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

Ongoing incivility by User:7mike5000

• Mike was indefinitely blocked Aug 2010 for "threatening off wiki action" by User:SarekOfVulcan. He was subsequently unblocked in Feb of 2011 after agreeing that he would be civil and that a block would be reapplied if he was unable to achieve this.[1]

• On Sept 6th [2] and Sept 17th of 2012 [3] he received further complaints of incivility.

• His replies are here [4] and here [5] and are not hopeful.

• As I was uninvolved in both these resent re-occurrences I have reapplied the block. Wondering if others have comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many other example of less than pleasant comments including: [6] and [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Does he do anything useful? If not, indef. Otherwise ANI/warn, ANI/warn, block/unblock, block/unblock, RtFU, ArmCom, ANI/warn, block/unblock, ANI/warn, ArbCom, ANI/warn, ANI/warn, maybe he retires. It looks like he has fans. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after looking and reading some of his talk page, I have no desire to see if he does anything "useful" and don't much care. Fully support the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Mike can be a bit rough around the edges if approached the wrong way or to the uninformed (who may just have distaste for his crude but often hilarious wit). However, this user has shown great improvements since the initial block and has worked closely with his mentor to become a very productive contributor. Over a year and a half after the initial block was lifted, it is time to relax these trigger-finger sanctions. That being said, Mike, you really gotta pick and choose who you use that awesome charm of yours with, because some people are unable to cope with the artistic choice of words. Keep it to your user/talk page and out of the drama-prone discussions - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You must be joking, surely. By what stretch of the imagination can the words 'hilarious wit', 'awesome charm' or 'artistic choice of words' be applied to sentences like 'please be a fat scumbag somewhere else' or 'oh yeah, and your a dick'? Support this block, Mike should know better, considering this comment. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I am not joking and I stand by what I said. The occasional lapses in temper are far outweighed by the contributions this user makes. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Really? How have you measured the effects of his "lapses in temper" on the innocent users who are the targets of it, or would-be editors who are scared off by it? If an otherwise productive editor stops contributing for a week because they're hurt or angered by the insults, how much does that offset User:7mike5000's contributions? If three editors with useful information to contribute refrain from posting it in an AfD for fear of being the next target of his attacks, what weight do you assign that? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Can you provide any evidence of even one user being scared off by Mike? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
          • No, and neither can you, so without any evidence one way or another you can't say that his contributions "outweigh" the effects of the "lapses in temper". —Psychonaut (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The people driven away wouldn't necessarily stop to leave a note. Considering that many report that editing on wikipedia can be harsh, it would not be unexpected if some new editors were driven away or oversaw what occurred. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm torn, but reserving judgement. He is obviously being confrontational and unnecessarily rude, but I'm not a fan of civility blocks. The fat scumbag comment is a bit out of context, and refers to Psychonaut's user page reference, which points to [8]. Still incivil, but context does matter. That said, we will see if Mike takes a more conciliatory tone in an unblock request. Indef doesn't mean forever, although I think a fixed term block would be a better solution. This doesn't mean I have great hope long term, but I can't help but to prefer the liberal use of rope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Have emailed his mentor to see if he is willing to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's me. Bugger. I got an email from James yesterday but have just now had a chance to look at this. Mike has been uncivil and a block is certainly justified. He does a lot of very good work but does have trouble curbing his sometimes quite acerbic tongue. I'll have a think and say more when I've had some sleep. James, I'd have preferred you to have left the blocking to another admin, given your shared history, but do understand your frustration. I'll get back. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In Doc's defense, he did bring it here for review and contacted the mentor, which is the proper response (or WP:AN) if there is any potential concern regarding involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block I can see why the block was made; Mike reacts to any sort of challenge aggressively and is quick to shoot people down with uncivil language. Mike states that he doesn't want to have to walk on egg shells but yet expects other people to walk on egg shells around him to avoid his hostility. I think underneath all of this, Mike has a good side in that what drives his editing by his own words is to 'help' other people by providing useful content for our readers. It would be a shame to lose a valuable contributer such as Mike but if we do it will be his own fault. I think that before the block is removed that Mike has to agree to treat others as he would like to be treated himself and try harder with how he reacts to other users with regard to civility.--MrADHD | T@1k? 08:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• When someone points out that an image that one uploads infringes on copyright as was done here Sept 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:7mike5000#File:West_nile_virus_rash.jpg_listed_for_deletion and you reply that they are a "dexter" we have a problem. Copyright infringement is a huge issue.
• Less than civil responses go back a long time. Here on July 4th he replies to concerns with "Acting like you run the show, and leaving annoying messages for people who actually make useful positive contributions as opposed to writing about kiddie's video games is also extremely bad form, as is dictating in the manner you have. Alleging somebody engaged in "vandalism" is also (drum roll goes here) extremely bad form. Ta Da" [9]
• Another July 2nd "Hello, maybe you should make a wee bit of effort in finding information on a subject instead of coming off like a know-it-all." [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Totally uncontroverial block. Shame on anyone who would consider ignoring such flagrant long-term hositility on grounds of productivity: we have masses of editors who edit productively who can behave civilly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block Reading the user's talk page, I don't quite understand...one second he's a terrific contributor, the next second he's confrontational because someone reverted something he did or even, it seems, attempted to build upon something he did. He is extremely incivil as noted by all of the links posted above on this thread, and thus, I would support a short-term block (maybe a week). DB is right, I think, that it should be fixed, rather than indefinite. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I have blocked Mike's talk page access because of personal attacks. Putting aside that he's creating a mini-ANI on his own talk page, in the midst of his long diatribe is this sentence: "Heilmann is a liar, a plagiarist and grossly incompetent in writing medical content which he refers to as medicine content." Bear in mind that this was a cumulative civility block in the first instance. If another admin disagrees with my action, they can undo it without consulting with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  That should be effective in making this discussion a little more one sided. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  When you're already blocked for incivility, calling another editor an incompetent lying plagiarist loses you your talk page access. Every time. I'm hoping Mike will email me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block: Sorry, I'm sick and tired of the premise that as long as some fans can claim that you're a productive editor, you get a free ride for incivility you'd likely never dare to use were you not safely ensconced behind a computer screen. Either we have civility and NPA rules or we do not. One would think that already being under fire and having been sanctioned for incivility, Mike would have figured he had best keep a civil tongue in his head. From the fellow who has openly admitted, however, that people who contribute a certain amount of edits should thereby win the right to be uncivil [11], I'm not exactly surprised. Ravenswing 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This was way over the WP:NPA line. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also flat out wrong. E.g., I looked up the tuberculosis thing, and the article he says it was “copied” from actually sourced it from Wikipedia (it even says so at the bottom); it was just moved into a separate Wikipedia article on 2011-12-29. In fact, this is when it was first added. He's obviously just fishing. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  03:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the Parkinson's quote, there's no question it couldn't have been copied from braincav.edu, because that domain was registered on 2008-09-16, and the quote in substantially the same form appeared on the Wikipedia page on 2008-08-22; the first version of that line appearing all the way back on 2002-04-28! In fact, that whole page on braincav.edu seems to have been a very light retouch of the Wikipedia page. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  12:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have officially wasted enough time following up on someone's daydream. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  12:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Always open to analysis of the content I work on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I only looked into it because there was an allegation of copyright violation. I think it's clear someone was making **it up. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose indefinite block, a week seems fine. And strongly oppose revoking user talk page access. Blocked editors are allowed to vent. If you've ever been blocked, you know it can be extremely frustrating. If you haven't, you're probably an administrator (or shooting to be one). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If there was any indication that this sort of behavior would not continue I would consider this. Mike is in contact with Anthony and Anthony can let us know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Indefinite isn't permanent, unblock when there is some confidence that he can be civil. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Perfectly sound admin judgment. Anyone who claims 'good work' is a get-out-of-jail-free card is erring on the wrong side of AGF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-determination

It is clear that discussions about the Falkland Islands at Talk:Self-determination are spiralling out of control, despite the attempts of various parties to intervene. (See WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:DRN#Self-determination.) Heated discussion about sources and continued edit-warring are ongoing and I have now had to warn one of the editors involved for posting an uncivil message. For the record their reply is here. I fear this is heading for Arbitration unless things cool down and am requesting more eyes on this page. Ben MacDui 12:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the edit-warring and signs of tendentiousness in the edits, I would suggest a block against at least Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), who I believe has been the most stubborn and the most overtly tendentious of the lot; not quite sure yet about those on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree as a careful analysis of all of Gaba's contributions for the entire year seemed to be directed overwhelmingly at Wee's edits in the Falkland articles with Gaba being the aggressor in this case. Please see: [[12]]Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note the past conflict I've had with FPaS and from my knowledge this is the second occasion has proposed sanctions against me. My edits are sourced to reliable sources, giving due weight and the others aren't. I have addressed problems in the article, I've followed WP:DR steps and I've remained civil. I have very little faith in WP:ANI as too often I see posts like the above looking to settle old scores. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to Gaba p's edits is labelled by him as WP:OR and WP:SYN, as far as he's concerned that is sufficient for any discussion. In this case, insisting on using a source that made a demonstrably false claim. [13]

I point out that his edit is misleading, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [14]

I point out an edit is contrary to WP:WEIGHT, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [15]

I raised the matter in talk [16], I started the DRN [17], I started the RSN discussion [18]. On every occasion I have given a reasoned response to proposals, if Gaba p disagrees - its [[WP:OR], its WP:SYN, its a lie [19], its wikilawyering but he never actually discusses with an aim to reaching agreement. His approach is confrontational and antagonistic to anyone who disagrees [20],[21]. He has previously been warned about WP:CIVIL [22] and that he faced a block if he continued. Whilst its just been warnings from several admins but no action he has simply got bolder. User:Langus-TxT who in a RFC at Falkland Islands was warned for POV editing has previously backed up Gaba p in a WP:TAG team to try and force POV changes into articles. User:Langus-TxT did exactly the same with the now indefinitely blocked editor User:Alex79818 who stalked me in real life forcing a change of user name. When User:Gaba p started editing both User:Nick-D and User:JamesBWatson considered there was sufficient reason to consider User:Gaba p yet another sock puppet of the prolific sock puppeteer User:Alex79818. He was only unblocked after providing ID identification and I privately disclosed Alex's real life ID to James (I knew it from the stalking). After being the object of abuse from Gaba and Alex I remain convinced they're one and the same - the edit patterns are identical. And the edit patterns have the hallmark of a sleeper account, registered in 2009 [23] but no edits between 2010 and 2012 [24] and restarting editing immediately after another obvious sock was blocked. WP:DUCK.

You would find it difficult to find a posting where I have been uncivil, despite repeated provocation and I really don't think any editor should have to put up with this level of abuse. He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is. He'll make a whole host of allegations to muddy the waters and avoid sanctions again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

First: I have no idea why Muginsx is attacking me so ferociously, he came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago to threaten me in my talk page while as far as I can remember we had never crossed paths.

Wee was told by two other editors in addition to me and Langus in the RS/N that he was in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN in his attempts at removing a properly sourced sentence from an article. The sources I used are the ones directly recommended by those two editors at RS/N.

Yesterday Wee reverted 3 times and edit agreed upon by 3 different editors[25] (Langus, Churn and Change and myself)

A source which we were advised not to use by editors in the same RS/N discussion had to be removed on 3 occasions because Wee kept introducing it back to the article with every rv he made.

I tried several times to come to an agreement with Wee but he is hell-bent on keeping a properly sourced sentence out of WP and there is no middle ground: no matter what sources I or other editors present, he will immediately embark in a crusade to discredit it ("it's an Argentinian source", "it's ambiguous in its claims", "its contradicted by other sources") all based on his own WP:OR.

Wee had me blocked earlier this year accused of being a sock puppet. To this day Wee keeps accusing me of being the same person as Axel after I revealed my true identity to a WP administrator who ended up lifting the life-ban that had been imposed to my account. What else can I possibly do?? I've created two scientific articles about a topic that was missing from WP (Thin disk and Thick disk) and have two more in the same area in the making[26] Nothing will convince him that me and Axel are not the same person and he will keep attacking me on that grounds.

Let me try to put this as simple as I can. This is the sentence Wee is determined to keep out of WP and which sparkled this whole mess:

"Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British."

The first source was advised to both of us to be used at the RS/N discussion (anybody can go and check this). The second source says verbatim: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833.". Wee contests this source saying that "The comment here is just moving the goalposts"[27]. The third one is an article by an author who was also recommended at the RS/N as a trusted source[28]

My addition of this statement backed by those sources to the article was reverted 3 times by Wee yesterday. He routinely behaves as if he WP:OWNED several articles and as if his was the last word on the matter: I don't agree so it doesn't get consensus.

He will accuse me and Langus of WP:TAG teaming because we both agree that the sentence should be present in WP as does a third editor (Churn and Change), who recommended that much at the RS/N.

Wee accuses me of "getting bolder" when it was him who breached the 3RR yesterday by constantly reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 different editors.

"He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is", this is just a petty and untrue accusation. Several articles are related through the Falklands issue and Wee edits in all of them. Please take a look at my history[29] where you will find that 99% of my exchanges with Wee have taken place solely at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. Aside from that one I have only collaborated in this one (Self-determination) and made two comments in the talk page of the Arana-Southern Treaty article long ago. That is all. Does this really count as me following Wee "all over wikipedia"?? Gaba p (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The opposite is true insofar as the "following all over Wikipedia" and Gaba's contributions provide the proof as I pointed out above. Gaba would like everyone to feel he is being persecuted when in fact he has been the persecutor and has has the help of User:Langus-TxT to help him at every opportunity - an editor that he knows full well also has a previous history with Wee and a careful review of his contributions [[30]] as well as his talk page remarks on the Falkland articles and his personal talk page and most recently here: [[31]] where he inserts himself into remarks that did not concern him, indicates a clear pattern as a tag-team participant with Gaba, at least to this veteran editor. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx I have no desire of anyone feeling that I'm being persecuted, it's you and Wee who are accusing me of persecuting him. As I said before, if one edits in almost any article related to the Falklands issue (as I have in only two of them) one is bound to come across Wee since he edits in virtually all of them (I restrain from saying literally because I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it would be hard for anyone to come up with an article in WP about the Falklands that Wee isn't involved in)

Also, I find it funny to say the least how you are currently accusing Langus of not being involved in this current episode[32] and yet here you are. You, who I have never crossed paths before as far as I can remember prior to your out-of-nowhere attack in my talk page[33] (please point me to where we have if I'm mistaken), are right now defending Wee in a matter you were not involved in, in any of its ramifications (ie: the Self-determination article which you didn't edit, RS/N, DR/N, Ben MacDui's talk page[34], etc...) I have no problem with you defending Wee but, wouldn't you say you're being a tad hypocritical? Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba doesn't collaborate, he accuses someone of WP:OR and WP:SYN constantly and does not enter a discussion to find consensus, this is his mechanism to ignore any occasion when someone raises a quite reasonable point in talk. He accuses editors of lying rather than entering a discussion to find consensus. I am not proposing to discuss content at WP:ANI, which is about user behaviour, but there was a good reason given for reverting him and his dismissal as WP:OR and WP:SYN is not a reasonable response. I did not break WP:3RR, I gave an informative summary why I was reverting you and I raised it at WP:RSN, which is the latest place chosen to move the discussion. Unfortunately an editor at RSN forgot WP:BEANS and has given User:Gaba p another idea for disruptive and tendentious editing.

I end up in the classic dilemna faced by many productive editors at wikipedia who cares about WP:NPOV, when faced by an editor who won't discuss an edit in talk, who insists on bulldozing material into an article pushing a nationalist agenda of asking myself whether I should revert or not. If you examine User:Gaba p and User:Langus-TxT's edits they're not about improving wikipedia, they're about forcing what they refer to as the Argentine POV into articles. They're just getting more sophisticated about how they go about it.

You won't find me being uncivil to either and the last time this came up at an RFC an editor commented that my edits were fair and meticulously sourced [35], whilst Langus reverted cited edits without any real rationale. I've been hounded for a year. Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two, I have to take every edit round the boards to get 3rd party input. Really its beyond a joke. I can almost predict what will happen here, there'll be a load of tendentious arguments obscuring the real issues, Langus and Gaba will make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against me and in the end nothing will happen. They'll continue doing makin life unpleasant here until I quit. Its exactly situations like this that is why wikipedia is losing productive content editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, it is you who doesn't care about consensus. As I have pointed out already you reverted 3 times and edit that was agreed upon by 3 editors because you didn't agree with it.

You keep accusing me of being tendentious while it is you who is trying to keep a thoroughly sourced sentence out of WP by any means necessary. How am I bulldozing an edit that was agreed upon by at least 3 editors Wee? I'd say that it's actually you who are bulldozing said sentence out of WP, based (as was told to you not only by Langus and I but by two other editors at RS/N[36]) in your WP:OR and WP:SYN.

"Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two", Wee you know very well the opposite is actually true. In fact, it's the whole reason we are here now: because you reverted 3 times an edit agreed by 3 editors.

I have no desire of Wee being blocked (and of course no desire of being blocked myself), I just need Wee to stop acting like he WP:OWNED those articles he is involved in and accept that every once in a while other editors can and will make contributions to them and, though he may not personally agree with such edits, that is not a valid reason to remove them. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you two now please stop continuing your fight on this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wee has just said above, this is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia. I can say as a careful observer on the article edit history and the article talk pages that Gaba has been the obstructionist in this case and it seems that sadly, he just will say anthing it seems to keep an argument going. It seems that Wikipedia is just a "game" for him. I do not say that lightly. His language and his edits, especially on the Self-determination article, but elsewhere also, seem to indicate that he is not at all interested in the furtherance or the quality of the article, but to just continue the reverts and not discuss substance. I wanted to edit on the article but could see what was happening. It discourages other editor when they see this. It is really too bad, but something needs to be done to convince Gaba that Wikipedia is not a video game- the prime directive to outmaneuver and frustrate ones' opponent. I have been here on Wikipedia for some time and if there is one thing I have learned early (as most editors do) it is to differentiate the well-intentioned editors from the others. If proof is needed then it is here and in the article pages I have mentioned. Mugginsx (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, your recent vicious attacks at me have me baffled. You are the first editor to accuse me of more wrong-doing that Wee (and that is an amazing feat) What can I say in my defense if you have already uncovered the truth? Clearly this is a game to me, that's why I've put in so many hours trying to improve an article with a sentence that keeps getting reverted by Wee. Surely that's why I fought tooth and nail for over a month to have my account back when I was wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet to the point that I gave away my right to anonymity[37]. Right? One would say that an editor that takes WP as a game would have just let that account die and made another one. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a kid who thinks WP is a video-game. Cheers man.

Fut.Perf. yes, understood. I will only write here again if my input is requested. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not been told I cannot edit here so I will answer as best I can. I wanted to contribute on that Falkslands related article. I took some time to research with the idea of inserting a constructive paragraph into Self-determination, which perhaps would also go into the sister article. What I saw there were two editors, both of whom have past beefs with editor Wee, tag-teaming him on purpose. How do I know this? Because I have been here a long time and because it is obvious to anyone who looks. I tried to approach you on this and you sent what I took to be a vicious email back to me. That matter has been resolved by an administrator and I will mention no further. The reverts of Wees work were discussed openly and honestly by one editor only, namely Wee. He presented argument with links which I looked up myself and found to be valid in my opinion. They were said to be false links or not good enough or one sided or pro-British or WP:OR anything that you and your team member could think of and the variety of your answers and the complete failure to have a civil conversation about the same edit showed to me that you were not sincere. I found those links with no trouble. Why couldn't you? No, there was something else going on there and perhaps it is really over this perceive injustice you mention, I do not know. You mention that Wee worked on many of the articles, so far as I know that is nothing wrong or new at Wikipedia and generally shows a real interest and knowledge in the subject. When working with other good faith editors, it usually makes for excellent articles. Anyway, when I said it looked like you were "Playing games" that is because that, to my mind, is exactly what was and still is happening, only now here on this board. I don't wish you ill will but I do not think you and your friend have been acting in good faith, as a matter of act, I know it. You seem like a very angry editor as does your friend and especially angry at Wee and as you just need to be prepared that other editors have other points of view on an article and if they are well-sourced, which this one was, and do not violate real wiki guidelines, then you have to let them in. Mugginsx (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was earlier suggested by Administrator User:Ben MacDui that some links be provided here which serve to prove the accusations made by Wee, myself, and another editor. Here are some that I found:

See [38], [39], [40]. [41], [42],[43], [44], [45]. All examples of the same tendentious editing by User:Gaba p. His constantly treats present historical events as just a British claim. Referring to the talk page Wee shows that sources of all nationalities confirm the same series of events, original eye witness accounts of all nationalities agree. He has never produced a source to back this up see WP:DRN#Self-determination, when asked his response is to accuse Wee of WP:OR and WP:SYN and not answer.

[46] An example of a typical response to attempting to engage Gaba in a reasonable discussion. In one response Gaba accuses Wee of using talk page discussions to maintain the status quo, editing because of a dislike of Argentina, claiming all Wee's sources are "pro-British", instead of looking at the sources Wee provides, he simply accuses Wee of deciding what is fact and what is a lie. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ignoring groundless accusations from an editor I've just have met, and to whom I am suspicious as he claims to know very well my activities in WP)

These edit wars stem from the inability (or unwillingness) of Wee Curry Monster to correctly interpret the advice of knowledgeable editors, together with his "not-give-an-inch" behavior and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude when he believes he's right (possibly always).

In this particular case, two times uninvolved editors have told WCM to attribute the statements and not incur in original research: this NPOVN thread three months ago, and this recent one at WP:RSN. But, as you can see from the comments in both threads, he just isn't prepared to accept he's wrong.

In the last three reverts by WCM to the article, you can see he's pushing in the source Key to an Enigma, by Oliveri López. If you took the time to read through the last NPOVN thread, you should know that Lopez was recommended to be avoided, but that instead Risman could and should[47][48][49] be used. Attitudes like these are the ones that cause an edit war.

Also note that WCM did broke the 3RR rule: [50][51][52][53]
And he nearly did so again yesterday: [54][55][56]

An example of WCM fighting till the end an edit backed by the majority can be found here (please note the reactions at subsection Enough when WCM accuses of TAG-TEAMING). This Thatcher issue led to a Mediation Cabal case which, despite the remarkable well-played role of the mediator, ended up in nothing. If you read the article now, the "Leaders" section of the infobox is missing.

Another example of his intransigence: an administrator tells him to be careful with accusations of vandalism, and he merely dismisses his advice.

Finally, I'd like to point out that insinuations of socket-puppetry in discussions like this are completely unacceptable. I've been victim of this harassment by WCM for a year or so, till he finally seemed to stop after a discussion at Wikiquette Assistance (do note how he ends up fighting the volunteer).
Or maybe it was just a coincidence, I don't really know given how he refused to acknowledge the opinions there. --Langus (t) 03:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - I point out sources are in agreement [57], [58] contentious argument but no reply and simply asserting its a British Claim. Repeat and you have entire talk page discussion. And as Mugginsx shows above the pair of them edit war their own WP:OR and WP:SYN into the article whilst accusing others of the same.

The "thoroughly sourced sentence" is sourced but the language in the source is ambiguous and its being used out of context. Its a classic example of abusing sources to make a point the original author didn't intend to make and they ignore the comment on p.300 in the same source that contradicts it. Relevant quotes are at WP:DRN as well as my attempt to discuss it before they chose to edit war it into the article.

His claim that I broke 3RR is untrue the first edit linked to above is a correction to an untrue statement introduced by Langus. I don't edit war, I tried to follow WP:BRD but that was frustrated by WP:TAG from these two to force a change into the article. I truly believe they were trying to get me to break 3RR to get me blocked.

As regards the NPOVN discussion, I still remain unconvinced. The source they wanted to use made a claim attributing a statement to another author. That author made a completely different statement in line with all of the other sources. WP:COMMON still seems to suggest that is sufficient cause for a discussion about its reliability - but you can't discuss with two editors who constantly accuse of WP:OR and WP:SYN rather than address a concern you raise.

The Medcab case he refers to as an example of my intransigence, I made a post in talk, waited for 2 weeks for a response, having not got one made a WP:BOLD edit, that was reverted out of hand, the editor then posted at WT:MILHIST canvassing other editors to follow him. It was I who started the Medcab and read it, I make comments about content the protagonist in that case makes a lot of allegations but no comment on content. How is it intransigent to follow WP:DR and remains WP:CIVIL?

I did disagree with User:Dennis Brown we had an extensive discussion on his talk page, we agree to disagree. However, given the conversation remained civil neither of us bear any grudge about it. Please ask him - and btw this is the second time Langus has tried to make more of our discussion than it was, we all disagree from time to time but a frank (but civil) exchange of views is healthy.

As regards the comments about sock puppets. Falklands articles have been plagued by a prolific sock puppeteer. The profile of many of these is an account registered between 2007 and 2009 that doesn't edit for years, then embarks on edit wars to insert the Argentine POV. Langus' editing and Gaba p's editing fit the same profile.

Like I said I expected a load of frivolous allegations to obscure the central issue, which is that Langus and Gaba will edit war to force what they describe as the Argentine POV into articles and what they refer to as the truth from the Argentine perspective into articles. They've followed me to multiple articles and have plagued my edits. Enough is enough. They can't accept that NPOV is about presenting the weight of opinion in the literature and the British and Argentine positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now become a mirror image of the edit summaries and talk pages of the articles mentioned here. Wee and I provide links and Gaba and Langus still refuse to discuss CONTENT. Now instead Gaba, is accusing me of having some "special knowledge of his activities", (who does he think I am, Jimbo Wales assistant?. ) Langus, (his relentless assistant), also with the underlying motive of revenge for WeeCurryMonster, have also continued to use and pervert the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia to obstruct and frustrate this discussion just as they both did on the Wikipedia article detailed here - using misrepresentations, Wikipedia:Tag team and innuendo. I repeat the obvious intention is to frustrate and pervert the well-intended process here and ultimately to make a fool of the all of the editors and administrators who volunteer their time trying to work toward an honest solution. The proof has been abundantly provided here. There are volumes more at the article(s) talk page.

Langus even had the audacity to interject snide comments on another page into a finished discussion that I had with an administrator over something that did not in anyway concern him! It was not until the administrator came back to comment, that he slithered away and has now finally come here to turn and twist the truth in the same way and manner he thinks he is so skilled at - under the apparent delusion that he is cleverer and smarter that everyone here, including the administrators! Langus, for your information it was Gaba who was the first one to bring up the sockpuppetry accusations not anyone else. Just another intentional misrepresentation. Langus, instead of being clever here, your are sadly acting like the most common form of a Wikipedia troublemarker. Unfortunately, we have more then our share of those and do not need anymore. This is turning into one of the worst examples of editors’ misconduct I have ever personally seen on Wikipedia and to allow them to get away with it is to laugh in the face of every well-intentioned volunteer and administrator here and at Wikipedia as a whole. The proof is abundantly clear and I think it is time to shut this sham of a discussion down and sanction these two editors Gaba and Langus to send a message that Wikipedia editors and administrators are tired of Wikipedia:Tag teameditors who waste everyone's time and make serious and productive editors want to give up and leave Wikipedia. In my opinion, further discussion is pointless but a sanction on these two editors made just work and avoid further escalation and further waste of everyone's time. In my experience, it is the only things that does work.

• I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [[59]] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [[60]] even after they were verified at [[61]] and not acting in good faith. This will hopefully put a stop to abuse and finally to allow the the hard-working and serious editors and the administrators here to go back to the usually joyful work of creating and/or improving Wikipedia articles and working with good faith editors. Mugginsx (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  For heaven's sake, Muggins, can you please stop fiddling with your own postings for ours on end? You've now edited your own posting like, how many times, twenty? What I'm seeing here is walls of text, and maybe you should start asking yourself whether the fact that this thread has been drawing next to no outside participation from uninvolved editors might be related to your own behaviour here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been busy adding links to my last paragraph to show the abuse links which did unfortunately take some more doing then I expected. I have not re-factored any previous paragraphs. I will certain defer to your request. The walls of text, I am not sure what you mean. I was requested by an administrator to add Links and I complied. Sorry, if it caused any problems. I like to be exact and may have been overenthusiastic in that pursuit. Apologies Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FutPer, you were pretty quick to insert - as an editor with some strong interactions with WCM in the past - your opinion for a block on him alone. From all of this it is rather clear you were very wrong as to the uniqueness of WCM in this, I hope we can now see a recognition of your error? WCM's failure is that he is happy to fight on his own like a dog in a corner for what he feels is right against what he perceives are agenda pushers. It has its draw backs, and at times he drifts over the line, but your perptual blindness to the actions others take in situation around him is baffling. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The almost instant call for a block on Wee by Adm. Fut. who has a prior history with him did take me by surprise as well. I had never seen that before. Now there are two editors and one administrator involved in this dispute with a unrelated negative past history with Wee. Probably a good reason to recuse oneself if only for the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. Mugginsx (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The above accusations are numerous and not straightforward to unravel. No-one involved should think they are immune to criticism. Here are a few questions for some of the individuals concerned. They are not the only ones that arise by any means and my second one, for example, might well be asked of more than one editor.

1. WCM, you remain convinced that Gaba p and indef blocked User:Alex79818 are one and the same. The history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818/Archive is certainly a disturbing one and there are some similarities. For example, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that Gaba p began editing at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute after a two year absence at the time User:Abenyosef was reported as a suspected sock of Alex79818. However, I am puzzled as to why you think they are one and the same given that Gaba p seems to have provided a real-life identity that is not the same as that of Alex79818. This is a serious accusation - but how do you justify it beyond assertions about WP:DUCK?

2. Assuming WCM is wrong in this assertion, the accusations nonetheless draw attention to similar behaviours even if they are being carried out by different persons. Mugginsx reminds us of the unhappy truth that disruptive behaviour "is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia". Gaba p, your inability to see anything disruptive in your approach, your disregard for WP:CIVIL and your ongoing edit warring give cause for concern. There isn't much that I have seen at Self-determination that suggests your input is improving the article and it must surely be off-putting to editors who do not share your enthusiasms. Do you think the encyclopedia would be harmed if you were given a topic ban on Falklands related articles, and if so, why?

3. Langus-TxT - you have been accused of operating as a tag team with both Alex79818 and Gaba p. Perhaps I missed a response in all the verbiage. What do you have to say about this?

Finally, we can all see that this situation has created ill-feeling that has been going on for too long, but it is in no-one's interests to issue threats. Please try to remain civil with one another. Please also try to keep your responses on-topic and as brief as possible. Sometimes less is more. Ben MacDui 15:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:TAG_TEAM: "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a debatably form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus."

I have never done such a thing. My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, and I have interest on the Falklands topic (as does Gaba p, Wee Curry Monster, and others), but that's it. I honestly don't remember too much about Alex, he was blocked shortly after I started to edit regularly, about 1,5 years ago. But I can assure that a) I am not him (and by now every editor in the Falklands articles know this, except perhaps WCM); and b) I never worked as a team with him, even if I may have supported a particular edit. The same goes to Gaba p.

Honestly, I've stopped responding to WCM's accusations of tag-teaming, and I think it's the best thing I can do. --Langus (t) 17:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I also accused him Ben and I do not take that back. The evidence is overwhelming. I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team. Sorry, I am always ready to forgive after an honest apology because we all make mistakes, but there in no repentance here, just more denial. Mugginsx (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Macdui, no there is more to it than that. I'll email you some more information that I can't reveal here. User:Nick-D considered the style was so similar he blocked Gaba straight away. User:JamesBWatson also considered the style so similar he considered not unblocking, despite the ID information. Stylistically they're identical eg [62] note the long tendentious repeating argument, the remarks directed toward me and the groundless accusation of POV editing, accusations of WP:OR etc, compare with the comments by Gaba at Talk:Self-determination, the habit of using bold text to highlight. Not to mention the use of source with a heavy POV slant. I could indicate more but per WP:BEANS its probably not a good idea. Take a gander at both contribution histories and you'll see what I mean. If you'd been harassed by Alex since 2007 you'd readily recognise the style.

As regards Langus, his remark above speaks volumes though I would imagine he still doesn't get it, specifically My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, so he'll revert war in concert with other editors he agrees with to force those opinions into articles. We don't edit in line with our personal opinions, we put that aside to reflect what out sources say. Unfortunately Langus and Gaba select sources to support the edit they wish to make. He is constantly referring to having the Argentine POV represented, basically he doesn't understand NPOV on wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's what User:Nick-D said after Wee approached him a couple of days ago:

"Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing"

Admin User:JamesBWatson didn't even respond Wee after he made the same "plea for help" to him.

Ben, I'll make you the same offer I made Nick-D and James: have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith, this time to you. I'm prepared to give you access to my FB and G+ just like I did with James and I'll respond any question you may need to ask me to convince yourself I am not that editor. Aside from this, I don't believe there's anything else I can do to once again stop Wee from accusing me of being a sock puppet. Gaba p (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

WCM actually knows Alex real life identity. That's why the ban was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity, because the admin could check that we in fact were not the same person. I also point to the two small but highly scientific articles I've created so far (Thin disk and Thick disk) Did Axel ever do anything like that? Because that would be too much coincidence. I have a scientific training in physics and astronomy which I'm willing to put to the test anytime (I can't believe I'm still being called out to prove I'm not that editor...)

Ben, you seem to be taking sides assuming Wee is the good editor (prolific doesn't mean balanced) and I am the disruptive editor here. Just to remind us all why we are here: WCM reverted 3 times an edit agreed upon by 3 editors which he still denies. Yet you accuse me of "ongoing edit warring" and of "inability to see anything disruptive in your approach"??

Some context on the "disregard for WP:CIVIL" accusation. Editor Muggins and I had never crossed paths until he left this message on my talk page (note the tone) I responded here. He then proceeded to accuse me, out of the blue, of lots of things and to ask Ben for a ban on me. This is the response to that comment which Ben refers to as uncivil from my part (please do read it) Ben deleted that comment (but not Muggins comment) and I acknowledged that such comment could be taken as an offense by some editor[63]. Please also read this bizarre attack from Muggins (in hidden section) where he calls me sleezy. Ben does not consider this as uncivil apparently.

Ben, you haven't seen much because there isn't really much to see. This whole mess can be traced to the sentence: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British", which is basically what WCM reverted 3 times. It's a minor edit in it's extension but a very important one because it presents the view of several authors contrary to the view that supports the British claim (which is already present in the article) Yes, I do believe WP would be harmed because WCM would never approve (yes, approve because WCM behaves as if he WP:OWNED Falklands-related articles) the inclusion of counter-sources for the British claim (as he still is attempting to do, given that the article has a NPOV template) without an editor willing to go through all this trouble. Gaba p (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No an editor at RSN suggested that source, noting my comment that it was self-contradictory. I expressed a concern the language was too ambiguous to support the claim it was supposed to support but you and Langus took that suggestion as a mandate to force it into the article and ignore the BRD process. You didn't have any such mandate. You refused to discuss it - forcing me into a quandary - you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless.

You also edit warred to force the previous edit into the article, ignoring my concerns till RSN showed it was unreliable - a polite discussion in talk would have resolved matters long before that. As regards the NPOV tag - note the talk page discussion I started again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee you know you can't just lie like that here in WP where everyone can go check the written record of what you did. "you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless", I've lost track of the number of times you've denied breaking the 3RR by now. Here's what is stored in the article's history: I make the edit[64] and 4 minutes later Wee makes the first revert[65]. Langus reverts Wee[66] and 7 minutes later Wee reverts a second time[67]. Now I revert Wee [68] and I even add a third source for the statement[69] (a source whose author was recommended at the RS/N) 7 minutes later Wee reverts a third time[70], the new source plus the rest.

Each of Wee's reverts brought back into the article the source showed to be unreliable at RS/N (Lopez). In his blind reverts Wee edited that source back into the article, even tough he knew just as well as me or Langus that we were advised not to use it. His reverts even added back an obvious grammatical mistake ("contemporary records historical") which I had corrected and pointed out to him in the Talk page days ago on the 14th[71].

The fact that you would feel comfortable repeating something you know is untrue time after time (at the Admin noticeboard nonetheless) makes me think you must be really confident about not getting blocked. Gaba p (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats a very carefully selected series of diffs to create a misleading impression. (1) I didn't break 3RR, I didn't cross the line. (2) See also [72] which precedes your edit, indicating that I didn't consider it adequately verified the claim. (3) [73] the edit summary draws attention to the discussion.

I tried to discuss this with you before you made the edit and you'll note I refrained from making the edit I'd suggested [74] whilst waiting for consensus to be formed. You and Langus formed a tag team to force it into the article, whilst DR was in progress, I refrained from editing my proposal. I wouldn't normally have reverted 3 times either but I was asking you to follow BRD. There isn't a grammar error, though you have manged to mangle a sentence and separated a comment from the statement it was supporting. You left a CN tag on material you previously removed a UN cite for, to replace by Lopez which you'd edit warred into the article previously. You know what yes you can check the history. I invite everyone to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, violations of talk page guidelines by Fowler&fowler

Re: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Fowler&fowler has been persistently violating talk page guidelines, with uncivil behavior and personal attacks. Repeated request to Fowler&fowler to stop uncivil behavior have so far failed.

[A]. On September 20th, I made specific suggestions to improve the article Caste on its talk page: Ex1 - per talk page and RfC guidelines. My suggestions were:

1. Summarize all sides of significant and mainstream scholarly literature. [...delete rest for brevity...]

2. Casual use of word caste by any published source, once or twice, is an unacceptable basis to include that source in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

3. We will consider the following as adequate basis to consider including a mention or summary in this article: multiple secondary sources discuss caste in a country / region / culture, and one or more reliable tertiary source include this mention.

4. Substantive discussion of caste in a society by multiple secondary sources, in sociology/anthropology/cultural and similar scholarly fields, suggest such sources will be considered for inclusion in this article. [...delete rest for brevity...]

5. Scholarly published secondary and tertiary literature from around the world, on caste, are acceptable and welcome.

Fowler&fowler’s replied with a personal attack, which took the following form: ‘As Fifelfoo has said, you don’t have competence to write this article.’ See Ex2. A review of the discussion proves, Fifelfoo criticized the article, but did not attack any wikipedia user with those words. See this comments section. Fowler&fowler misquoted and misrepresented another wiki user, to launch a personal attack.

Mitigating factors: In fairness to Fowler&fowler, I note that this September 21 morning, after I noted that I will seek wikipedia admin help to address the personal attack on September 20, Fowler&fowler voluntarily acknowledged and struck out the personal attack he made a day ago Ex7. Similarly, in fairness, along with personal attacks, Fowler&fowler has also welcomed my contributions and made constructive proposals recently with suggestions such as

‘user:ApostleVonColorado should rewrite 3. and 4.’ - Fowler&fowler, 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

See Ex8. I assume from this that Fowler&fowler is capable of respecting and welcoming constructive contributions from other wiki users such as me. These mitigating corrective actions and constructive suggestions are offset by the unrelenting, counter-productive attacks and uncivil behavior from Fowler&fowler. See below.

[B]. The uncivil behavior by Fowler&fowler is not limited to one instance. It is repetitive and persistent. See for example Ex3 with this cleaner version where he impersonated me, and see Ex4, as two examples. Fowler&fowler persistent attacks and violation of talk page guidelines are of concern because this triggers counter-productive responses from other users. I am concerned because both talk page guidelines and RfC guidelines remind us that our goal should be to improve the article, discuss suggestions for the article, build consensus, assume good faith and welcome input from all users to help improve the article. Systematic abuse of talk page guidelines discourages me and other potential users from participating with constructive contributions.

[C]. The attacks by Fowler&fowler are not limited to one user. On September 17th, Fowler&fowler attacked a new wiki User:Hoshigaki, someone who has been contributing well researched, constructive, through and a detailed response to an RfC, currently in progress on Talk:Caste. Fowler&fowler wrote,

‘Hoshigaki, You are doing this again. I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.’

See Ex5. Once again, such personal attacks are an unacceptable behavior.

[D] The incivility and violations of talk page guidelines are not limited to talk page of one article, Talk:Caste. It extends to Talk:India. For example, Fowler&fowler had used the talk page of India as a forum with comments, irrelevant to improving the article, such as,

‘[...]....casts its one vote, half to Mrt3366 and other half to RegentsPark as the next President of Wikipedia. Let's throw that Jimbo guy out. I will now be going down to the bar to order a Vodka Martini.’ - Fowler&fowler, 14:30, 6 September 2012

See Ex6. That is an irrelevant, frivolous and disruptive forum-like comment on an article's talk page.

[E]. In summary, Fowler&fowler has persistently violated the following talk page guidelines:

1. Personal attacks
2. Misrepresenting another user
3. Impersonating me and creating a section ‘Comment by ApostleVonColorado’ without my permission or knowledge
4. Using the talk page as forum

I request an appropriate review of the facts, followed by appropriate action to address unacceptable behavior by user Fowler&fowler.

Please note that this request is about a user conduct. It is not a commentary, nor is it a content dispute about the article Caste or any other. Others and I have already acknowledged and agreed that the article needs rework, has serious flaws, some sections need to be removed, some rewritten and that the article can be significantly improved. Polite and article-focussed discussion, not personal attacks, is a way to rapidly improving the article. Above all, any wikipedia article regardless of how good or poorly written it is, gives no one the right to be uncivil and to repeatedly personally attack other wikipedia users. No one has the right to harass and attack others regardless of whether they are a new user or have many years of experience on wikipedia. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't finished looking over all of this, but as a note to the humor-impaired; Example 6 is what's known as a joke. It plays upon the tropes of hyperbole and facetiousness. I'll finish looking over this, but it seems obvious to me that was meant as a deliberately hyperbolic comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler has been doing his level best to handle a group of tendentious filibusterers, of which you are one. In particular, dealing with your insistent TLDR essays is an absolute frustration, and not just for him. I've very nearly blown up on a couple of occasions when discussing things with you and the others on article talk pages, so it is no surprise to me if someone else actually has done so. As long as you continue in your ways, I think that you'll have to roll with the consequences - it is not a one-way street. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I'm finished with this. ApostleVonColorado, a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them as much as express amazement at how long it took to get to that point. I'm thinking now about instituting a topic ban for you under the discretionary sanctions in place, I'll come back to this in a couple hours so I don't make a knee-jerk decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time that Fowler has breached civility on Wikipedia, there were more than two editors who were discussing on the talk page but I am sure there are more than two editors who felt that Fowler had crossed the limits. It is not at all surprising to see Sitush making such a comment but what is more surprising is The Blade of the Northern Lights saying a couple of your examples above aren't the best from Fowler&fowler, but I'm not so much inclined to sanction him for saying them --sarvajna (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is my comment "not at all surprising"? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, like The Blade said, the examples don't show me in a good light. Example 6 was indeed a joke. I was mimicking the states' roll call at the Democratic National Convention. Example 2 is not entirely accurate. I myself realized that my response was too hot-headed and before anyone replied to my post, changed it in this post. I still seem to remember that Fifelfoo had used the word "competence," but when I went back to look at his statement, I couldn't find it. In any case, he had made a pretty damning evaluation of AVC's contributions to the Caste article. As for Hoshigaki, here is the deal. Two new users appeared in the RfC. They had joined WP a few days earlier. Predictably they both opposed me. They are Hoshigaki (talk · contribs) and OrangesRYellow (talk · contribs). Hoshigaki in particular, kept misinterpreting my words, "India is central to the topic of Caste" to mean "Caste is central to the topic of India," he also kept misinterpreting the adjective "central" to mean "unique." So, he repeatedly replied "Cast is not unique to India or Hinduism" or "Caste is not the central social topic in India today." When this happened the third or the fourth time, I became frustrated and replied in the post AVC has cited above. The problem as I see it is simple. The major tertiary sources are unanimous in stating that India is central to any discussion of caste. The major tertiary sources spend 75 to 100% of their content discussing India. Yet we have a Wikipedia article which (especially after AVC's edits in Feb and March this year) spends 80% of its content discussing caste in Europe, Latin America, Africa, East Asia, .... It has sections, "Caste in Finland, " "Caste in Sweden," "Caste in England," "Caste in Ireland," ... Although AVC is always polite, and never fails to cite WP policy on polite behavior, he nonetheless subtly subverts the RfC process by writing vague, general, essay-length responses, which are difficult to respond to. He produced some tertiary sources of his own to support the extra-India emphasis in the article. The first one had a general sounding abstract. The abstract was all that was available on the web (unless of course you had access or subscription). I managed to get the pdf of the article. It was written by the Indian sociologist Veena Das. Despite its general abstract, it turned out to be entirely about India. I suspected then (and still do) that AVC looked at the abstract and thought it would support his POV, but didn't read the rest of the article. When I said so to him, he became upset. But the question still remains: if your first tertiary source is entirely about India, how are you writing an article 80% of which is not about India? The more long-term background to the Caste or caste-related articles is that it has been the stomping ground of nationalists. In fact it no coincidence that the second most prolific contributor to Caste system in India and Caste articles (after AVC) is none other than Hkelkar (talk · contribs) the notorious Hindu nationalist sock master. One of the favorite tacks of the nationalists when editing articles about India's perceived social ills (not just Caste, but also Bride burning, Dowry etc. is to universalize them; in other words, to have little sections on Pakistan, Nepal, .... and to mention India casually as just one among the crowd. Whether this is AVC's motivation or not, his edits have certainly served that purpose. He had made similar edits to Culture of India, where "caste" etc have been swept under "Perceptions of India." Anyway, I have to take our cat to the vet. So this all I have to say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PS. I've got to get this in too: most of the abstract discussion of caste has taken place historically around the paradigmatic example of Hindu India. All the great theorists of Caste, Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil, G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, M. N. Srinivas, F. G. Bailey, Louis Dumont, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, McKim Marriott, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, Andre Beteille, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart, and others have theorized in the context of Hinduism and India. Even the one anthropologist, Gerald Berreman, who during the 50s, 60s, and early 70s advocated the comparative approach to caste, for which he has been cited a dozen times in the Caste article, has spent most of his lifetime working on India. It is that sort of history this article is flying in the face of. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And it is interesting that sarvajna has been contributing both to the discussion there and here, given their past support for such notorious characters as MangoWong (talk · contribs), Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) and Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs), all of whom have favoured a revisionist, nationalist Hindutva depiction of Indian society and history. Sarvajna does more good than those people, but the presence actually reinforces Fowler's analysis. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(multi ec) As Sitush says, Fowler has been dealing more or less single handedly with long tendentious posts on the article in question and, in my opinion, has been doing this patently and above and beyond the call of duty. If he's blown up a couple of times, it is worth looking at the many other times that he hasn't blown up and to look at his willingness to compromise, even when he doesn't necessarily agree with the outcome. AVC would be better served if he/she took a good, long hard at his own editing style, one that is exemplified by the long and tedious complaint above. Topic banning AVC would be an ideal way to implement the discretionary sanctions recently placed on India related articles. --regentspark (comment) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think a 6 month ban on AVC from Caste and the associated discussions would be perfect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That would probably require extension to related articles, eg: Caste in India. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That, in my view, would be a good resolution, but then I'm not exactly a disinterested party. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's too much stuff for me to look at in detail, but AVC's support of User:Hoshigaki clearly put him in the (in)famous guy's enablers camp. Although AVC himself is quite polite, the good cop/bad cop routine can wear down many good people. So AVC & friends need to give the area a break. Or be given one. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, anything we apply to AVC should also be applied to Hoshigaki; barring objections, I'll implement them tomorrow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Hoshigaki at all, but as far as the rest of the discussion goes, while the major problem is at Caste, it is not restricted to the article, but rather to the topic, so any discretionary sanctions will need to cover the topic area and not just the one article in question. This is covered by both the community imposed sanctions (WP:GS/Caste) and the India related arbcom sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Blade of Northern Lights - What is my crime? Look at my contribution history (or talk to Fiflefoo) and you will find I have only brought scholarly sources to the discussion which weaken Fowler's centrality argument. Fowler was deliberately attacking my English skills because reliable sources brought by me clearly indicated that centrality of caste to India can be intrepeted either way. Exact quote provided by me:

From another source cited by Fowler (Berreman, Gerald D. (2008), Caste, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences):

Among social scientists, and especially among those who have worked in India, there are basically two views: (1) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of its Hindu attributes and rationale and, therefore, is unique to India or at least to south Asia; (2) that the caste system is to be defined in terms of structural features which are found not only in Hindu India but in a number of other societies as well. Those who hold the latter view find caste groups in such widely scattered areas as the Arabian Peninsula, Polynesia, north Africa, east Africa, Guatemala, Japan, aboriginal North America, and the contemporary United States. Either of these positions is tenable; which is preferable depends upon one’s interests and purposes.

Anyway if you decide to ban me for 6 months, go ahead, I have no interest in editing Wikipedia if this is how it works. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hoshigaki, Please don't cite incorrectly. The Berreman article is from the 1968 edition of that encyclopedia. I have said both in my list (see reference 16) and at least once in conversation with you that that reference has been superseded by the 2008 edition of the encyclopedia in which the article on "Caste" is written by someone else and devotes 80% of its content to India. Berreman represented a trend current in the 1950s and 60s; even then it was a minority opinion. It has long been discarded by anthropologists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I give up. My crime is to have gone through all accessible sources presented by Fowler in support of his argument (such as the above source) and pointed out internal contradictions in them. When I succeeded with that, Fowler now wants to discard the source. He or she originally used this source as one from 2008 (and thus acceptable since it was from within the last 25 years - a time limit set by Fowler himself unilaterally). This is deceitful behavior. I have never seen such treachery. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well please read the article "caste" in the 2008 edition (my reference 7) How much space does it devote to India? And how much to other countries? And the first of those is just caste practices of the Indian indentured laborer immigrants in the West Indies. Here is what it says about Berreman (the author of the 1968 article): "... purely on the grounds of universal practices of discrimination based on ascription, scholars such as Gerald Berreman (1960; 1972) have attempted to compare American blacks to untouchable castes in India. However, the black-white dichotomous system in the United States differs from the fourfold caste system in India in that it is ordained not by religious considerations, but by economic and social ones (Cox 1948)." Anyway, I have to go to bed now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have never seen such treachery, perhaps a perusal of Idi Amin, Ne Win, or Than Shwe will give you some perspective. I'm only saying what the most beneficial solution is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, never met them. I guess I am lucky to be surrounded by very civilized people. And I don't want to change that. Go ahead block or ban me if you think that is in the greater good per your common sense. And don't expect a reply from me. Hoshigaki (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He or she originally used this source as one from 2008 (and thus acceptable since it was from within the last 25 years - a time limit set by Fowler himself unilaterally). I just noticed this. It is patently false. I have never said that the Berreman article was written in 2008. I say explicitly in reference 16 in the list that it is "dated" and from 1968 and has been superseded by the 2008 edition (which is reference 7 in my list). The 2008 edition is not only not written by Berreman, but also disagrees with him as the quote above showed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler is doing an excellent job here by deviating the whole topic, this is not a page to discuss the contents. Unfortunately Hoshigaki has fallen into the trap. What are the others like Sitush and RP doing? They are just blindly backing Fowler and infact proposing a topic ban on AVC. What was the crime? Did he break any policy? Was he warned before imposing sanctions on him? It would be blatant misuse of the administrative tools to impose a ban without a proper reason. The only reason I see is that he pointed out the uncivil behavior of an experienced editor. Sitush, stop being dishonest I don’t even know who MangoWong or Zuggernaut are, I only know Yogesh Khandke and have you tried to inform Yogesh and others that you are unnecessarily dragging them into this? --sarvajna (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mr Fowler&fowler has left no stone unturned to get me blocked. Fowler has put forward two arbitrary and — I must say — incongruous "protocols" on Talk:India, Talk:caste. I told others we should not make it any more complicated and time-consuming than it already is.

  Now as it seems (I may be wrong though), it's one of fowler's many fortes (e.g. stonewalling, creating confusion, obfuscating, needlessly complicating things). That is what he has done in WP:DRN (which failed as you may know), Talk:India (see archive no 37 if you missed some), at least one RfC and whatever article or page he has edited lately. If he is not a quintessential example of an inveterate filibusterer, then I don't know what filibustering is. Yet, he has the nerve to claim I am having hard time growing up that as though he knows my age. He randomly calls people's dissenting opinions "Hindu nationalist garbage", "upper caste POV", "nonsense", etc. He acts like he owns wikipedia articles e.g. India. Just see my talk page. He first and then Sitush, threatened me on my talk page, "you will soon be gone, whether forcibly or voluntarily." (because I am supposedly continuing combative high jinks) isn't that a gross violation of WP:TALKNO?? He obliquely discouraged me from editing India, Caste where he supposedly has his rule. When I tried to bring our wiki-interaction to normalcy, he called me "an obsessively tendentious editor". There is more, I don't have time and the patience to explain every facet of his problematic character. This editor is utterly disruptive. He has this innate knack of turning any discussion in a stale quagmire. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved ordinary editor who only came across the Talk:Caste discussion (or the users under discussion) today, I agree with Regentspark that Fowler&Fowler has taken an exemplary approach of keeping focused on article improvement, only blowing up with a somewhat ill-advised tone after a long period of remarkably patronising treatment from AVC among others. AVC's behaviour should be of greater concern. AVC seems to respond to content disagreement by telling the other user to be civil, follow talkpage guidelines, etc. I stumbled across AVC via this discussion from February in which AVC reacts to respectfully-expressed content disagreement by warning the new user not to make personal comments, to stay on topic etc., citing policies in an unconstructive, patronising and intimidating way. The recent & ongoing Talk:Caste discussion shows a lot of the same pattern. It, and the encyclopedia as a whole, would be best served if a strong message is sent to AVC to alter this behaviour. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, even I am ready to share some of the blame for the mess that was created (mostly by Fowler's obduracy), in stark contrast to the behavior of Fowler, AVC's conduct has been exemplary. He is a fair and reasonable guy. Don't pin it onto him. His comments here were very, very reasonable. Fowler has experience and it gives him a leverage over other less-experienced editors but that leverage is getting abused can't you see?

  Fowler being an experienced editor, doesn't bother to assume good faith, he demeans opponents while berating their views at the time of a discord. He abused his rollback rights in a content dispute and then instead of admitting his faults, he snubs the privilege itself by saying, "Please remove it. I'm unlikely to go about cleaning spam etc anyway". That's no concern to you? I am flabbergasted. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• AVC made major changes to the Caste article between mid February and early March this year, doubling the size of article. In the six months since, he has walled out other contributions by politely reverting them and answering on the talk page in essay-length vague generalities. If you disagree find one significant contribution made by someone else in the last six months. The end result, regardless, is that we have an article Caste, the WP flagship article on all caste-related content that devotes 80% of its content to Caste outside South Asia. I believe a topic ban for AVC is the only solution to this impasse. Not only has he made the Wikipedia article on Caste singular in such overwhelming bias among all major tertiary sources, but he has also kept others out for six months, effectively topic banning them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Let me dispel few of the myths being propagated here. AVC's edits have improved the Caste article greatly. This is how the article looked before AVC started editing. The article is much better written and referenced now. AVC's edits did not cause the article to exceed article size limits particularly for a complex concept like caste. The article is double in size now, so? AVC did not stop anyone from editing the article. In fact, he partially accepted Fowler's changes and completely accepted others.[75] AVC's essay length responses are quite easy to read and he has shortened them after repeated personal attacks. To say that he has effectively topic banned other editors would be a hyperbole, if not a blatant lie. Let anyone asserting that AVC has stopped them from editing on Caste come out with diffs to their edits, which were otherwise uncontroversial, but were not allowed into the article with "walls of text". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• This, the new version is better than this, the old? Which major tertiary source is closer both in content and emphasis of content to the new version than the old? And what is this edit? Has any scholarly source called Andre Beteille's widely-used definition of caste, quoted verbatim in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, a "Tanjore village-focused study?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• The balance of the article is currently being discussed at the talk page and there is, IMO, a consensus that India needs to be better represented in the article. Other than this, the newer version is much better than the old. Just look at the referencing. The edit you refer to is controversial and started the discussion on talk page. So, it cannot be included as an attempted obfuscation by AVC. Again, there is little evidence to support a ludicrous topic ban for the editor who contributed so much to the article. That is all my I am trying to say, AVC is free to defend his comment on Andre Beteille. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid AVC and I have agreed on nothing. Piotrus (a professional sociologist) made a proposal regarding distribution of article space. It said: 45% to definitions, paradigms, review of literature; 30% to Hinduism within India (the spawning ground of caste), 10% to Caste-like stratification found among Hindu converts to Islam and Christianity in South Asia; to Sikhs and Buddhists, and 15% to Caste-like stratification outside South Asia. AVC has never agreed to it. Instead he has himself made new vague and general proposals, mainly to deflect the argument, as in attempting to rope in Piotrus by citing the latter's FAs, all the while remaining resistant to expanding the India section, by again appealing vaguely to Piotrus's articles. There are other major disagreements. The 45% related to definitions, paradigms, and review of literature is founded on and rests on the model of India. All the great theorists of caste I have listed above, have theorized around that paradigmatic model. That section cannot be littered with irrelevant examples of caste in Finland and Sweden. No theorist of caste has made Sweden or Finland their lifework. AVC has not even remotely agreed to that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you compare the older version of article before AVC started improving and after AVC made substantial changes? All that said I still feel that there is nothing much to discuss about AVC's behavior but there are serious concerns about Fowler's behavior. Being uncivil is a kind of his trademark. --sarvajna (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are exactly what I have compared. Find me one major tertiary source, I repeat, that is closer in emphasis of content to the new present version than the old version. AVC's edits have made Wikipedia stands out like a cuckoo-bird among the wise owls. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler I think I was not clear, let me try to make it more clear. I am not saying that the newer version is bad, you keep saying that the article was previously edited by a Hindu Nationalist POV pusher This is one of your style of labeling anyone who oppose your edits as Hindu Nationalist, POV pusher Now did AVC make the article more worse when compared to the other editor's version? --sarvajna (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not going anywhere, Fowler has made his position quite clear; the only counter argument being presented here is that Fowler is incivil etc, and RP has addressed that above. This is getting increasingly tendentious as you appear to either not listen to or comprehend the arguments being presented, both of which are problematic; this isn't the first time either (and Sitush was right in calling you out earlier), you keep parroting this theory of "explain it to me" to a level that's beyond belief. —SpacemanSpiff 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel any need to reply to your comment, I have already replied to Sitush Only if you have cared to read it --sarvajna (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention I don't think Fowler has given any clarification about his uncivil behavior --sarvajna (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the diff to the comment where all the four of us (F&F, AVC, Mrt and me) agreed to reduce the section on Europe. In fact, my impression of the discussion was that all of us had a consensus on giving India more prominence in the article and reducing other sections to "caste in continent" rather than "caste in country", even if there was a disagreement on the means of doing so.[76] I do not agree with exact percentages to the sections either. I'll give a detailed reply with objections and suggestions on the talk page later (apologies for delaying this, I am hard pressed for time). Speculating on AVC's intentions ("attempting to rope in Piotrus by citing the latter's FAs" etc.) is pointless. Asking for a topic ban for the same is equally so. As for the tertiary sources, everyone agrees that India is the paradigmatic example of caste. Although the centrality might still be disputed (see this summary). I will try to provide diffs to my claims of consensus though it might be easier for others involved to substantiate my claims in their comments here. Finally, discussing content here diverts from the main issues: 1) Incivility by Fowler&fowler 2) Obfuscation(?) by AVC. I have not commented on 1 and 2 is simply absurd. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@CK. You have exaggerated, I'm afraid. You quoted only part of a now-closed discussion, the early part. You forgot to add, that after Ninthbout's post, I wrote:

 :::I more or less agree with you. However, if the content here belongs to Social stratification in East Asia and Social stratification in Europe, then why has it been added to Caste (and not to Social Stratification)? One of my motivations for recommending the creation of the Caste in Europe and Caste in East Asia articles is that in the inevitable AfD discussions that will follow, we are more likely to get a wider community resolution of this conundrum than in an RfC (or DR) here. This article, though important, has been languishing by itself for some time now, and that explains why individual editors have been able to slant it in this fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sarvagna: There are similarities between the transformations wrought in the article by banned Hindu-nationalist editor User:Hkelkar and his socks user:Shiva's Trident, and user:Rumpelstiltskin223 in 2006–2007 and that wrought by AVC in February-March 2012. (And I'm by no means suggesting that one is the other.) At the end of July 2006, just before Hkelkar and his socks edited the article, here is what it looked like. Notice the relative weight; notice India's mention in the first sentence. Here is the wild article it became in late January 2007 as a result of the work of user:Hkelkar and his socks. Notice the de-emphasis on India and Hinduism. Similarly, the article before AVC edited it looked like this. Notice the emphasis on India and limited emphasis on the rest of the world. Notice also the the wild version it became after AVC was done with it. In each transformation, the relative article space devoted to other countries has increased wildly. Yes, the old version of January 2012 is much better in terms of balance and emphasis than the new version. It needs a few citations, but that can be easily fixed in a few hours at most. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PS I'm now done with this. AVC's defenders, the same people who have sided with him in the tortuous RfC, are presenting the same tired incorrect arguments. I see nothing new from them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is sad that this discussion became focussed on content, not conduct. I find it offensive that I am being casually compared to socks from past, who admins can trace and check IP addresses of, and confirm I have nothing to do with old edits (and which will also show I am not from India).

The version Fowler&fowler cites from 2007 has 30 citations (poor quality), while the current article has over 160 (peer reviewed journals, books etc.). There is simply no comparison between the old 2007 version and version I updated to earlier this year. Caste and Caste system in India are two articles of many on caste topic on wikipedia. Other encyclopedia have just one article. My attempt to distinguish these two articles, according to wiki's summary style guidelines, done in good faith, incomplete and flawed as they may, do not justify accusations above. I include this for record.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not 2007. It is the version of early Feb 2012 (before you made any edits) that I compared your August 2012 version with. Like I said, the Feb version needed citations, but it is much closer in emphasis and balance to the consensus version in the modern tertiary sources than yours. By drastically biasing the article, you have done Wikipedia a great disservice, even though, I grant you, you have been overtly polite in your interactions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@AVC, OK, I apologize for not making amply clear that I do not think that you are Hkelkar and his socks. For one, you write much better English; for another, you don't edit war with a hair trigger reflex. I was merely answering Sarvagna's query, about similarities with past changes. I think you are a more moral person than Hkelkar (and I hope this doesn't get me into more trouble.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia caste articles are linked and must be considered together, because that is what community agreed spin-off summary style suggest. Not one person so far, including you, has addressed this in the RfC. If you consider all linked articles (i.e. for main article see [...] at top of each section), wiki's encyclopedic coverage on caste dedicated to India is over 80%, and over 75% is avoid double counting. Why does wiki need two articles, if caste article is 95% on India like some tertiary sources you like, and caste system in India is 100% on India copy of the other? As we discussed in the RfC, tertiary sources have differing coverage of world versus India - some of these published between 1970 and 2010, include very significant coverage of caste outside India, and include Africa, Middle East, Europe, Latin America, Japan, Korea, etc. etc. Some regional encyclopedia / tertiary sources have majority of their caste topic coverage dedicated to their region, that is outside India.

See Tijfo098 comments. He or she, another admin I assume, was suggesting strong action above and on the Caste talk page. Tijfo098 has after a polite discussion today conceded on Talk:Caste that reliable sources exist on Jewish caste in Poland, and went on to constructively edit Caste article's section on Poland today. This was not there in January 2012 or any prior years. It is pity that an assumption of bad faith has overwhelmed the discussion above. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Any way, I do not believe it is productive to continue the RfC here, regardless of the injustice there or here. I urge wiki community to not return caste article to January 2012 version, rather consider additions/suggestions made by Tijfo098 today and others before today. Consider each section one by one, evaluate the cited secondary sources (the article includes some of the most respected scholars), delete/revise/seek more citations for sections that are inadequately cited, expand India section, trim others, split out new articles per Piotrus suggestions. Let the goal be to improve that article and thus wikipedia. Your, Fowler&fowler, complaint from first day has been the caste article hides "ills of Hindu India" - but hiding or highlighting ills of any country/people/person is not the goal of wikipedia. As I said I am neither from India nor Hindu, but I hope editors on wiki who are from India and of whatever religion do not feel that they are not welcome to contribute to wikipedia. Forgiveness and politeness, in life or on line, is a difficult but beautiful thing. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I'm afraid in your penultimate post, you were repeating the arguments that have already been considered. You are attempting to redefine Wikipedia policy. Caste is a flagship article on caste-related topics. The tertiary sources overwhelming devote some 75 to 100 per cent of article space to India. According to WP:TERTIARY, the scholarly tertiary sources are important in determining due weight. It is not merely a question of space, although that is important too (see Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#WP:DUE_and_length_of_sections), it is the emphasis. In your very first edit to the article, you changed the old sentence in the lead, "It should not be confused with race or social class, e.g. members of different castes in one society may belong to the same race or class, as in India." to "Some literature suggests that the term caste should not be confused with race or social class, e.g. members of different castes in one society may belong to the same race or class, as in India, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Yemen" to which you later added," or Europe." In a few hours after the first edit, you had added the sentence, "The use of a caste system is not unique to any religion. Castes have been observed in societies that are, for example, predominantly Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist." I remind you also that a full two weeks after the RfC began, you have not made a statement in the RfC. You are attempting a last-minute statement here. More importantly, it is wrong. You need to take time off from caste-related topics and think long and hard about bias. It is not enough to get reliable secondary sources. How you stack those sources to define emphasis is equally important. It is not your choice. You have to be beholden to the scholarly tertiary sources for that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler - as you already know, I have not edited caste articles for many months (exception: revert some minor vandalism/add back removed citations, another exception: accept some of the edits you made in August). I do not understand what edits or tendentious edits are being referred to. Any edits I did make to the lead in early 2012, the one's you mention above, are amply supported by multiple reliable verifiable secondary sources that meet every required community agreed guidelines. Those edits were made with numerous watchers active on caste articles. No one then, nor since has so far challenged reliability of those verifiable peer reviewed scholarly sources. Yes, DUE is an issue with the article. Others, Piotrus and I agreed on this sometime ago. The DUE issue must be fixed. There is no need to repeat yourself or the RfC here.

There is no evidence that any sock from past or present is related to me on this matter. There is no evidence that I have any relation to any wiki user or anyone 'indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior' - yet this bad faith has been assumed here. It is sad and unjust. It is unjust because, if anything, it is you who has from the start repeatedly assumed bad faith and expressed your concerns with 'Hindutva' and 'ills of Hindu India' (see here). I quote one example of your concern about caste article (August 3 2012 version):

Wikipedia article on Caste: In the past, this sort of distancing of India from its evils, was engaged in by Indian editors. - Fowler&fowler, 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Caste is a difficult, complex and frequently disputed topic among scholars. Polite collaboration could have helped us pool our minds, resources and talents to improve the article. As it turns out, we failed.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler - I just checked my first 20 edits starting with the first one on 9th February 2012. I did not add Europe on my first edit. I added Korea and Yemen into the lead, and per wiki lead guidelines appropriately, because the lead back then did not mention Korea or Yemen even though the version before my first edit had a significantly section on Korea and on Yemen. Article lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight - my February 2012 edits tried exactly to do that. Significant parts of the lead and 60%+ of the article, before my first edit, lacked any citations - and my initial series of edits were primarily adding citations (see this), asking for citations (see this), and checking/revising whether citations supported the language in the article (see this). Adding or requesting reliable verifiable sources is, I submit opposite of being tendentious. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your continued efforts at bludgeoning everyone else to death in these discussions is indicative of the very tendentiousness you're attempting to refute, in addition to the problems already raised by others. That's why I've banned you from the topic area for 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's use of rollback

Apparently he used it in the recent content dispute [77]. He should be warned not to use it that way. I haven't investigated Fowler&fowler use of the right further back. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I used it because Hoshigaki had been told that the references were the correct ones and there had been a week long discussion on it just before Hoshigaki appeared on WP ten days ago. He chose nonetheless to make the edits in an FA which has a long tradition of discussing changes on the talk page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the archives by searching for Fowler and rollback. The first link I found shows Fowler has misused rollback in the past. I did not explore further links. This ist he link I found: [78] Hoshigaki (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to look at the history (and search the cites source), they will find that the source Fowler was referring to indeed did not support the content it was cited against. That's why I added a new, more accurate source in its place. It turned out that the source was cited at the wrong place. Hoshigaki (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a blatant misuse of rollback, and I would support removal of the rights, especially in view of the previous incident. Rollback is for vandalism/spam only, and for curbing "widespread disruption", none of which apply here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please remove it. I'm unlikely to go about cleaning spam etc anyway. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I oppose the decision of removal of rollback rights here. A friendly note/alert (about how and when rollback should be used etc) should be fine here for now (though this is my first post in this thread, yes, I have read the whole thread before commenting (as an ANI stalker))--Tito Dutta ✉ 15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Agree with Tito, a friendly note will do. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although I do not agree with Fowlers behavior this proposal looks silly --sarvajna (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• Question How many misuse-of-rollback warnings is a guy allowed before it's taken away from him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of rights - this was done by an exceptionally hard working editor under great duress from those wishing to refocus caste articles away from the real world tertiary-source balance of weight. We should be thanking people like Fowler&fowler who do such great work here trying to keep our articles neutral and well sourced, rather than sanctioning them when they might occasionally crack under such pressure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted abuse

Sitush's calling me notorious is another example of the standards of civility maintained by him and Fowler. I assure you all that this is not the most extreme example. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Notorious" is not an insult, in and of itself. dangerouspanda 08:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yogesh Khandke that is not the most extreme example. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, you're skating on remarkably thin ice; either back that up or don't push your luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

OK, this has gone on for quite long enough. This is what's going to happen here;

1. ApostleVonColorado (talk · contribs), Hoshigaki (talk · contribs), and CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs) are all banned for 6 months from all articles and discussions under WP:GS/Caste, broadly construed.
2. Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) and Sarvajna are warned that continuing the same editing patterns will quickly lead to either the same or, quite possibly, a block; Sarvajna in particular is on very, very thin ice.
3. Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) should read over WP:ROLLBACK, there's no need to revoke rollback at this time.
4. All editors are reminded that the area is covered under discretionary sanctions.

I will notify individual editors; should editors have a problem with their sanctions, start a new thread below following the appeals process laid out at WP:AE. Any other admin can feel free to either object or close this up now as they see fit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights: you are warning me for my editing pattern!! This makes me laugh, I have not edited anything on those articles at all. I am sure you have not checked my contributions at all. This cannot be a resolution at all what so ever. The only thing I can conclude from your resolution is Fowler does nothing wrong I am ready to provide evidence of his uncivil behavior few admins are here to back him.--sarvajna (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Special:ReadMind doesn't exist, as evidenced by your comment. I reviewed everyone's behavior, and yours is indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior. I have no particular affiliation with Fowler&fowler, only a desire to improve Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you have reviewed, which of my behavior was a indicative of a Hindutva POV warrior? Your comment can be helpful in improving my own behavior. I really don't believe when you say I have no particular affiliation with Fowler&fowler You have hardly cared about the comments provided by other editors above. Also do you still want me to provide the evidence of Fowler's uncivil behavior? As you have not said anything about that.--sarvajna (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you'll reread everything above, I have indeed said that the comments above didn't portray Fowler&fowler in the best light; however, I'm also considering mitigating circumstances here, which are that he was under constant duress from a bunch of tendentious editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I agree that you have mentioned that the comments above didn't portray Fowler&fowler in the best light. But in no way it has been concluded that Fowler had any reason to be uncivil.Please read all the comments above before you arrive at any kind of conclusion .--sarvajna (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to assume you don't know what mitigating circumstances means, so I'll rephrase the second half of my previous comment; I'm taking into consideration the frustration that comes along with what Fowler&fowler was doing, which was dealing with a lot of tendentious editors at Talk:Caste. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I will rephrase what I said, it is still not concluded that the other editors were tendentious. Please refer the latest comments by AVC. Also I still request you to provide me with proper diffs which indicates my Hindutva POV warrior attitude. It would be of great help.--sarvajna (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please also read my response to AVC's penultimate post. He had begun to add biased content to the article with his very first edit to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PS What does tendentious mean? It means: having or showing a definite tendency, bias, or purpose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge and AVC are now banned from caste?? I am bewildered. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights:I have been carefully observing the discussion on both the talk page of this article as well as the discussion here . Now that you have banned AVC for six months , apart from others . For the sake of enlightening other wikipedia editors – I would appreciate if you would also specifically elucidate here the reason/observations through edit histories you choose to take cognizance of ,or chose not take cognizance of for (1) placing bans on ApostleVonColorado Hoshigaki , and CorrectKnowledge and warnings on some editors Mrt3366 Sarvajna . And (2) absolutely no action on others Fowlerand Fowler and Sitush .

Evidence for constant duress from a bunch of tendentious editing is available not only for participating editors you have banned or warned as is the [the mitigating circumstance] for tendentious editing . I have seen only two comments from you here but many from all other . In neither of the two of your comments I could decipher your reasons for arriving at your decisions . What are the principal grounds that make it justifiable rational, to apply rules to one set of editors and not the other in the light of edit historys .Thanks in advance for your clear enunciation .Intothefire (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious, but to summarize; 1. The 3 editors I banned were causing the most problems at Talk:Caste and other pages, 2 Mrt3366 and Sarvajna, haven't been as obviously disruptive at this moment, but a review of their contributions shows a similar pattern of editing in both, and 3 I haven't sanctioned Fowler&fowler or Sitush because they're working towards neutral, verifiable articles; this I know from past experience and from what I observed in those discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What is obvious is that you had pre-decided to ban AVC from caste articles even before the discussion started, your second reply in the discussion shows that, which means you just assumed bad faith even before AVC tried to explain his stand. Correct Knowledge is involved in various article and has worked on improving the class of the various articles. Somehow it is only Fowler who has complained and no one else. You just added his name to the List in which AVC was present. You need to provide a better reason than were causing the most problems . I was surprised to see when you mentioned that CK was banned. I challenge or I request you to provide evidence of problematic behavior of CK.Lastly as requested above for several times above can you provide me with proper diffs which indicates my Hindutva POV warrior attitude. You just picked up Sitush's line and pasted it. This whole exercise seems to an effort to help Fowler. Thanks to you Fowler goes scot-free without a eve single note of admonishment for his uncivil behavior.--sarvajna (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Blade, for this sensible and judicious set of outcomes. As an uninvolved editor whose only concern was civility, I'm satisfied. Let's hope the warned editors take note. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What is Hindutva POV warrior? Do you really mean Hindutva (term coined by Savarkar) or Hinduism (or Vedanta)? --Tito Dutta ✉ 17:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sarvajna, you have not addressed my query of 18:25 21 Sept above and now you are suggesting that I have used the term "Hindutva POV warrior" here or on the Caste] article - show me that diff please. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Better use the word "Hinduism" and not "Hindutva" unless you actually mean it. Reading from the article– Many Indian sociologues have described the Hindutva movement as fascist in classical sense.. Let's not make the discussion more complex! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I know what I said; Sarvajna's undying support of people like Yogesh Khandke and Zuggernaut (and before he stopped editing, MangoWong), who all favored the nationalist Hindutva POV, across multiple articles led me to my view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, "Hindutva," might have been the name of Savarkar's book, but in common language it stands for "Hindu nationalism". In fact the Wikipedia article, itself refers to that in the first sentence. The Collins English Dictionary defines it as "(in India) a political movement advocating Hindu nationalism and the establishment of a Hindu state." There are doubtless many other sources. I'm sure someone like Chris Jaffelot defines it somewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

PS I think of "Hindutva POV warrior" to be synonymous with "Hindu nationalist POV Warrior" in common usage. Here is Britannica (about Savarkar): "While imprisoned he wrote Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? (1923), coining the term Hindutva (“Hinduness”), which sought to define Indian culture as a manifestation of Hindu values; this concept grew to become a major tenet of Hindu nationalist ideology." I don't see any semantic issues with its use by The Blade or Sitush. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, we started from "caste" related articles and now we are heading towards Hindutva (consequently Savarkar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and which may also be linked to Assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or 2002 Gujarat violence). See Supreme Court of India's judgement and comments over this issue! --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd like people to stop referring to people dying as "perished", as that term has a very specific definition in history (it was a process the Turks used to kill and completely eliminate all traces of Armenians they killed); however, I've had to accept that people sometimes do that. Same thing here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Tito Dutta: was your question What is Hindutva POV warrior? Do you really mean Hindutva (term coined by Savarkar) or Hinduism (or Vedanta)? for me if yes then I am afraid you have not really read the comments above it was The Blade of the Northern Lights who said that my behavior was indicative of Hindutva POV warrrior, so you can ask him what he really meant by Hindutva POV warrior.

@ The Blade of the Northern Lights : you have hardly read any of the comments made by most of the editors above. I do not know anything about Zuggernaut or MangoWong (This is the second time I am clarifying this also now I know a bit about these editors, thanks to Sitush who made a same argument above and I had replied to it). Yes I did support Yogesh Kandke several times but that hardly proves anything about my editing patter that you referred above.I genuinely believe that Yogesh Khandke did add value to wikipedia.(if you want to drag Yogesh then why don't a put a note before taking names? ). You deciding the topic ban for AVC withing 13 minutes of the start of this ANI discussion shows that you had decided to topic ban AVC no matter what. @ Sitush I never meant that you used Hindutva POV warrior in any of your comment on caste or other article, above you mentioned that I have supported editors who favoured a revisionist, nationalist Hindutva depiction of Indian society and history which might have been referred by The Blade. Well coming to your question Why is my comment "not at all surprising"? You had warned Mrt for his uncivil behavior on Caste talk page but you have hardly done the same to Fowler. So it was not at all a surprise.--sarvajna (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment was not for you! --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I Support Blade's resolution here. I have considerable experience of trying to protect editors like Fowler&flower and Sitush, who have done great work in turning many caste articles from being blatantly unsourced glorification written by POV-warriors into the well-sourced, neutrally-written, versions we see today. They, and others, have faced tendentious editing, coordinated pressure, and deliberate provocation from a number of people (and I see some of the same old names popping up again here) trying to impose a revisionist, Hindu-nationalist, version of history on us. There is clearly a strategy here to pressure our good editors as far as possible, and then come whining for admin action when they're pushed far enough to bite back - if you're going to keep poking a bear with a stick, don't come crying "Mommy, the nasty bear bit me" when the inevitable happens, because all of the behaviour, from all sides, will be taken into account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the restrictions?

I am unable to understand what I am blocked from. Can I now not edit Talk:Caste or all caste system articles or all of Wikipedia? The WP:GS/Caste link does not seem relevant since it does not tell me what the scope is. Hoshigaki (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it means you cannot edit any pages (articles or talk pages) related to caste, broadly defined. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Hoshigaki: Not that it matters, but you have recently stated, "While I have an interest in the topic, I came here by chance following links from RfC for a country template (where I was invited by another editor). I have no interest and am unlikely to edit any India caste articles for now." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Appeal against block

I would like to appeal against the block because I simply went through 33 out of 33 sources provided by Fowler&fowler and showed that:

• 5 supported Fowler's claim
• 3 of the 33 sources were unreliable (see Talk:Caste for details)
• 5 showed that there was no consensus regarding Fowler's RfC
• 7 actually contradicted Fowler's argument
• 22 were irrelevant

I also pointed out to Fifelfoo that 1 out of the 5 sources of Fowler that he endorsed did not meet the wp:Reliable Sources criterion. It is unfair to block me for my activity on Talk:Caste. Hoshigaki (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This description itself is highly tendentious. The 22 that you regard as irrelevant spend 80 to 100% of their article space on India. Whether or not they explicitly say, "India is central to the topic of caste," they demonstrate by their choice of content that India is. You regard the OED's definition of caste, "One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; ... now the leading sense, which influences all others." as showing no consensus about India's centrality to caste. You describe the signed article on "Caste" in the Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, by Andre Beteille, which begins, "Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form ...," which spends the rest of the article talking about caste in India, and all four of whose references are about caste in India, as "weakening the centrality argument." Whom are you trying to kid? And those two examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Fifelfoo, whom you quote, says in his RfC statement: "In the scholarly tertiaries, India is mentioned as a critical example repeatedly." Yet, in your analysis, you characterize only 5 of the 33 tertiary sources as supporting the centrality of India to caste. You are a new editor who starts actively editing Wikipedia a few days after the RfC begins, you make some perfunctory edits to Japan-related topics such as "Meiji Restoration," then you spend the rest of your time making tendentious edits on Talk:Caste, this after stating first (quoted above) that you have no interest in the topic, just accidentally stumbled into it. Ask yourself, does that add up? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. The admins cannot prevent you from actually editing the article with the array of tools at their disposal. Rather, under the discretionary sanctions that Arbcom has imposed on a number of topics including his one, an admin has enacted an official limitation on you that forbids you from editing that area. Although they do not have the tools to stop you from editing it by blocking your access to that one set of articles, they do have the tools to block you from editing all articles should you violate the topic ban. To boil it down, edit anything else apart from these articles and you'll be fine, but edit these articles while the topic ban is in effect and you'll be tempoarily or possibly indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User:Bali ultimate reverted an edit of mine, claiming - without a shred of evidence or proof (for which there exists none) - that I am an "activist" on behalf of a certain group of people. The edit I inserted was simply an allegation that a bunch of sheep were eating dozens of trees in a night, to an article on conspiracy theories in a conflict.

The edit summary states: "there is nothing conspiratorial about settlers disruipting the olive harvets. that happens. removes deceptive claim made by settler activist."

While the first part of the edit summary deals with a content dispute over whether sheep can really eat dozens of trees in one night, the second part (the part that I bolded) is a direct personal attack on myself, without any proof, and I find it to be highly offensive. The editor, Bali Ultimate, has been around for a while and should know better, and he was even blocked as early as June for 10 days (although for a separate reason, he disrupted an ArbCom case).

While searching the archives, I found another example of Bali launching a personal attack for which he can't back up evidence, where at this AE case he accuses (as a fact) certain editors of coordinating Wikipedia activity offline. Specifically, Bali wrote "Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other)."

I find these personal attacks, which Bali writes as definitive facts without zero proof (and I know, for one, that I'm not a "settler activist"), highly offensive and troubling to encounter.

--Activism1234 21:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to explain why being called a "settler activist" might be considered a personal attack - I see it as a mistaken (based on your explanation) assumption that you're part of a group based on the type of edits being made. Perhaps you could point me to where you tried to discuss the meaning of the phrase with Bali directly so I can have a look? dangerouspanda 21:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a defamation of my name. Now, I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, I'm actually an activist (who knows, maybe I'm paid too!) who should be constantly monitored, and the fact that I'm an activist may even suffice to revert some of my edits, and can be used in edit summaries. It's insulting to me - I'm being labelled as someone that I'm not. I'm an editor, I'm not an activist for anyone, and that claim has no proof whatsoever. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is a phrase that labels me as an activist for settlers. I'm not an activist for anyone - period. If I was called an activist for movie directors, I'd reject that too as a false labelling of my name and defamation without any actual evidence that I am said activist. Even if my edits appear to support a particular POV, say movie directors, would that make me an activist?? Of course not. Bali can't prove that, and will never be able to, because I'm not. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

But why is it "defamation of your name"? Your userid says "Activism" and does not identify you directly as a person. Being misidentified as being part of a group? Really? dangerouspanda 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My name as an editor, not my userid. Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Again, we also have that claim by Bali that there's a group of editors who engage in off-Wikipedia activities to coordinate their edits, a claim he stated as a fact, without any evidence. Then there are further attacks on me below. --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that was me. I believe your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad, and to support a particular faction within Israel's political discourse (in shorthand, I'll call it the settler movement). My evidence is your editing behavior here, which I've looked off and on for a few months. (You popped up on my watchlist when I checked in today on a really awful hit piece I helped fix a while ago). Your antics at Maureen Dowd recently may also be of interest. Do I care about your beliefs, what's in your heart? No. But the way you act on them here, to skew content on one of the most highly trafficked websites there is, does concern me. It should concern more people. I understand it won't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Another attack on me... I'm trying to fathom how some articles I created and made substantial contributions to, like 2012 Nigeria floods, Mostafa Hussein Kamel, Nagwa Khalil, Momtaz al-Saeed, Shaanxi bus-tanker crash, August 2012 Caracas prison riot, Marikana miners' strike, Menachem Cohen (scholar), Hisham Zazou, or Deeper Life Church shooting, none of which have anything to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, can possibly be evidence that my "sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general look bad." So yes, here's another personal attack for me that labels me as someone that I am not.

I edit based on RS outlets, if there's a specific problem with an edit of mine, feel free to discuss it with me on the article. For example, I'd be happy to discuss the content-specific aspect of this edit on that article, but the personal attack was just incendiary. Simply put - it's false. You made a gross assumption and believed it as a fact, and then defamed me as such. --Activism1234 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you find the label "activist" to be offensive maybe you should have chosen another username?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my userid says "Activism" - does that make me an activist?? I'm expressing my goal of being an active editor, not of being an "activist," for which no evidence exists. Why am I labelled as a particular type of activist? As I showed above, Bali has attacked me further, claiming that I have only one sole purpose on Wikipedia, which I punctured by demonstrating a variety of articles I've created or significantly expanded and worked on which aren't even related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet Bali singles me out as a "settler activist." --Activism1234 22:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that if a user with the name "activism" makes edits that can be seen as tendentious or motivated by a political stance it is unreasonable to expect that others don't call you out on it. If you don't want to be called "settler activist" then 1. change your username and 2. be sure to edit in ways that do not seem biased in favor of settlers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Settler activist" is not an insult. If you make edits that appear to have some specific POV, don't be surprised if someone mistakes you for having a POV. The title itself is not an insult, so it cannot violate NPA dangerouspanda 22:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He's publicly labelling me as an activist. Not even just "reverting a POV," but going the step to say I'm an activist in real life for them. That's something he can't corroborate. --Activism1234 22:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, so what. Being an activist of any type is not an insulting term dangerouspanda 22:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"going the step to say I'm an activist in real life...". Your Wikipedia editing is part of your 'real life'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's just note that your edit, Activism1234, with the edit summary " add, sheep don't eat dozens of trees overnight (edited with ProveIt))" was blatant original research. There was absolutely nothing in the source you cited that characterised the event as a conspiracy theory. If you intend to make inventive edits like that, you really don't belong in this project, understood? --JN466 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite. And by the way, the implication is not that the sheep ate trees whole, bark, trunk and all overnight. It's a pissed off farmer complaining that the sheep ate the... wait for it... the fruit, presumably all the fruit they could get to (olive and other orchard trees are pruned to stay low). Did that really happen? Don't know. Does "Activism" who abhors being called an "activist" know the reality of what happened? No. All we have is a probably badly translated article from Maan (which doesn't say what he claimed it said). Did Maan news agency write what he claimed they wrote? No. Straight down the rabbit hole, we all go. Blech.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Activism1234 needs to be warned for WP:OR insertions. And putting "activism" in his user name skirts what's acceptable WP:BAIT, given his POV pushing unsupported by sources which may caused by WP:COMPETENCE or WP:ACTIVISM issues. In any case, Activism1234 is a disruptive user name, and should receive a WP:UAA block in light of his editing. To put it more bluntly if someone registers User:POVPushing1234, does some WP:POVPUSHing and then runs screaming to ANI that he is being "discriminated" because of his user name when people object to his editing, we should oblige with WP:BOOMERANG. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm curious why someone with a user name like Activism1234 is so badly disconcerted by being called an "activist?" (For one thing, there are a couple areas in which I'm an activist, and proud to be so.) Even given the dubious premise that the word "activist" has been smeared as pejorative in the same way "liberal" has been in this country, one would think that someone who felt that the word was pejorative wouldn't use a similar construction as a user name. I strongly disagree that his user name is "disruptive" - perhaps Tijfo098 could explain that startling assertion to us? - but I do agree that he protesteth too much. Ravenswing 08:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, if it's a personal attack to be called something that's semantically extremely related to (and possibly implied by) his user name, then his user name must also be unacceptable. I doubt that User:CockSucking would be allowed to edit, for instance. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Something of a strawman, don't you think? That being said, I don't think it's one bit more acceptable for us to be pointy at ANI than anywhere else on Wikipedia. The proper response to the OP is "Don't be absurd," not to compel him to change his user name because it allegedly incites people to insult ... which - you would have to concede - would presuppose we bought into the OP's silly premise that he was insulted, and would likewise follow that we would be taking action against the putative culprits. Ravenswing 08:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Pointy boomerang? Naah... Tijfo098 (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The tag-teaming by committed partisans whose sole interest here is to make Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general look bad (and in childish fashion no less) is very sad. What's sadder is that nothing will be done about it. [79].Bali ultimate (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean really. Nonsense to "get" the "other side" is inerted by User:Activism1234. I remove it. Then User:Dixy flyer, a rather obvious throwaway sock account for the IP battleground (all of six edits total), reverts me. Then User:AnkhMorpork, another of the anti-Arab, pro-Israel editors reverts me. Then User:Shrike, another of their "team" revets me -- all to force the inclusion of material that fails Wikipedia's own sourcing standards and is manifestly inappropriate. This happens every day. Ah, crowd-sourcing.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The Zionist/Pro-Israel activist tag team (which is quite clearly what they are) are engaging in WP:OR (mingled with sheer ignorance) to insert more propaganda into what must be one of Wikipedia's most ludicrous articles - and then AnkhMorpork has the chutzpah to invoke WP:ARBPIA restrictions, as if adding the material in the first place wasn't overt POV-pushing of the most ridiculous kind. Par for the course though - this lot have been around long enough to know how to subvert every rule in order to pursue their agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you are refering to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKHKp7h71kQ I"srael pays propagandists to "edit" (corrupt) Wikipedia " or what other tag team do you know about? I thought wikipedia stopped such Wikipedia:GAME tactics long ago. you are saying activism1234 is part of this tag team group?Smithsonianshouse (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The false information, which rests on lying about the claims of a published source, has now been restored again by User:Activism1234. This is how Wikipedia "content" gets made. There is no editorial-control to deal with propaganda and, frankly, viciousness, from a group of ethno-nationalists here to share their hatred for others.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia has functioned since its inception (on such topics). Okay, they've added the ArbCom 1RR at some point, which actually increased the importance of disciplined, coordinated revert teaming. Lamentation at ANI is not going to change that. Stick to the game's rules and keep a stiff upper lip. Or go someplace else. I hear they've opened a WP:TEAHOUSE with professional web design and a relaxing atmosphere! Tijfo098 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I just occasionally try to fix particularly egregious and vicious things here. I mostly spend time on worthier pursuits, i.e. [80].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Legal threat here: [81] by User:Dave of Maryland: "The situation is grave. I will present this to the community on Monday. In two days. The presentation is nearly done. I will most strongly urge immediate legal action. The community has 30 years case law experience. I do not think Wikipedia will present much problem." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Indef, and ask which zodiac sign he was born under. My money's on Zippy, the Pinhead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I indeffed the editor based on the legal threat. He can retract it and request an unblock if he wishes. The editor is clearly not at Wikipedia to do anything but promote a pro-astrology agenda, anyway, having made precisely one article edit (out of 109 edits total) since creating an account in 2009.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I note he's created a page (not an actual nomination) at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Project Hindsight, although Project Hindsight doesn't exist. -- AussieLegend (✉) 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I think he's complaining about an article that was already deleted. Obviously doesn't know and/or care how requests for deletion and un-deletion work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He had made an edit to the closed discussion (which I reverted some time ago). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• Among other non-constructive comments post-blocking, this screed has led to me revoking talk page access. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for eyes

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

---

HOAScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has produced a series edits with unusually captioned images of people. I'd like a few sets of eyes to make sure that there are no BLP violations and that appropriate oversight is provided if needed.Novangelis (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism-only account to me. Blocked and uploads nuked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response.Novangelis (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Something odd here – Possible COI and single topic focus

Can somebody cast their eyes over these [82] and [83] and see what you think? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 01:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs to read WP:ELNO and WP:REDLINK, but otherwise it doesn't look especially bad. —Kerfuffler  howl
prowl  01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also triggered Wikipedias spam filter. Did some cleanup.

Light-Productions, Inc

Google Analytics ID: UA-21818126 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Google Analytics ID: UA-28748624 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

• thewinawards.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thewinawards.com

• thewinawards.byethost24.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thewinawards.byethost24.com
• winfemme.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.winfemme.com

Articles

• Women's Image Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Sedaray/Women's Image Network Award
• User:GingerMomma12/Women's Image Network Awards
• User:Qwyrxian/Women's Image Network Awards

Accounts

GingerMomma12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Sedaray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
76.91.31.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
76.168.194.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Lilacqueen60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Winfemme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

What strange the domain is the thewinawards.com is an iframe placeholder for this site thewinawards.byethost24.com--Hu12 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad I noticed this. The Women's Image Network Awards are an annual set of awards given to people in the entertainment industry who promote positive/balanced gender representations. I've had a draft version of an article about the awards in my Sandbox for a few years, because I really think they should have a WP article, but, unfortunately, I can't find quite enough sources to be certain to pass WP:GNG. As for adding the links to the awards, it does constitute a reliable source for the award itself, however, the question is whether or not any mention of the awards is of due weight on the pages it was added, given that the awards are only borderline notable. This isn't some sort of industry insider award (the type where you pay money to join an organization, which in turn gives you an award)...but I don't know if it's important enough for inclusion. Having said that, I don't think GingerMomma12 is "spamming", as much as she is not understanding our rules on weight and sources. I've already left a note on her user talk page, since seeing the unexpected edits to my sandbox, asking for help in creating a fully functional article. I would say that should we create such an article that meets WP:GNG, then we should definitely include the awards in relevant other articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sabah

I tried edit-protecting Sabah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for three days to get people to discuss, but it didn't work. Could someone take a look at see if it requires further protection or blocks? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

While I'm unfamiliar with the history of the dispute, I'd advocate blocking Omdo and Egard89 for their apparent violations of the WP:3RR between 16:54, 22 September and 10:03, 23 September.

Differences for Omdo:

1. 08:43

2. 09:12

3. 09:30

4. 09:49

Differences for Egard89:

1. 08:05

2. 08:45

3. 09:16

4. 09:37

5. 09:53

These reversions appear to occur without any prior attempt at resolution elsewhere, and I'm unaware of any mitigating circumstances, namely vandalism. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC).

Looks like edit warring to me. Both have prior notifications of 3RR (several for Omdo; at least one for Edgard89). I've given both temporary blocks - a longer one for Edgard89, as he has been previously blocked for EW. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GregJackP and possible canvassing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

GregJackP has quite legitimately posted at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list, asking for help in improving the article Censorship in Islamic societies, which is currently subject to an AfD discussion. However, the posting also stated that "In addition, there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship. There is currently an RfC, so imput on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved". [84] This appeared to me to be canvassing, in that it was improperly asking for support for a particular position at the RfC, and accordingly I commented on this in the thread. [85]. In reply GregJackP wrote that "... if you feel it was canvasing, file a complaint. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, as these type of unfounded accusations have been addressed over and over again. Guess what - it's not canvassing". [86] Since I'm not interested in 'guessing' whether it was canvassing or not, I'll ask the question here: was it canvassing, and if so, what action (if any) should be taken about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The tone of his proclamation at ARS was definitely not neutral. (Disclosure: I !voted to delete that article.) Tijfo098 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What tone are you reading into this? Seems neutral to me. And work was being done on the article, but edit warring kept going on, and it is now locked from future editing. Dream Focus 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding what is going on with article content, that wasn't the issue. As I said, posting at ARS asking for help including an article is legitimate - but canvassing for support at an RfC isn't. How can a request for input at an RfC (which is beyond the ARS remit) which states that "there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship" be neutral? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Asking for help at ARS with improving the article to save from deletion = fine. Suggesting that editors of a certain persuasion weigh in on an RfC related to that = definitely not fine, in exactly the same way it would be if the target was an AfD instead of an RfC. Being incivil to someone pointing that issue out = simply compounding the problematic behaviour. GrepJackP has some explaining to do here. Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have the ability to pull diffs effectively right now (I'm on my phone), but will respond more fully later. In brief, I asked for help in saving an article at ARS, and worded it neutrally, including all the factors involved. As to asking editors of a certain persuation? I think that it is fairly clear that I'm a deletionist - yet I'm on ARS all the time, as are others who are deletionists. Not all of those who are at ARS are of a single viewpoint. In addition, the article was at AFD at the same time, and in the past posting a notice at ARS has been held to not be canvassing. Perhaps I was a tad incivil, but it is really irritating to be accused of canvassing everytime something is posted to ARS. GregJackP Boomer! 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• As recently as June of this year, there was an RfC about ARS and canvassing [87]. The RfC came to two conclusion that really relevant here, 1) that "The project is designed to improve articles, not participate in AfDs, and members who forget this should be reminded;" and 2) that "Editors who believe that the group has bias are welcome to join it to make it more neutral." The "canvassing issue was found not to be a problem when neutrally phrased notices were used.

The issue has come up numerous time, every time someone makes an ARS notification. It is time for that to end, and users should assume good faith instead of immediately crying out "canvassing" instead of assuming good faith and believing that the other party believes that the article can be saved.

I'm a deletionist, and the people at ARS know that. Its not a secret, I've joked with some of them about being deletionist. That doesn't mean that articles that are viable to the project don't need to be saved, and I've done my share of that too. This is one of those cases, where the article can be saved. There are plenty of good references, but they keep getting deleted from the article by Roscelese [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], and [94]. That was 7 reverts in 3 days, and one of the reasons that I went to ARS, hoping to find a way to save the article. I haven't dealt with WP:COATRACK issues much, and I needed help, not in !votes (it was about 50-50 on the AFD, and RFC was about 24 hrs old (and hadn't yet posted to the RFC pages). I needed help in how to get the material from the various academic sources into the article so that Roscelese could not make the "coatrack" argument. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If the "help" you were seeking is "help me find an innovative way of putting the irrelevant information into the article since I wasn't able to do it on my own" rather than "help me understand why my understanding of policy was incorrect before so I can edit better in the future," you are doing it wronb. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it was asking for help on how to deal with an editor that doesn't follow policy, not on what the policy is. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As a sidenote, how should one deal with such blatant disregard of discussion? I know that she has had these issues in the past, [95], but she is clearly not open to any discussion on the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Whine, whine, whine. A click of the mouse will show that you didn't have consensus for any of your edits, so what could you possibly hope to gain from making yourself into an innocent victim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is consensus. Clear consensus on not requiring academic sources, clear consensus that the word "censorship" does not have to appear in the source as long as it is clear from the context, and consensus on the amended definition. In addition, there was absolutely no consensus for your repeatedly removing sourced material, nor for your edit warring. Finally, on the AfD, it is even, and the arguments of the Keep !votes are much stronger than the weak arguments on the delete side. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A 'consensus' to ignore policy is meaningless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there wasn't a consensus to "ignore policy" I have no idea what you're talking about. Rocselese was the one that suggested only "academic" sources be used, consensus (and policy) states that only reliable sources are needed. There is no policy that a specified word has to be in the source, despite what she claimed. Consensus of the community agreed. Finally, there are numerous articles and projects that use working definitions, and no policy either for or against that. The community came to a consensus what definition should be used in this article, after compromise (i.e., it wasn't the original one proposed, but was modified to obtain consensus). GregJackP Boomer! 03:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, here's the text in full:

“ This article has potential and what I believe are pretty good sources. It was nominated for deletion based on WP:OR and what appears to be a dislike of the subject matter. After I started to work on the article by adding several academic sources, those advocating for deletion started to argue that it was WP:COATRACK. I don't believe it is, but I don't know how to address that argument, so help in rewriting the article would be appreciated.

In addition, there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship. There is currently an RfC, so imput on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved. GregJackP Boomer! 10:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

”

The only unstated (but easily inferrable) info is that the "delete COATRACK" AfD !votes were made by those arguing (there and in the RfC) that material not classifiable as censorship had been added. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem luike egregrious canvassing to me, the wording about "overly narrow definition" I think could well simply be an unconscious failure to be completely neutral. I would be happy to assume good faith here and simply let GregJackP know that the wording is not sufficiently neutrally worded and that we expect future notices to be more neutral. The fact that he didn't himself agf with Andy is a problem but also not meriting more than an admonition to communicate in a collegiate spirit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I can see how "overly narrow definition" could be seen as not completely neutral, and I will strive to be more careful about my choice of words in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think WP:Canvass should be redefined as an essay, an advice to follow, rather than an official guideline to punish people for posting messages. This harms collaboration. We must encourage all types of communication in the project, not discourage them. I know, this is a highly unpopular idea, but you do not want to control and censor communications in collaborative projects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh no, censorship! God, it's just everywhere! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• While I'm involved in this article already and thus already know what edits GregJackP is trying to solicit with this posting, I still don't see how, looking with an eye that attempts to be objective, it isn't canvassing. ARS, per its mission statement, aims to acknowledge and address deletion rationales, but GregJackP's statement asks ARS contributors to deny that delete !voters have valid points (as well as to support his position in the RFC). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Where did I ask anyone to "deny" anything? Or to support my position? I asked for help on saving an article that deserves to be here, and for "input." I know those guys well enough that if they don't agree, they'll say so (usually because I'm on the delete side of the argument). GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GregJackP overstepped the bounds of neutral article alerts in trying to get the ARS regulars to accept his viewpoint of the article before they even saw it. Thus his notice was canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't the first issue of canvassing of the board by GregJackP [96]. If you post on ARS when there is an AfD in progress, you can almost guarantee a flow of uninformed inclusionists will vote. A great example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection: " Keep This guy created a lot of notable math/science things. Many scholars do cite this." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• What does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection have to do with me? Never saw it or posted about it. Look, I understand that, just like you did in the Baggett case, want to just jump up and down and say "canvassing" - except that the article was improved dramatically since it went to ARS. It now has 16 sources, thanks to myself and 3 editors from ARS that added material to the article. Look at the edit history at the article. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The advection and many other AFDs shows that there are editors who will go to AfDs and can be almost guaranteed to vote keep if you add a topic to the list at ARS, even if it involves them making arguments that they know to be false or which are plainly silly. You didn't add the notification that it had been listed at ARS either. A number of squadron members appeared at the AfD following the canvass, including Dream Focus and Warden came and voted keep. ARS contains a smaller core who advocate keeping articles at all costs and who fear the mythical editors who want to delete everything [97][98], even hypothesing secret cabals: "Originally the people were able to band together and drive away those that would seek to bring only destruction and misery. Then one day an organized cabal of deletionists did appear, and begin writing up guidelines, to give them excuse to eliminate things they didn't like." It's clear from your wording here that you are canvassing for keep votes: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Censorship_in_Islamic_societies IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• This was indeed clearly canvassing. A recurring problem at the ARS list, e.g. "notices" like "Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar. Articles about Gibraltar are currently in the firing line and this is the first that I've come across. I pounced on it immediately following the similar case of Hotel Bristol which was recently Kept at AFD. Warden (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)" (Emphasis in original). Bolding "kept", and claiming that an AFD on an article about the general issue of hotels being named Bristol throughout the world is similar or relevant to an article about one specific such hotel? Yeah, totally neutral. Notices like this one start off with some minor editing advice, and then go on to issue an AfD advice. Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• So? AfD are listed a number of places, such as WP:MILHIST - is that canvassing too? I watch the ARS - and a lot of time will go to the article, look at it, and !vote delete. GregJackP Boomer! 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Vitale as an example. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's a common misunderstanding that canvassing must have the desired effect to be actualy considered "canvassing". And I said a recurring problem, not that every single post (or perhaps even a majority of them) at that list are canvassers, or that all people using it are consistently voting keep. Providing evidence of ARS list notices that were neutral, or ARS members agreeing to delete an article at AfD, don't negate that some notices (like the one under discussion, or the other examples given) may be intended to canvass. Fram (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GregJackP misrepresenting sources?

See these examples by Binksternet. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:69.255.225.227

This user keeps inserting[99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] content to a footnoted sentence at Slavery in ancient Rome, attributing information to the source that isn't in the source. Another editor and I have repeatedly explained on the user's talk page that the content may not be inserted in this way, and if the user wishes to add it, (s)he must cite a different source. Although initially there were concerns that the user didn't understand ethnic labels as they pertain to classical antiquity, the editing has become disruptive because the user refuses to find a different source and keeps wanting to make the existing source say something it doesn't. I can't tell whether User:69.255.225.227 is trying to make a point or is simply refusing to follow basic verification and attribution procedure. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I have explained to the IP that consensus is required and that he or she will need to convince others that the edit meets the core policies. If the edit warring continues, a block would be appropriate. Hopefully, that won't be what happens and conversation will begin.

I am not interacting with the content, as I am remaining uninvolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Admin Arthur Rubin

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

---

I am raising an issue here, because the user in question is an Admin and the pattern of disruptive, tendentious editing extends beyond a single incident. His status as an admin procedurally prevents this issue from being addressed through the conventional edit warring notice board.

This admin editor's objectivity may be clouded by some unknown bias that is evident in his edit history. He consistently tries to raise the bar for inclusion on certain articles. When multiple supporting sources are documented and consensus trends against his arguments, his arguments then morph into WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, followed by overtagging articles with dubious maintenance tags. Admins are supposed to lead by example, and adhere to a high standard of conduct. According to WP:ADMIN sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator.

I do not propose a block for this editor however, given his tenure and role as an admin, he should know better than to engage in disruptive, tendentious editing. A temporary topic ban may be warranted. – MrX 19:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Page: Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

• 1st revert: [107] "It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109] (admitted edit warring; self-reverted when warned)
• 4th revert: [110] (self-reverted, but tag bombed the lead)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Illinois Family Institute#Closing this RfC

Comments:

While this user has not strictly broken the 3RR, I believe the examples above highlight the latest in a larger pattern of disruptive editing which I first warned the user about here User talk:Arthur Rubin#Disruptive removal of sourced content - September 2012

Notably, the user has made few if any actual contributions to these articles, instead seeming to prefer to police them for perceived bias and then argue both against consensus and against reliable, verified sources.

Other examples where this user has removed sourced content from articles about designated hate groups, (falsely) claiming that the content is unsourced. In each case, the sources can be verified and usually are direct quotes:

AFTAH

• September 14, 2012:[112]"It's synthesis to have this much, but "namecalling" is not specifically sourced for this organization."
• September 18, 2012:[113]""reason" is still unsourced. As you added back the default reason, within any justification, I'm removing the entire thing until it can be specifically sourced"

MassResistance

• September 17, 2012:[114] " additional information not in any of the sources yet provided"
• September 17, 2012:[115] "Hate group designation: still not in citation. Please stop synthesizing" (except it is in the source)
• September 17, 2012:[116] "It's not in the source. Please learn to read."

Southern Poverty Law Center

• September 9, 2012:[117] tag bombing

Public Advocate of the United States

• August 23, 2012:[118] "unless the "hate group" designation is more important than what the organization stands for, it shouldn't be in the lede"

Parents Action League

• September 17, 2012:[119] tagging and (unwarranted) attribution
• September 19, 2012:[120] overtagging (even re-introducing a biased statement with a misspelling in the tag)
• September 17, 2012:Talk:Parents Action League#Revised content - discussion related to above edits

– MrX 19:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please made edit warring reports at WP: AN/EW. Electric Catfish² 19:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Uninvolved ANI Watcher) Found a similar report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Arthur_Rubin_reported_by_User:MrX_.28Result:_Declined.29 --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is a pattern of disruptive editing, and as mentioned at the top of this report, "His status as an admin procedurally prevents this issue from being addressed through the conventional edit warring notice board." I posted an AN/EW notice a few hours ago and it was declined as not being in the correct forum. – MrX 19:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• As can be seen by the link to ANEW, I declined the report for the reasons stated there. MrX then came to my talk page and politely asked where he should report the problem, and I mentioned ANI as one possibility. As I said on my talk page, I have no comment on the merits of the issues raised by MrX - my decline was procedural. Finally, if anyone follows the link to ANEW, you will also see some of Arthur's comments, which MrX did not include above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not helpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since when are editors exempt from the 3RR board if they are admins? 140.211.82.5 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia rules apply most stringently to IPs, and to named accounts decreasingly by tenure. Admins are presumed to be in the right in the case of all but the most serious malfeasance. It's effectively unwritten policy by now. </sarcasm> Hadn't you noticed? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am confused about the decline, which doesn't seem to fit. If the question is about the use of admin tools, then WP:AN is the proper venue. If it isn't about using admin tools, then the same venue is used for admins as non-admins. Outside of tool use, admins are the same as non-admins when it comes to article edits. Is there more to this that I'm seeing? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like Bbb23 declined based on a misunderstanding about the technical aspects of blocking. (Speaking generally, WP:ANEW is the appropriate venue for determining whether or not edit warring has taken place involving any member of the Wikipedia community—logged-in or logged-out, admin bit or not. I have no comment on, nor have I investigated, the merits of this request.) For some reason, Bbb23 appears to believe that there is some sort of (technical?) barrier to blocking admin accounts; this is not the case. Admin accounts can be blocked just like any other accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved: I reverted Bbb23 at WP:AN/EW per this consensus. I believe that resolves the issue as it relates to this forum. I suggest that interested editors head that way to review the merits of the edit warring/3RR complaint. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

67.238.152.151

IP Special:Contributions/67.238.152.151 is ranting everywhere about fascism on wikipedia. Can an admin look at any of his edits and they will see what I mean. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(Uninvolved non-admin ANI Watcher) The editors should be notified. I have done it for you. Regards! --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

He stopped 9 hours ago, so he either gave up or found something better to do. I left him one more polite note asking for context, but if he continues posting his rant to more random pages, he'll be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A cheers, forgot to do that. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

Re: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs)

Came across this character following his raising a complaint at MilHist, a few weeks ago, but because they clearly did not resolve it to his personal satisfaction he took the issue to RFD without notifying anyone. At the time he left a number of uncivil remarks towards someone in the RFD. I asked him to tone it down, as I was uninvolved in the matter, and he became uncivil with an abrupt high-horse attitude about him, with total lack of AGF: User talk:Incnis Mrsi#September 2012.

Two weeks later I was asked to look into his recent behaviour, via email. Did so, still uninvolved, and he has persisted with his arrogant manner of leaving blunt edit summaries, accusing editors of being bad or wasteful, and that he is somehow "perfect" and should never he reverted because he takes insult to it. A strong ownership attitude exists in his behaviour also. He has claimed to have quit editing on Russian Wiki because of double standards, but it is clear that he sets the standards himself, often contrary to Wiki policy, and has a total IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to anyone asking that he stop leaving uncivil, border-line personal attack remarks. I wouldn't say he was down-right offensive, but his manner of "outing" editors as being poor or inexperienced is hardly appropriate in the face of the poor editor retention we have at present. Following this (User talk:Incnis Mrsi#Personal Attack) lengthy discussion, he went on to pursue his disrespect towards editors, and has been asked again to lay off. Again, he claims not to be in the wrong... ever.

I'm not asking for a block here, his actual edits are neither controversial nor disruptive, but his behaviour is certainly unwarranted, and it is inappropriate for him to react with spite towards every editors commenting on his behaviour. I think a couple of admins need to give this fellow a few pokes, after reviewing his edit summaries and underhand remarks towards a few editors, lately. Maybe he will get the jist, given that he feels only someone with authority has the right to rebuke him, then I don't see any other way, he ignores everyone else's concerns. My own remarks started off politely, but his egotistic responses just started to drive me nuts after a while, because he refuses to accept that he is ever saying anything wrong, in an annoying "civil POV pusher" fashion, even with 3 or 4 editors stating the opposite, so the discussions linked do start to lose coherence in a way. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation - much the same experience from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I am not the best Wikipedia user, but this request is made in a bad faith. Yes, I know what I said and I am ready to account for my words.

• You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced.
• Maybe you should start listening to those of us encouraging you to do that, before you dig your own grave into AN/I, hmmm?
• You can tell a good editor by the praise/barnstars on their talkpage. You have one in 6 years. Perhaps not everyone feels you're helping en-Wiki become better, because your attitude to fellow-editors speaks more than your contribs which go unnoticed as a result. Shame..

This three diffs should be sufficient, for an experienced user, to detect the nominator's motivation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting people out of context, is bad faith. Accusing me of bad faith is also bad faith, given than there is plenty of evidence at hand that cannot be denied. Your first quote, for example, was a response to you stating "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user". You only highlighted my point that you think yourself better than everyone. You issued a challenge to my experience, it was met. Don;t cry about it now your civility is being questioned towards multiple editors. Quoting me, only proves you have a beef with anyone who questions your manner. You haven't even made an attempt to defend your rude edit summaries, "bad editor" outing, ownership, being "insulted by reverts", and so on and so forth. I've already openly stated that conversations with you spiral out of control, because you're massively incapable of expressing guilt, so your quotes are irrelevant tit-for-tat. This ANI thread is about you, and your history of incivility. I suggest you direct your immediate attention to that matter, and not me. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same experience at User talk:StringTheory11 and Superatom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, to save people time searching for what StringTheory11 is specifically referring to: User talk:StringTheory11 dispute and Superatom edit summary. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the history of the Incnis Mrsi's talk page, people don't seem to have accused him if in-civility or personal attacks or stuff like that until about September 2012 (but I could be wrong), and he's been here sense 2008. Might the account be compromised? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can ask the people on Wikimedia channels at Freenode, it's genuinely me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is here on Wikipedia merely to look for trouble, not to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia. And dealing with this user is all the more tedious because he/she seems to like to argue points of English language usage with editors who, unlike him/her, are native speakers. Here are a couple differences from my encounters with Incnis Mrsi:

• Me trying to be gracious in spite of my doubts of IM's intentions: [121]
• IM demonstrating what seems to be his/her edit summary MO: [122]

Eric ^talk 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You claimed my edit to be "erroneous" (without explicit arguments, but already with a pronounced doubt about my good faith), I tried to discuss it. Is AN/I a proper place to air grievances about disagreements in one article, or (possibly) even two or three? BTW, a mediation eventually reduced the problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have a long experience of interaction with Incnis Mrsi in Russian Wikipedia, where, especially in the end, this interaction was far from pleasant, and one one occasion I even met them in person at a WikiMeetup. Incnis Mrsi is certainly not a poster boy, they are sometimes incivil and often fail to hear others, and their communication skills are not ideal. On the other hand in most cases the points they are trying to make are valid, and their contribution to the articles is highly valuable. I do not have a good solution, but I personally just learned to ignore the trash they are saying (and believe me it was not easy, for instance, when they came to rally against me at the Arbcom elections) and to extracting valid points. I do not think any formal restrictions would work (except for the full ban of course but then we lose their contributions while gaining nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Answered on the personal talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about this ANI thread off-board, perhaps it should not be in the form of further personal attacks: "I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction" - this is exactly – the point I'm trying to make about your repeated high-horse attitude, and how what you believe is somehow better than what everyone else thinks,per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You always want the last word, and it's the only one you think is "right". Your disregard for the "collaborative spirit" of Wiki is of more concern than anything. Your bully-style attitude, telling people what "not" to do, "never" to do, why they are "waste makers", why you are somehow superior as an "experienced metapedian" is just not appropriate. In short, you talk down to everyone like they're shit on your shoe, and it's that condescending manner than I and others disapprove of, and the fact you can't accept it because of whatever pride/ego you have only for yourself presents a massive COI blindsightedness in favour of your opinions. The fact that you refer to almost everyone who holds a dispute with you as a "troll" and ignore them is also a poor show of will to resolve an issue; you lack tact and communication skills, again, because you somehow you feel you are superior to the rest of us, as is evident in that quote, apparently "the community" has no power over you alone. Funny.. I thought that was the whole point of consensus building: to reach mutual understandings, not let one man exert his will over others like some dictator. You do that, be bashing people with repeat ignorance of their views, and forceful reassertion of your own. It's not how Wiki works. Are you getting this? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody think that MarcusBritish went far beyond the point where his efforts to persuade me to become more civil can be, actually, useful for this community? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, do you think that? As I said before, this isn't about me, people are commenting about you, and with a number of editors now raising behaviour concerns, I suggest you stop trying to create a fork in the discussion. Also, reading between the lines, your reply reads as, "I don't want to be civil.. if I can somehow drive MarcusBritish off, no one can stop me doing whatever I want". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

… namely: searching for illegal redirects (unfortunately, not always CSD-eligible), users and scripts inserting dashes instead of minus signs, and WP:DICTIONARY articles (which are much more common than is usually thought of). Not counting, sometimes, writing large section or even entire articles, despite "my non-native English". I make a job useful for Wikipedia. If I make certain mistakes in etiquette, then I would prefer to be corrected by a people without serious problem with etiquette and good faith, themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been approached by several people for your etiquette, and dismissed them all as "trolls" or "bigots" or "waste-makers", because you apply own limited-vision of who you deem proper to approach you, which appears to be noone. Your preferences are irrelevant, as you are requesting (demanding) to be informed of policy breaches on your own terms. Tell me, how does a guy intelligent enough to edit physics and mathematical articles, lack the ability to apply that same level of intelligence to his social-skills, or a little inner-self psychology, and realise that he is being unsociable towards people? You've admitted that you are "ready to account for my words", so why not start doing that, instead of putting a spin on your attitude, flipping-off your detractors, and show a little constraint when it comes to lashing out at people, instead of treading on editors contributors, as your edit summaries show you do with indiscriminate irreverence. Civility is probably easier to learn and apply than the laws of physics.. how about you start giving it a try, instead of maintain that stubborn, and to be frank - selfish - attitude that you have. Yes, civility is useful for the community, without it Wiki would fail. Why did you quit Russian-Wiki and come over to English-Wiki.. "double standards" or because they too insisted on proper etiquette that you can't live up to? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GOLDI123456789

• GOLDI123456789 (talk · contribs)

User is persistently adding unsourced and badly written content to numerous articles, sometimes attempting to overturn others' cleaning up after them [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128]. I'd prefer to report this as vandalism, but I'm not certain it qualifies. Nonetheless, there appears to be some political bias involved, and I suspect even the newly coined hyperlinks at Indira Gandhi have an agenda. Help appreciated. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if the user responds to this discussion - IMO if the user continues to edit in the same fashion and ignore warnings, a disruptive editing block can be issued if all else fails. – Connormah (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps inevitable [129]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotional email for "wiki-pr.com"

• wiki-pr.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Google Analytics ID: UA-34239097 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

This isn't quite an AN/I issue, but it needs to be reported. I just received the following email. Since this was sent to me as an email spam, not through Wikipedia, I'm not censoring any of the ID information.

From: Daniel Zak <daniel@wiki-pr.com>

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:03:17 +0100

Subject: SiteTruth... on Wikipedia?

To: info@animats.com

Hi SiteTruth Team,

Shouldn't SiteTruth have a full-length, professional page on Wikipedia? Wiki-PR.com creates full-length, professional Wikipedia pages. We have software tools to manage your page in real-time.

Would you like more information? Please reply by email or provide your contact number. It will be worthwhile. A full-length, professionally written Wikipedia page will drive sales and inform your clients about what you do best.

Your competitors are getting on Wikipedia. Shouldn't you be on Wikipedia, too?

Best,

Thanks, Daniel

Wiki-PR.com

Daniel Zak

Senior Account Manager

Wiki-PR wiki-pr.com

We Write It. We Manage It.

You Never Worry About Wikipedia Again.

Tel: 888-819-0733

daniel@wiki-pr.com

Twitter: @wiki_PR

Someone needs to apply a large hammer to this outfit. If they're sending out spam like this, how much damage have they already done? --John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I especially like 'page management' [130]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm One of their staff is none other than the banned MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs). Great. Doc talk 22:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I personally know of at least 100 socks related to this group. Not all of them are actually linked in the public records here, or are archived as multiple sockmasters, even though they all point to this one organization. I would guess we have caught fewer than 10% of the actual socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: I know that you are one of the most careful and deliberative of our admin corps, but this seems as if it would be an instance where WP:IAR could be invoked without rebuke. Perhaps you should block the 100 socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have worded it better. The socks I know are blocked, under different puppetmasters, but not formally linked. The other 900 we haven't found. They tend to create an account, add the article, then don't use the account again. Some of the articles pass the grade but over half don't. None are great. There is actually a lot of politics involved as well, which I can't really explain, but it doesn't help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I just can't believe they found that guy to be on their staff (or he found them). It's nauseating that this shill touts himself as a WP "expert for hire". Doc talk 12:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"We are winning this". Tijfo098 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Increasingly disruptive edits & hounding.

User:Insomesia has taken to following me around, providing that editor's view on a subject of interest to her (Ray Blanchard, mostly), but unrelated to any of the actual discussions in question. [131] [132] [133]

Insomesia appears to have developed some deep (but mistaken) beliefs about my beliefs, and at least one other editor has cautioned Insomesia on the repeatedly inappropriate editing wrt me,[134]. I have repeatedly suggested Insomesia bring her concern to the appropriate noticeboard (probably COIN),[135][136][137] to no avail. That is, rather than actually bring the concern to an appropriate forum[138], where they might receive input on the correct application of COI, Insomesia has instead decided to police me according to her own interpretation. Some eyes and guidance would, I hope, forestall escalation.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not been following you at all, if anything I noticed this from the RfC opened up on the issue of COI editing which I had found problematic on other articles. If memory serves me correct I encountered James Cantor at Benjamin scale where they tried to erase the article by merging it to Classification of transsexuals, a biased-at-the-time and chiefly written by this user article that supports their fringe views which are put on equal or higher scale than that of non-controversial views. After that they tried to delete this well known subject and an AfD saved it. Blanchard et al hold what many consider to be controversial views and this editor has a history of promoting Blanchard et al and their views (See this search from their former account). They have installed a "pledge" (see User:James Cantor) which may need to be expanded. It seems they might have broader COI issues as is asserted presently at Michael C. Seto#RfC puffery from COI editor in Michael C. Seto?. There is a history of pro-POV Blanchard activism and COI editing and this user has the hallmarks of being at the heart of it and continuing to do. Looking through some of the past discussions they were often labored and circular with the community throwing out original and fringe research and merging articles. As I follow to see where some "unique" redirects come from I notice the recurring Blanchard and Blanchard-adjacent discussions.

Blanchard's transsexualism typology is one of the end results and the article was heavily edited and the lead now reads, in part, Scientific criticism of the research and theory has come from John Bancroft, Jaimie Veale, Larry Nuttbrock, Charles Allen Moser, and others who argue that the theory is poorly representative of MtF transsexuals, reduces gender identity to a matter of attraction, is non-instructive, and that the research cited in support of the theory has inadequate control groups or is contradicted by other data. Supporters of the theory include J. Michael Bailey, Anne Lawrence, James Cantor, and others who argue that there are significant differences between the two groups, including sexuality, age of transition, ethnicity, IQ, fetishism, and quality of adjustment. (emphasis added)

This would seem to summarize the COI concerns which have a pattern in the past and evidently continue. I'm not doing any policing but I do monitor article alerts on the lgbt page as in the past I've opened a few discussions myself. For my part I will try to keep the discussion focussed, when that focus includes a likely COI issue that has arisen many times over the years I think addressing that clearly can have benefits to those who are better served knowing a possible COI exists. If you feel I've crossed the line I do apologize. I'm not eager to invest my energy here to take you to the COI noticeboard which you seem to be familiar. But that remains an option and if someone needs a statement from me I can spend time to compile something. Insomesia (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, you see. What if, just for the sake of argument, I am correct in that I am editing perfectly within COI and all other applicable guidelines? You certainly aren't going to accept that from me. But by refusing to bring your concern to COIN, you are also unable to hear it from any uninvolved editors familiar with WP:COI. (Or, of course, a consensus that I am editing inappropriately.) So, you are instead going from page to page warning people about me for violating a policy that I am entirely within.— James Cantor (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I did forget about Susan Stryker ([139]) and a string of prods of trans women that the user also tried to delete, I think all of the subjects of those articles are on record as being opposed to Blanchard et al as well, or have publicly added to the protests against their research. Insomesia (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had a string of prods on a variety of topics. Why you have only noticed the transwomen among them I cannot know.

Insomesia's only appropriate courses of action are to bring her concern to the appropriate place or to cease repeating her accusations. To repeat them but refuse to take any step to resolve them is not appropriate.— James Cantor (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I noticed your PRODs of a number of trans topics via the WikiProject Article alerts page, and would have dePRODed several of them myself had it not already been done for me. I don't know if Insomesia has been following your edits or not, but that isn't the only possibility; your pattern of nominations (PRODing obviously notable individuals or organizations that all have a certain something in common) has, frankly, also been disruptive to the point where outside monitoring is not out of the question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Cantor's involvement in trying to delete transsexual biographies is an abominable conflict of interest. This looks like a case of boomerang, the complaint returning to hit the complainant. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't want to say "I told you so", but I was involved in a similar brouhaha with User:James Cantor some years back. (There are probably some ANI archives, but I can't be bothered.) I have mixed feelings about his edits to Wikipedia. On one hand we clearly want experts to improve articles. I'm less convinced we want experts (or non-experts) who are involved in real-life controversies using Wikipedia to further their side of some social/scientific debate. I'm not sure it's even possible to separate the two concerns in this case so I've stepped back. The user names involved in the prior disputes were all different except for that of James Cantor. I'll let you judge if that means anything or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• Should the community decide that the voluntary pledge has not been working well enough, a solution would be to topic ban User:James Cantor from BLP material, while still allowing him to edit scientific material in his area of expertise. There is precedent for that in the ARBCC case. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Hyderepressionjekyll

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

---

Obvious troll is troll. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  23:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The Toven

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but the user The Toven has lashed out at two editors, Sionk and Snowysusan, and made accusations at WikiProject San Diego after attempting to create autobiographical articles about his band and albums using the Articles for Creation process and has referred to previous attempts at creating similar articles in mainspace that date back five years. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any immediate administrative action needed here. The Toven (talk · contribs) and/or 72.214.60.108 (talk · contribs) do need some assistance with understanding the notability guidelines, but that's assistance that any user can provide, not just admins. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what some of us have been trying to do. Our reward has been an increasing level of abuse.[140] The user needs to be warned not to attack other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have 'awarded' the user with a level 4im personal attack warning. He has also 'lashed out' at myself on Sionk's talkpage. This kind of behaviour from any editor is not acceptable. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Offline dispute brought to WP

I regret having to revive this at all, given the ridiculousness involved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhow.FM.

Essentially we have two editors, User:Andhownz and User:Vander Wallace, who have maintained a battleground over the creation of an article for 107.5 AndhowNZ - a New Zealand radio station.

Basics are as follows:

1. User:Andhownz (openly a COI SPA - the owner of the station in question) created an article for his own radio station (the N page was his first edit, ever).

2. It was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhow.FM by another SPA, User:Vander Wallace (the AfD was his first edit, ever)

3. The AfD was initially supported by me (Australian) and another (uninvolved) NZ editor, User:Stuartyeates.

4. The AfD devolved into a ridiculous slanging match between the two SPAs who eventually resorted to making off-line threats against each other (and, bizarrely, other editors). There were also veiled threats made on WP with references to calling in authorities and taking legal action. These were removed and both editors were reprimanded on their respective talk pages.

5. At some point during AfD proceedings, User:Vander Wallace contacted (in person) those news outlets responsible for the "sources" User:Andhownz was using as justification for his article and asked them to either remove them or alter the content so that the sources no longer supported the WP article. Please see this subsequent article in one of the papers in question.

6. The AfD was finalised and the original article was deleted.

7. User:Andhownz has since been working in his sandbox on recreating the original article. In the meantime, another SPA appeared yesterday (User:Reverendaquaman; described as a "friend of a the station") recreated Andhow.FM and created AndHow.FM 107.5. I can say with almost certainty that User:Reverendaquaman is a sock-puppet of User:Andhownz - this edit randomly removing content from Andhownz's talk page speaks volumes.

8.User:Vander Wallace drew this to the attention of an admin and both were deleted as recreations of a page deleted at AfD. That prompted a back-and-forth on the talk page of the original AfD with more legal threats and discussion of off-line activity. The "new" part of that conversation was subsequently deleted by User:Vander Wallace and then restored by User:Andhownz.

9. The original AfD was courtesy-blanked (given the hostilities and threats) but User:Andhownz has copy-pasted the entire content of the AfD onto his own talk page with some added post-discussion comments of his own.

I would like to suggest an extended topic-ban for both of them (and perhaps an additional socking-related reprimand for Andhownz, though I'm sure that only came about because of everything else). If either of them is serious about making a worthwhile contribution to WP, they will use a time-out to go and edit productively in other areas.

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC).

I saw yesterday that the Afd had been blanked (Streisand effect) and read through it--I revdeleted a few posts, mostly about allegations of harassment. Someone might want to double check my work there. As for the two combatants, I'd support a interaction or topic ban, if not a WP:NOTHERE block (sorry for the double negative). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• User:Stalwart111's summary covers all the main points well. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned out both the socks sandboxes and created a report over at WikiProject Spam.--Hu12 (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This was not actually my "first edit ever" as you so eloquently have put it.

(Sorry, my mistake, I apologise. That comment should have been made in relation to User:Reverendaquaman whose first edit was to recreate the deleted article. You did have a number of edits in 2009 and 2011 which were not related to AndhowNZ. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC))

This is neither an "off-line dispute", as this is something that began on WP and then the antagonist User:Vander Wallace took this AfD argument to an ludicrous degree by slandering our article and station's reputation as a result of the original WP article on other websites and media organisations and then under further investigation had been stalking our website and Facebook pages. We have absolutely no idea who this User:Vander Wallace is or what his motives are behind the campaign that he has created. There a large number of supporters & friends of the station that have taken offense to the whole debacle and it appears that some of them have come to our defense and not all of it is acceptable support. The sandbox is where the article was saved to when it was removed as we were looking to find more reputable references for the article and resubmit it to WP when we were ready. It is apparent that someone else has taken the incentive to post this article prematurely. "not a sockpuppet" We respect the sanctity of WP, but we are completely put off by the support of the community over this whole saga. At the end of the day, we are pretty sick and fed up with WP from an authoring aspect and were not really achieving anything with our article, except for the fact to give history of something we felt was noteworthy as did our fans and supporters. Please feel free to delete whatever you deem necessary as it is not really important. The sad fact of the matter is that due to this site and the community, we became the "bad guys" in all of this when were initially maliciously targeted and never once given the opportunity to refine and update our article properly. There are volumes of articles on WP that are completely and utterly incorrect and have no supporting references but still continue to exist. Yet stalkers, antagonists and internet trolls are allowed to reek their havoc with no retribution. At the end of the day you can have your WP and it community really. We have no interests what-so-ever of being a part of it any longer. mrbluesky 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhownz (talk • contribs)

• Without any comment as to the merit of either side in this case, has no one here noticed the rather obvious Wikipedia:Username policy violation? I won't block right now, in the interest trying not to stifle open conversation here, but at least one contributor here needs to scurry over to Wikipedia:Changing username post haste and request a change, if not they would be blocked, and that would be a shame, as it would be best to keep everyone talking. --Jayron32 06:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The same was done on his userpage and in the AfD. He was warned by both User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates already in the AfD, yet has continued more than once. It may have the effect of people thinking he is a non-biased User:Mrbluesky, an editor that has been inactive. I won't speak to his motivation, I only know I am tired of dealing with his continual personal attacks that apparently others believe when I feel he himself, with no help from me, has proven it is unreliable. I never asked anyone to consider my merit, from the start I only wanted User:Andhownz to post better resources that met Wikipedia standards, and explained why what he did post failed that criteria as an internet radio expert. Vander Wallace (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• When I say I am being misrepresented, here is the perfect example. Look at the difference between how User:Stalwart111 describes what happened on the talk page and my actual words. Her words are accurate about User:Andhownz, but not both of us and I am tired of getting lumped into the same boat. I am going to assume it is unintentional, but I would like it to stop.

User:Stalwart111- "That prompted a back-and-forth on the talk page of the original AfD with more legal threats and discussion of off-line activity. The "new" part of that conversation was subsequently deleted by User:Vander Wallace and then restored by User:Andhownz."

What I actually said- "Is this allowed? He hasn't cited anymore new references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AndHow.FM_107.5 And I know you guys are going to say I shouldn't have looked, but he edited my user page so that I would look. I had put it behind me. Is there a way I can block this guy by IP? Thanks. Vander Wallace (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)"

And please note, this was also the only thing I deleted there, it was before User:Andhownz posted anything there, and I added the commentary "removed question due to issue was resolved, but thanks" because another admin took care of it. There was no "back and forth" involved. I feel I acted in accordance with Wikipedia standards on the talk page and in no way deserve to be dragged into this again by User:Stalwart111 because of the poor actions of User:Andhownz, but I realize it may have been unavoidable.

User:Stalwart111 makes it sound like we both did things on Wikipedia that I certainly did not, she also seems to be doing a lot of "ridiculous slanging" of her own concerning this guy's false accusations concerning me. This guy has done nothing but, it seems to me, misrepresent himself on everything, he has made unfounded personal attacks toward me, User:Stalwart111, and User:Stuartyeates. Plus has about what, 3 or 4 sockpuppets now? I notice that when another article of his got nominated for deletion that he started accusing that editor of being a bully as well, and on yet another, he accused them of harassment and retaliated by nominating one of their articles to the AfD, the nomination failed of course. This is a pattern for this guy and I would love it if someone could block User:Andhownz and all of his other names from me entirely by IP. He can say whatever he wants, he has all along, it doesn't make it true, facts do. From the start all he had to do was post better references, instead his best effort to save his article was to attack me and others personally.

The acts described as "ridiculous slanging" in the AfD, on my part was mostly simply posting facts involving the radio station's claims. He would post what I felt was a false claim and I would state the facts trying my best not to disparage him as he did me throughout. But when the facts go directly against his claims, it did have that effect. I was researching trying to confirm what was claimed in the article, what I thought I was supposed to do, check the facts, but all I found were things that not only failed to confirm the article, but seemed to me to be misrepresented. Being new, I was not sure what to do, so I kept researching and simply posting facts. Being new and gung ho, I went overboard doing that. And note, I was looking for good things to use as reference to support the article, it is not my fault I found what I found instead. Plus, as I have already stated, the last thing I should have tried first was an AfD, but I did not know that. I thought it better than starting editing articles because I might mess up something important. Read through it yourselves, I do not sling anything but facts at this guy until the very last and then, only taking up for myself in one post and that post was concerning the personal attacks about User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates.

Towards the end when I felt I was the one being harassed the whole time by the article creator, dealing with, what I consider, his unfounded personal attacks and threats towards me in the Afd, more in the rescue save area, and offline, in addition to having to field what I took as insinuations concerning what I felt were his unfounded personal attacks from both User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates, I did wonder if what this guy was saying about them were true in that one post. I also profusely apologized. I should not have even begun to believe his personal attacks on them, especially after I had seen what he posted about me, it was stupid on my part. However, I do not think one post to his multitude compares. I have never made any threats to anyone on or offline and I do not appreciate User:Stalwart111 suggesting that I have, nor her second guessing my motives based on the word of this User:Andhownz guy. She is basically doing the exact thing she lectured me about. I had left this behind, this guy edits my userpage to make me look again, I see he made a new page and posted a lot more personal accusations about me, which I ignored. I had no interest in getting re-involved, so I sought the help of people with more experience. Instead, I get this. I am not even going to read what User:Andhownz has posted here, because I know it will be more unfounded personal attacks. If I had any interest in getting involved in this again, I would have simply put up the quick delete thing myself. If a topic ban means that I do not have to deal with this guy anymore, I more than support it. As I already said, I feel I acted in accordance with Wikipedia standards on the talk page and ever since the AfD was closed. I in no way deserve to be dragged into this again because of the poor actions of User:Andhownz, but I realize it may have been unavoidable.Vander Wallace (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, we haven't blocked both of them? I had a read through the AfD the other day and there's more than enough justification for some indef blocks. Andhownz is editing with a promotional username, for a start. Neither are here to productively contribute to the 'pedia. Let's call time on this idiocy now. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH This is my first time being an editor and this situation hasn't exactly led me to want to do more. I was fielding unfounded personal attacks from the get go. I do not think that alone should be considered as my not wanting to contribute productively to the Wikipedia as that was my only intention from the start. I do not deny I made mistakes by going overboard as a new editor, but after the AfD, I self imposed a needed time out, was taking it and was only brought back to this topic by User:Andhownz editing my userpage. Even then I tried not to get involved again by seeking out users with more experience, I felt they would know how to deal with it better and should, rather than myself. Time would prove differently if I decided to stay, but you guys do what you need to, I will understand, especially after this debacle.Vander Wallace (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Block I've just blocked Andhownz for violating the username policy. As for Vander Wallace, I reckon we need a topic ban discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Commendations

While there are many ways to admonish users, there is no high-traffic way to commend users. So I unilaterally commend User:Stalwart111 and User:Stuartyeates for their fine and brave work in this discussion.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A bit of WP:WIKILOVE is the usual way. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Already done and done. Just mentioning it here at WP:AN/I so that such positive work that so often goes unappreciated may be this one time appreciated.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, they deserve medals or something.Vander Wallace (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban or interaction ban for Vander Wallace?

Points 3, 4 and 5 of Stalwart111's opening post are pretty compelling reasons in my view for a community-imposed topic ban for User:Vander Wallace. I therefore propose we institute either an interaction ban with Andhownz (and future incarnations of Andhownz), a topic ban on, oh, let's just say "low power New Zealand radio stations", or both. This ridiculous farce has been going on for weeks: let's stop it now. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is, I never made offline or online threats to User:Andhownz and certainly not to other editors. My part in slanging was one post after enduring a week of it online and offline, on WP and off, aimed in my direction from User:Andhownz and was concerning the attacks he had made on the other editors. That was wrong and I apologized and meant it. I never made veiled threats on WP or off with references to calling in authorities and taking legal action, that was User:Andhownz. Also, my motivations are being incorrectly assumed, WP:GOODFAITH. The subsequent article referred to is full of more unsubstantiated personal attacks by User:Andhownz.

I do not deny I made mistakes by going overboard as a new editor, but after the AfD, I self imposed a needed time out and topic ban, was taking it and was only brought back to this topic by User:Andhownz editing my userpage. Even then I tried not to get involved again by seeking out users with more experience, I felt they would know how to deal with it better and should, rather than myself.

As for the interaction ban, I already asked more than once for his IP to be blocked from me so I wouldn't have to deal with his harassment anymore.

I fully support this topic and interaction ban on myself, and was self imposing it on myself anyway until I was called here for further discussion. I also appreciate your patience and apologize for everyone's time wasted for the things I really did do that were ill actions. But most of what is listed in 4 and 5 were User:Andhownz, so please do not label me with his.Vander Wallace (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was going to suggest an equivalent topic or interaction ban for Andhowz as well, but I've just username blocked him. If it becomes necessary for them to have a topic or interaction ban too, we can have a discussion about it once they have sorted out their username block. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for explaining. And again, sorry for my part in the trouble. If I had not been so newbie gung ho, I would have had to endure a few personal insults and then it would have been over. Live and learn, the escalation was my fault too. Like others pointed out, I should have stopped fact checking and posting at the first AfD post, I had already made the point. It may be best for me to just do a WP:FRESHSTART. Though that feels like it would just confirm incorrect assumptions, still, I'm thinking about it and will honor the topic/interaction ban on that account too if I do. Thanks for everyone's help.Vander Wallace (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree Is a user allowed to agree with his own topic/interaction ban? Regardless, I do. Vander Wallace (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You can as a self imposed Topic Ban. It saves AN/I volunteers time and demonstrates good will on your behalf. Don't challange the topic ban for 6~8 months, and show constructive editing elsewhere to make it reasonable to have the restriction lifted. Hasteur (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
• The very first edit of Vander Wallace with this account shows that he is an experienced editor. Although not linking any policies, he can name quite a few [141] and undestands issues like secondary sources and so forth. I have a feeling this might not be his first or only Wikipedia account. Given that he has been a disruptive SPA, an indef block isn't out of the picture. However given his promise to stay away from the topic, I think this can be closed as a voluntary topic ban without further ado. However, any violation of this pledge should result in a swift indef block. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

I'm a bit involved (I just deleted his article; explanation offered here, with links to the copyright violation), but User:Ajovitsky is now issuing threats of litigation on his talkpage (diff). Can somebody do the necessary, please? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, there is a clear legal threat in the talk page edit linked. Hut 8.5 09:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent COI and self-promotion

I have gotten into a bit of a fracas on India International Friendship Society. This society hands out awards to various Indian people, both domestically and abroad, to recognize various achievements. There is some debate over the notability of these awards, as they appear to be handed out rather liberally, and perhaps (although non-verifiably) in return for donations to the IIFS. Because of this, the article becomes a magnet for anyone who has been given one of these awards to want to list themselves in the list of awardees. I have been trying to enforce Wikipedia's notability standard to this list: only awardees who meet the criteria for inclusion should be listed, in the same manner as we try to limit the list of notable residents of any place.

Recently I have been going back and forth with a particular IP editor who insists on adding what I assume must be his own name (although, as an IP editor, I cannot verify that with certainty). Not wanting to run afoul of 3RR, I have stopped undoing this editor's work. I don't know that this type of editing can exactly be called vandalism (the information is verified with a press released published in The Hindu), so I don't know how to stop it, but my attempts ([142], [143], [144]) to open a dialog about the issue, both with the IP editor (at one of the various IP addresses in use; there are several) and through edit summaries and talk page comments, have gone unanswered.

Any suggestions or assistance would be appreciated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think at this point, taking it to the IPs page is useless, and expanding on your reasons (which seem valid to me) on the article talk page is the best course of action. I wouldn't protect the page at this point since it isn't vandalism, just content that might not pass criteria for inclusion, and protecting would be using the tools to pick a side in a content dispute. If there was more discussion about it on the talk page, full explanation, there would be a better argument. Looking at the page, I have questions about the article as a whole, for that matter. But at this stage, it is still clearly an editorial issue, not an admin issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll take this advice and move on, but at what point will the IP editor's refusal to enter into the consensus process become problematic, and what will be the proper course of action then?

List of Brownlow Medal winners

Currently undergoing vandalism by multiple users. Suggest temporary protection. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I semi-protected for 3 days. I also reverted to the Sept 23 version which may have caused loss of a constructive edit or two among the dozens of vandalous ones, so if anyone knowledgeable in this area could take a look, that would be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Urklistre

User:Urklistre was blocked a few weeks ago, due to edit warring, sockpuppetry and overall disruptive behaviour (see archived ANI discussion). The block recently expired, and Urklistre seems to have returned to his previous disruptive behaviour, again deleting content from 16:10 with no reasonable explanation given, only vague allegations of a non-existent dispute ("Disputed see talk" [145] and "dont edit article during dispute." [146]). There's currently no active discussion on the article's talk page; while I did archive most of the talk page following Urklistre's block, the only active thread before the block was Urklistre agreeing with his own sockpuppet. Since an attempt on his talk page to engage him in discussion had no effect whatsoever, it seems he has learned nothing from the block, and I'm therefore escalating this to ANI. Indrek (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a completely uninvolved editor. I just checked the article's editing history and read through all discussions at Talk:16:10/Archive 1 which User:Urklistre participated in (yes, all of them) and, without commenting on actual content in dispute, I fully agree with User:Indrek's characterization of the former's behaviour as disruptive. User:Indrek and others have very patiently engaged with him on the talk page over a period of several months, offering to discuss the matter and pointing him towards the relevant policies and guidelines. User:Urklistre responds only with unilateral edits, cargo cult–like invocations of policies, and disingenuous platitudes about collaborative authorship. Whatever merit his opinions on the article's content may have, he's certainly not contributing or discussing them in a proper way. It's hard to tell whether he's being incredibly stubborn or just incompetent, but in any case he musn't be allowed to persist in this behaviour. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Y Indef blocked via WP:DE based on the socking history and tenacious manner in which they conduct themselves. Any admin is free to unblock after a sufficient application of the cluebat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Content-based conflict at Tanka prose

I am currently involved in a rather heated dispute at Talk:Tanka prose, and I am not sure what to do about it.

The dispute involves one user (User:Tristan noir) who created an article four years ago on the modern English genre of tanka prose. The article, however, made bizarre, unsourced claims about originating in ancient Japanese literature, despite the term being anachronistic in reference to pre-modern Japanese works.

He/she (from here on, for convenience, I will assume the user is male) basically claimed the article as his own, and almost any edit by other editors was immediately reverted.

When I first came across the article, I was very confused; I thought "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term uta monogatari, which literally means "poem (exclusively, tanka) prose-fiction", so I moved the article to that location, citing a lack of usage of the term tanka prose in reputable secondary sources on Japanese literature. He responded by blankly reverting my move and other edits, as well as User:Bagworm's removal of a few unsourced statements he had made.

He still refused to cite reputable sources that backed up his claims.

I responded by re-reverting his unsourced reversion, and posting a comment on the Talk page where I cited several sources and challenged what little literature he quoted (which was written by people with very little awareness of Japanese language/literature). He responded by finally admitting that he was writing based on modern English literature, and claimed (unjustifiably) that his article had never claimed to be about Japanese literature.

At around this time, he apparently called in an ally, User:Kujakupoet, to back him up. This latter user made personal attacks against me, and completely ignored the substance of our dispute. Kujakupoet suddenly appeared and made single comment, claiming to have "just happened to be" looking for a tanka prose article and been shocked by what he somehow knew was the work of one editor and knew to post on the talk page in response -- this seems highly unlikely. He more recently made a similarly irrelevant, ad hominem remark]. This seems very likely, under the circumstances, to be a tag team, since both users have made barely 100 edits in four years, on very closely-related topics.

At this point, I suggested a compromise, which Tristan noir immediately agreed to, that the article I produced at uta monogatari remain as is, and tanka prose (then a redirect) be rewritten by him to focus exclusively on the modern English genre, and not to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature.

However, I realized that his sources all made the same bizarre claims as his article had, and it would be difficult to construct an encyclopedia article without using these sources and making the same claims, so I posted a hidden remark on the then-redirecting talk page expressing this fear. I hoped that he would take this opinion into account in his rewrite, or reconsider producing a rewrite at all.

But when he finally produced his rewrite, I was disappointed with the results.

His new article made the same claims of ancient Japanese origin as before, in clear violation of our agreement. Except that this time, he had worded the article in such a way that it never directly stated that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, but rather included a lengthy remark about so-called "prosimetra" (prose-plus-poetry) in ancient Japan.

I never disputed that ancient Japanese literature combined poetry and prose, but merely stated that the term "tanka prose" would be anachronistic, and is therefore not used in academic literature. His new rewrite, however, basically implies that the ancient Japanese literature discussed is in some way related to modern English "tanka prose".

He included references to two apparently reliable sources on ancient Japanese literature, but one of them is very old and out-of-print in both Japan and the United States (a complete copy on Amazon.jp would cost well over 10,000 yen [147][148][149][150][151], and one in English would cost $500 dollars [152][153][154]) and is very difficult to access. The other, an article by Helen McCullough, has clearly been taken out of context (he cited earlier in the dispute its inclusion in a book about prosimetra as being in itself evidence in his support).

He continually refuses to provide quotations from these sources that justify the use of the phrase "tanka prose".

I initially tried to remove one very bizarre statement from the new article (which wasn't even in the previous version) that nikki bungaku (diary literature) includes fictional tales (monogatari) and poetry anthologies (shū). It is reasonable to discuss a certain small sub-genre of waka-shū (private collections that are written in a diary-style) as falling under the category of nikki-bungaku, but not all waka-shū, which most notably includes Imperially-sponsored anthologies (chokusen-shū). (The statement included one reference to the aforementioned obscure/expensive source, but clearly was out-of-context, because no respected source on Japanese literature would make such a claim.) He immediately reverted my edit, apparently thinking that simply having a source that claims something remotely similar to what the statement claims makes this behaviour justifiable.

As of now, I have grown weary of being cautious in my edits, and I am tired of being attacked personally and professionally without being able to fight back (I have tried throughout to be civil). I posted on the talk page that, since a significant portion of the middle of the new article signified a clear violation of the previous agreement, I intended to delete it, before going ahead with it.

I am not sure about what Tristan noir's response to this will be, but I was wondering if anyone has any advice about this issue? The users in question clearly do not understand Wikipedia policies on civility and other concepts, and I have become very weary of dealing with their personal attacks. I know the dispute still isn't at the point of seeking arbitration, but I'm not sure about bringing in opinions from the Wikipedia community. Since he has cited "sources" (he appears to have read them with the prejudiced attitude of looking for sources to justify statements he had already formulated), and it may appear to the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians who don't have access to those rare, expensive sources that his statements as they are now are justified.

For those who check all the lengthy background of this dispute, you will notice that I had harsh words for Jeffrey Woodward (the principle source for Tristan noir's claims) -- that he is non-academic, unreliable, offensive, etc. This might seem extreme out of context, but everything I have read by him contains major problems due to his ignorance of classical Japanese literature. It would be very difficult to summarize these problems here, but I actually wrote him an e-mail detailing them and politely requesting that he not repeat them in future publications (they are all recurring errors). I would be happy to post an appropriate portion of the text of this e-mail here or elsewhere on Wikipedia if anyone requires further details. (However, several of my principle complaints are already on the relevant talk pages.)

elvenscout742 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a largely content based dispute, you're more likely to get the right sort of help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:64.18.36.69

This user has been warned repeatedly on their talk page yet continued their vandalism activity on the article Bled as is visible on the history page here. This IP should be blocked to prevent further damage to wikipedia content. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 15:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In the future, you should report vandalism to WP:AIV. This however is not a blocking situation as the user has not touched the article since receiving the 2nd or 3rd warning (could go either way). You may also want to sign your ANI notice that you left on their talk page.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Mpdt and Metal Wani

Mpdt (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account exclusively used to add reviews and references from the website MetalWani.com (diffs: [155] [156]). This is also possibly a spamming effort to promote his/her website. The website doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and at least two editors (MrMoustacheMM (talk · contribs) and Backtable (talk · contribs)) have warned Mpdt about his edits [157] [158]. Mpdt doesn't respond, and instead blanks his talk page [159] [160] [161]. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving a page to a salted name

I tried to perform a non-admin closure on a requested move at Talk:Martin John Callanan (artist). The nominator there indicates that she proposed G4 speedy deletion, but it was declined, with the administrator ruling that the new article was substantially different from the deleted version. I'm unable to move the article myself or use {{db-move}}, so I'm hoping someone can make the move for me. The move itself proved uncontroversial. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done I also added two oldafd tags to the talk page. — Scientizzle 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --BDD (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)