reproduce here the behavior that led to his banishing on fr.wikipedia. It would be nice if you could ask him to remove the content of his talk page, which consists almost entirely of ramblings against his perceived enemies (most notably me). thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Je n'ai pas à subir les insultes permanentes (troll, style qui ne lui convient pas, fautes d'orthographes, charabia...etc), les délations, les calomnies et les suppressions intempestifs (bien que compléments moult fois sourcés) parce que les sources ne conviennent pas à monsieur Jean-Jacques Georges et à ses fidèles. Sources que j'apportes qui vont, naturellement et sans intention, à l'encontre de leur idéologie profasciste ou anticommuniste (Werth, Service, Nolt, Courtois......etc), antimatérialiste/antiscientifique et de leurs pensées petites-bourgeoises (cf Alexandre Zinoviev pour l'expression). Jean-Jacques Georges est un "professionnel" de wikipédia francophone qui a pignon sur rue et qui est sous la protection des administrateurs francophones. Toutes validations des sources et toutes modifications doivent être validées par cette mafia sous peine d'être condamnée et calonmiée.

Wikipédia est arrivée à sa maturation : "Vous savez sans doute que, dans mes livres, beaucoup de personnages — pour faire advenir le possible — luttent contre l’impossible. Mais si l’on rassemble 100.000 personnes, si on les enferme dans un enclos, si on les y laisse vivre pendant un an tout en les nourrissant normalement, je puis vous garantir que je sais à l’avance ce qui se passera d’ici là. Je puis vous l’inscrire quelque part, dans une petite enveloppe qu’on ouvrirait dans un an, afin de vérifier si je me suis trompé. Car de telles expériences sont innombrables : chaque fois que vous tentez d’organiser une très grande masse de gens, les modes d’organisation sont toujours et partout les mêmes. Et d’ici à un an, lorsque vous retrouverez ces gens enfermés, vous trouverez des subordonnés, des supérieurs, vous trouverez l’inégalité, vous trouverez une mafia et un petit « KGB » local." (Alexandre Zinoviev entretien par Jacques Freymon, L’exigence d'égalité, L’exigence d'inégalité dans les sociétés communistes, Rencontres internationales de Genève, 1981, 147, p8), (signé Sebrider renegat de wikipédia francophone et Le Sot de la Maison Jaune d'Alexandre Zinoviev) Sebrider (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"You probably know that in my books, a lot of characters - to bring about the possible - fighting against impossible. But if we gather 100,000 people, if they are locked in a pen, if they are allowed to live for a year while nourishing normally, I can assure you that I know in advance what will happen by then. I can write it somewhere in a small envelope that open within a year, to check if I'm wrong. because such experiences are innumerable: every time you try to organize a large mass of people, methods of organization are always and everywhere the same. and within a year when you find these people locked up, you will find subordinates, superiors, you will find inequality, there is a mafia and a small "KGB" local." (L’exigence d'égalité, L’exigence d'inégalité dans les sociétés communistes, Rencontres internationales de Genève, 1981, 147, p8)

D'abord, ici on se trouve au wikipédia de la langue anglaise; alors une continuation d'une discussion de vos "mésentendus" sur la wikipédia francophone devrait être mené en anglais. First of all, we are in the english language wikipedia here, so a continuation of the discussion of your "misunderstandings" in the french language wikipedia should be held in English. Lectonar (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI : I have absolutely no interest in continuing here any misunderstanding of any sort with Sebrider. As a matter of fact, I want no exchange at all with him. I just want him to stop insulting me, whether it be in French or in English. If you read French, you may notice above that he is accusing me of being a member of some "mafia". Moreover, he states that I promote an ideology that is, according to him, "anticommunist" (whatever that means) and "profascist" (that is a blatant insult, on the adminstrators' noticeboard at that !). If someone could ask him to stop once and for all, that would be nice. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Sebrider is using the pages User:Sebrider and User talk:Sebrider solely for the purpose of hosting content related to a dispute at the French Wikipedia that he is no longer permitted to host there. Its presence here is disruptive and does nothing to help improve the English Wikipedia. Therefore it should be deleted (independently of whether the content is judged to contain personal attacks or not). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what he has been doing. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Je comprends bien ce que Sebrider a écrit. Je crois qu'il n'est pas venu ici pour écrire une encyclopedie. / I understand quite well what Sebrider has written. I believe he has not come here to write an encyclopedia. WP:POINT applies, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have left a warning concerning the personal attacks above on Sebriders talk-page, in English and French. Lectonar (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now removed the inappropriate content from User:Sebrider and User talk:Sebrider. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And what of Sebrider's articlespace contributions here (most of which are to new BLPs he's created)? Can someone more familiar with the subject matter check those out and ensure they're okay? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

La confiance règne. Thank !

We can be slander, be mock, be insulted under cover of the administration : Members are equal, but some are more equal than others.

It's again an excellent universal example which not denied "Communism as a Reality" (Alexandre ZInoviev).

How to participate if every time a member (under the protection of the administration) removes and invalids all sources (Alexandre Zinovev, Karl Marx, Simon Gouz, Mark Edele, Dominico Losurdo...etc) because they do not fit into his prejudices ? He struggled with the Pascal Charbonnat's book that I had proposed for dialectical materialism article ("Histoire des philosophie matérialiste" Sylepse, 2007). He still delete of the article the bibliography of the authors of dialectical materialism that I set up (wrote in ppd by me but hidden and archived by JJG [134]).

You can éliminate Sebrider but you can not deny his sociological reality personified by Jean-Jacques Georges. He is not an "adolescent taré" contrary to what Ms. JJG said in the emission of television ("Envoyé special" in France2). But, he is the best personification of these sociologicals phenomenas in wikipedia. Pauvre Encyclopédie ! Sebrider (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Vous n'êtes pas Jules César, monsieur, de si parler de vous-même au troisième personne. Je crois que vous ne respectez pas les règles de l'encyclopédie, selon lesquels on doit utiliser un point de vue neutre et éviter les attaques personnelles. Votre haine pour M. Georges ne m'interesse point, mais si vous voulez continuer ici, il sera mieux que vous l'abandonnera.

(You are not Julius Caesar, sir, to thus speak of yourself in the third person. I believe that you do not respect the rules of the encyclopedia, according to which one must use a neutral point of view and avoid personal attacks. Your hatred for Mr Georges does not interest me in the slightest, but if you wish to continue here, it will be better that you abandon it.) AlexTiefling (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather, this is Jean-Jacques Georges who doesn't like anybody. Especially, when he is contradicted. Thus, with faithfuls, they makes accusations falses to eliminite those who don't think like them. It isn't for nothing that JJG hate the "CAr", the Arbitration Committee (Comité d'arbitrage)

In our case it is the subjects of communism. I never remove or delete these input sources. But if someone or me brings others sources which goes unintentionally against sources of Jean-Jacques Georges this sources are immedialy eliminated. Sebrider (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The dispute over the sources doesn't matter, you lost when you resorted to attacks. They didn't 'eliminate' you, you eliminated yourself. You are no longer equal when you violate rules such as: no personal attacks. That was a decision and an action that you took and you are responsible for it.--v/r - TP 19:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, more personal attacks. I wish to stress that I do not have the slightest interest in pursuing a conflict with Sebrider, nor do I really care about him : I am just tired by this guy who has been insulting me for about two years on the French wikipedia and I just want him to stop these incoherent attacks against me. (for example, here he accuses me of "trolling" because I warned him about this section like I'm supposed to, and he calls Lectoran's warning "menaces") Could someone ask him again, firmly, to put an end once and for all to this loud, disruptive behavior ? Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Yes, but..." is considered by Them as a personal attack. A modification in the article is considered by Them as new work or insufficient source. An explination is considered by Them as a personal attack althougt they've ordered me to explain on the page of talk this little modification . A little modification of article is immediatly erased by Them. Also, in the page of talk, they do everything to discredit my modicafications and my sources, and also myself. ...etc. If I don't flattens in front of them, Them accuse us to make personal attack and trolling [135]. If it doesn't work, they make a calomnious report for the politburo in order to eliminate that who dares to contradict. If we show them theirs attitudes towards others, they are unhappy and pretend to be a holy victime. I'm not the only member with whom they have this behavior. A behavior that is never punished, although some members (not me) have already reported to administrators ((often indulgents complicits of this communitarians attitudes (cf Alexandre Zinoviev)). C'est triste pour wikipédia, n'est-ce pas ? More ! I'm not a big contributor. Sebrider (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the above statement, Sebrider is looking for a block to justify his preconceived notions. And since he shows no sign of relenting in his personal attacks, I think we should oblige him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't look for anything. "That is opposed to the truth, this isn't another truth, but the error" (The master in the "The Yellow House" of AZ). I accept the sources and historicals facts given by Jean-Jacques Georges. But, I reject theirs immédiats conclusions coming from a filtering of sources. It's his great error. I condamn, when he eliminates and rejects others reals facts and universities sources which expand the framework of the object of study. Also, my sources intentionaly break the preconceived ideas and conclusions generated from the alone JJG's sources.

"New knowledge [of] the objects of investigation comes not through observation and experiment (as happens on the empirical level) but through logical judgments in the framework of a given or newly developed theory (i.e., special groups of concepts and statements united by rules of logic)" (Alexandre Zinoviev, in Foundations of the logical theory of scientific knowledge (Complex Logic), éd. Reidel Publishing Company, 1973, partie editorial introduction, p. VIII (part Logical and Physical implication, p.91 in Problems of the Logic of Scientific Knowledge (1964))

Sebrider (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you removed my warning about your personal attacks on your talk-page as being a "menace" (threat). So I'll leave another warning here: if there is another personal attack, someone will block you. Lectonar (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalism

66.87.69.15 has been vandalizing multiple articles, including repeated vandalism of the BLP on Stephenie Meyer. Less serious vandalism has occurred on some video game character articles and the article on SOPA.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. In the future, WP:AIV is the better place to report vandalism. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Inherited Notability in MMA

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

---

• Question I was also curious at what point can someeone step in and say that WP:MMANOT/tier is a failed proposal? Cuz people go to WP:NMMA and see the link to the different tiers and then take that as the gospel that says exactly which organizations pass notability to their employees and which don't. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It's not just people clinging to WP:NMMA such as this prime example, but with the ininformed and others who just can't be bothered to do a basic google test as is the case of Sue Rangall saying simply "Not notable" in regards to Antonio Mckee. I'm not sure what can be done about that tho.

but I would really like to see the line removed from WP:NMMA that speaks about the top tier fights, so people cant just say "no top tier fights, Next!"

Also: if you have time, Take a look at all the MMA afd's and see all of the lazy comments regarding fighters being deleted

• Question Why do boxers only have to have one fight on a primetime network to be notable? Yet when it can be found verified through multiple,reliable,quality independent sources thta a fighter has fought on primetime multiple times it isn't good enough ,and people will still say "fails WPNMMA". Thank you for reading. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question I was also wondering if WP:Kickboxing is an actual guideline or not? I ask because it speaks of K-1, and anyone fighting for it being conveyed notability. That is significant if it were true because it would qualify guys like the Antonio Mckee because he fought for K-1 under in their Heros event. The same is true for alot of other mma fighters. Thank you

• Comment I would like someone to explain to me the concept of inherited notability and why the fighters being AFD'd are being subject to the standards of an essay WP:MMATIER, by way of WP:NMMA's 3 top tier fight requirement. This seems to go against wikipedias concept of notability not rubbing off onto things, and I would like to see it removed if possible. I do apologize for the mess this appears to be. I keep having the same arguements over, and over, and over. I have grown weary of typing them. anyways. here is the original conversation I had about this

• • ME  ::Good evening. In regards to your response on inherited notability over at the wikimma project. If this goes against wikipedia then how to you account for WP:NMMA. That guideline supports the idea that fighters inherit notability when fighting in certain organizations. Then you have a link to that trash essay. Where the only important thing is " Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. ". Trust me. I disagree with the entire premise of a tier system. It just seems impossible to present enough refs at afds to keep notable fighters from being deleted. I can find 5-10 quality refs and its not good enough. Yet a nightmare before christmas gameboy game has a wikipedia page. I am just trying to play on their level. If it goes against wikipedia why do you allow it to continue to fester?

Tre are also editors citing WP:NMMA as a reason to delete an article. Yet they admit that it passes WP:GNG. It is very frustrating. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) he

• • ADMIN :On the first point, what NMMA does is provide criteria (not classification) where by meeting that criteria, sources are likely to exist or will exist to make an encyclopedic article and thus we presume notability. Given the two points there revolve around championships and winning them, this is a completely reasonable assumption - winning a major MMA tourney is certainly something that will be reported on and give depth to the fighter. But just participating is not sufficient, as what the proposed tier system does. You can't guaranty sources about the fighter himself just because you can report the results of matches they've been in.

As for the second point, it should be the case that meeting NMMA should be an alternate way of showing notability than the GNG, and it is not required to show that the GNG is met (this is iterated early on at WP:N). It would be helpful to see what AFDs where this argument was made. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, for now this is the only one I can find. The person did change their delete vote to a keep after the fact. But the fact that I actually had to reason with them is troubling. Nearly every mma afd is a result of the conimator claiming they fail WP:NMMA when they clearly pass. Please see Antonio Mckeees second afd for an example. I will try to find the other AFD where i saw the person claim NMMA over GNG, but I have been to ALOT of mma afds over the weekend. I've been hustling to save these guys against people indescriminantly trying to delete them. I can bring out a wheelbarrow full of quality refs and people will still say Fails WP:NMMA. For example. look at the plethora of WP:SOURCES at MIke Ricci's afd. His afd being closed as a no consensus is a slap in the face of common sense and especially WP:SOURCES.

• • ME ::I do get the thing about being presumed notable if you are the champ. But then you have people saying? "oh well, he(papy Abedi) fought in Shooto Finland so he passes WP:NMMA because Shooto is considered "top tier". Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Papi, and I do think it was a miracle he was kept based on the currrent situation, and this example is a prime example of what is wrong with MMA on wikipedia. Thanks for listening to my rant. Oh, If you would like a tad more insight into what these mma guys are having to deal with at AFD's please read my gripe on MBisanz' wikitalk

Not buying into this discussion except to say PortlandOregon97217 can you please learn to use indentation correctly, your posts here are a mess and it is very difficult to work out which parts are you writing. If you write more than one paragraph in a post you need to indent each paragraph the same, otherwise it looks like different people posting and it becomes very confusiong. Oh, and please always sign your posts. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indentation fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Someone undid it, and made the entire beginning of this thread completely incomprehensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Request to close - Can somebody explain why this conversation is on this notice board? This does not seem to be the venue for this topic. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question - I would be happy to post it to the appropriate place. Thank you for being helpful. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opinion It seems like he posted this here because of an issue with a couple editors in the project. They are pushing their agenda, and absolutely refuse to compromise, work together as a team, or accept facts presented to them. We have another conversation on this page because of the same editors. There just doesn't seem to be anything that we can do. If we present facts that don't support their argument, they start linking guidelines that don't apply or threaten to get us banned or blocked. They appear to be watching/monitoring our contribution pages and go behind and delete work that they don't agree with. If we try to undelete it, they create an editing war. At this point, it really is going to take an admin to come in and put a stop to these couple accounts (I am using the term accounts on purpose because there are a couple accounts that are doing the same exact thing, acting the same way, and support the other accounts even when something is clearly wrong. And the rest of the project has no idea what to think about these coincidences/colaborations).Willdawg111 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Canvassing and forum-shopping by Insomesia

It is the opinion of multiple editors that Insomesia has inappropriately forum-shopped RSN here with respect to the Lynette Nusbacher article. They have also canvassed the LGBT project opining that At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK. Considering the target audience, the language is anything but netural. Fortunately no one there has yet to appear to be swayed by raw meat.

I've asked Insomesia to refactor or remove their request on the LGBT project but apparently they see nothing wrong with their request.

This is not an isolated incident. On a different article Insomesia also forum-shopped RSN about a week ago

I'm requesting that someone (preferably) an admin review the edits in question and please explain to Insomesia the do's and don'ts of forum-shopping and canvassing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think my alerting an appropriate Wikiproject about a discussion that impacts them is fine and I see my explanation as neutral enough to not run afoul of canvassing. LGR has also lodged a sockpuppet investigation after me and LGR and Belchfire have routinely tagged-teamed to warn me or take the more - shall we say conservative - side in content disputes. I have found that when dealing with this tag-team effect it is more productive in the long run to solicit other eyes on the situation. The Lynette Nusbacher article is a good example. I'll quote another editor who put it quite well - On motivations: I don't see any attempt by LGBT activists to use this article for promotion of their agenda (though perhaps I'm missing it). What I'm seeing is some people who make no secret of their conservative leanings arguing for inclusion (there are others arguing for inclusion who don't fit that description). At least one of those persons quite clearly has something like the following in mind: the subject did something really weird (something that violates the natural order of things) -- and having done that we have to rub her nose in it by making sure that it appears on her biography even though (or: especially because) she has made it clear she wants to keep it private. It's really quite disgusting. As usual I would love more eyes on the article and it's AfD, and for that I thank LGR for this opportunity to invite scrutiny on a BLP. Insomesia (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, without taking a position in the content or source dispute (nor will I), I don't see either forumshopping nor canvasing. Insomesia had a concern about the reliability of a source and laid out a logical argument for his position. On the project page, his notification was neutrally worded, and was appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Posting claims of outing to a board where people would have considerable sympathies to outing is textbook canvassing. Posting claims of anti-semtism to a Jewish interest group would be similar. If you think that phrasing is neutral, then good day to you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. The subject of the article, from what I understand, objects to the information. Outing, in that context, is an appropriately neutral term. GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, they are attacking one of our heros. We are under siege!!!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have as much problem with the LGBT project as I do with the conservatism project: both tend tend to try to own articles, though at the moment we seem to having a lot more issues with the latter project than the former. Be that as it may, the Nusbacher article presents a very complex set of issues involving sourcing, undue emphasis, and BLP concerns. I happen to follow most of the relevant noticeboards, and I see the issue popping up in the various places. On the one hand, I agree that, in principle, discussion should have been centralized. In practice this has been something of a problem in that the usual suspects in these controversies crank out so much talk that discussion tends to be unfollowable. But that this should have been limited to a single noticeboard, or not brought there at all: that's a tactic of trying to manage the discussion so as to reduce the level of pushback. I've run up against the conservatism cabal on several subjects now, and while I suppose I should have a certain perverse admiration for their attempts to dominate a huge list of subjects, in practice it's extremely obvious that they're trying to bias the content here by suppressing content that's adverse to conservative figures and playing up negative content about conservative opponents. I don't know why, but for whatever reason there seems to be campaign now to embarrass the subject of the contested article, which is reason enough for the current deletion discussion to succeed in eliminating the article. And the conservatism project regulars are the banner bearers for the campaign. In any case this issue has had to be looked at from many angles, and I don't see any problem with presenting it to multiple noticeboards. Mangoe (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This smells of something... I would say it but I don't know if it would be uncivil. Anyway, the article needs to be deleted and everything you accuse that user is untrue in my opinion --Hinata talk 23:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For delicate situations, you could send an e-mail to your most trusted admin rather than saying it "out loud". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving ' to

A new user is changing one type of apostrophe to another in multiple article titles here. Can someone check to see if they are using the proper ones?

I've asked him to come here to discuss this. I sincerely hope that I don't have to create WP:Tiny vertical fleck to go with WP:Short horizontal line. I can only see the difference by looking at the HTML page source.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to insist that ` (the grave accent) be included in any essay discussing tiny vertical flecks. Salvidrim! ✉ 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I used the search box using the apostrophe on a normal English-language (American) keyboard, and I was properly redirected to the new article names, so there's no particular problem with the moves in that respect, but the editor really shouldn't be changing to a non-standard apostrophe from the "normal" one. If nothing else, it's a waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I initially notified the editor in question about the Manual of Style and naming convention, but they continued to move pages to the same respective locations. They do seem to be contributing in good faith, though, but this concern will need to be addressed. A number of articles were moved at the time. It will probably be best to collaborate and explain the Manual of Style to them. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At least some of the moves and edits have involved replacing straight quotes (looks like ') or curly quotes (looks like ‘’ ) with primes (looks like ′ - you will not find it on your keyboard). A lot of his edits and moves should be undone. The MOS advises straight quotes (" and '). Mr Stephen (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) PostScript the editor in question is TheGovernor3 (talk · contribs) Mr Stephen (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume the MOS advises " or ' (double or straight quote) because it's generally what users have on their standard keyboards; however, it might be important to consider if there are any technical specifications that would make another character to be preferred? Salvidrim! ✉ 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Straight quotes are accessible from any keyboard. There is no excuse for using anything other than straight or curly quotes; neither primes nor backticks are part of the English language. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has spoken with this user, I do think he is acting in good faith and possibly has realised that he's not quite up to speed enough to be dealing with this type of move. But in an effort to rectify the situation he's moved articles 'back' or at least he thinks he has, creating any number of double redirects in the process. If nothing else those need sorting out. NtheP (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohdasad2006 redux

I posted here about this guy a week ago, but (perhaps because of a lack of drama potential) the thread didn't attract much attention. Well, although the named account has been blocked, he continues to edit from dynamic IPs—106.78.61.219 (talk · contribs), 106.211.75.36 (talk · contribs), 106.204.189.217 (talk · contribs), 223.225.110.68 (talk · contribs), and almost certainly others that I haven't noticed. Is there nothing to be done except trying to find his edits and revert them? My watchlist is getting rather overburdened with places in Uttar Pradesh, and I certainly can't watch every such place. Our articles on Indian towns and villages are in sufficiently terrible shape, since they're mostly edited by people with a poor command both of English and of encyclopedic conventions, and the addition of deliberately incorrect information certainly isn't helping. Frankly, my interest in (and knowledge about) these places is of the slightest, and I'm tempted to just unwatch the articles and let the fellow go to it. It would be comforting, at least, to know that others are trying to monitor the situation, but I see little evidence of that. (I'm not notifying Mohdasad2006 [because he's blocked for a month] or the IPs [because he's doubtless moved on from them] of this thread.) Deor (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although I am not an admin, I would be happy to help watch articles in this general area; I suppose if the "process" continues, further reversions and short blocks are appropriate. I've worked with editors on similar topics in the past; factual information can be minimal in many occasions, and being watchful and willing to assist in revisions is really the best thing to do. dci | TALK 02:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of incompetence; it's deliberate vandalism by highly dynamic IPs (the 106... IPs are apparenlty from a mobile-phone provider), so "short blocks" are not likely to be effective. I recommended indeffing Mohdasad2006 last time I brought this up, but apparently his being a vandalism-only account willing to sock with IPs around his block isn't enough to impel admins to do even that. Deor (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

He's indefed, but there's no way to tackle the IPs. It's just too massive a range. If someone can build me a list of candidate articles, I can protect them for a month or so.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing

I am reporting GarnetAndBlack for continuous hostility and incivility, biased editing of pages regarding Clemson Tigers football and related pages due to his hatred for Clemson University, bad faith edits such as ["throwing the baby out with the bathwater"], and retaliatory editing when positive information about Clemson Tigers football is added to the page and related articles. I will provide evidence links upon request, but please be aware that much of this evidence has been deleted by GarnetAndBlack and will probably need an administrator to access it.

The pages in question: Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Clemson Tigers football, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl, Memorial Stadium

Incivility GarnetAndBlack, a South Carolina Gamecocks fan, has a repeated history of hostility and incivility towards anyone who is a fan of the rival school, the Clemson Tigers. Attempts to make good-faith edits that are factual and well-sourced are met with immediate deletion. GarnetAndBlack demands that a consensus be made on a Talk page before a change can be made, yet often times he and I are the only ones editing the pages. He then refuses to engage me in open discussion by either ignoring my polite requests for dialogue or by exhibiting hostility and/or threats. He will often delete discussion topics to hide this fact.

GarnetAndBlack often baits users into arguments and responds with personal attacks. Most recently, he called me a "tough guy" when I pointed out Wikipedia policies to him. He also questioned my reading comprehension when I made a change that was from a direct quote to the source. When editing Clemson Tigers pages to update information about Clemson losses, he often adds snide comments or trash talk in the comments section to goad Clemson fans into arguments (of which I ignore).

Attempts to reach out to GarnetAndBlack are futile. His editing practices show that he harbors an extreme hatred for all things Clemson, and looks down on any input or attempt to discuss articles from Clemson fans.

Gaming the System Per Wikipedia's policy on [the System], GarnetAndBlack often uses Wikipedia policies and guidelines as threats. He will commence in edit warring and excessive reverting over well-sourced and factual items, yet threaten users who try to revert the material back. In other words, he believes it acceptable for him to violate the policies yet threatens others he believes have done the same. He then demands a consensus be reached even though few (and most of the time, just us) people edit the articles. He even claims that factual information is POV even though he has made POV edits that contradict the very sources he links.

Please note that I have backed off these pages as recently as today to avoid edit-warring with him. This is even after my edits were well-sourced and did not reflect POV. It leaves me frustrated as an editor as I feel I cannot contribute to Wikipedia topics I am passionate about. Because GarnetAndBlack knows I will back down to prevent an edit war, he persists with his bullying tactics.

Only when a third party request has been brought in has GarnetAndBlack finally conceded, leading me to conclude that he simply opposes the edits because they are made by a Clemson fan. For example, on the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, GarnetAndBlack refused to allow the editing of irrelevant information about minority enrollment that he thought painted Clemson in a bad light. In a similar incident, he refused to allow the removal a highly-questionable and racist 1930s book that he cited as a credible source. Only after a fellow South Carolina Gamecocks fan agreed with me did he concede.

Ownership GarnetAndBlack has also staked ownership[[136]] of the articles in question, particularly the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article, per Wikipedia description. In fact, many of his demands are almost verbatim from the Wikipedia description of page "ownership" (all are direct GarnetAndBlack quotes):

"... no attempts at revisionist history or deletion of well-sourced and verifiable material will be tolerated at this article..."

" A previous editor clearly spent a good deal of time adding this material, and providing proper references, and this work will be preserved. Attempts to remove this material without consensus will be reverted as vandalism."

"The statistic is relevant, verifiable and sourced, and it will be restored." (After third party intervention, he admitted this wasn't true)

"Continued POV sanitization of this article by fans will not be tolerated..." (following a revert)

"...take it to Talk if you want to try to seek new consensus." (following a revert)

"Now take it to talk and seek PROPER consensus." (following a revert)

"Again, you seem to be operating under the belief that your opinions carry weight at Wikipedia. They do not."

"If you're going to edit an article, make sure you have the first clue about the subject material."

Of course, he knows no consensus will be reached because no one joins in the discussion and he avoids it.

Bad faith biased edits As a Clemson Tigers fan, I do not feel I am the best person to edit South Carolina Gamecocks pages due to my own bias. Therefore, I try to refrain. However, GarnetAndBlack watches Clemson pages like a hawk and works hard to maintain or add negative information about Clemson even when the facts are questionable or irrelevant (such as the minority enrollment). Aside for his disparaging and insulting comments about Clemson, he often over-states Clemson's negative information, such as continuous harping on Clemson's 70-33 loss in the Orange Bowl in 2012. However, if similar information were to be added about South Carolina, he would remove it and demand a consensus.

His hateful opinions alone make me question whether or not he should be editing pages regarding Clemson Tigers football.

GarnetAndBlack often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" per Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Rather than make easy corrections or changes, GarnetAndBlack will delete entire text based on technicalities if the text paints Clemson in a positive light. For example, a few days ago, he deleted accolades about Clemson coach Dabo Swinney's college career because one source was missing. He then deleted an entire paragraph about Swinney winning the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award in 2011 because he claimed the brief description of the award was "practically" lifted word-for-word from the award's website (it was not and falls under fair use anyway).

Retaliatory editing GarnetAndBlack follows me around Wikipedia religiously. When I attempt to make changes to Clemson articles to post factual, sourced positive information, one of two things will happen: He will either remove it and make demands/threats as previously stated, or he will make a new change to the article that either removes other positive info on technicalities or adds negative information. This will come after months of inactivity from GarnetAndBlack only to emerge after I make a change. If he can't find cause to remove my well-sourced facts, he'll try to one-up me with a negative counter edit.

Past history When I came to Wikipedia a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I immediately butted heads. I admit that my actions were not wise and I paid the price for it per Wikipedia's rules. You can see this on my Talk page. Being new to Wikipedia, I jumped in without realizing what I was doing. However, instead of trying to guide me and help me along as a new user, GarnetAndBlack immediately went on the attack when he realized I was a Clemson fan and put his bad faith practices to use. Since realizing the error of my ways a year ago, I've tried to be proactive and work with him through compromise and discussion. These efforts are futile, and I cannot reach a consensus for edits because GarnetAndBlack has chased other editors away.

Conclusion I want to contribute to Wikipedia to articles I'm passionate about and knowledgeable about. I try to make sure my additions are well-sourced. I'm open to compromise as my history shows, which is as recent as yesterday on Carolina-Clemson rivalry talk. However, I feel I am being met head-on by someone who hates my alma mater and despises me for being a part of it, therefore he refuses to work with me in the spirit of Wikipedia. I don't despise GarnetAndBlack's school. In fact, I do work for them that helps bring students to the University of South Carolina.

I don't believe GarnetAndBlack can see the error of his ways, and I conclude that he should no longer be permitted to contribute to the aforementioned pages or other pages relating to Clemson University. However, I am hoping he would be willing to agree to some serious reconciliation and change in attitude towards how he works with others. His pattern of behavior leads me to believe this isn't possible as his hatred for Clemson is too deep-seated.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A small sampling evidence of hatred and bias against Clemson. Notice twice he calls us a "redneck" fanbase:

1. " Also, it's absolutely precious how you Clemson people have come out of your shells (and hiding) after one little bowl victory. Almost as funny as when I see Tiger fans around town these days and give them a friendly wave...with four fingers, of course. :)" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) User_talk:LesPhilky#WP:DRRC

2. "Oh, and thanks for showing the world how low your redneck fanbase is by making light of a teenage kid's injury. You stay classy, Clemson." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

3. "Fear the thumb." (This references to the possibility of SC beating Clemson five years in a row) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

4. 09:20, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . 2012 South Carolina Gamecocks football team ‎ (→‎Clemson: FOUR IN A ROW)

09:19, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-61)‎ . . 2012 Clemson Tigers football team ‎ (The streak is over...FOUR IN A ROW) Two cases of trash talk towards Clemson fans while updating an article.

5. "Never thought I'd see the day where a Clemson fan pretends to be a Bama fan, but after 3 straight ass-whippings by your rival and the worst loss in a century of bowl game history, can't say I blame you rednecks for trying to hide behind schools that actually have the football tradition that you pretenders only wish you had. Wait a sec...is that you Dabo? LOL" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

6. 03:54, 11 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . . User talk:LesPhilky ‎ (Sammy Potkins LOL) Derogatory reference to Sammy Watkins, a Clemson player arrested for simple marijuana possession.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, after posting a notice to GarnetAndBlack's talk page about this notification, this was his reaction:

(diff | hist) . . User talk:GarnetAndBlack‎; 03:26 . . (-535)‎ . . ‎GarnetAndBlack (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 532099323 by LesPhilky (talk) Sorry, not participating in an absolute joke perpetrated by a hypocrite guilty of exactly the same conduct he is reporting me for)--LesPhilky (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is not a very well-formed report. It would be helpful if you included properly formatted diffs; it is very difficult for me to assess what's going on. Second, given the length of this report (which is a bit excessive) and the length of time during which the incidents took place, I'm wondering if this is the best place for it: this is not, I think, a single incident or set of incidents, and that's what this board is for. But I tell you what: I'll have a look at the editor's comments, and I'll have to look at your own as well. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referred to this page by another admin. I was not aware there was a length requirement. I was trying to give as much information as possible to assist you in this matter. There are similar complaints filed and addressed on this board in this manner.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, this is not OK. First of all, that particular heading takes two "==" signs. Second, your counterpart had removed it--you have no valid excuse for reinserting it; a user can do that on their own user page. Third, I am a bit surprised by the tone you adopted in that message: it is really not acceptable. You are speaking in a very patronizing manner, and I'm not surprised that your opponents gets a little pissy with you. Now, I forgot which one of you was the Clemson fan and which one was the South Carolina fan, and I guess it doesn't matter; let it just be known that I roll with the Tide and I'm feeling pretty good about it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried every method I could to interact with GarnetAndBlack, and I was reaching out here in an attempt to point out certain policies with hopes he would adhere to them. I made no threats, and I'm not sure how you can assume the inflection of my tone from my writing. I also did not know not to reinsert the text; once he informed me of this, I ceased the practice. I'm also sorry about the heading, but is that really an important matter in the grand scheme of this issue?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, all you need to know about the user who filed this absurd report can be found on his own Talk page in the following comment[137] made after he was blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation, "You and the admins may have the opinion that you taught me a lesson, but I learn my own lessons. This block didn't teach me anything." Speaks volumes, I think. Congrats to Bama for a great game last night and yet another championship for the SEC. Hope to see y'all in Atlanta next December. Go Cocks and Roll Tide. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I take responsibility for my errors a year ago and have taken steps to be proactive and edit in good faith. GarnetAndBlack has not changed any of his behavior. And since he's dredging up history from over a year ago, I'd like to cite for the record that he called my wife a "sheep". Is there a policy on this, Drmies?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that was fun. What I should do is warn you both for edit-warring and block the next one who starts fighting over little bitty things like who hit a piece of rock with a hammer, or whether a coach expressed disappointment or not. It's almost too stupid for words--almost, but not quite, because in those two cases it seems to me that Garnet is correct. (And I'm trying not to be an editor here as well, but Garnet is, i think, correct in this one as well. It is clear that you two can't get along, but unless one of you backs off or gets blocked you'll just have to. On the talk page. If needs be with RfCs on these individual questions. You know what's so silly about this? You two are fighting like two Auburn fans over a dirty sock possibly left by Cam Newton in a dorm room, and you're missing totally obvious stuff like a stupid Facebook link in the first sentence and a bunch of bare URLs in the article. Figure it out on the talk page--if you can't, perhaps both of you will have to be made to stop working on this article. Oh, one more thing: if people talk football smack, they will be smacked back. It's a law of nature. I see nothing too objectionable in the various remarks, and will hope that someone else can bear to look over this thread and close it. Beware, Les, of the WP:BOOMERANG.

  Garnet, thanks for your kind words and invitation; it's not likely to get that far, though we'd love to show Spurrier one more time who the real SEC powerhouse is, hehe. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understood the point of my complaint. I'm not debating content of articles. I'm documenting a repeated pattern of hostility, incivility, biased editing fueled by hatred, and violation of Wikipedia policies. You've summarily dismissed all of these and focused on matters I'm not addressing. And as I mentioned above, I agreed with GarnetAndBlack on the coaches dispute.

Again, I've stated that I've tried to discuss these matters on the various talk pages and I'm either ignored or threatened (or he just deletes it). The only time he has conceded (and finally admitted that he was pushing irrelevant and damaging information) was when a third party came in to point it out to him. Do you believe GarnetAndBlack is editing Clemson-related pages in WG:AGF? Or maybe a better question would be how would you react if an Auburn fan were acting the same way in regards to Alabama pages?

Finally, is there a chance an admin who is unaffiliated with an SEC team or college football at all can also consider this issue? No offense meant, Drmies, but I have found the SEC fans tend to stick together a bit in conflicts. You'll have to excuse my doubt that you "forgot which one of us was a Clemson fan and which was a South Carolina fan" when the complaint not only clearly lays this out, but his name is "GarnetAndBlack".--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for LesPhilky and GarnetAndBlack from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry

This is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of childish bickering from the both of you is way out of the realm of productive editing. There is plenty more. This isn't new though, here is more of the same from months ago: [138] [139]. Blocks would accomplish nothing here. This is not to mention the several edit wars that you have both been involved in. It is obvious that you cannot conduct yourself within what is expected of Wikipedia editors when editing about this topic. Therefore, I propose that both editors be topic banned from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. At that point we can reevaluate this measure. If there is not support for this, then (barring consensus to the contrary) I intend to block both users for a period of 1 week, to be followed by an indefinite block if that proves ineffective. Prodego ^talk 07:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is what you deem the best course of action after reviewing my post, then I will accept it like an adult and not dispute it.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, months long content disputes. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think just indefing them would be most productive but, sure, maybe a topic ban could solve this --Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Throw in a full-bore interaction ban, clarify if "broadly construed" also means articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and I'll be quite happy to stop this puerile pissing contest like this. Shame on both editors for this display - so much for higher education (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

POINTy and disruptive editing, and harrassment by Cptnono

• Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cptnono is a regular editor at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) related articles. He has made it clear that he opposes SSCS but claims to remain neutral,[140] however, this is not always evident in his edits.[141] (Unfortunately that page was deleted some time ago, but I assume admins should still be able to get to it) Lately, this has become more and more the case and he is now resorting to WP:POINTy and disruptive editing, as well as outright harrassment. He opposes the use of primary sources if they are sourced from SSCS,[142][143] and will use the flimsiest of excuses to remove them, and associated content. (Despte his claims, there is no consensus that SSCS is not reliable, and he doesn't present proof that "they have told reporters and written in books that they do not necessarily intent to be honest".) Most recently, this has affected editing at Paul Watson where he removed an entire section inappropriately.[144] His excuse was that "editors are reverting over material", but that was misleading. An IP made an inappropriate change that was not picked up for a month and when it was, the editor who reverted the change went a bit overboard in what he reverted so another editor reverted him. That was Cptnono's cue to remove the entire section. However, much of what he removed was cited by secondary sources and removal was unjustifiable. Eventually, he grudgingly conceded that the content could return but insisted on content being sourced from SSCS being attributed to it.[145] This was a redundant demand, as the content sourced from SSCS include citations attributed to SSCS, and therefore the content was already attributed. Still, he insisted on this edit. A fuller description of the previous information (with even more diffs) is available here.

Fast forward to this discussion which was about use of the word "Captain", referring to a statement in the article that "Watson uses the title "captain" although, as of November 2007, he had never been licensed as a ship's captain." Cptono is well aware that there is no reference to "Captain Watson" in the article (he would never have allowed it!), and this edit is transparent as an excuse to issue a warning not to use evil primary sources. (In fact the claim is cited to a secondary source so primary sources are completely irrelevant) Immediately after that he added {{BLP sources}} to the article.[146] Paul Watson only has 3kB of readable prose, and yet it has 100 references, an average of 1 reference for every 31 words, which seems more than sufficient referencing. Of those, I counted 11 primary sources, all used in accordance with WP:PSTS so I removed the tag with an appropriate edit summary,[147] before explaining to Cptnono exactly why I didn't feel it was appropriate.[148] Today, he replied, acknowledging that he "was a little lazy and should have tagged the section or individual refs", but he followed that up with "stop being a jerkoff and fuck off my talk page".[149] The remainder of the post included a veiled threat, "I will show you pointy if you want but I prefer to give you a lesson in policy and guidelines instead". He then restored the tag to the article, instead of addressing the claims with which he had issues,[150] and then slapped an inappropriate warning on my talk page,[151] including with that a smart-arse "templating the regulars sucks" comment. After I reverted that, because it was clearly bad-faith, he added another.[152] He then blanked his talk page with the ominous message "coming for you" as an edit summary.[153] Then he added four more warnings to my talk page, each time I reverted the last,[154][155][156][157] The last two were bogus warnings about me using twinkle to revert his inappropriate warnings on my talk page and were added after I had posted to his talk page asking him to please stop his harrassment.[158] Given the events of today, I don't have any confidence in his claim that he's "OK with us finding resolution to the article content" especially since in the same breath he again accused me of misusing twinkle and called me a dick.[159] This is not a nice person. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuous removal of links, categories

The below listed users continuously remove links and categories from specific articles, which looks like to be their own POV and might fall under WP:ARBEE. At first, I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs).

As immediately pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a bit rushed and eventually it ended up in a mass category deletion as these were found improper (pretty much went to overcategorization).

I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013 (being the lone one to do so), which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles, however, just after a short while these were also removed. I would like to ask your attention to stop the removal of the info and to find a solution finally. Thank you, Thehoboclown (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nado158 (talk · contribs)
• Account2013 (talk · contribs)
• 79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)