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

Disruptive editor User:Escarlati

I have a dicussion with User talk:Enric Naval here and here.

User talk:Enric Naval calls for "support" of User:Escarlati here.

User:Escarlati, in spanish, make a personal attack over me, and say that he do not wants to talk by reason of language limitation here. Then User:Escarlati reverts all my editions (whatever article). I try to talk with he, here[1], but he not say nothing, and whatever article he say in diff 'statu quo ante' and only reverts my editions. He reverts me in many articles:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

--Santos30 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disruptive editor is Santos30. Santos30 being carried out in several articles and editions massive edit wars to defend a non-neutral POVwarrior, editions which was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. Now move your warrior Pov this by cross-wiki wikipedia. I request for measures against Santos30 for these actions disruptive and undermine the statu quo ante and viewpoint neutral. I'm sorry my English is not good, because I use a translator. Escarlati (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No. This is totally false and another personal attack.--Santos30 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The logs tell us that you have a SUL account and that as Santos30 (talk · contribs) you are indeed blocked indefinitely, for abuse of multiple accounts where the master account is Domenico (talk · contribs), on the Spanish Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• My mistake, the case is here, I was a retired User and I not inform of changes in my nick User. But what User:Escarlati say is false and is another personal attack, never I was blocked for " massive edit wars" or "POV warrior". User:Escarlati came here to make personal attacks and reverts me (User:Escarlati not talk and not give bibliography) as you can see in the diffs. User:Escarlati say that he can not talk in english, but quickly he came here to try to silence me with administrative actions similar as censure in Wikipedia spanish (you can read it in spanish).

If User:Escarlati does not want to talk or give bibliography, then he should not reverts me here in wikipedia english ( anything or whatever says or do in wikipedia español, wrong or right ). I do not want an administrative action for no user, I want to be free to make editions or talk in discussion.--Santos30 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User Santos30 is engaging in a reversion-war and trying to impose his point of view. He just placed a non-neutrality template in the article on the Crown of Aragón which should be removed because he is the only one claiming that it is not neutral. [11]--Maragm (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

False. The imposed point of view is in the last edition of User:Escarlati [12]. He delete my bibliography and not gives any other reference. Template is placed 24 hours after I explain in the talk my reason of the template here. Nobody answer the talk. No bibliography to clarify in the article. --Santos30 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, after this talk User:Eric Naval answer here. I keep waiting for User:Escarlati here--Santos30 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30, you were given many sources at Spanish wikipedia and then here at English wikipedia. All users at Spanish wikipedia agreed to use the Cross of Burgundy for the Spanish Empire and its colonies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had hopes that Santos30 was a reasonable editor. But his last edits and POV-pushing in talk pages have exhausted my patience. Santos30 is not here to write an encyclopedia, he is here to glorify Castile and remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy. He keeps modifying related articles to support his POV, which makes it even more difficult to detect the problems. He is a pseudohistoric troll, and he needs to be blocked and reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You should see first for articles that must to be clarified. Why you not look for the missing bibliography here and stop your personal attacks and stop looking for my punishment?. Im not here to "glorify Castile" and "remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy". Im here understand and share my knowledge of Latin American independence. But I see those articles of colonial viceroyalty with mistaken or confused or POV information and I try to clarify.--Santos30 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We achieved some understanding in Treaty of Villafáfila and Council of Castile. Probably because there are sources that explicitly cite exact dates with meridian clarity. Which means that you can't push your preferred dates. But as soon as there is some ambiguity, or a way to twist sources into saying things that they don't say, we get lockdowns, edit warring and tendentious picking and interpretation of sources. I am not willing to spend hours and hours collecting sources and quotes, only to have you cherrypick a few sources that don't really support your changes, followed by a return to your original position and edit-warring to restore bad sources and remove good ones.

Some examples:

• this revert was specially annoying because it removed a couple of hours of solid work for no good reason.

• this revert introduced wholly incorrect flag and coat. He already edit-warred the similar changes in Spanish wikipedia as his alter ego Domenico [13][14][15][16]. Needless to say, the changes didn't stick. In the Spanish wikipedia he was less sophisticated and it's easier to see that one of his main motivations is the glorification of Castile (the other one is his hate towards the Cross of Burgundy flag)

• [17]. He replaces 2 contemporary books with a 1835 biased political pamphlet. In the talk page he refuses to acknowledge the problems with the source. He had already editwarred over those dates with an IP, causing the protection of the article. In a last attempt to compromise, I started a RfC, I expect a tsunami of wikilawyering over it. He demands an arbitrarily high sourcing standard for the date he doesn't like, refuses to compromise, refuses to acknowledge the flagrant logic flaws in his position, refuses to acknowledge all the sources that give a different date, etc. He neglected to mention that his attempts to put the same date in the Spanish wikidia were all reverted [18][19][20][21] and that he failed to provide any source that supported his position, and that he didn't address any of the obvious flaws with that position.

• [22][23][24][25][26] Changes Cross of Burgundy to push back the usage of the flag a few centuries and claim that it only had military usages. When I tried to fix it he tried to restore his POV with "clarifications"[27][28][29]. In Spanish wikipedia he removed historical references because they made clear that his POV was incorrect[30], this change stuck during months.

• [31][32][33][34] Repeated attempts to remove the historical relevance of the Cross of Burgundy in Flag of Florida. Now he has returned to his original position using a compilation of sources that don't really support his position, in Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag. Of course, he ignores the sources that directly and clearly contradict his position, which were given to him months ago.

• [35] Flag of Mexico was given an incorrect flag in order to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy. Another manipulation that went unnoticed for months.

Santos30 started in Talk:Spanish_Empire, when I tried to fix his POV pushing it propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Castile#abolishment_date, Talk:New_Spain#flag_was_the_.22estandarte_virreinal.22, Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag and Cross of Burgundy, and now it's propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Aragon#Sovereignty_and_Independence. It also affects the flags and coats of arms in Spanish_Empire, Flag_of_Spain#Cross_of_Burgundy and several articles in Category:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire.

Santos30 opened this thread because his latest wave of tendentiously-sourced POV-pushing was reverted. Again. He already tried to make many of these changes in the Spanish wikipedia, where he failed to convince anyone and refused to acknowledge an expert opinion that he asked for himself. He doesn't want to be blocked for edit-warring for WP:3RR, so he comes to ANI to cry foul. I have a small hope that a good WP:BOOMERANG happens here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Escarlati says another time in my discussion that he does not want to talk about article.[36]--Santos30 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• False: I say that I don't speak english and I explained he all in spanish wikipedia before. Escarlati (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• However your fingers are speaking in english. And suppose you are the expert, your "explained he all" in spanish was poor or null, without references, not one citation, no book. Nothing. Enric Naval cannot muzzle Wiki-enlish with omissions, WP:NPOV and mistakes decided by Wiki-español. And you Escarlati cannot came here to be a gunman of "status quo".--Santos30 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Edward321. This user follow my editions 28 and 29 november [[37]] and I believe that reversals are not explained. I want to ask if he is administrator, or what is the reason of their behavior, because I explain my editions:

• here
• here, here.
• here
• here here
• here
• here here

--Santos30 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, boy, now Santos30 is spreading his OR of sovereignty of Castile to other articles, and dragging editors to ANI when they revert his OR..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30 is making some good work in american independence articles so instead of a full ban I was thinking of a topic ban on:

• flags
• coats of arms
• anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted

Any thoughts before I propose it in AN? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Enric I am not castilian, you are mistaken. Too far mistaken. However seems that you are from Catalonia. But the problem is that Crown of Castile gives a date to History of Latin America as nation sovereign, the same to Spain in the Corts of Cadiz, but oposite, for Latin Americans will be independence. But do not worry I have no time to lost in Catalan independentism. I am not interested. However you can not come with your POV seems from Crown_of_Aragon#Nationalist_revisionism to misinterpret the history of Latin America.--Santos30 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice theory you have there. Pity that it's all based in your misinterpretation of sources, and your refusal to hear to reason. The New Spain discussion has wandered into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and in misinterpretation of sources. Sorry, man, but wikipedia is not the place to push your personal theories about the glorious past of Castile. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#topic_ban_for_User:Santos30. Please comment there, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

He/she has apparently had a Wikipedia account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.[38])

The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.[39]

He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources[40], and I reverted back [41]. This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.[42][43]

He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.[44]

Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese.[45] The user agreed to this[46], but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before.[47] I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there.[55] One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.[56]

Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article.[57] I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms[58][59] and Haiga[60][61], where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Wikipedia. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. He/she immediately did so, still refusing to discuss the issue on my talk page or the talk page of the subpage in question. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before[62]; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN.[63] In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist.[64] The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here[65], and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Wikipedia articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ([that tanka prose is a modern English genre] was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... [s]top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem[66]). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.

It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.

I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.

I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.

While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.

Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above.

My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin.[67] If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination.

My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example).

My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Wikipedia policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him.

My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Wikipedia community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character.

I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[68] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Wikipedia rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Wikipedia). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to WP:BATTLE which states “Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear” and to WP:WIKIHOUND which defines hounding as “the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work,” Elvenscout, even as this WP:ANI discussion proceeds, has continued his personal attacks against this editor in other venues. He has employed user talk pages here on Nov 27 and here on Nov 30 as his personal soapbox to renew old controversies and to lobby directly against me.

Elvenscout has further sought to reintroduce a prior dispute regarding his MfD deleted User page by replacing his former hyperlink to that attack page with the acrimonious language of his Nov 28 edit here on the talk page of Haibun. He has also revisted the article Tanka in English and, with this Nov 29 edit, rendered its text basically illegible with his contentious citation tagging.

Elvenscout, on Nov 30, has also posted his revisionist history of the article Uta monogatari (“I am adding this note for posterity, and to explain why the article shifted dramatically in September 2012”). Apart from this further evidence of his desire to recycle old accusations against this editor, his comments on this article’s talk page are particularly troublesome when placed in their proper context. With this edit on Oct 17, Elvenscout replaced the former Talk Page Comments with the templates “WP Poetry” and “WikiProject Japan.” On the previous day, with this edit, per his edit summary, Elvenscout had removed his “own comments relevant only to a past argument relating to material that formerly appeared on this page.” That edit was reverted on the same day by User Bagworm with the edit summary: “Do not remove one side of a conversation - see WP:REDACTED.” Elvenscout’s suppression of the former talk page on Oct 17 removed both sides of the conversation; I therefore assumed his gesture was made in good faith and offered no complaint. His most recent “history,” however, has in effect again censored “one side of a conversation” — his opposition’s, in this instance – while resurrecting and recycling his former arguments. If Elvenscout’s “own comments” on Oct 16 were “relevant only to a past argument,” what possible purpose can their restoration on the Talk Page now serve?Tristan noir (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please tell TN to stop making personal attacks like the above? My reasoning for doing everything he mentions was clearly established multiple times in the edits themselves, and his assuming bad faith on my part has been troubling me for almost 3 months now.

My informing User:Drmies of the need to watch out for TN and one other editor while editing the Tanka in English article was justified, given TN's constantly attacking me for making similar edits.

My informing User:BDD[69] that I had replied to his query, and stating the reason I forgot to inform him previously was equally benign (the reason was TN's ridiculous assumption of bad faith/personal attack[70] distracting me).

My making a slight edit to my initial response to User:BDD[71] in order to clarify my meaning, in light of TN deliberately getting my subpage deleted and making my reasoning unclear, was also justified. (I am beginning to think TN deliberately posted my subpage for deletion without ever trying to discuss it, specifically to blur the meaning of posts where I had linked to it.)

My edits to Tanka in English were extreme, yes, but they drew the attention of a couple of good editors and led the article being significantly cleaned up and made into something resembling an encyclopedia article. The fact is that before I added those tags the article was already illegible because of how poorly written it was (almost every sentence read as "The first A was B", with no clarification of A or B's relevance to the article).

I would like to hear what TN thinks is "revisionist" about my recent posting on Talk:Uta monogatari[72]. I merely provided a statement of the reasons why the first half of the page's history seems to be a completely different article to what is there now, in the hopes that concerned editors would not think User:Bagworm and I had engaged in vandalism in our completely overhauling the article. Also, I am not sure if Wikipedia policy demands that the previous history of the page be deleted because of its copyright violation?[73][74] TN has, unfortunately, yet to explain why his initial version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article from two weeks earlier...

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction TN's article was a NEAR carbon-copy of the Woodward piece. The final four words ("and Contemporary Haibun Online") of Woodward's piece were cut, and Gary LeBel's name was added to the list of "other notable poets who adopted tanka prose in the 1990s". Also, while six of the ten work's TN's article cited were Woodward's (the other four, naturally, did not actually use the phrase "tanka prose"), TN failed to cite the one Woodward piece that had clearly had the most influence on the writing of his article. This blatant copyright violation has never been properly addressed. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tristan noir is here for one thing, to promote the work of Woodward. He consumes a great deal of other people's time; other people who are here to build an encyclopedia, not push a tiny, tiny, non-notable fringe idea. He insults others. Could someone please do the right thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User "No More Mr Nice Guy"

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

---

He does not exist yet he is actively undoing edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.200.99 (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No more mr nice guy does in fact exist, but he doesn't have a user page, he's edit warring on Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence. It's currently under a 1RR, and he's at 2.

This really needs to be put on 3rr notice board, however, he hasn't been warned yet, so I 've warned him on his talk page  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, under WP:ARBPIA 1RR guidelines, a warning isn't necessary: "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." However, this specifically does not apply in the case of IP edits: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." [all emphases mine]

NMMNG has been editing in the topic area for long enough to know these sanctions, and is acting within their terms. Had the IP made an account to edit, there might be a case here, but until NMMNG breaks 3RR, there's not much to do. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

IP edits are exempt from the 1RR restriction and I reverted on that basis. Also, I thought I do exist (cogito ergo sum and all that) but I'll think about it some more. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you create a user page with "I exist" (in Latin if you prefer); that way, the IP will not mistakenly believe you don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

But what if he's right? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

At least two alternatives. First, "I may exist." Second, "I exist" with the assumption that if you don't exist, the non-existent you is a liar.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, especially where living persons are concerned. This includes content in user space. If there is any question as to whether No More Mr Nice Guy actually exists or not, that sort of statement needs a reliable source. - SudoGhost 20:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikito ergo sum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're telling me to create a SPS to support information that has already been challenged about a (possibly) living person? That can't be right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on indent level, it looks like your comment is directed at me, but I didn't suggest that, did I? In any event, I think you should take this to OTRS or some parallel deity. BTW, are we trying to prove you exist now or that you've ever existed, and, either way, are we trying to prove your personhood, or some other -hood like non-human animal or vegetable, etc.?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Horologium (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Maldives Article

There's a section in the article on the Maldives which I'm currently trying to edit. The consensus on the talk page for the last year has been that the section needs rewritten, as it is unsourced, biased and sarcastic. I've tried rewriting it several times, but the edits are always reverted by the original author of the section (Raptor232). I've tried multiple times to engage him on this and discuss the edits but he refuses to communicate. Any edits to his work are immediately reverted and the editor accused of vandalism. I don't know what the procedure is for resolving disputes with a user who's being completely uncommunicative. I was hoping someone here could help out. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Where's the discussion at Talk:Maldives? Where's the attempt to engage on User talk:Raptor232? As far as I can see you've been warned a couple times because the other editors percieved your edits as vandalism. Before this goes any further you might want to try opening a new discussion inviting both Raptor232 and Vacation9 to collaberate on a way to move forward with the section. At this time ANI (emergency intervention) is not appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. You might want to try an edit request on the talk to see what other editors think. Vacation^nine 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I were tried to communicate with the user 86.17.19.215 on his (talk) page but the user keeps reverting to the disruptive edits. --Raptor232 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There are three open discussions about that section on the Maldives talk page. Jesus christ, people, they're not invisible. How about someone actually take a look at the original article and then at my edits, and then at the multiple posts made on this subject on the talk page. Tell me how they constitute vandalism and how I could have done any more to engage this guy in a discussion. I don't consider reverting a good-faith edit and then accusing the editor of vandalism on his talk page to be constructive. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I show only one section that you joined long after it was stale. Please remain calm and use civil language. Your postings on that page show the same level of organization as a drive by vandal. You were bold in your re-write, Ramtor232 reverted you for what I assume was a "Drive by IP Vandal" argument, and you reverted back. At this point you failed the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle in that you did not open a new section raising your concerns. It is a failing of wikipedia that IP editors are treated as second class citizens, but the way you overcome it is not by repeatedly reverting, getting yourself into trouble for edit warring, and not discussing the issue. As I said before, open a new section explaining what you want to change and why. Heck, they might even agree with you. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have directed the user in question to the talk page multiple times to discuss this. Ok, I didn't start a new section but what I wrote is clearly there and I made every effort to direct Raptor232 to this page. This was ignored completely. You can hardly say I haven't tried to discuss these edits. 86.17.19.215 (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I reviewed the text in question, and to be honest, the IP editor actually has a point here (though discussions should have been made on the talk page). Some of the text he was removing is, in fact, extremely biased and sarcastic "Unfortunately, President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup." As this is nonetheless a content dispute, I will begin posting on Talk:Maldives and hope that all other involved parties will join me. Kansan (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Separate, but related issue with this article

I was looking at the disputed section trying to come up with a way to phrase things a little more coherently, and stumbled upon a paragraph that is a little to closely phrased (as in, exactly the same) as the source text. This is outside of my normal WP activities, so I don't know if this is what is referred to as a "cut and paste" edit, or a copyvio, or outright plagiarism or what (and I'm sure there is some board specific to reporting this kind of issue that I'm not aware of), but it seems serious so I thought I'd mention it here. See the talk page subsection Talk:Maldives#Neutrality_of_Section_on_2012_Coup for the paragraph in question. I'm going to try and "fix" this paragraph, but seeing as how this is a really long article, I wonder if others might check some of the other sources against the article text to make sure this isn't happening throughout. Ditch ∝ 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Update

(Clarification: I am User:Kansan. I had my username changed yesterday.) I have tried to remove one particular source from the article that is problematic (it appears to be a blog post from an author who makes no attempt to hide his bias, and from a less than reliable news website with articles like "The miraculous nature of the Koran" [75] Raptor232 continues to insist on placing this source in the article. I have attempted discussions on the talk page: [76] [77] [78] but Raptor simply reverts with little to no explanation of why the source is reliable or why my concerns are unfounded - simply asserting that the site *is* notable, end of story: [79] [80]

Additionally, he simply reverted Ditch Fisher's attempts to reword material that appeared worded so closely to the original source as to border on plagiarism. Again, no communication here. [81] We need a neutral set of eyes to come take a look. Against the current (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral 'move' of an article under AfD discussion to another subject.

In a series of moves, without any attempt at proper discussion, let alone any attempt to establish consensus, the contentious Palestinian incitement article has been renamed 'Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' - effectively creating a new and broader subject which has not been discussed at the AfD - one which must necessarily include Israeli incitement of violence against Palestinians, which would no doubt make the article even more of an arena for dispute, and do little to ensure encyclopaedic content. I consider this change of article topic most improper, and have to question the motivations of those involved (who are from among the few contributors which have !voted keep, against the current clear consensus favouring delete). Can I ask for an uninvolved admin to move it back (I am unable, due to intervening edits and the creation of redirects), and for those involved in this unilateral move to be asked to explain their actions. This is a difficult topic area, and this undiscussed and arbitrary action can only serve to confuse the issue - though frankly, I'm unconvinced that this wasn't the intention of at least one of those involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The title was changed twice within the space of 3 minutes.[82] Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

it does not strike me as inappropriate to move an article with a POV title to a more NPOV title on a broader subject that can then be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Without discussion? In the middle of an AfD? And no, I'm not convinced that the new title is actually 'more NPOV' at all - it looks like an admission that the blindingly-obvious coatracking of the original article could be 'balanced' by tweaking the title, while making no effort whatsoever to change the content. And do you really think that an article under the new name will stand the slightest chance of giving the subject proper encyclopaedic coverage? We don't need more articles on the IP conflict, we need better ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, there is no prohibition against continuing to do any work on an article which is at AFD, and that includes changing the title of the article. The article can still be deleted under the new title. --Jayron32 00:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a change of title, it is (if NPOV is remotely adhered to) a change of subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Which will be deleted when the AFD expires. They're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Pay it no mind Andy. Seriously. --Jayron32 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Given the overwhelming consensus at the AfD which means that the article (which I agree fails at least four Wikipedia policies, let alone guidelines) is going to be deleted in around 29 hours time, is renaming it a major issue? Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• (E/C) Perhaps, but so? The old title was hopelessly ambiguous (No one could know, whether the Palestinians were inciting or being incited.) Besides, it looks like it will be deleted in another day anyway. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• What I've seen happen in cases like this though is that the activists who support the move now try to invalidate the prior calls to delete, claiming it's "not the same article" anymore. It is quite ill-advised to move mid-stream. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup - though the only thing that has changed in this so-called 'article' is the title, and a token word or two in the lede. Nobody other than the few !keep voters seem remotely convinced by this. It is self-evident from the AfD discussion that Plot Spoiler for one intends to continue with his propaganda effort, and would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent any negative material regarding Israelis being included. But then the 'topic' was cherry-picked in the first place for its utility as a propaganda platform anyway. If WP:NOTHERE means anything at all, this has to be a perfect example of what it is about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article is well sourced and that several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of contributors have stated that the article should be deleted as contrary to policy. Which it no doubt will be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Being well-sourced is not the primary criteria in determining article retention, that is a common error usually made by newbie editors. As for the "several editors involved in the AfD suggested or support the name change" claim...well, yes, the "several" including you who had earlier weighed in on keeping the article. You make it sound like people who have previously called for deletion have been swayed by the name change. Your wording is deceptive. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AndyTheGrump—would you find an article such as Israel and the apartheid analogy more defensible (especially more compliant with policy) than an article such as the one we are discussing, which is presently named Incitement to violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, we know that pro-Israeli editors have long had a stick up their ass over the Israeli apartheid article, but that is supported by a wide swath of reliable sources and is not a slated fork of another article. Editors have made arguments to have it deleted in a dozen-odd AfDs over the years, but that opinion has always been a minority one. As I have noted elsewhere, it has long been a tactic of the editors of your particular POV to create garbage articles like this "Palestinian incitement" thing, to try and use it as a wedge to get the apartheid analogy article deleted. You have never won an argument with this underhanded tactic and you never will win an argument with this underhanded tactic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed "Bus Stop" was a major protagonist in the Judaism and bus stops classic a few years ago (though, confusingly, "Bus Stop" was not the author of the "bus stop" article. It's been part of the repertoire for years.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a debate on the relative merits of articles. And neither is it another location for debate on the proposed deletion of the one under discussion. However, since you asked, Bus stop, my own personal opinion is that Israel and the apartheid analogy is an article of questionable encyclopaedic merit - along with many other of the articles relating to Israel, Palestine, Islam and the like. It is by no means the worst of them though. In my opinion, we'd be doing a great service to our readers if we got rid of most of these soapboxing articles, and concentrated on a broader neutral coverage of topics in articles not cherry-picked to promote one faction or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

COI re Bipolar disorder and Bipolar spectrum at WP?

I do not know where to post this info, and I assume only admins can access IP info re who is doing edits, so I am posting here. Please move my comment if this is not the apropriate place to post it. "the Wikipedia entries ‘Bipolar Disorder’ and ‘Bipolar Spectrum’ were edited from a computer belonging to AstraZeneca", and much worse not Wiki-specific, is alluded to at that site. If an admin can direct me to the specific edits, I will check them as to WP:RS and content for WP:V. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Old news - see Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Or do you actually have any evidence of more recent COI editing, as opposed to using this as another excuse to draw attention to your hobby-horse? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Also note that the blog post you link to is from 2010, and merely says that "As a British blogger noticed recently, the Wikipedia entries ‘Bipolar Disorder’ and ‘Bipolar Spectrum’ were edited from a computer belonging to AstraZeneca, ensuring that everyone is on the same diagnostic page as the industry.”". It doesn't even say who reported this, when, whether it was even confirmed, how much was edited and so forth. These questions would have to be answered first. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted here thinking an admin has tools to get an area IP for the pharma co, then search the article hisory edits for the IP address, in a matter of seconds. One of us can then read the content and verify with the sources upon which it is based, for which an admin is not needed. I posted notice at the COI board per Harizotoh's comment, pointing here. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Admins have no more tools than regular editors to look at the IPs that have edited a page in the past. Simply look at the article's history, look at the IPs, and then lookup the IP on WHOIS to see who owns it. I skimmed through the histories myself and didn't see anything out of the ordinary, but then we're not really told where in time to look. Checkusers have the ability to see what IP a registered account is using, but this is never used to fish for COIs, and edits >2 years old are far past for the tool to work (the data is expunged by that point). Regardless, as a general rule it is safe to ignore anyone who publicizes a claim without providing evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Anyone can look at article history for IP contributors - and Wikipedia certainly won't disclose IP's or similar data regarding registered users to other contributors. Unless you have specific allegations, you are unlikely to get far with this. Do you have any evidence that there has been more recent COI editing of the articles concerned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Over the years, a couple thousand different people have edited Bipolar disorder. It's a common condition. AstraZeneca is huge. Probably about 1,500 of their employees have a bipolar diagnosis. It would be odd if none of them had ever shown an interest in our article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Persistence on BLP-violations by User:Popcorn1101

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

---

Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs) has made it his mission to add Alawi Shia to the religion parameter of infoboxes for biographies of people who are part/connected to the Syrian regime. In many of these cases this designation is blatantly false (as they are Sunnis), and in all cases it is without any sources. See examples here: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]. Some of the most egregious ones are Najah al-Attar who happens to be the sister of Issam al-Attar a Musim Brotherhood leader. Farouk al-Sharaa, as well, is almost uniformly prefaced as "the most senior Sunni member of the government of President Bashar al-Assad" in news reports.

The user has had ample warnings on his talk page, and hasn't responded to any of then and has already been blocked once before over the same disruptive edits after I notified an admin, but he's back. The despicable sectarian undertones of his edits aside, there is a serious BLP issue here. Yazan (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Yazan (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Popcorn1101 (talk · contribs) for a month for disruptive editing; the next block will probably be indefinite... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio! Yazan (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent Vandalism by 208.122.71.124

I first became aware of this user when looking at his edit for the Rube Goldberg article, where he changed an instance of "Goldberg" to "Yanker man janson". Looking through his contribution log, every single edit that I checked was an instance of clear vandalism.

Glancing at his Talk page, it's a litany of warnings for vandalism and similar nonsense. He has also been blocked four different times during the last year, the last one for three months. (Ending just this last week) Since this user has been warned and blocked so many times, I felt that this was more appropriate for the ANI than the Vandalism board. And since he has contributed absolutely nothing to the site, I feel that a ban would make the most sense. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, even repeat offenders should be reported to WP:AIV - and I don't think a ban is necessary; they are very rare for anonymous users, and this is a school where there's likely more than one possible responsible person. This was the only instance of vandalism since the last block; if it continues I suggest a 6-month block, but otherwise only warnings.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the "only instance of vandalism since the last block" because the block only expired on November 20th. Since then, the one edit made by the user above was vandalism. I'm aware the IP is associated with a school...so what? Does that mean indefinitely tolerating vandalism? If any student using school computers is serious about editing Wikipedia, they can simply register with a username. Problem solved.

I'm not sure why you're defending this, since this account has contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to Wikipedia, while actively detracting from it. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If the IP vandalizes again, take it to AIV and ask for a "school block", which will (hopefully) result in a block until about May or June - or longer, if the admin sees fit to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is defending it. You're just being told the standard approach to school IPs, which is to wait and see if we get multiple new violations and then report it to WP:AIV, which will most likely result in a longer block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm no expert on Wikipedia protocol, although I can't help thinking such an approach is too slow and inefficient. (Why not just ban in such instances?) Anyways, thanks for the heads-up. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I echo all of the above. An ANI report is not necessary to emphasize the fact that they are a repeat vandal; this will be clear from the block log, which presumably any admin will view in determining how long to block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Even the most stable of IPs will eventually get reassigned; that's why IPs are never indef-blocked or banned. The normal SOP is to issue escalating school-blocks (3 mos, 6 mos, one year, two years). -- Dianna (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again

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

---

After admin Black Kite's 48-hour block for disruptive editing expired, LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returned immediately to editwarring over diacritics (what he was blocked for before). In fact, he appears to have done absolutely nothing but editwar about diacritics at Lech Wałęsa and argue tendentiously about them at Talk:Lech Wałęsa, despite being warned to not do so. His edits are extremely WP:POINTy, insisting on adding "better known as [version without diacritics here]" to this and (previously) to other articles with diacritics, as if anyone could not understand that "Wałęsa" is sometimes rendered "Walesa" in English. If not stopped, his "WP readers are idiots" editing would affect many thousands of articles. He has been on a WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against diacritics at WP:RM, WT:MOS, WT:AT, WP:TENNIS articles, and any other forum he can think of to shop this to, for months and months. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The reason given for my block was that I reverted several attempts by User:SMcCandlish to trash titles and contents of my RfC on "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLP". Trashing the contents of somebody's RfC is like rewriting the comments of another user, and is surely forbidden. There was a comments section for making comments, but User:SMcCandlish trashed the contents of the RfC itself.
• The reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. There are several guidelines covering diacritics:
• WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
• WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
• WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
• MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"
• and I am not aware of any decision that all of these are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation.
• I do not think that politely discussing, on the article talk page, the reasons why the English version of Lech Walesa's name should not be totally stripped from the article constitutes "disruptive editing". I do think that SMcCandlish's repeated insults and repeated attempts to intimidate other users (see also discussion here) and silence polite discussion are far below the minimum acceptable and tolerable behavior on Wikipedia. I believe that he deserves a block for refusing to tone down his abusive, vindicative, and insulting behavior, even though cautioned by other users. The insults, character assassination, and veiled threats under "Better use of WT:BLP time" below this RfC are also surely far below minimum acceptable standards of behavior on Wikipedia. You can see another example of such intimidation and character assassination here. LittleBen (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ben... please learn to use the SHOW PREVIEW button (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No seriously - please use the 'show preview' button. GiantSnowman 12:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided otherwise, two things need to change; LittleBenW needs indeed to use the preview button (24 edits in this discussion already, to compose one message? The last 17 edits on Talk:Lech Wałęsa all by the same editor, for the same comment?), and templates in userspace should never be used in the mainspace: <ref>{{User:LittleBenW/Template test|Lech Wałęsa}}</ref> was part of the Lech Walesa article until User:Volunteer Marek removed it; moving it to template namespace will not help in this instance though, a "Google search" is not a reliable source that should be introduced into articles. Fram (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• A Google search of only agreed-upon reliable sources, as was the suggestion, is surely the best way of determining what reliable sources say. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• The template {{User:LittleBenW/Template_test|Lech Wałęsa}} : Sources for Lech Wałęsa on Google searches only reliable sources (the list of reliable sources can easily be changed). This template makes it so easy to research English-language usage (and rank the results) that it surely eliminates stupid excuses for not observing the above Wikipedia guidelines as listed above. LittleBen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I suspect the only answer to this problem is going to be a diacritics-related topic ban for this editor. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah that is my feeling as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Djsasso: It appears that you asked User:AlexTiefling to try to sabotage the RfC, is that correct? LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, he asked me how to start an RfC on your behavior. He came to me and asked. Nice try though. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. I make no secret of having done this; I also asked Dominus Vobisdu for help, as I really don't have the first clue how User RfCs work. I did not know the full back-story, and I was surprised and relieved to see SMcCandlish bring the case here last week. I freely admit that I painted a bit of a target on myself during Ben's RfC by describing my contribution as an 'expert opinion'. I am not, and do not pretend to be, an expert on diacritics. However, I felt I had sketched out my area of knowledge, and its relevant to the discussion, fairly clearly. I was therefore surprised by the vehement hostility of Ben's reply. I found his behaviour thereafter to be hectoring, wilfully ignorant, and generally obstructive. I would especially emphasise the following points: (1) persistent biased description of his own views, opinions, perspectives and so on as 'neutral' and 'NPOV' (for which, I refer to Bernard Woolley's observation that "Railway trains are impartial too, but if you lay down the lines for them that's the way they go."); (2) constant not hearing what others are saying - in particular, claiming not to understand Agathoclea's perfectly clear and lucid use of English; (3) his wildly incompetent editing style, resulting in dozens of consecutive edits to the same few pages, and making it really difficult to get a word in - as I mentioned in that discussion, at one point it took me four attempts to get past edit conflicts with him in order to post a single short paragraph; and failing to sign comments, or indent correctly, leading to misattributions and unclear threading;(4) his persistent attempts to censor others' opinions by unilaterally declaring repeated moratoria on other people editing his RfC, and collapsing sections of the page which contain criticism of his views and methods; (5) his fiercely confrontational style, including inserting ad hominem attacks into his comments to me after I had already replied to them. My response to this report can be found below. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Black Kite: Please explain why your user page contained the statement, "In response to this abuse of power by ArbCom, I am withdrawing my services as an editor and as an admin, except for commenting on this case. Although I have great respect for some members of the current committee, I do not feel I can contribute while the current ban motion is still viable. Should these things change, I may reconsider, but if not then I thank all those who have made my time here so pleasurable, and I apologize to those whom I would otherwise have been happy to help" on around Nov. 17, right before blocking me. Also you did not specify any rational reason or any successful RfCs or other decisions that justify your premature closing of this RfC. You reason sounds like a deliberate fabrication. LittleBen (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What exactly does the message on Black Kite's use page have to do with anything and what exactly is the purpose of copying the entire thing here serve? Does Black Kite not know what his message says? You're really reaching for straws by using it and it gives me a very low impression of the strength of your argument.--v/r - TP 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • He said quite clearly that he is withdrawing his services as both an editor and an admin., so his coming back when crony SMcCandlish asks him to get rid of me (see Black Kite's talk page) is pretty gross behavior. Black Kite is still refusing to give a rational reason for his behavior, right? LittleBen (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • • What is your point? Black Kite is in protest of something unrelated and voluntarily walks away. Obviously he still checks his userpage, saw what he deemed inappropriate behavior and handled it. Which policy was violated by Black Kite? He can do what he wants. You do not get to dictate the terms of his break.--v/r - TP 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • And SMcCandlish asked him no such thing. He notified him of this discussion. His previous comment on the talk page was in response to BlackKites handling of your edit warring on the 3RR page. It is quite normal and expected to notify and administrator who blocked a user of further disruption by that user. You keep digging your hole deeper by misrepresenting the facts. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, for the last two years we've had non-stop excessive drama about diacritics, and it is nothing more than disruptive. - filelakeshoe 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Just from the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality this user has demonstrated here it's plain that this user is going to be single minded in their persuit of diaretics issues. From having to do 24 edits for their initial response, to digging into commenter's histories to look for a reason to discredit the outside comments on the grounds of being involved, to digging into Admin's histories to find a reason to ignore the advice. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban Having had a look at the previous ANI that got them blocked for 48hrs, LittleBen should have considered himself lucky not to have been indef'd. Assumptions of bad faith and combatative attitude in this area justify and indefinite topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I noted, as part of LittleBen's battleground behaviour his attempt to rally an ally after this ANI was created. That comment led me to investigate his argument that SMC "attempted to intimidate Fyunck(click)". Except that SMC's only comment - strongly worded - was directed at nobody specific and was merely an expression of frustration at the tendentious nature of the argument. In short, LittleBen is inventing bad faith motivations for his opponents (also noted by his misrepresentation of DJSasso and AlexTiefling's brief interaction). LittleBenW is not so much an editor as he is a crusader, and that is far too problematic to ignore. Resolute 14:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here let me comment. I did not find SMC's strongly-worded comment "intimidation." However, saying it was directed at no one in particular would be naive. While I have been intimidated by two other diacritic allies of his, to the point of needing administrative assistance, SMCs wording was simply the same kind of frustration I sometimes have felt being on the other side of the coin. And while Littleben is correct that the title should be at "Lech Walesa" here at this English encyclopedia, removing diacritics is not a fight I've been recently pushing... too frustrating with the same old faces on each side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - editor refuses to listen. GiantSnowman 14:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal topic ban proposal

I've just realized that we are basically !voting on "a topic ban" without really defining it. So, I'll formalize the proposal using the same verbiage from other cases: LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.

Naturally, my support comment above stands. I will leave it to others who have already weighed in to reconfirm if this specific proposal is adequate. Resolute 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support this formal resolution. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support User completely in the battlefield mentality on this topic. Digging into peoples histories and mis-stating facts just to try and discredit those who disagree with him is ridiculous. I already thought he should be topic banned, but his behaviour in this discussion has only solidified that more. (moved from earlier in discussion to indicate I support the formal wording) -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'd have to oppose because, honestly, the user is in the right...and as I myself have found in this project from time to time, it is hard being right in the face of such abject obstinance. The article in question should be moved to Lech Walesa, even; start recognizing the en aspect of en.wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It's totally irrelevant whether he is right or wrong. He is still blatantly edit warring and gaming the system with an agenda. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Asking people to either follow Wikipedia guidelines or start an RfC (to strip all English names from English Wikipedia) is not gaming the system. Insulting and intimidating users for favor the present Wikipedia guidelines on a diacritics-neutral POV is not gaming the system; baiting, bullying and blocking such users who ask that guidelines be followed, and sabotaging and shutting down civil debate on the issue is surely gaming the system. LittleBen (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The only one doing any intimidating, bullying, baiting, and insulting at the moment is you. With the way you are lying and misrepresenting facts in this current discussion. The RfC that got shut down was far from civil, you were removing any comment by anyone that disagreed with you. You were rigging the outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually Tarc, this issue has been sliced, autopsied, analyzed, examined and argued from every possible angle. As one example, take Britannica, which in the past user has claimed does not use diacritics for "Lech Walesa" - it turns out it actually does, it's just that he had the diacritics turned off on his browser somehow. Here it is: [88]. If it's standard English (the en part of the encyclopedia) on BRITAINnica, then why does it all of sudden cease to be English here? Perhaps because some of the people who think they know English usage, actually don't. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • One further comment - this has been brought up before as well - why can't we have the technology which would allow users to choose a diacrtic or non-diacritic versions in their preferences? It certainly seems feasible and if it puts an end to all this stupid bickering once and for all, it'd be money well spend by the Foundation. Volunteer Marek  19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not make this about solving the diacritics 'problem'. I'm happy to discuss this elsewhere. This is about LittleBen's conduct, which, frankly, stinks. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reconfirm support See my reasonong above. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Suppor, the RfC was an extreme example of IDHT, and doesn't seem to be an exception for this user. Fram (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• support wording. - filelakeshoe 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support this as a bear minimum. Frankly, I feel that Ben has failed to show the competence necessary to contribute. I am sick of dealing with an editor who consistently 'plays the man and not the ball', and cannot himself ever make a single, clean edit to a page. I would gladly support a longer full block than the one already issued, in addition to topic and interaction bans. If I never have to deal with this anti-diacritics nonsense again, it will be too soon - but if its proponents conduct themselves more graciously, that's my problem. When it's the sort of behaviour Ben has displayed, it's the community's problem, and I say we bar him from the topic for good. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tarc. He's right  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Support Although Tarc is in principle correct, it appears that Ben turns both nasty and "I didn't hear that" when dealing with anything related diacritics. As such, it's best to keep Ben away from such articles and discussions until he's willing to actually a) not edit-war, b) not attack others, and c) actually listen to others. As such, this topic ban proposal has complete merit in its goal to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• And now we have the much-anticipated appeal to Jimbo by Ben (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap. I hardly know where to start with what's wrong about this approach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added "strongest possible" to my support, primarily due to this edit by Ben that shows a) it's personal to him, and b) that he just cannot stop himself from personal attacks and bad faith (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tark. LB is correct and it is always tough if you're correct and you face several editors of opposing views. I also think handing out a topic ban is way out of proportion here regardless of wrong or right and wiki should be going out of its way "not" to impose these things at the drop of a hat. Editors should usually be given written warnings acknowledged by a couple "non-involved" administrators that their behavior is bordering on a topic ban and that they should reflect and change their modus-operandi lest further action be taken. Otherwise it seems like an old western small-town mob hanging where if the victim had walked into a different small town he might be regarded the hero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even if he was right he has proven to lack the competence and collorative spirit in contributing in this subject area (see also this comment on his talkpage) The competence issue goes beyond the diacritic issue, he has repeatedly been made aware of his wrongly marking edits as minor. He obviously does not understand English and his discussion style is so bad that I was on the verge of asking the community to impose a different limitation to the one suggested here - limit his contribution to a maximum of 10 edits per discussion, but let's keep this idea in mind for another day. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support mostly on the basis of the activity being disruptive and pointy. Volunteer Marek  19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per VM and others - and also because edit-warring over MOS issues is of no benefit whatsoever to the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but without "participating in any discussions about the same." Tarc is right: the article should be Lech Walesa, to hell with the MOS if it says otherwise. But that discussion is over (at least for now). Tough luck for me and other people who prefer the version without diacritics. It's a re-direct, I can live with that. As per VM, this is about "disruptive and pointy" editing in articles. But: the editor should be allowed to discuss it all they like. What is their time, they can waste how they please. Just not others' time. (And people, please: spell-checker, does your browser have one? Then use it!) --Shirt58 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Extremely disruptive battleground behavior and incivility that has already consumed countless hours of editor time. Absolute refusal to listen makes it impossible for this editor to ever work contructively with others on this topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support – LittleBenW's stridently anti-diacritic antics of the last two years has made it very hard to have any serious discussions of the issues. Holding him out of the way will allow more normal processes to proceed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support; editors do have legitimate disagreements over diacritics; the battleground mentality is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Being right or wrong is irrelevant here (and it's absurd to even claim that an issue like that has one clearly right and one clearly wrong answer). Disruptive edit warring gets you topic banned, simple as that. --Conti|✉ 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose gross over-reaction -- the person should absolutely be allowed to discuss the issues, and this ban would not aid Wikipedia as a project. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Conti, being right is not the point here. And it is clear that Ben's editing has been found wanting. However, it does not automatically follow that whatever remedy someone proposes will be the best one. The behaviour of both sides should be examined here. It seems to me that some editors have been too eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics and giving them this satisfaction would not address that issue. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, a ban should be a last resort, after other reasonable measures have been tried but failed; not one of the first measures applied, for the convenience of silencing an opposing view that ought rightfully be heard. My76Strat (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I would support a short ban (a couple of months or perhaps as long as six months) to allow a cooling off period. I do not support an indefinite ban. I am also worried about the process within this ANI as I see some editors acting as prosecutor, judges and executioners. If there is to be a topic ban of over a few months then I think the more appropriate venue would be a user RfC (although those too can degenerate into kangaroo court). If an RfC is initiated before the end of the year, I think that all those who have commented here should be notified. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per my 'informal' comment above. GiantSnowman 15:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unlike a content dispute about the shape of the earth (flat vs. round), there is not an objectively correct answer about how to handle these diacritics. It's a somewhat arbitrary decision about house style, made by WP editors through discussion/consensus. If someone is acting disruptive, it's completely appropriate to remove them from the process, so other editors will decide the issue without them. Even if it's a different decision, it's still not "wrong".

  Tarc's objection seems to be that there's a MOS argument for writing Lech Wałęsa without diacritics, so we're doing it wrong and we should accept unlimited amounts of disruption to avoid the catastrophic, project-destroying error (snort) of writing Wałęsa instead of Walesa in the article. The remedy for that concern is to have a talkpage or RM discussion narrowly about the Wałęsa article, not using it to fight a proxy battle about diacritics throughout the project. The discussion will close with either (depending on your perspective) either the "right" outcome (in which case the situation got handled just fine without Little Ben), or the "wrong" outcome (in which case we add one more to the countless tiny imperfections in Wikipedia, probably way below the millionth on the list in terms of consequence, so not worth any significant amount of disruption, and in case this outcome is to remove the diacritics as Little Ben wanted, it also benefits from his non-participation by decreasing the stridency). Our reading public is frankly not going to care one way or the other which way we write it. (And to whoever suggested a reader preference: no that won't work, almost all our readers don't have accounts, and anyway it would be a sort of POVFORK). 66.127.54.40 (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

What if I or someone else volunteered to mentor User:LittleBenW through conducting a proper RFC and ensured there was no disruptive behavior. The community could dictate that to accept this suggestion, LittleBenW would be required to accept the decision of the RFC as binding. Would that work instead of a topic ban? Several folks have said he is technically correct, right? I have no opinion on the specific use of the English language (if anyone has seen me write) so I've got no particular opinion.--v/r - TP 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea, but surely the diacritics pushers would not support discussion on a fair and level playing field. LittleBen (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Sanctions are only advisable if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Why not try this? Against the current (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • You might want to ask him first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as an alternative. As the diacritic issue is just part of the problem, albeit the worst, I recommend mentoring to solve the underlying issues and then for the mentor to come back here when his mentoring has been successful to lift the topicban and then guide him through a diacritic related rfc. Agathoclea (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While diacritic marks may have been the gateway for this user, I see the embers of the WP:DIACRITICS war in the verbage. The answer is not to coddle them, but to stamp out the embers as soon as possible as this has nowhere to go (including the Jimbo Appeal) but straight into a full out diacritic war. Hasteur (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: The situation has gone far beyond the point where a gentle slap on the wrist will do. I, and many others, have tried to reason with him, all to no avail. You can't reason with a true believer who's on a crusade. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support/Oppose - I would oppose this and the section above, but if these turn out to be the only two choices then I would support this lesser alternative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Part of the problem here is that some editors have been excessively eager to close down discussion on the topic of diacritics. Ben has played into this a little, because he does not appear to have to experience necessary to formulate a robust RfC question. This has led to his frustration. If he were given support to enable him to see an RfC through to its conclusion (and assuming he were willing to abide by the outcome), then that would substantially solve the problem. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Another alternate suggestion

Boldly closing as an entirely inappropriate digression from the matter at hand. Entertaining this discussion further is taking away LittleBenW's shovel and giving him an earthmover. Blackmane (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TParis's suggestion, that an RfC be allowed to proceed, surely is another way of saying that the reason given for terminating the RfC (and that Black Kite refuses to back up with facts) was fraudulent, deliberate fabrication. Administrators are supposed to be fair, honest, and unbiased, which certainly does not seem to be the case here. Surely to shut down a discussion which was courteous, until his crony SMC came along and started trashing it, is gross abuse of authority. Black Kite should keep his word (as posted on his talk page) and relinquish his Admin powers if he can't or won't clean up his act. LittleBen (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Note: I have advised Ben to amend his personal attacks above, and have amended my OWN !vote above to become "strongest possible support" for the topic ban due to his extreme bad faith and his personal attacks related to this subject overall (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) As I explained above, the reason that User:Black Kite gave for prematurely shutting down the RfC (after blocking me) was that he said it was "duplicative of previous discussions which have reached clear decisions", which I believe is a totally untrue statement. As I also pointed out above, I am not aware of any decision that all of the guidelines listed above are irrelevant. If User:Black Kite can be more specific about "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (and overruled all of the above guidelines) then he should specify them here, otherwise this shutting down of the RfC surely amounts to gross abuse of authority, and intimidation. LittleBen (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Ben, I don't think it's likely that you have seen any evidence of "fraudulent, deliberate fabrication", so you should strike that. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I said if he can not produce evidence of "previous discussions which have reached clear decisions" (the reason that he gave for shutting down the discussion) then surely it is untrue. He seems to be refusing to reply to this. The suggestion by User:TParis that a fair and neutral RfC is necessary surely supports this viewpoint (that an RfC was needed, contrary to what Black Kite claims). LittleBen (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC) You are just being tenacious, you have been in repeated discussions that have resulted in your preferred outcome not being accepted. You are well aware that you were just bringing up the same discussion again in yet another forum where the outcome was going to be exactly the same. In all cases it was very clear there was no consensus to implement your wished changes. Trying to claim he has no proof that such discussions occurred is ridiculous and is just you trying to shift blame to whomever you can. It is in fact further proving the need for the topic ban above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) We've had numerous RFCs on the topic, and they never turn out the way you hope. TParis is trying to save you from a topic ban with a good faith suggestion that he basically mentor you through a "proper" RFC. Two problems, however. First, I doubt very much you will get what you hope out of it. Second, when you fail to get what you want out of it, I have exactly zero faith that you won't simply continue forum shopping and battling. Hell, even while facing this topic ban, you continue to attack editors who disagree with you and continue to cast aspersions on those whom you view as opponents/enemies. The issue here is not the usage of diacritics. The issue is your behaviour, and so far you have given no evidence that you either see anything wrong with your behaviour, or that you intend to change it. In fact, it is telling that you simply ignored TParis' comments about your needing to ensure you offer no disruptive behaviour. Resolute 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Are you saying that threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they participate in an RfC, and (yet again) attempting to intimidate people participating in an RfC ("Better use of WT:BLP time") is acceptable behavior? Is it illegal to hold an RfC to determine mutually-acceptable and neutral ways of confirming real-world usage and so end this user's long-running and disruptive intimidation and move warring? He has been cited for the same disruptive behavior many times before, such as here and here.  LittleBen (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) How many hundred diacritic-related controversial moves that defy commonsense do I brag about getting away with? LittleBen (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The general consensus on Jimbo's talk page seems to be that there is no justification whatsoever for not making the English version of Walesa without diacritics the preferred spelling. I'm surprised that none of the Admins here are threatening Jimbo with a block for permitting a civil discussion of diacritics. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Rumours and unsubstantiated allegations against Rolf Harris

There appears to be a number of blogs/tweets/etc on the internet that allege links between this news article and Rolf Harris. I've semi-protected the article for one month, but I fear that other articles that he is connected with might also get targeted.

Real life is keeping me from WP more than I'd like, so I won't be able to keep watch on these articles that much, so I felt it important to announce it here.

As an aside, you'd think that the law suits following the false allegations against Lord McAlpine, bloggers would be more careful. But then you realise that everyone thinks of themselves as a "champion of rights" and hope to be the next Bernstein or Woodward (sigh). Stephen! ^Coming... 12:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there ever a time when beforeitsnews.com would be considered a reliable source or acceptable external link? Obviously we don't publish uncharged investigations even when properly sourced, but the potential unreliable nature of that particular site makes me wonder if we need to blacklist or filter that site. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The only possible time I can it having a legitimate use would be in a statement 'X story broke on beforeitsnews.com 4 weeks before mainstream'. Otherwise I am for it being blacklisted/filtered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Or if it were to become the subject of a news item and we needed to reference something on the site relating to that topic. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Specific pages can be allowed as I recall. So that shouldnt be a problem given the limited amount of times its likely to come up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Wikipedia will not grind to a halt because we lag a few weeks, or even months, behind the bloggers and the National Enquirer, because we want to satisfy the criteria behind WP:BLP properly. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I heavily support such an addition to the blacklist. Even the site's URL admits to non-notability. Against the current (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Move and supress personal .css-page

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

---

Please move and supress redirect of User:Lavallen/monobook.css to User:Lavallen/common.css, thank you! -- Lavallen (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Should be all set now. Monty₈₄₅ 14:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User YogaWP

Hi, I'm not that familiar with the procedures here (participate mainly in es.wiki), but I just reverted an edit by YogaWP and notice much more vandalism that needs to be reverted. Thanks, --Maragm (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could show us a few diff links to the alleged vandalism. Calling people names is cheap but we need evidence to evaluate the case. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now informed YogaWP of this discussion. Next time you report an editor to one these administrative noticeboards, please leave them a message as is required by our policy. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do next time. The diff I left in the first message with his recent contributions reflect most of these acts of vandalism. Thank you, --Maragm (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now left them a stern warning on their talk page and have given them a last chance. Continuous edits of the previous style will result in an indef block. Others might have blocked this as a vandalism-only account but I'm not sure there's a malicious intent at all behind these edits. So let's hope they stop this now. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

CopyVio on Arizona State University

Recently, an anonymous editor has made dozens of edits to Arizona State University. Many of these edits are direct copy/paste from various websites. (Example: This is a direct copy of This.) This editor has been warned on his talk page by two other editors. In addition, I strongly suspect NPOV violations as this editor is strategically omitting certain potions of his/her copied text that contradict his/her opinion of the article topic. I'd like to suggest that the IP be temporarily blocked (or the page goes Semi-Protect). -Nick^talk 16:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the now quote. While quotes are permissible, if overly long relative to what they are quoting from, they can still represent a copyvio, particularly when there is no reason we can't use our own language. Just slapping quotation marks and a cite on a copyvio doesn't fix things. I'm not really sure what to do about the editor though. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor seems willing to discuss things on the talk page, and at least in so far as the Copyvio is concerned this seems resolved. The NPOV issue may end up back here, but I suggest further talk page discussion for now. Monty₈₄₅ 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks! -Nick^talk 03:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparent violation of WP:BLP and other policies by Zbrnajsem

User:Zbrnajsem, already familiar to ANI from a previous discussion relating to our article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford ‎ (see archives: [89]) has chosen, after a long and rambling discussion over 'free speech' and why he thinks that Wikipedia articles should be sourced to whatever a contributor (i.e. himself) prefers to push a minority POV, to make a personal attack on the professional integrity of a respected academic, Professor Steven W. May (currently of Sheffield University, see [90]). Professor May is self-evidently well qualified to write on de Vere, specialising on the period as is evident from his list of publications. Zbrnajsem however, disliking May's descriptions of de Vere as the sometimes less-than-successful individual he was, has accused May of being "misleading or grossly false" and of engaging in "vile gossips". [91] This takes what would otherwise be a content dispute well into WP:BLP-violation territory as I see it, in that it is a direct attack on the professor, based on nothing but Zbrnajsem's dislike of anyone who fails to portray de Vere as the great poet, virtuous nobleman, and self-evident author of 'Shakespeare's works that Zbrnajsem wishes. I have asked Zbrnajsem to redact the personal attack, but he has declined. If he is unwilling to conform to policy in regard to resorting to personal attacks on the authors of source material, while likewise filling talk pages with what is self evidently vacuous waffle regarding his rights under the US constitution to fill Wikipedia articles with whatever he feels like (see for example [92]), I cannot see how his presence on the article talk page can be anything but a net liability. It is one thing to have a heated debate regarding content, but when unfounded personal attacks on outsiders are being made, and debates are endlessly dragged off-topic by irrelevances and a failure to understand elementary tenets of Wikipedia policy, any hope of reaching a reasonable compromise seems futile. I therefore ask that Zbrnajsem be asked to redact his personal attacks on May, and that he agrees in future to conform to talk-page policy regarding the de Vere article - staying on topic, not abusing it as a forum, and not engaging in pointless rambling posts regarding aspects of Wikipedia policy that cannot possibly be rescended on article talk pages. Should he fail to do so, I would propose that he be topic banned - at least from this article, though I suspect a broader ban regarding all articles etc touching on the 'Shakespeare authorship question' might perhaps be more appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I redact my personal attacks on Mr. May, if what I have written is qualified as personal attacks on him. OK, he is surely a great historian, and I hope this is appropriate. It is difficult and maybe futile to discuss anything on Edward de Vere if one has the sincere intention to see that historical person from all sides. What I have said and what I have done in the article - just deleting a half-sentence - was only with the sincere intention that this person gets so to say equal and just treatment as other historical persons, i.e. no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article concerned. I am frustrated, this I may say. I ask you to read the whole discussion about Edward de Vere from the last say five days. If you who read it think that AndyTheGrump was polite to me personally during the discussion, then I will believe it. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Zbrnajsem, no one doubts your sincerity. But removing anything critical about a person is not giving "equal and just treatment as other historical persons". It is not the case that there should be "no negatively sounding depiction of his character right at the beginning of the article" (compare the article on his contemporary Gabriel Spenser). It is the case that it should be fair and rounded. This half-sentence was the only "negative sounding" part of a substantial lede section. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that this isn't the place to engage in content disputes. Zbrnajsem has agreed to redact the comments regarding May, which is a start, but we still need to address the other matter I raised - Zbrnajsem's soapboxing on the article talk page, combined with an apparent inability to accept that WP:RS etc policies are non-negotiable, and that appeals to the US constitution etc regarding 'free speech' are not only off-topic, but downright disruptive. I'd like to see some evidence that Zbrnajsem accepts that the de Vere article must conform to policy, and that the talk page is no place argue otherwise. Contributors are of course free to argue that policy should be revised - but doing so on article talk pages is pointless. Instead, discussions have to take place within the necessary limits of existing policy. Unless Zbrnajsem accepts these limits on the scope of talk page discussions, the disruption is likely to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion. As far as the disputed full sentence in the article on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford is concerned, I still maintain my opinion that this rather long sentence has no sufficient inner logics and does not offer a proper consecution of arguments (see also the Talk on this page). It is composed from two or three sentences of different origin and with different points of view as intended by their authors. I maintain that this is no proper way how to argue on Wikipedia. Please look at the lede to the article. And I cannot think of any disruption of any discussion if the right for freedom of opinion and information is briefly mentioned in connection e.g. with the choice of sources. At times, however, during my participation in discussions, I had the impression that my participation was not welcome, and my views were fiercely rejected and not discussed properly. Of course, I have to take for granted that there is a policy of WP which maintains that there are mainstream theories on one side and a so-called fringe theories on the other side. My view is that in the past some theories previously labeled by the majority of scientists as fringe were later proven as correct, e.g. (but not only) Wegener´s theory of continental shift. So I suppose that it is within the limits of serious discussion on scientific fields if there is a certain scope of freedom for discussion on noticeable fringe theories. The existence of several articles on SAQ is a good evidence that there is such discussion on WP. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your response to my complaint that you were dragging the talk page discussions off-topic seems to me to consist largely of yet further off-topic irrelevances. Wegener´s theory of continental shift is of no more relevance here than the US constitution was in the original discussion - and we are not discussing the content of the lede here, we are discussing your behaviour on the talk page. You are hardly going to improve your case by once more demonstrating the problematic behaviour that lead me to raise the issue here in the first place. Once again I'll ask you - are you willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions like 'freedom of speech', and likewise argue that Wikipedia policy should be ignored where it suits your objectives? If you get the impression that your 'participation was not welcome', does it not occur to you that it might be because you fail to actually participate in discussions in the way expected? This is what is being discussed here, and this is what needs to be sorted out. Wikipedia is not a platform for righting great wrongs - it is an online encyclopaedia, written according to the best available credible sources (or at least that is the intention, if not always the outcome), and if such sources fail to reflect your opinions, you have two choices. Either work within Wikipedia according to the policies arrived at by consensus, or find another arena to promote your views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to accept that Wikipedia articles have to be written according to relevant Wikipedia policies, and that talk pages are not an appropriate place to argue for irrelevant abstractions. I would only like to ask you, AndyTheGrump, who decides that someone has argued for irrelevant abstractions? Up to now, only you have objected my contributions using this terminus. Likewise, I would like to read a very precise definition of irrelevant abstractions. If there is such a definition, please give it to me, then I would be better informed. Although I have got some education, it is not quite clear to me that it should be easy to decide about the content and quality of irrelevant abstractions. Besides this, there is no information that you personally would have the rights as administrator of Wikipedia. So it is possibly not quite correct if you, AndyTheGrump, give me very pointed advices and treat me as a pupil. Up to now, in this section, no administrator has objected my recent behaviour on Wikipedia, no administrator was engaged in the way you did in the above text, and also in the whole discussion which we had. My objections are now only towards the personal conduct between you and me, and could be made a case on my behalf. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that I'm not a Wikipedia admin. I have never suggested otherwise. AS for the fact that so far no uninvolved individuals (admins or otherwise) have commented, that is unfortunate - I too would welcome such input, and it was in the hope of getting such input that I started this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Zbrnajsem wrote: "I have no intention to disrupt any article and any discussion." that may not have been your intention, but it certainly was the result, as evidenced by the edit war that you instigated with your comments and participated in.

You also directly above respond with irrelevant abstractions when told that you indulge in irrelevant abstractions.

As to Andy's choice of language in trying to explain policy to you, how many times do we have to repeat a point before you finally get it and modify your behavior? Either your command of the language is deficient, or you're stupid, or you refuse to get the point. Which is it? Because it's been explained to you over and over. Nobody says you have to like it; but you do have to conform to it if you want to participate here. If you don't, that's fine; there are plenty of Oxfordian echo chambers where you'll be hailed as a hero and a champion of free speech. Make your choice what it is to be.

I haven't chimed in on this before now because I'm sick to death of his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him--I've had years of it. For some reason they seem incapable of understanding Wikipedia policy and attribute their unsuccessful attempts at promotion to evil "Stratfordian" control. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I got it that Tom Reedy is a reviewer, but does not hold the rights of an administrator. In the same time, nothing and nobody gives you the right to speak of me in the above tone, and with such expressions, Tom Reedy. Citation: ...his bullshit and the bullshit of those like him... Would you please refrain from such expressions? I wonder what administrators possibly say about your misdemeanor on this page. AndyTheGrump, you forgot Paul Barlow´s contribution above. He reacted in a very decent tone. I appreciate it very much. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that Paul Barlow has been involved in discussions on the de Vere talk page, he isn't 'uninvolved'. As for Tom Reedy's comments above, has it ever occurred to you to wonder why so many people seem to find engaging you in any sort of discussion so frustrating that they resort to incivility? I know I'm sometimes inclined to respond in this manner myself, often with less justification than might seem appropriate, but if you get this sort of response from so many different people, shouldn't you perhaps ask yourself whether you may somehow be at least partly responsible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I don´t think so. I cannot be made responsible for the conduct of other contributors. I have a certain standing, the others have theirs. I normally keep my actions pretty restrained, comes what may. It´s good to see that you lowered the tone of your previously temperamentful comments, AndyTheGrump. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Talk:Global city

Re: Jim Lopez (talk · contribs), at the talk page Talk:Global city (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor is obsessed with the fact that if you look up "global" in a dictionary, that the term "Global city" (aka "World city") would then not make sense. He has had it explained by a few people that it should not be read literally, that Wikipedia does not define the language but instead only documents encyclopedic topics as they exist, etc. Still, they hammer on about it. Their argument is utter and complete nonsense, as there are more than enough reliable sources for the term, and yet they persist. Growing tired of the disruptive nonsense, I warned them against trolling, still they persist. At this point, I have no idea if the person is a true troll, or lacks basic competence at editing Wikipedia, or if they are simply not a native speaker and having trouble accepting non-literal meanings of phrases. Whatever the reason, they persist with the disruption.

I would appreciate some others taking a look. I was tempted to collapse the discussion with a DFTT tag; but given their persistence, I am not hopeful that would end their disruptive nonsense. Remaining options are a block, but I'm involved in the discussion, so I won't do it myself. I would appreciate other comments and opinions on the issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed it - with an explanation as to why the discussion is unnecessary. I'd suggest we wait to see how Jim Lopez responds to this before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, he ignored the collapsing of the discussion and continues the disruption at talk:Global city under the guise of being "analytic." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

He also blanked the entire talk page shortly after and kept only his discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left a polite explanation that also serves as a final warning, that it is time to stop debating semantics. Perhaps hearing it from several people, some uninvolved, will instill some clue here. Hopefully it won't take a bludgeoning with the block stick to get the point across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson has also added a reply that I think helps put it into context for him. There should be no question that this is a final warning and continuing will result in a block, likely indef since there isn't a way to determine how long it will take for him to get some clue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass reverts

Probably needed for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.168.226

82.132.139.248 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a few that look legit, so be selective. May be a shared IP. Monty₈₄₅ 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the edits made in the last few days was legitimate, and I've reverted them all. The edits fall into different categories. Some are material about non-notable awards. Some are unsourced material. Some are incompetent. Some are unencyclopedic. And many overlap multiple categories. I've also left a warning on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and I also added a notice about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Define "legitimate". I think they appeared to be good faith edits, so let's not be overly BITE-y (not that I'm saying anybody was). Against the current (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is if someone makes a couple of good faith bad edits, it's not so hard to undo them and talk to them. But when they make a lot of them, it's much more disruptive and much more work to undo all of them. It's also spammy. At the same time, I understand it's perhaps unfair of me to jump to a final warning except in the case of egregious vandalism. I sort of wanted to capture their attention. If I were to guess, I would suspect it's someone young, perhaps even a high school student in Maryland, but that's just a slightly educated guess.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, most likely. These are books aimed at an approximately preteen audience. But I understand your point regarding the magnitude of the potential disruption of that many edits. Against the current (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you made me feel a bit guilty, so I added another comment that if the IP had any questions, I'd try to answer them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a "Dear friend" section that should be a little less intimidating, suggesting they add their material to the article talk page. My impression is that the person is pretty young, and experimenting in good faith, so it may be good to just direct them to a different outlet (the talk page) for their additions until they get up to speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Return of Namuslu?

There was/is a recurring issue with a user at the Istanbul article. He was known as Namuslu (talk · contribs) up until May 2012, when he was indefinitely blocked and suspected of being a reincarnation of another banned user, Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) (who has more than 50 sockpuppets). He returned in September 2012, after semi-protection on the article expired, to cause more disruption, and now I think he's back again under a new username, Forthenote (talk · contribs).

Namuslu's M.O. is not exactly unique, and probably describes the typical edits of a beginner. So, while not conclusive as Namuslu, the circumstantial evidence suggests Forthenote is him. Basically, Namuslu would essentially blanket revert a series of changes with no explanation or with the explanation that he disagreed with a small portion of the changes that were made. For some reason, he was particularly known for swapping out several images. Again, this probably describes the approach a lot of new beginners take, but bear with me.

What made me suspicious of Forthenote (talk · contribs) was his quick ability to understand how Wikipedia works. His second edit consisted of creating a remarkably well-put-together article (Naum Theatre), and two days in he was already creating a collage for the Istanbul article and uploading it to Commons -- something that would not be a priority for most new editors. Like Namuslu, Forthenote's edits have been exclusively centered on Turkey-related articles and, for the vast majority of time, the Istanbul article in particular. Recently, Forthenote seems to be more noticeably showing his true nature, blanket reverting (as he did here under a completely irrelevant edit summary). He has also restored content from months back in the history, some of which was reverted in by one of Namuslu's socks. For example, here he adds a caption to an image related to Türk Telekom Arena replicating this edit that puts the same image and caption into the article. That image hadn't been in the article since September, up until a few days ago. We also see him mentioning a slew of films made in Istanbul, just as he attempted to do in September and re-adding an image (of the Pera Museum) that was removed during September's FAC.

As I said, the evidence isn't conclusive. But it's quite obvious this user is not new, and most likely is another reincarnation of Namuslu. Any thoughts on the correctness of this would be appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 22:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Tariqabjotu, you started an SPI, I see, which doesn't seem to progress very much. Your suspicion may well be right. Namuslu, I thought, was a very nice disruptive editor. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

David Horsager articles

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

---

Concerned users:

• Daniel Felt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• dmfelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages:

• David Horsager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David horsager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First of all, considering the similarity of the names, these might be sockpuppets. Second, they seem to have only edited the articles David Horsager and David horsager. The former has been salted after repeated deletions, and the latter appears a way of circumventing that. Additionally, the accounts have been consistently removing the CSD tag on the David horsager page. The two accounts seem to be making a persistent effort to put what seems like promotional material on Wikipedia.

I'm putting this here, since I don't know if it should go into AIV, SPI or someplace else. — daranz [ t ] 00:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/NewGuy1001

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

---

I hate coming here, but this is three times this week. The above user has posted some sort of code on both his user and talk page rendering them inaccessable. I would try to talk to him about it, but ...his talk page is inaccessable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If anyone has a problem with this, please revert me. I have reverted the edits he's made. Talk page and User page should work. I'll also watch for any future things like that. Try now. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit. Can an admin please block him? He keeps readding his code. I'll leave him a warning if he gives me time.. But if that fails I believe a block is in order. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef'ed. --Rschen7754 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Might want to remove talkpage access so he doesn't keep doing it? Just an idea :) gwickwire | Leave a message 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll give him a chance to throw up an unblock request, if he does it again I'll pull it. --Rschen7754 05:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thanks for the swift action! gwickwire | Leave a message 05:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Pls watch his IP if you have that ability. This guy fancies himself as quite the supergeek and I wouldn't doubt that we are in store for a shitstorm from him. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looking through NewGuy's contributions and the articles he has edited for any IP pattern, I couldn't find enough data for me to believe he is using an IP at this time. If he does start, I'm sure we'll notice it the way he's editing. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• His unblock request is not encouraging, and I'm thinking the admin who answers the request will revoke talk page access.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Whatever administrator that might be should review his interaction with other editors and consider that in his actions. He has been obstructive in just about everything he has done. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  This is screaming sockpuppet to me. I'm tempted to just remove talk page access as it seems clear this isn't their first account, and this is starting to look like amateur trolling on their part. They know too much to act this dumb. Even the name is consistent with my theory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  I just blocked talk page access. A CU might be handy, although my confidence level is very high, regardless of what CU finds. I'm more concerned about the other accounts he might have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat over the speedy deletion of Kidd Cole

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

---

I tagged the article Kidd Cole for speedy deletion under CSD:A7. The creator, User:TeenHollywood, subsequently made a threat of legal action against myself and Wikipedia for "Defamation of Character". The threat can be seen on my talk page, this diff. I have warned the user on their talk page about legal threats, this diff. -- Patchy1 05:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably some socking going on at GOOD Music as well. I'm on an iPad, so opening an SPI is an issue for me.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a sock. He used his real name for both accounts.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Indef'ed as a spammer (promotional username, promotional material added). --Rschen7754 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to rev delete the legal threat as it contained a phone number and seem to have made a mess of it. I'll chalk this up to the perils of editing right before bed. AniMate 07:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the revdel. --Rschen7754 07:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Breast Cancer Awareness (causes of breast cancer)

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

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not understand how to use that template to notify the users. If somebody could please do that for me, it would be greatly appreciated. The users are: WhatamIdoing, WLU, & Biosthmors.
User:WhatamIdoing, User:WLU, and User:Biosthmors have been notified.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Hi. I would like to bring up a recurring problem that has been occurring at the "Breast Cancer Awareness" article. In the section "Shopping for the Cure" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_cancer_awareness#Shopping_for_the_cure), there is a sentence that keeps being edited to false information (with regard to the source that is cited). Before this incident, the original sentence read: Business marketing campaigns, particularly sales promotions for products that increase pollution or that may cause breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies, have been condemned as pinkwashing (a portmanteau of pink ribbon and whitewash) (Mulholland 2010). The part of the sentence we are focusing on here is: ...that may cause breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... Edit History The first edit regarding this issue occurred about a week ago (11/24). With the justification of "read the articles for those chemicals. they say things like "scientists can only conclude that parabens may have an association with BC"", I changed it to: ...may be associated with the development of breast cancer, such as high-fat foods, alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=524708887&oldid=524705004 The edit was first changed 3 days later (11/27), buy user WhatamIdoing, back to "that may cause" with the justification of "Simpler language". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525207587&oldid=525207341 Less than a day later, I reverted that edit, with the justification of "simpler, but less accurate". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525281846&oldid=525207587 Shortly thereafter, WhatamIdoing reverted my reversion, with the justification "No, the simpler version is more accurate, because it's the causative effect that draws the critcisms". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525284330&oldid=525281846 Then, on 11/29, I changed WhatamIdoing's edit, with the justification of "source only talks about alcohol and says "linked" not "cause"", to: ...that may be associated with breast cancer, such as alcohol, pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... (note: I removed "high-fat foods" because I thought it was not in the source) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525590824&oldid=525588340 Then, yesterday (11/30), user WLU edited it back to "cause", justifying with "source specifies "cause" which is far, far more meaningful than "associated with"; how is it "associated"? Does it protect against cancer? No, causative." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525624155&oldid=525623723 After this, WhatamIdoing edited back in "high-fat foods", justified by "One is the KFC Buckets for a Cure campaign in the U.S....KFC sells products that are salt- and FAT-LADEN…")". Note: she was correct here. I missed the KFC part of the article. I accidentally reverted WhatamIdoing's edit, which was wrong, so immediately afterwards, I edited the sentence, with the justification "the source says "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies". the wikipedia pages for those. WhatamIdoing is right about KFC, I missed that" to: ...that may be associated with breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... Note: I added "some", because the wikipedia page for pesticides only mentions one or two specific ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525664771&oldid=525663766 After this, WLU edited it again, justified with "better wording", to: ...contribute to breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525688529&oldid=525688035 Then, with the justification "EVERY source says "linked to". WhatamIdoing provided a source for causation with alcohol in talk page. i would add that but i'm not sure how to add the reference. when/if you do add it, please separate alcohol from others", I edited it to: ...linked to the development of breast cancer, such as alcohol, high-fat foods, some pesticides, or the parabens and phthalates used by most cosmetic companies... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525746104&oldid=525744871 After this, WhatamIdoing reverted this edit along with another, justifying by "Rv anti-consensus changes that are opposed in detail on the talk page." I am not sure exactly what she meant here. There was no discussion of "consensus" on the page. The word was never even said until I brought it up in response to her edit. I think she was talking about the other edit she reverted and accidentally mixed this one in with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525749399&oldid=525746104 And then, today, I edited it (when I was logged out) back to "linked to the development of", justifying by "again, the sources say "may be linked to". NOT "cause." NOT "contribute to". "MAY BE LINKED TO"." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525796829&oldid=525792905 At this point, I made a comment on the talk page, saying: "If you guys change it again without citing a source that accounts for all of the changes (ie if the source says alcohol but not the others, then separate them), then I will have to make a section on the Admin incidents noticeboard." Shortly thereafter, user Biosthmors edited it to "might contribute". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525797762&oldid=525796829 I reverted that, saying "I'm making a section at the Admin. incidents noticeboard". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer_awareness&diff=525821939&oldid=525808513 Talk page discussion The talk page discussion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breast_cancer_awareness#Shopping_for_the_Cure Source The source can be found here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/breast-cancer-month-overshadowed-by-pinkwashing-1.561275 It says: Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer. The Problem So, there are two issues at play here: One, regarding the correlative role. I think that "linked to" is appropriate, while they would like to see "cause" or "contribute". As you can see from the source, "Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer". Hence, the reason I would like it to say "linked to". Note: if you want to use "increase" because the source uses that, you should say something like "...the Canadian Cancer Society claims..." because the studies themselves have only found a "link". The second issue regards which chemicals we list. The source only talks about alcohol (and a caption mentions KFC, from which WhatamIdoing decided to include "high-fat foods", which is not a problem in my opinion). It says nothing about pesticides, parabens, and phthalates. On the talk page, WhatamIdoing and WLU claim that alcohol does indeed play a direct causative role. I told them okay, that's fine, get a source for it. WhatamIdoing found a source, but has not incorporated it yet. When they edited the sentence, they changed it to "cause" while lumping alcohol together with all of the rest, effectively asserting that pesticides, parabens, and phthalates all cause BC when they certainly have no such source that says so. I went around and checked out the wikipedia articles for those chemicals. Each article does say something about BC: scientists to conclude that the presence of parabens may be associated with the occurrence of breast cancer there is an association between phthalate exposure and endocrine disruption leading to development of breast cancer an October 2007 study has linked breast cancer from exposure to DDT prior to puberty for the record, the alcohol page only says "increase", and doesn't specifically mention breast cancer: it has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver[84] and multiple forms of cancer

To sum up, the problem is that they put "cause" without a source that says "cause", and they lump all of the chemicals under "cause", when only one of them might actually be causative (if they had a source). Charles35 (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a dispute over content, which is really outside what we do at ANI. Admin don't decide content. Since you have been talking and can't come to a conclusion, WP:DRN would be the proper venue. ANI is mainly about editor conduct, and you don't seem to claim a problem with conduct, just a disagreement with content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a problem with conduct. They persistently break the WP:OR rule without giving any reason why. I can tell them that the source doesn't say that over and over and over again, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to edit their un-sourced material into the article. They don't even disagree. They just say (see the talk page) that since alcohol does indeed cause BC, then we must edit it in. I don't know what else to do. I don't think they will stop unless someone with some sort of authority tells them to.

Alcohol is a proven, direct cause of breast cancer. It's not just wimpily "associated with": if you want to increase your risk of breast cancer, then get drunk.

see full comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABreast_cancer_awareness&diff=525638561&oldid=525636749 Charles35 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR is still an editorial factor, not a behavioral one, and admin do not decide what is original research and what is not, editors do. If they were edit warring over it, calling you names because of it, causing disruption because of it, then admin get involved. I'm not saying you are wrong on the content, I'm just saying that WP:DRN is the right venue because admin don't have the authority to decide content, only the community of editors do. We just mop up the place. If he is mistaken but acting in good faith, then admin don't get involved. At DRN, it will be discussed by fellow editors (some may be admin, but acting as editors only) who will help clarify the situation and find resolution. ANI is for problems requiring an admin jump in and act quickly, the I stands for Incidents. Most problems get solved with hammers around here, trust me, this isn't a good neighborhood to wander around looking for solutions. The format at WP:DRN is setup specifically for dealing with content disuputes as well, ANI isn't. Please file there, then notify the other parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Eaglestorm

I came across a dispute and incivility between Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 134340Goat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Metal Gear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After looking into it some more I found that Eaglestorm had undone an edit with the default edit summary. User:Eaglestorm also left an incivil comment in a thread on the talk page.

134340Goat then tried to find out why their edit was reverted on Eaglestorm’s talk page, which was meet with incivility and personal attacks (see the user talk page history for examples), with edit summaries such as “rvt desperation by obsessed MPO fan”, “not interested in desperation rant” and “rvt trolling”. In his frustration 134340Goat began creating a WP:RFC/U, which I talked them down from so we could wait and see what Eaglestorm did next (that is, whether they do anything to explain the undo), the draft RFC/U is available here.

Eaglestorm has been warned a number of times for incivility and personal attacks (a quick look through the user’s talk page and archives will demonstrate that) especially in edit summaries. These warnings have included a number by admins. In this example Eaglestorm assumed an uninvolved editor (User:Smsarmad) was a troll and sockpuppet because he warned Eaglestorm for breaching 3RR.

Likewise when I (as an uninvolved editor) asked Eaglestorm to leave a note for 134340Goat explaining their revert, Eaglestorm removed it with the edit summary “rvt nonsense; nice try assuming I'm a 12yearold”. This demonstrates (along with the Smsarmad example) that Eaglestorm is not interested in explaining or moderating their behaviours when uninvolved (and relatively experienced) editors intervene.

In terms of what an appropriate action to take would be I'll leave that to those more experienced with the operations and results of ANI than I am. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In terms of the reversion of the original edit, I think all that Eaglestorm needed to say was "remove WP:OR" or something along those lines, and it would be appropriate - it does, after all, appear to be uncited original research.

However, Eaglestorm is required to explain the removal either through a proper edit-summary, discussion on the article talkpage, or a simple/civil response on his or the other editor's talkpage. He is also very free to remove posts from his talkpage as he so desires - repeatedly adding them/badgering clearly escalated his frustration.

In short, Eaglestorm could have avoided that frustration by explaining his edit in the first place. The rest appears to be mere incivility, although I look forward to his explanation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've seen the notice. I have encountered the user before in other Metal Gear-related articles. Part of me says this may be just a sock of another problem editor whose hide I nailed two years ago for his raft of stuff also in Metal Gear-related articles and now discreetly gets back at me. Then again, this may be that 63.XXX.XXX.XXX anon I ran across four years ago because the idiot kept arguing for inclusion of certain unofficial sites (was rude to Hyperspacey and Strongsauce IIRC), even that one from WQ a few months ago.

As far as MG areas go, the editor Callanec was referring to was nothing more than a nuisance because in the case of characters from MPO, he whined about their absence from the List of Metal Gear characters and called for their inclusion. When nobody would take him up on it, the fact that he repeated the same thread summed it up to me as another one of those contributors who keep fretting about what he wants. Why I deleted his threads on my talkpage? Simple: because I already tagged him as a nuisance from the quacking he's been done in all those Metal Gear articles he's edited, it didn't make sense to dignify his rants with a response. I will not deal with such people. To be honest, everything was fine until he came along. He has the NERVE to log a long-term-abuse report on me and tries to link me to any sockpuppets? I know what I'm doing. As far as I'm concerned, he can just get out of my way.--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. If this is the type of response you think is appropriate - both in how you deal with other editors (even if you suspect them of being someone else), and in terms of the type of response you make in front of dozens of Administrators - then I'm not sure the Wikipedia community is the place for you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

" As far as I'm concerned, he can just get out of my way. " - That statement alone shows you don't understand we are a collaborative project. I also see you are making some sock claims without filing a claim at WP:SPI, which is incivil at best. Without regard to the content, the behavior is over the top, my friend. Even if you are 100% in the right, you can't treat people like this here. Goat isn't any better with edits like this [93], but Eaglestorm, you have over 10k edits and have been here since 2007, so it is hard to fathom how you think your comments are okay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I do apologize for my outburst. However, other than that, I had remained calm and civil. I was not in any way "whining" about the absence, I thought that the lists seemed incomplete without them. Then I noticed a similar trend on the article about the series in general. I attempted to add one minor detail to incorporate the elements of all the games in the series, then Eaglestorm removed it without explanation. Then all this began. Also, it now seems that Eaglestorm has now removed all of Callanec's and my messages on their talkpage, including the notice of this discussion. 134340Goat (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors are generally allowed to remove messages on their talk page. This proves that they read them, as a matter of fact. What you want to remember for the future is that other people actions might explain your own improper outbursts, but they don't excuse it. To keep a semblance of order around here, we ask you try to politely resolve issues on their talk page, then ask an admin for advice or follow the dispute resolution methods if that doesn't work. As to the content of your edits, I have no opinion since admin don't get involved in content. Use the article talk page, then WP:DRN if that doesn't help resolve the issue. This is all in the spirit of WP:BRD, a good guide to how we edit around here. Now it would be nice if Eaglestorm gave us an idea on they expect to move forward, as frankly, a few of us are concerned as to the general behavior exhibited here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrew 3770

Not sure if I'm at the right place, but IDK what's apt. This appears to be a single-issue account, dedicated to adding Diego Firestone here. It also suggests to me a sock of User:AndrewFirestone777, since the singular emphasis is the same & the usernames are so alike. It's also a possible COI, IMO; this has the smell of said Diego Firestone angling for his own page. Any action would be appreciated. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User: CISRI LEGAL DEPARTMENT

Blocked for the username and an unambiguous threat of prosecution. This edit summary [94] references a "denunciation to the National State Police. I've left them a note as well, but am leaving for the day and won't be able to follow up. Acroterion (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of Don't overlook legal threats. Something fishy is clearly going on at those articles and it is for me very hard to determine what are facts... I have tried to engage him in moving his behavior from focussing on his legal position to an information-based argument, and am a bit disappointed (although factually fully correct, and possibly the outcome of a discussion anyway...) this has led to an immediate block... L.tak (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jovan Belcher

The page is being vandalized several times a minute due to still-unconfirmed reports that the NFL player shot his girlfriend, drove to the practice facility, then shot himself. A report was made at RPP but it looks like there isn't anyone addressing reports there, at the moment. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The page has now been protected by user Steel. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are still unsourced edits coming from autoconfirmed accounts. I'm wondering if we should throw out the rulebook and apply level 2 pending changes... Appears to be confirmed now. – Steel 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, there were some edits on the Jamaal Charles page pertaining to this as well. Probably, it's because the report was that it was a 25-year old player who died and Charles is 25 (though it apparently wasn't him). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

THe report's now been confirmed by the KC police. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Offensive edit summaries may require action against the summary itself

Today I saw this edit summary which struck me as having the potential to offend. I explored the revision deletion process to receive the following, quite reasonable, answer "It is nasty and misguided, but is an appropriate subject for discussion by the general community" and a perfectly sensible statement that it was out of scope for being redacted by that team.

It seems to me that this is the appropriate venue to discuss the matter. I have chosen not to notify the anonymous editor of the discussion here because I feel we need to discuss the wider issue of what to do about offensive edit summaries of this nature, not what to do about this particular editor and incident. Your mileage may vary. I chose to place a simple warning on the IP talk page.

To me this edit summary is equivalent to a racial or sexual orientation slur. I don't know what our policy is with there in edit summaries either. My feeling is that the text should be removed, whether the edit itself is preserved or not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Inspection just now of the IP's talk page after the warning shows an admission of misconduct. That lesson is learned. So I believe we can concentrate on offensive summaries, not on the individual editor. In my view no obvious purpose would be served by taking that editor to task, but I would truly like to see such edit summaries redacted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries are covered by WP:CIVIL as much as edits themselves are. Although uncivil, the usual stance for a first time misdemeanour would be a warning. I wouldn't put this one up there with racial or sexual slurs so as much as saying that someone is being unnecessarily picky, in a rather rude way. Blackmane (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Agree completely. I redacted the edit summary in the history -- Samir 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate. Wikipedia is not censored, even when there exists the possibility of causing "grave offense." 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not censored applies to articlespace. Inappropriate edit summaries that are out of context to the edit and can be found offensive can by all means be redacted. The edit summary log is not meant to be the graffiti on the toilet door -- Samir 19:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

While we are at it: could someone please remove/change the name of these two vandals [95] and [96] Probably the same person: they vandalise the Norwegian PM´s article..and just please take me on my word: their "names" are extremely insulting, in Norwegian. (Actually, try translate.google for the second name) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

East Germany

We seem to have yet another incipient edit-war over infobox content for our East Germany article, and in particular, User:Trust Is All You Need is insistent that it be described as a 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' based on his/her own synthesis, and in flat contradiction to the article content, which makes entirely clear that the formal constitutional position was that the Volkskammer included not only representatives from multiple parties, but from various other organisations as well. While it might be true to state that, at least by a clear historical consensus, the reality was that real political power laid with the upper echelons of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands bureaucracy (or possibly with its big brother in the USSR), it is nevertheless entirely misleading to assert this as uncontroversial fact in the infobox. This would of course be a content dispute, and thus not a matter for this noticeboard - except that I cannot see how knowingly inserting factually-incorrect material into an infobox could be anything but a violation of policy, and at minimum, Trust Is All You Need needs to be given a firm whack with a trout, and also needs to be told to use infoboxes for the purpose intended, rather than as a platform for opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It seem to more like a content dispute did you followed WP:DR before coming here?Also that GDR is single party state in not WP:REDFLAG claim and its easily verified for example [97]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it would be a content dispute, were it not for the fact that Trust Is All You Need is fully aware that his edits are factually incorrect in formal terms. I'm sure that the DDR has been described (perhaps many times) as a 'single-party state', but that was never the formal position - and infoboxes are no place for opinions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)