Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Proposed indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Topic-ban enacted: banned from all edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) figured in the departure of Blnguyen/YellowMonkey in late 2010. Since then, his persistent attempts to skew Wikipedia's coverage of South Asian history in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories has repeatedly sapped the time and morale of knowledgeable and/or expert contributors. As seen in the latest episode (and again in a previous iteration), YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial. Time and again in YK's career, this problematic editing programme is backed with non-pertinent and non-specialist sources in intense bursts of repeat reverts and talk-page spamming of questionable sources. He backs off for a time before returning, often to the same article and the same issue. This sporadicity has perhaps allowed him to dodge the blocks and other injunctions that befall other disruptively tendentious or revisionist editors not savvy enough to strategically time or space their spurious content challenges.

Nevertheless, the damage is done: again and again, as exemplified most recently at Talk:India#Aryan_Invasion_theory_oops_read_migration, experienced editors must tediously refute each of YK's formulaic challenges: fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic rewrites and removals backed by marginal or non-specialist sources. This would perhaps be OK if the editor in question were newer or less familiar with core content policies, but the episodic recidivism of YK is a different matter: a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite but otherwise of duration not less than six months, renewable upon occurrence of further disruption, would be a solution that would save time and foster more policy-compliant content contribution on both sides. Saravask 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some additional points:

• I recommend that the closing admin interpret "a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite ..." as taking the form of the first restriction placed on Zuggernaut (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log): "topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia." Presumably, as with Zuggernaut, a mentoring admin would step forward to guide/police YK with respect to the topic ban.
• Below, editors suggested that the proposed editing restriction should have been stronger, for example stating that YK's source misrepresentations and undue referencing and tendentious editing not be merely decanted from one topic (South Asian history) to another (British literature). Some seemed to hint that an indefinite site ban is required: "It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go."; "... but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke." In light of the further evidence of YK's persistent pattern of disruption (more detailed and disturbing than mine) presented below, short of a unequivocal promise to reform tendered by YK, I'd support a site ban, whether now or in future YK-related damage-control discussions.
• For now, the spirit of the proposed topic ban should ideally inform uninvolved admins dealing with YK-style disruption, whether the strict letter of this proposed ban cover the affected pages (say, on Pakistani or Indian history) or not (Dickens). If YK returns to disruptive editing (which, given his on-and-off history, is likely), the consensus that emerges here should help enact stronger future restrictions earlier rather than later in YK's next disruptive cycle.
• Several editors with greater sourcing expertise than I or more experience dealing with YK have corrected/clarified/expanded the observations above. Johnuniq, Truthkeeper88, and others point to the harm YK has done to the Charles Dickens articles by giving undue weight to sources or positions, driving away responsible editors, etc. Had I known, I'd have recommended a more wide-ranging editing restriction, perhaps by proposing enactment of point four of the Zuggernaut restrictions with respect to the Dickens articles as well as point three, allowing uninvolved admins to spot ban YK from talk pages/articles where he has been or is being disruptive.

Saravask 05:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have been watching this latest sequence and did on a couple of occasions try to explain to those who were getting drawn in by YK's fringe theories, but my experience of YK's methodology, which Saravask explains well, goes back for quite some while. Nothing is changing, nothing is being learned and the time-sink aspect is phenomenal. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This gives an idea of just how many times Yogesh Khandke's POV-pushing/undue weight theories etc have been referred to this noticeboard. There are plenty of other instances that did not make it thus far and he was, of course, involved in the politically-oriented protest at the India Wikiconference last year when he tried to obtain a legal resolution to an issue relating to WP's depiction of maps of India. He disappeared when that failed and has only recently returned to editing. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources never say that they are 'fringe' theories by 'cranks'. These are assertions from editors on Wikipedia. I am little puzzled how Sitush is silent on this facet, even if that goes against his vote.

Also Sitush and other editors are well experienced to let know if content disputes can be taken to ANI or not. My understanding says that content dispute has to be dealt with first before concluding that these are 'fringe theories'. Considering your expertise on sources, could you present sources please that state clearly that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories'. Unless it is proven that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories', such assumptions can be made against views presented by YK.

I don't think that much of what User:Saravask states such as "in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories" etc holds unless any content disputes, if any, are resolved.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Saravask describes it well. I've seen editors spending huge amounts of time trying to explain to Yogesh Khandke how we use reliable sources, how we evaluate sources, how we can't add improperly sourced fringe ideas, can't add nationalist POV, etc, but it's just not getting through and a lot of time is being wasted repeatedly going over the same kinds of things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that there are no sources presented by the involved admin himself that state the sources presented by YK are exclusively fringe theories. Per me, this is in contradiction to his statement above about his own idea of reliable sources and loses much weight especially in absence of any discussion as such on 'fringe throries' which could not be discussed on this noticeboard.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the original content disputes and this discussion of YK's behaviour. Saravask has provided links showing evidence of YK's behaviour, and the sources/fringe/POV issues are covered at those links. In order to evaluate YK's behaviour and Saravask's recommendation, I do not need to restart the content arguments here and now or provide any content sources of my own (as the sources used were presented and discussed at the time), I simply need to evaluate the evidence of YK's behaviour in those content discussions. (And by the way, I really don't think your badgering everyone who supports this recommendation is doing you any favours, you know). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify as per Johnuniq's request below, I am supporting an indefinite topic ban on editing in any topic areas related to South Asian history, in any Wikipedia space. I note other editors' opinions that there is a wider problem, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with any other areas of contention to offer my judgment on that, so I have to remain neutral on any proposals for wider sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - My understanding here is that the views per YogeshKhandke are not 'Hindu nationalist theories' or 'fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic' etc. I can say this by words present in the discussion itself such as 'contemporary scholarly debates', 'some Indian scholars', 'Some historians and Indian nationalists', 'The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists', etc. Words like scholarly debates, Indian scholars, Some historians, archaeologists etc. can hardly be described as 'fringe' groups etc - I think all the participants here in this debate need to understand this well. In any case, this is about history long ago which no one can directly prove much at all directly with certainty; much less if there is indeed a debate on such topic ongoing - more so hotly debated topics such as this. Also, western sources per my understanding do not represent exhaustive views, and quoting someone of higher repute is considered sufficient for substance, without actually going into details of all sides. For me therefore this does not merit such action, especially when sources can have diverse views and are not bound to present all views (- this needs to be better discussed per me). As far as other edits are concerned, undoing an edit is no big deal especially compared to edits put in especially with sources mentioned. I would also suggest people here, learned and experienced too, to avoid name calling on personal perceptions. An example would be 'crank' which is per individual editor's (here Fowler) choice of words to describe what he calls nationalist historians/archeologists. While being experienced and reputed on Wikipedia, this wouldn't affect the seniormost editors but it would definitely affect any not-so-senior ones in case views from one side is made to look worthless, leading to bans etc. If senior editors do it, others will learn to repeat the same behavior. I am reminded of one instance when I was involved in an ugly exchange with some senior editor who suggested something like I have sympathy for 'saffron terror' or 'saffron terrorism' or whatever, while reopening a closed vote in my absence; and got away without even a warning and that lead to a ban on me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Where were you banned or even blocked? I don't see anything in your block log. Would you mind supplying a diff? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• JanetteDoe, Thisthat2011 was topic banned per this. It has expired now. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I didn't see that. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about this topic ban [| link], the one mentioned by Sitush is incorrect. It is where I was accused one the lines of saffron terror as a reason reopening a vote which I think is not a correct way to reopen a closed vote. No one corrected either the editor not the reopening of voting.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban link to which you refer appears to be the same ban to which I referred. Am I mistaken? The fact that you more or less sat out that ban and then returned to similar topic areas and, in a fairly short space of time, end up here ... well, it does not look great. I would not have raised the issue if you had not volunteered it. My suggestion would be that in future you do not refer back to that topic ban: it had consensus and it is over and done with. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check again, these are two messages with same header for some reason! Also, my ban is over. Per instructions of the person who banned me, I am discussing this on talk pages, I have not indulged in any edit war which you may imply. I have presented my views on talk:India page too. If you have anything against it, please reply there because I have neither edited anything on that page currently, nor edited even if sources requested by me are not presented, even here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made my position clear here. I will not make any further comments other than saying that I think this discussion has turned rather fragmented, with little smaller discussions on sourcing when it is not being discussed at reliable sources board even for dispute, and more. I could have said a lot more with sources on various topics on each topic but but I think that won't be possible here with an open mind for all sides so I won't regardless as also that this looks too confusing to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I dont see anything wrong being done by Yogesh, first you may argue that he had edited the article before discussing but that action alone would not merit a ban. He did not push aside the sources presented by other editors all he displayed was that there are other theories so the sentence needs to be changed. Editors like fowler are considering few historians a cranck case and thus not considering those historians work, now this is something that can be debated. Coming to the point of Yoges pushing few Indian nationalist theory; Yogesh did provide few other sources and none of them were Indians, if he is wrong you can discard the sources but not initiate a discussion to ban him.--sarvajna (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is going no where and its getting murkier with every reply from either side. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Its high time he is topic banned. His POV pushing is wasting everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what can be added here and what cannot. This is not the first time he is doing it. He knows well that the POV he pushes cannot get consensus through discussions, so his method is to first add unilaterally, then edit war without breaking 3RR. When thwarted he will try to argue it in the talk page. He usually doesnt get his way and comes back a few months later repeating the same point or similar points. He is a colossal drain on the community's time and resources.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Yogesh Khandke replies:(1)Some of those voting here Soda, Sitush, and admin Zebeedee, a long history of conflict with me regarding content, Sitush has been hounding me for many months but I have ignored him, not to create conflict. (2)ANI isn't the forum to bring content disputes so I will not justify my edits unless asked to do so. (3)Regarding gaming the system: I don't have computer access at work, so my editing is subject to the time I have leisure, that cannot be held against me. (3)Since it is year-end, (financial year), I have limited time, so that should be considered, I mean I will not be able to watch this page, I could know about this discussion only because I received an email alert because of the message left on my talk page. (4)This ANI is used as a tool in content disputes, which is unfair. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holocaust denial: Saravask writes: "YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial.", which is nothing but a lie, all I wanted in the article was the mention that the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is disputed for which I have presented evidence, I repeat my position which is that the India article which mentions the Aryan Migration theory should also mention that the theory is disputed by academics - historians, archaeologists, experts on genetics, cultural and language scholars, I am not disputing the mention of Aryan Migration in the article, my position is that this theory is diputed by numerous NON-FRINGE, RELIABLE SOURCES, for which I have presented evidence which I have collected on a sandbox and so the India article should take cognizance of the dispute as it is NOTABLE. (sorry about bringing up the content dispute but the fatuous reference to Holocaust denial needed to be scotched.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Fowler I should add his name in the list of content disputers and one who has been frequently abusive and uncivil, however since I don't believe in formal action against fellow editors I dropped the issue after he tendered an unconditional apology - twice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The language that Fowler uses: "Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars" ", "Indian cranks" in the latest discussion.[1], when administrator Regentspark was requested to reign in the abusive Fowler (for an abuse a short while before the edit presented by the diff), admin Regentspark excused himself as an involved editor,[2] here he has no qualms in rushing to support a topic ban, he was an opposite party made by me in the historic YellowMonkey case and was admonished for batting for YellowMonkey. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Khandke is cornered he has suddenly turned saintly and is accusing me of being abusive. He conveniently forgets his own transgressions. Long before I entered this latest fray, when user:AshLin asked for my input on the current state of knowledge on the Indo-Aryan migration theory, Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested. Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Perhaps someone else who knows Marathi could translate it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Marathi, but found the proverb here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure what to make of it, but YK has a history of using vernacular expressions (which I don't understand) in exchanges with me. See, for example, user:Sodabottle's post at the bottom of this ANI thread titled Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Fowler even before you entered the discussion YK had suggested that you would ardently oppose the inclusion of the other theory(that is what the proverb mean but indirectly) which proved to be right. Yes there are incidents were your language can be very objectionable for example [[3]] where you say that it is the last time that you would consider ppl bringing other sources, I guess if I had pursued it may be there would have a been a discussion about banning me as well, calling historians whom you don't consider worthy as crank case is also objectionable anyhow the discussion here is not about Fowler's language but about YK. I feel that this whole discussion is biased against YK--sarvajna (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is more likely to be the case that the comments here reflect an emerging consensus, but time will tell. However, even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully. For example, compare this new article by him with its current state. I am still trying to fix the gross slant that he put on the thing, using for now just the sources that he has identified. It is the usual subtle "all the fault of the Brits" stuff in which he seems to specialise. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that everyone is being vindictive of YK and everything that was edited by him is being dug out, this discussion was started after he had given some evidences of sources on the India talk page. Few admins/editors have declared that nothing would change as long as they are the administrators and I feel the point of banning YK has come up because he annoys few admins POV(This is what I think after seeing the talk page of India and few other AN/I involving YK, I also know that this would not matter a lot) --sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From Sitush "even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully", does this mean that opinion of User:Sitush is more likely that the editor YK is not indulging fringe theorists in this case? just for clarity. In that case, the entire discussion may be seen in another light - perhaps a content dispute, and not what this looks like.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You ask for clarity. If I could understand the rest of your message then perhaps I could provide it. Can anyone assist? Perhaps I am a bit more than my usual dumb self today. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that YK has failed to observe WP:SPEAKENGLISH with me more than has any other editor I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. His command of English is not that poor that the vernacular (Marathi) is his only option, that he can't provide a translation, when he knows perfectly well that I do not understand a word of the language. How come he is not using Marathi (with offhanded remarks about translation) in the frenetic edits he is making on the Charles Dickens page? How come there are no "frog in the well," or "wrestling with a pig" expressions there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Further from Yogesh Khandke:(1) "On the Ganga move": www.fastcompany.com quotes Sue Gardner Wikipedia's CEO thus

She likes to tell the story of the Ganges/Ganga argument playing out now on English Wikipedia. In India, the official name for the country's second-largest river is the Ganga. The British have long called it the Ganges, a term that bears the stench of colonization for many Indians. Since 2007, there has been a spirited back-and-forth between editors about whether a search for the river should redirect to Ganga or Ganges. "There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And it's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side."

I am one of the two she mentioned. (2) The Charles Dickens' article is refered here - the result of my edits on that page was that we have a wonderfully sourced new article, whose major contributor has been user:WickerGuy, so much for non-collaborative editing accusation made by user:Spanglej, considering the sensitivity of the subject. One of my recent edit's[4] has been called

It's an excellent and worthy addition to the article. Thanks for keeping us a bit less Anglo-centric.

(3) Those who are after me with knives (metaphorically used) have company at Metapedia where I am called a "Dravidian troll", for bringing the numerous non-fringe, scholarly, notable, sources mentioning Dickens' racism to the table. (4) Closing admin Please look at this carefully (a typical example of the flimsy and false accusations): In his opening statement Saravaska calls my edit Hindutva-sympathetic, (see the very racist term used Hindutva - Hinduness, do we use terms like Christian-ness sympathetic or Wicca-ness sympathetic on Wikipedia?). What is my edit?: I removed the internal link that led lower-caste communities to Shudra; I explained in my summary: Shudra is not a community it is a Varna, the bloke cannot distinguish between a community and a Varna. (The other change was deleting the wp:Weasel most and quoting the source as per wikipedia policy - state opinion like a fact) (5) Regarding Child marriages both child and marriage are wrong in the quote –as (a) Is 18 the threshold for defining the status as child? (b) I had given many sources that explained that marriage doesn't mean that the relationship is consummated, there is another ceremony called as Gauna, which follows "marriage", "marriage" is more like a betrothal. (c) I had mentioned the Gillick Fraser competence, that allows doctors to advice and supply contraception to 12 year olds, in the United Kingdom, and wondered whether "Child marriage" was a notable mention in what admin RegentsPark lately called a "summary article". (In my opinion the skewed male:female ratio is more alarming and notable.) (5) @ALL: Sitush is trying to connect alleged real world actions with Wikipedia editing, is that allowed on Wikipedia? Is my honesty in using my real name in editing here, and in other contributions on the Internet, to be held against me? What action could be taken against an editor who levels such charges? I use my real name because it acts as an implicit censor, I can only write what I can associate with as my own work, I don't spew vitriol hiding behind an assumed name. I like to "play with my cards on the table". 6) I am happy EyeSerene's blocking action has been mentioned here, that was a kangaroo court type of decision in which I wasn't even allowed to put my point across, I wasn't editing while it was enforced, I wrote to EyeSerene, but he went for a long vacation and when he returned I just didn't have the time and energy to pursue the matter, about user:Qwyrxian he in course of a discussion extrapolated his experience with Asians he encounters as a teacher, to all Asians, making comments to the effect "Indians don't have a culture of questioning scholarship and implicitly follow persons in authority". (also see post script) The "cabal" he "modestly" confesses (NPOV and RS warriors), is a load of nonsense, the persons mentioned by him, have been demonstrated to, that they simply lack competence, they have been called "google scholars", I don't say that you need to be a "rocket scientist", but you need to know a little about the subject, so as not to confuse "varna" for "community". I must add that their incompetence is not just related to the subject that they write on, but surprise of surprises for those like administrator Zeebeedee and Qwxryian? also extend to Wikipedia policies. (7) Similarly Johnuniq, Jaga and Seb 86556, were on the winning side of an article move debate, which won because at least in that instance wp:NOTDEMOCRACY failed. @John: Kindly spare us the original research on this page, please find RELIABLE, NON-FRINGE, NOTABLE sources and make the necessary changes to the page, instead of indulging in disruption. (8) I will explain my editing pattern - I am a self-employed person, I don't have fixed hours or days, I edit whenever I have time, I have a school going daughter who needs my help with her studies, there are other social responsibilities in my community, where we have lived for about 60 years, I volunteer for a Luxembourgian NGO, helping them in their campaign; a kharicha vata (squirrel's contribution) to enable the Roma people in Europe to be able to have the same rights that other humans living there have. (9) I could reply to more insinuations but I request the closing admin to hear my side in any other matter before closing (please a note on my talk page I get email alerts), and also see the 30 odd articles I have created, to ascertain for himself/herself whether they fail NPOV or are not supported by RS, or contain UNDUE or are FRINGE, I have been verbose enough, my prose has been called obscure before. I must hang up. (Post script: see point no (6) above) Considering here, the repeated harping about "experienced editors/experts..." to me expectation of "implicit subordination” seems to be the culture of some Wikipedians. I have been called "aggressive"; if you want a submissive, fawning Indian, you are at the wrong door. If you want me here, be prepared to accept me as an equal. I have clear understanding that editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and I am careful in not abusing it. Au revoir!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional statement from Yogesh Khandke I am back as this has taken longer than I expected. Fowler&fowler has called me deceitful in this discussion, which is a strong allegation. If I would write Indlu yako injani,[5] would the reader say don’t talk Zulu with me? I doubt very much, unless he has a familiarity with the language, he would say stop that gibberish, we have Fowler&fowler saying on this page Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a (edit summary reads please translate) Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. [6] (1) I request the closing admin to muse over how (a) Fowler&fowler knew what I said was in Marathi language, (b) how Fowler&fowler had enough familiarity with the language to know that I had used a proverb and wasn’t say swearing at him in my native language. (c) With answers to (a) and (b) at hand I request the closing admin to think over why Fowler&fowler asks me to translate the non-English statement for him. (d) Assuming there is a good reason for Fowler&fowler to have written what he did, I request the closing admin to understand that the statement was for user:AshLin an editor whom I have met at a Wikipedia programme, and who I know is familiar with the language in which the statement is made. Please note that: I wasn’t talking to Fowler&fowler, I was talking to AshLin. (2) I have used non-English words when Fowler&fowler has been around, one must not forget that these were used in the context of editing in the Indian content environment (and not while editing say Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism), where editing is done in Indian English, so that words like bandh, dharna, gherao, loot, jungle, lakh, crore etc potentially could be used. Some of these words may be a part of UK or US English, others may not. Also, the only other non-English term (if my memory serves me right, apart from the German quotation I gave on 2012-03-31) has been kupamanduka, a Sanskrit philosophical term, one that The Times of India, the world’s largest circulating English newspaper has used too[7]. Another thing that puzzles me is the very old-fashioned word vernacular, that he used, one more popular with the British when referring to native languages in colonial India. How does he know that Marathi is my vernacular, if it is the vernacular which in his opinion is the lingua franca? (3) Fowler&fowler continues to create in his words "drama", he writes about how Elst and Frawley are anti-Muslim and belong to the camp that thinks that Aryan Migration/Invasion isn't the final word in ancient Indian history. Isn't that a classic Ad hominem argument? Fowler&fowler's argument is also classic strawman as I haven't quoted Elst and Frawley, those I have quoted are here[8] viz. Stephen Oppenheimer (who has been quoted by a rediff.com news-story), Gavin D. Flood (who acknowledges the disputes but who considers that Aryans arrived as a minority - not several waves as the India article describes it as), Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, Edwin Bryant, Laurie L. Patton (who are editors of "The Indian-Aryan controversy..."), Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein whose article is included by Bryant et al, who quote Edmund Leach, Mikel Burley, Charles Michael Byrd, I stopped looking after that. There is also the Times of India article which quotes a study co-conducted by Harvard School of Public Health, Broad Institute of Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and I'm sorry there is an "Indian crank" here Dr. Lalji Singh of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Their study concludes that " the hitherto believed "fact" that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth." and " there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round."[9] There is too much mention of Fowler&fowler by me, let us not forget Saravask the bloke who brought this AN/I about has called these sources "marginal or non-specialist sources", and who accuses me of recidivism, is it common for him an admin,[10] to use such pointed language? Am I going to be hanged (used metaphorically) for using such sources. (4) Assuming for the moment that everyone related to the disputing camp (or sources that acknowledge the notability of the dispute by mentioning) such as Leach, Oppenheimer, Flood, Harvard, MIT, Broad, and the "Indian crank" Dr. Lalji Singh and his Centre) etc. are anti-Muslim, does Wikipedia censor NOTABLE, RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE, non-FRINGE, and non-UNDUE inclusions just because they are allegedly anti-"some"ism (5) Non-notability of child marriage: previous discussion, also see Fowler&fowler insulting Hindu god Hanuman [11] {6) I have been called tendentious, can an editor who has others who agree to his edits such as user talk:Zondrah89, user:Ratnakar.kulkarni, user:Thisthat2011 User:Raghu-holkar (the latest in the long line of editors who resort to socking when stonewalled, and then get banned, to the glee of those like Fowler&fowler, who calls them trolls-peddlers of garbage, who disappear or get banned.[12]) be called tendentious, just because I haven't disappeared or got banned (so far anyways) like a good garbage pushing troll should.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban for one of the most bizarrely tendentious editors I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. user:Saravask has eloquently and precisely summarized what many of us have felt about YK's edits (most of which are on talk pages) ever since he first arrived on Wikipedia. People have cut him more slack than any definition of slack allows. It is time to end this; otherwise, productive editors will feel disheartened and be rendered unproductive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious doesn't begin to describe this user, from the looks of things. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Fowler&fowler needs to rethink his stance on various issues he considers as fringe. His views are consistent that many theories are projected by 'by Indian jingoists', 'cranks', etc. Examples: [| 1], [| 2]. He is not ready to consider that there are debates on it ongoing even though sources mention so. About this comment from "The minority is too small and, in many cases, unrecognized as scholarly, to gain mention in the summary history section of a Wikipedia FA. None of the people you have quoted including Edwin Bryant or Laurie Patton are historians. As scholars of India none are even remotely in the same league as Colin P. Masica, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Burton Stein], Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Patrick Olivelle or Stanley Wolpert, all of whom have lent their support to the notion Aryan migration." I am not sure if this is the place to reply to this comment as discussion is also going on talk:India page in parallel. The sources themselves mention 'scholarly debates' etc.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  The alteration of quotes, misrepresenting citations by cherry picking comments, misidentifying sources, reframing the debate as something it is not, etc. demonstrated here by Fowler are classic examples of tendentious pov pushing behavior. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is hardly any discussion to support the assertion that the views presented by editor YK are 'fringe theories', etc. The discussion is still going on on talk:India page. If the user regentspark finds sources that say the theories are from 'cranks' & 'Hindu nationalists', please mention sources here or on talk:India. Such assertions from experienced users without sources, without going to reliable sources noticeboard, without concluding discussion on talk:India are hardly considered appropriate on a vote according to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as per all the reasoning above. Given Yogesh's lack of concern and non-constructive edits to the respective articles, he deserves a Topic ban. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about this user just adding one-sided comment here without being involved at all. Examples of his talk page are: [| 1], [| 2]. I would therefore have comments from this user ignored.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed the whole discussion is being conducted like "my way or the highway " as mentioned above by me few editors are hell bent to ban YK --sarvajna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, attack the editors taking part in the discussion - that's sure to get people on your side ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this right, people who haven't been involved with the dispute can't add their opinions; while those who have been involved with their dispute but are in support of a topic ban are "hell bent" on getting their way. Riiiight. If anything I think its the defence that is going overboard... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1st Boing! said Zebedee if you think you are being funny you are not 2nd. I did not say that people who are not involved should not add their opinion all I meant was "they should not form an opinion just on the basis of what it is being discussed here but rather check out the matter properly" (apologies if I was not clear) --sarvajna (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This part, started from the user User:Abhijay nowhere involved in this and apparently not too well versed with Wikipedia, is going nowhere. Look just two topics above this topic [| here on the same page], which perhaps has led to the other user User:Strange Passerby here. As an admin User:Boing! said Zebedee who is on one side of discussion here could have avoided passing comments on someone on the other side like this, when it is clear which side which editor belongs to.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment here had nothing to do with Abhijay so you'd do well not to assume. I've watched this from afar for a long time, having previously had pleasant interactions with Sitush and Boing. Wait, I suppose in your eyes that makes me involved. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about User:Abhijay, see where this is going? Editors on one side writing about editors on the other side and then more!!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. You're not making coherent sense. You suggested that I was "led here" because Abhijay posted about me to the board. I'm saying my taking part in this discussion has nothing to do with that. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected then. I suggested that perhaps you were checking on his edits and then saw this discussion and then added your opinion. In any case, it does not affect your view. Though still I am not sure how much weight is carried by the opinion of User:Abhijay. Perhaps your could clarify about it, even if his comment does not support your view.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys c'mon. Abhijay is a good faith, but new, editor. He has obviously not long found this board and has tried to comment and contribute. Any competent closing administrator will be able to see that train of events and weight his contribution accordingly. Piling on each other, based on his comment, is not going ot help either him - or you. In fact it's probably pretty off putting all round. Lets chalk this up and move on. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as I have seen the POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period—it will never end voluntarily. However, I am concerned that a topic ban from South Asian history would leave YK more free time to cherry pick negative commentary to inflate stuff like Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism—the central problem is not so much South Asian history as a misunderstanding of what is DUE. When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place, and an article highlighting alleged racism and anti-Semitism of Dickens completely misses the point, and should not be tolerated at a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The editor himself says that "When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place", but does mention the topic here, without commenting on whether the editor disputes any sources and how the sources 'inflate' stuff etc.. The topic in that era, 'inflate stuff', etc. do not matter in any case; and so would be the editor's perception of POV based on Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The central problem is that for any major topic like India or Charles Dickens there will be literally thousands of sources that could be argued to satisfy WP:RS (and similar sources might be adequate for unsurprising text in other topics). However, when a thousand sources have written about Dickens, it is inevitable that some of them will have chosen to interpret Dickens' writings as racist or whatever. It is not satisfactory for an editor to find such sources and create articles based on them (that is undue cherry picking, aka WP:SYNTH). For major topics like these, there are hundreds of high-quality scholarly sources written by acknowledged subject experts, and it those sources that should be used for a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that YK has stopped anyone from editing the page. If you think it is biased, then use the talk page of that article. Have you added any content or made any efforts at it to dispute sources etc. before claiming that he is cherry picking, even without any discussion.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is this discussion heading to? Some dispute that needs to be settled on the talk page is being brought up here in support of a topic ban --sarvajna (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to "POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period" and explaining that it is easy to cherry pick POV commentary from sources for major topics—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Really? You imply here that 36,031 bytes page size with 39 references used in it is a baised point of view? Forget the page size. I can stretch articles to huge lengths (just like Dicken's writings). But 39 valid independant references does not seem like something that can be ignored and not included in an article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If the Johnuniq has consistently made, for which he has not provided any sources, the similar/same assertions about all users with views on the side of YK on the topic Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism, his opinion would have weight per me. Otherwise his views are not consistent w.r.t. editors.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Two points i want to say....
  1. As i see, most of the comments by editors here are complaints based on content dispute on various articles. I have observed a few threads here at ANI which keep on saying that content dispute should be addressed on a seperate forum assigned just for resolving those and ANI shall not be used to deal with it. So... if all the complaints are based on content dispute, this is a wrong place! Furthermore, I do not understand why the editors against YK's edits are actually against YK. Most of his edits which are called as "Undue" here actually are well referenced. 50:1 ratio will be called as undue. But i dont see such a huge ratio here. He clearly cites more than one references about various points he includes. I dont call it undue. All editors here should understand that Wikipedian editors should be neutral about the subject, but at the same time keep in mind that Wikipedia's aim is to be information bank which can be used for research. If contradictory views of reliable sources present on the topic are not mentioned in the article, i will call that as undue. Also, wikipedia articles are never complete. One must hence always assume good faith in other editors and not disregard the chance that something more of same sort might exist in other places which is yet not covered and brough to wikipedia. Building of articles might take long time and as wikipedians are not bound to do anything for wikipedia, it is unfair to assume that facts mentioned are Undue.
  Come on! Isnt it really good to have all views about a topic mentioned?
  2. As few ediotrs have pointed out above, other few editors who have not been involved in these topics should not vote here as Support or Oppose. I request them to change their views from Support or Oppose to "Comments". Although i do trust that admins who go through this would "read" carefully, i also trust in errors that humans can do. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 1) No, this is not itself a content dispute, it is about YK's chronic tendentious *behaviour* in content disputes and his repeated attempts to push his own POV against policy and against consensus. As a behavioural issue, this is a perfectly valid venue for it.

• Meant to add - A Wikipedia article is not a repository for every opinion ever aired on a subject or a place to publish all views, with each given equal weighting - that's not what balance is all about. A Wikipedia article is supposed to balance various views in accordance with the weighting given to them in the real world, by academics and experts as published in reliable sources. Fringe theories and minority views should only be included in proportion to the support they get in the real world, as support by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 2) Anyone is allowed to support or oppose the suggestion as they please, even if they have not been involved in these topics. In fact, previously uninvolved people examining the presented evidence with fresh eyes can be of great benefit - if YK is innocent of the charges, surely that's what they'll decide when they review the evidence, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We live in an age when even the craziest assertions can be traced to someone who has already made them in a public forum. It doesn't make the assertion sourced, especially not to a reliable source. I have written most of the history section of the long-standing FA India. It is sourced to impeccable sources. I have tried to use textbooks on the history of India that are used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the best universities around the world and published by well-known academic publishers. The reason for this is that such textbooks have been vetted for balance. Many editors try to insert one-sided points of view into the India article, sourced to poor unreliable sources. They are usually dealt with on the article talk page. However, when an editor does this relentlessly, dozens, indeed scores of dozens, of times, it becomes a behavioral problem. When an editor does this with full knowledge of what he is doing, it becomes a behavioral problem. I don't appear at ANI that often. Perhaps one or twice a year. Let me state very definitively: Yogesh Khandke is likely the worst (and certainly one of the worst) of the tendentious editors I have had the sad privilege of encountering in my six years on Wikipedia. If editors here seem against him, he has only himself to blame. He has wasted an enormous amount of time of law-abiding, content creating, editors. It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that these days we can find source for assertion made but who is to decide what is crazy and what is not? call it crazy if it not in match with your POV? --sarvajna (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not exist if this sort of solipsism were the norm here. Figuring out what to include and what to exclude is not a question of "matching with your POV" (unless a POV is the only thing an editor brings to the encyclopedia). Rather, it is a question of incorporating whatever is the consensus view amongst scholars. "Most historians" captures that adequately. However, the larger issue here is Khandke's tendentious behavior rather than what is "right" or "wrong". I'm perfectly happy to discuss insertion of new material but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's decided by consensus in discussion (see WP:Consensus), and once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

you are right Boing! said Zebedee, but a consensus was never reached, all the sources provided were discarded by few editors neither there was any third opinion on the matter --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a unanimous decision with everybody agreeing, it means an evaluation of the arguments made in accordance with policy. Having re-read a number of previous disputes, I see YK repeatedly trying to misrepresent sources, and pushing minor sources against arguments made in full compliance with Wikipedia's Reliable sources policy. And I see far more than three opinions offered in those disputes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was extremely dramatic of HumorThisThat to over-react about my comment about Yogesh. Do not assume things the way you think them to be HumorThisThat. So stop being such a dick. Ab hijay  ☎

sarvajna, The history section of the India page was rewritten during a few months in Spring (April through June) 2011 during a lengthy FAR of the page where dozens of experienced FA and FAR hands were watching, and finally supporting. If that is not consensus, what is? Where were you guys then? It has been a year since. All the Hindu nationalist fringe theorists whose opinions you are impaling us with had already had their various epiphanies about the topic by then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fowler you are talking about a discussion that had taken place almost a year ago, are you suggesting that nothing should change after the edits that were made? Consensus was never reached during the last discussion, I am not referring to something that happened over a year ago. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Boing! and Fowler: "Once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again" is wrong. Consensus can not be necessarily permanant. New experienced/inexperienced editors keep on coming to newer topics. Newer sources can be found. Thus consensus can very well change. (Its written somewhere in some policy. You all probably know where.) I dont understand how re-raising an old point again is a problem. You all very-well give references to age-old fights when you want someone blocked! You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you? An editor who believes in something and wants in it the article has every right to discuss it to introduce the content he wants. He ofcourse needs consensus. When YK (or anyone) re-raises the discussion, the editors who said no to it last time jump in again and again say no. The intention of re-raising the subject is to partly see whether old editors' views have changed and partly see if new editors have arrived who agree with him. If old editors' views are still same, they need to say that. But that does not mean they close the discussion and not allow newer editors to ponder. Hence i find you all also faulty here. It takes two to fight.
As to my 2nd point above.... Editors are surely welcome to post their views here. But the main topic here is discussion on "topic" ban. Its not a montly meet of I-Hate-YK Club. User:Abhijay is supporting ban for some reason. I havent understood what the reason is. (& why is he now poking in my space?) User:Johnuniq is also supporting ban for some Dicken's article. How is that related? Its like, "Yesterday he bumped me and my icecream fell. Let me say that this has nothing to do with the topic. But i say Block him!" -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point about consensus not being unchangeable - and yes, past consensus decisions can be revisited. But when it's the same points, with the same old arguments, and the same old sources, brought up again and again and again, it really starts to move away from the fair re-examination of past consensus and towards tendentious disruption. As for "You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you?", if they really were bygones I'd be delighted to let them go. But the whole reason for this proposal is that it is YK who won't get them go, and instead keeps starting up the same old POV-pushing and refusal to follow sourcing and NPOV policy over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And PS: As for why User:Abhijay has offered an opinion, I can't answer for him, but how about the possibility that he clicked on the links provided, read what they linked to, and formed his opinion based on that? You know, try a bit of WP:AGF? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• What the hell is the matter if I just support a ban. It's my account (yes, i just renamed) , I have the right to edit, so what on earth is the big deal. I've had a view of Yogesh's contributions, and you have to admit that they are extremely disruptive in nature. Now let's stop creating such a huge battleground situation here. It is purely unethical. Arguing all over and moving all over the place isn't helping anyone, nor it is helping yourself. Oh god, this stuff just turned a lot more all-over. First a discussion about a ban about Yogesh, then some guy over-reacts about my comment and then moves on to a blocking of another editor. Good grief guys. Well done for screwing up this whole thing. I will contact an admin about your behavior if this condescends into a more stupid matter. Soviet King (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (Moved this comment up to the appropriate section so it's clear what it's replying to - hope you don't mind, Soviet King -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! and also others: Lets take this example.
User:Spanglej on 22 February 2012 says at Talk:Charles Dickens "Yogesh, you have banging this drum for more than two years. It seems you are advancing a personally held political position. The article is not a soapbox nor a vehicle for political promotion."
What we have after YK's so called "drum banging", "advancing personally held political positions", "persistent and tendentious modus operandi", etc. is Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism with numerous reliable sources and a completely valid self-standing article. Various editors opposed him when the Dicken's discussion started. But looking at the present condition of the article we see how YK's editings were right and other editors were just not ready to accept that. I know that they still disagree with points of undue weightage and POV. But numerous independant references on that article give different image than what these other editors hold. The conculsion here is, all the so-called YK's views on Dickens are not really his views. Had other editors been considerate enough to view this material properly at the start, YK wouldnt have needed to be tendentious. Again, it takes two to fight! And after proving himself right at Dickens one should seriously think that others, and not YK, can also be wrong. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not about "right" and "wrong". It is about consensus, reliable sources, correct quotations, balance, cherry-picking, pov-forking and numerous other issues. I'd wager a bet that there is much that is dubious in the article to which you have linked, simply because that is YK's modus operandi (and it can be seen in umpteen comments he appears to have made a various blogs, news websites etc). However, any review of the article by me will have to wait until Sunday. Suffice for now to say that his recently created articles concerning Indian news media/people have been pretty woeful and, yes, non-neutral. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, it is about being right & wrong. Other editors repeatedly said he was wrong and these were his own opinions on Dickens. When given time, he proved his points were not his own but of other reputed writers backing with sources. And to his modus operandi of being tendentious and sometimes aggressive and annoying one should blame opponent stubborn editors. Frankly speaking, if YK is able to fight all these obstinate editors he is doing a brilliant job. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, you're generally a reasonable editor. But, classifying misquoting and cherry picking sources as a "brilliant job" does not become you. I don't see any problem with reasonable discourse but, when an editor cannot be trusted to correctly quote sources, then we're better off without that editor. It is this 'no holds barred in getting my POV across' attitude that is detrimental to this encyclopedia. And, when that 'no holds barred' editor also calls the theory he does not like a fairy tale or attempts to recast it as an obviously discredited theory, then there is little doubt of that editors intentions (and little doubt that the net result is going to be not good for wikipedia). I should also add that Khandke's tendency to frame debates as an 'us Indians' vs 'them colonialists/westerners/whatever' is also extremely bad for the encyclopedia. Not only does it make otherwise well meaning editors think that 'India' is under attack, it also leads to a tendency to discount scholarly sources and research. And, scholarly sources are the only independent yardstick by which the quality of this encyclopedia is measurable. --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Firstly sorry that i did not reply to your upper post. I did not notice it. Usually when debatable discussions get this long and non-followable i quit them and say do whatever you want. That is a reason for me calling his work as brilliant. Cherry-picking and misquoting is obviously wrong. But thats what other editors can check and correct. That doesnt mean indefinite ban. I dont see "We have to rework on whatever he does" as a reason for ban. As to tendentious behaviour towards a group of editors i have already said before that those editors are to be blamed for it. It seems to be natural that he has to be aggressive while fighting alone against many others. That is not a reason for indefinite ban. But that can very well be a reason for controlling/monitoring discussions on these topics between YK & those editors. Does it mean over work? Yes! But over work is not reason to ban. These matters are all content disputes which can be handled without ban. Considering the fact that all of his edits are well sourced, we know that he is usually not writing something wrong but is surely bringing a contrasting view than the one that dominates the whole article. I see that as a good thing as it makes article unbiased. If he is banned, how do you propose to handle these points when he is not supposed to talk about them? Wont that be a lose?
When i read Wiki articles i mostly consider them to be full. Even after becoming an editor here i mostly find it difficult to add something to an article which seems full. If YK is being able to add something new to a long standing FA (which one can call as stagnant and something that the then-editors thought of), it is a good thing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Now merely translating my views for clarity as "Oppose" from "Comment". -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support solely on the basis of behavior. User's modus operandi is persistent and tendentious; had experience with YK on the Ganges-move odyssey. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I have just reverted the latest personal jibe from Humour Thisthat2011 against User:Soviet King (formerly Abhijay), which raised events that were nothing to do with this discussion. I would caution Humour Thisthat2011 to remember his previous bans for aggressive behaviour, and stop the unwarranted personal criticism of a good faith editor who has every right to offer his opinion in this discussion. Humour Thisthat2011, you need to calm down and stop throwing mud at people, stick to discussing the issue at hand, and try assuming good faith occasionally. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I would like to disagree, Humour Thisthat2011 had to support his previous argument about Soviet King's unwarranted display of support for the ban without really looking into the matter properly and it was also very much required in view of Soviet King's indirect threat(as written above by Soviet King) and its very much required now--sarvajna (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And you are guilty of exactly the same kind of Bad Faith behaviour - there are no justifications to the accusations that other contributors have not "looked into it" properly, and nobody has to satisfy you or him that they have. If your only tactics here are to throw dirt at those with whom you disagree, then you really are only damaging your own case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Humour Thisthat2011 provided proper justification but you reverted it --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know? Because that's all that's happening here with the attacks on Abhijay. How about discussing the actual arguments people present here rather than trying to throw dirt at them personally? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had already given my closing comment under my vote but I felt I have to reply, what do you mean by "Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know?" please refrain from using such language. I was referring to the evidence(the page history) that was given by ThisThat2011 which atleast shows that Soviet King made a decision in a hurry. I will not drag it further, I feel I have made my point. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"You people" is a second-person plural phrase, referring in this case to you and ThisThat2011. What on earth is wrong with that? And no, the "evidence" given by ThisThat2011 showed no such thing - no number of diffs can possibly show anything about when somebody read something or whether they were previously aware of an issue. But having said that, I've spoken to ThisThat2011 on his Talk page, and I will accept that he did not mean it as an attack. However, if you wish to carry on criticizing someone else's ability to form their own decisions, then I'll leave it to the closing admin to judge. The closing admin will be someone uninvolved, and will judge consensus based on the policy-based arguments presented on the subject of YK's behaviour, and I would strongly recommend that that's what you should stick to if you wish to influence the outcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, stop using such language against Boing. He's clearly trying to help mediate, and I did not use a indirect threat. If I gave you a threat, I would end up getting blocked by Boing! right now. I've wasted enough time here. Good luck to the next person reviewing this.

Arbitrary break

• Comment - can't comment on the topic ban, but something needs to be done, and I think a RfC/U might the direction to take. Yogesh's edition style is clearly tendentious and off-putting. Charles Dickens is a page with between 8000 to 10,000 views per day, yet his edit warring there and the pattern of his contributions to the article and talk - page has driven away editors who would have pitched in for a rewrite of the page [13]. This goes far beyond a content dispute, it's a pattern that drives away editors who are willing to make useful contributions. That's a problem in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times YK has been here, I don't think an RfC/U is needed. Specifically, I call attention to the comments of the last person who blocked YK:

I've blocked Yogesh Khandke for one week, both for the utterly unacceptable comment he made regarding MatthewVanitas's edits and for the other evidence presented above of his ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I had considered an indefblock because I strongly believe that users who make the editing atmosphere unpleasant for others are a net negative, no matter what content edits they've made, and we're better off without them. Editor recruiting and retention is a growing issue and combative attitudes are actively destructive. However, I decided to to err on the side of caution... although I consider any return to editing after the week is up in the light of WP:ROPE. Review welcome as always, EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

An RfC/U would ultimately just waste time, since they can't result in any formal sanctions, and the ANI history alone should be sufficient for a full topic ban. And if that's not enough, then I strongly recommend reading the discussions on Talk:Charles Dickens. I'll admit I've only read part of them, because it's extensive.

Disclaimer, just to save YK and his defenders time: I'm one of those involved editors who is unfairly prejudiced against YK from the past, who has been engaged in a long-standing witch-hunt against him and others, and who is a part-time member of the Sitush-Boing-Fowler-MatthewVanitas cabal (you know, that cabal that wants Wikipedia to follow devilish rules like WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Do an RfC/U, if need be. JN466 13:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• As Qwyrxian says, a RfC/U is not likely to achieve much. We've gone past the point where it would be useful. Yogesh knows exactly where he stands with regard to his Wikipedia life and has known this for some considerable time now, but nonetheless chooses to continue with more of the same. Classic battleground stuff, in fact. As with Zuggernaut and MangoWong (both of whom seem to have decided to retire), he holds some very firm anti-colonial etc views and they massively affect his ability to understand that there are other viewpoints, let alone that his own are fringe-y. His cherry-picking and misquoting is also not a new thing and does rather suggest that it is a deliberate attempt to subvert our policies. RfC/U will merely result in another visit to this noticeboard at some point in the near future. If we're lucky, it may not be until July but past history suggests that he is likely to be around in April and then absent May/June, so I wouldn't bank on it being so long before we are back here. This might be interesting, although I am deaf & cannot hear it. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting there is something wrong with having firm anticolonial views, or that such views are "fringe-y"? Last time I looked, colonialism had decidedly gone out of fashion. I will not stand by and watch people who have their own NPOV problems take out an opposing editor through summary justice at AN/I, just because we have more Western than Indian editors here, and each group comes to the topic with their own favourite literature and perspective. --JN466 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that's not it. I understand Sitush's mention of "very firm anti-colonial etc views" to be a coded way of saying that certain editors are overcompensating for past oppressions, and they look for ways to poke the former colonialists. That would be excellent if it were confined to giving a WP:DUE summary from typical scholarly works. However, as noted above, with enormous topics like India or Charles Dickens there are literally thousands of marginally reliable sources that have written from just about every conceivable angle, and cherry picking from those marginal sources allows an editor to insert almost any desired slant. For example, it is extremely undue to pick Dickens out from all the people alive worldwide in 1850 and assert that Dickens was racist—the truth is that the world is a very different place since then, and while an article on how views have changed in the last 150 years would be good, using cherry-picked dubious or primary sources (rather than comprehensive scholarly works written by acknowledged experts) is not satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, here's my take on this. I consider myself pretty strongly anti-colonialist, and I am of the firm opinion that the British in India committed massive abuses and atrocities. The British Empire was not glorious and heroic, it was a shameful episode of history - as were the colonial conquests of the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. But the answer to that is not to re-write the history of India from a Hindu Nationalist POV - that would be no more acceptable than having, say, the history of the UK written by a British Nationalist group. We need to write our Wikipedia articles on India in as neutral and well-documented a way as possible. And to do that, we should weight them based on the best academic sources we have available. We should not allow cherry-picking from all manner of minor and fringe sources to try to right past wrongs or change unfavourable history, and we should have no room for anyone who repeatedly edit-wars to adopt such a tendentious approach. That's what I think is meant here, and it really is the only way an encyclopedia should be written. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Frankly, I get worried if the first diff given in evidence of an editor's malfeasance sees him citing Cambridge University Press and the Times of India, the second cites the University of Michigan Press, and I then see him accused of citing fringe sources. Fringe sources? If you want to make a case that he cites fringe sources, don't come with University Press sources that actually happen to bear out what he says. --JN466 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Nobody here is claiming that *all* the sources he has ever cited are fringe sources - but much of the criticism here is that, amongst other things, he has frequently misrepresented reliable sources (and again, nobody is saying that *every* citation he has given is misrepresented). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Yeah! No one is saying he is *everytime* wrong. But they are just saying, lets block him so that he can never be wrong neither right! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq: Why do you call "picking" Dickens by YK as undue? Because Dickens is non-Indian and YK is Indian? Is that the reason? Is there some rule that editors cannot edit articles related to other projects? And whats wrong in writing about Dickens' racism if it existed? Being 150 years old doesnt make it go away. Its like saying after 100 years we should edit Hitler and remove all material related to Holocaust because the world is a very different place since then. As you are free to edit any article here, so is he. Wikipedia is not compulsary. If he edits about Dickens' racism he is not bound to write about how racism has reduced in 150 years. Nor is he bound to right about everyone's or anyone else's racism to prove he hasnt unduely picked Dickens. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't care where editors come from. In a 100 years there will still be lots of scholarly sources that accurately describe Hitler and the Holocaust. It's getting off-topic so this will be my final explanation here regarding my attitude towards Dickens. What would be very interesting (if suitable sources are available) would be an article on how different are the attitudes between typical people from 1850 and today. If a time machine transported a typical person from just about any country in 1850 and got them to live in society today, it is highly likely we would be shocked by their toilet habits, table ettiquette, views on gender and race equality, and opinions regarding a wide range of human activities. However, to pick one person from 1850 and declare that their attitudes were unacceptable is UNDUE as it fails to mention that something similar could be said for most people from that period. It would be fine to state that Dickens was racist if that is the conclusion from scholarly sources written by acknowledged experts in the topic of Dickens and the history of the period. This is very similar to the Shakespeare authorship question where hundreds of arguably reliable sources have written just about every conceivable conclusion about Shakespeare, and one editor could easily "prove" that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works, while another could do the same for Oxford (people claiming to be expert have supported seventy different candidates as being the author). The only way for progress to occur at Wikipedia is for major topics (where hundreds of marginally reliable sources are available), is for articles to be based on the major scholarly works written by acknowledged experts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Oooooh dear! You are at the wrong address. You should post your request for new article Difference of attitude between typical people from 1850 and today at Wikipedia:Requested articles. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

To Jayen466, Please don't flatter the sources that YK pushes by calling them anti-colonial. The Hindu nationalist cranks that are pushing the "Out of India" theories on various Hindu nationalist website have no history of anti colonial views. They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him. They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim. (This also goes for the Hindu nationalists' confused western sympathizers such as Konraad Elst and David Frawley.) The problem with YK other references (Cambridge, University of Michican) is that he quotes them deceitfully. Gavin Flood, for example, that he quotes in support of his views, says clearly at the outset that the most widely-believed theory to date is that of Indo-Aryan migration. He then says that lately there have been some other views, but then goes on to himself support a revised Indo-Aryan migration based on the work of Asko Parpola. What does YK do? He deliberately says nothing about Floods opening paragraph, saying nothing about his revised views; he only mentions the one sentence about their being other views! I'm afraid Yogesh Khandke is about the worst of deceitful POV pushers I've seen on Wikipedia. The earlier he is topic banned from South Asian history, the better it will be for Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, this would not be a place to showcase your political opinion about "Hindu Nationalist" and you know that very well. Please keep your personal opinion out of this discussion and would not suit an admin editor to make statements like "They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim." also Hindu Nationalist were equally fighting for freedom and your statement "They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him." is insulting and false. --sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

would not suit an admin to make statements like "They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi. They see a firm connection between "Out of India" and "Get out of India (if you are Muslim)," and are all virulently anti-Muslim." Who said Fowler&fowler was an admin? Has the camp defending YK gone to the lengths of making up positions of power for people to discredit them? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was meant to be a generic one. I have made the correction( I hope it had not created a lot of confusion, you are pointing out a small typo but have nothing to write about my comment??)--sarvajna (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi sarvajna. I do think your comment has merit, and I think the comment you replied to strayed too far into personal political opinion. But I also think it is important to distinguish between Hindu nationalism and anti-colonialism, because the two are not equivalent (although, of course, it is possible to be in both camps). We are talking here about the pushing of a Hindu nationalist agenda, and are not suggesting sanctioning someone for being anti-colonialist (if we did the latter, I think we'd have to ban just about everyone here). And I think that's something that needs to be made clear to whoever takes on the daunting task of evaluating the consensus here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boing! said Zebedee if I was not clear let me restate it, comments like "They made their first notable appearance....are all virulently anti-Muslim." and ""They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle..." may be Fowlers own opinion and they need not be discussed here, that is all I wanted to convey in my reply. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you on that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I agree that fowler's opinions should not be discussed here, to be fair to him he was responding to JN466's comments about western editors and Indian editors. Fowler's point was that the material pushed by the Indian editor in this case, YK, is neither representative of what is accepted by academic historians nor is it representative of the view of Indians in general but that it arises from a group that is particularly good at pushing its own agenda. We should focus more on what reliable sources say and less on where a particular editor happens to come from, especially when someone is misquoting and misrepresenting scholarly work (all to easy in this age of google) to push their pov across. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, Everything I say is based in sources. Here is Smith, David James (2003), Hinduism and Modernity, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 38–39, ISBN 978-0-631-20862-4, retrieved 2 April 2012 Quote (pages 38-39): "The counter-view, the 'indigenous Aryan' thesis, is upheld by a small group of enthusiastic Westerners, most notably Konrad Elst and David Frawley. The latter's Myth of the Aryan Invasion sold out in 18 days on its first publication in India. But these writers, like the Hindu fundamentalists whose cause they espouse, are vehemently anti-Muslim, and the two positions seem generally tied together the Aryan invasion has been refuted; and the Muslim invasion of several hundred years ago should he reversed." Next time, stop wasting people's time by making needless drama. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, stop making rude and personal comments.

I am not the only one who thought that you are pushing personal political opinion, if you have a source doesn't mean anything. If a source is all that you require than YK had several sources to his arguments. They made their first notable appearance when they murdered Gandhi??? all Hindu Nationalist are murderers?? also Hindu nationalist were present even during Gandhi and were noteable enough(do you need names?) many Hindu Nationalist were freedom fighters unlike mentioned by you They were nowhere to be seen when the anti-colonial struggle was being waged in India by Gandhi and others before him. --sarvajna (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I just aid above, everything I say is based in sources. Here is Hadiz, Vedi R. (2006), Empire and neoliberalism in Asia, Taylor & Francis, pp. 247–, ISBN 978-0-415-39080-4, retrieved 2 April 2012 Quote (p. 247): "Hindu fundamentalism derives its ideological orientation from a kind of Brahmanism that naturalizes a hierarchical structure of the world and, therefore, does not harbour serious ideological contradictions with many forms of political and cultural domination, which explains its various paradoxes. While committed to Hindu nationalism. it never came into serious conflict with British colonial rule and, rather, opposed anti-colonial struggle. While subscribing to the Gandhian vision of development, its adherents were responsible for Gandhi's death;" Are you sure you want to carry on this argument? I'm getting a headache reading your boldface lettering. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Ganges move debacle was a long time ago. If Yogesh hasn't learned how to contribute constructively by now, he must have decided not to change. Tendentious editors like Yogesh are a poison to the community, as Saravask's evidence shows. --JaGa^talk 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Request Please make it a bit clearer what is being supported/opposed. Obviously those opposing want no sanction, while those supporting are wanting a topic ban per the original request, namely South Asian history. However, subsequent comments have claimed a wider problem, and some of the more recent supports are worded in a way that suggests that something more is being supported. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Fowler&fowler comments above; the danger of the disruption moving elsewhere is also noted and it might be best to add probation on disruptive editing to the ban proposed here. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. He doesn't seem to want to work collaboratively. I would suggest general ban. Span (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment - just to note that nothing is changing even while this thread continues. This revert of a YK edit is a direct consequence of the subtle "colonial" POV pushing - the press agency in question was effectively shut down by the government of the newly-independent government of India, as per statements in sources that YK seemed to choose to ignore. The article was poor when created by YK and still needs some work but there really is no need to phrase things as they were prior to my revert. As a consequence of my expansion the lead section needs a rewrite, but the gratuitous insertion of "colonial" is not the way to do it. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I dont see any harm in using some adjective for India in that sentence. But if you object using "colonial India" do you prefer "pre-Independence India" instead? -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen what YK has done now? Leads are supposed to summarise articles. I am crap at writing them, but nowhere in the body of that article is there any mention of this claptrap. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral comment from main author of Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism‎ aka User:WickerGuy

Over the past few weeks I have developed a low-key form of a Love–hate relationship with User:Yogesh Khandke whom I find alternately fascinating, frustrating, earnest, exasperating, clever, and obtuse. He both says things well worth considering and can be wildly over-the-top. I can never tell how much of the latter is due to poor command of English or not. Perhaps he is like a character in a Greek tragedy, a man with noble qualities but with a serious Hamartia (character flaw) that undermines his better qualities.

I have little expertise on matters Indian beyond having thoroughly enjoyed the Bhagavad-Gita, watched The Jewel in the Crown (TV series), A Passage to India (film), a couple of good Bollywood films, and worked through my brother's bad experience with a prominent Indian guru whom I shall not name, so I can't comment on YK's edits there but I can comment on his Charles Dickens work.

Very early in the Dickens' disputes, I had decided that while YK was disruptively ignoring consensus (to the point of driving away good editors from the article which is a very serious matter of concern) that as Polonius said of Hamlet Though this be madness there is method in it. Somehow, I felt YK had to be simultaneously given his proper due (allowing his legitimate points in) while also reining in his excessive POV. Both editor User:MistyMorn and I agreed that the main article on Dickens should not have excessive space taken up discussing is racist attitudes (as they were relatively uninfluential on the English public), but that a fork article would be a good idea as long as enough people were involved to prevent it from being a WP:POVFORK or as one editor (rather ungenerously) put it, YK's "hobby horse". (As there has been both one full-length book on Dickens' xenophobia and it is mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of English Literature there is certainly a basis for discussing it somewhere on WP.) (It was YK who created the article, but he was not the first to propose it. I wished he had waited a bit longer to get consensus on it, but I supported it.) I believe in this article I have been successful at accomplishing both aims. One of YK's very best contributions to the article was Charles_Dickens'_Racism_and_anti-Semitism#Reconciliation and I am grateful to YK for having added it to the article. (He quotes my complement above.) One of his very worst proposed contributions was trying to interpret writer Patrick Bratlinger as saying that "Dickens spawned a whole new genre of hate literature". This is a blatant misinterpretation of Mr. Bratlinger and clearly a "fringe" assertion.

I am a little concerned that editor User:Animeshkulkarni cites the excellence of the Dickens fork article in a manner that suggests the article is mostly Yogesh's work. It is largely my own rather free adaptation and revision of his work, which both involved some fertilizing (using YK's stuff & sources) and some pruning and weeding (rejecting other stuff of YK), and I respectfully disagree with User:Johnuniq that the article in its current form involves inappropriate synthesis and cherry-picking, though further discussion of that point should go on that article's talk page. Finally, I am disappointed that Yogesh is comparing anyone at Wikipedia with metapedia where he has also been maligned. Metapedia is a white supremacist Wikipedia, and (as I have already communicated privately to Yogesh) the fact that both editors here and there both have issues with Yogesh is more or less equivalent to noting both liberal columnnist Derrick Z. Jackson and also the Ku Klux Klan have both been highly critical of Al Sharpton. (The metaphor I used in private communication was that both Winston Churchill, Communist film-maker Sergei Eisenstein and Adolf Hitler were all fond of Disney's film of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film) but IMO my new analogy drives the point home more effectively.) US politics is filled these days with surreptitious and specious comparisons with one person or another to Hitler, and we don't need such comparisons on Wikipedia, which indirectly borders on personal attack.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello WickerGuy! When i almost appreciated and gave all credit to YK for the new Dickens' article i did not want to demean any of the contributions by you and other editors too. But i wanted to stress out to other editors in this ANI fight of how YK was the reason for start of this article and how without his so-called hammering, tendentious, annoying behaviour this article would have had little chance of being what it is. Just like how YK's editings on Dickens were rejected at start by reasons of "drum beating", they are been done here on Indian articles too by giving little thought of how they could also be right. All the defects you mentioned in his editings like misinterpreting can be solved by other editors as you all did and as i mentioned somewhere above. I certainly dont see this flaw as some reason for any ban but i do appreciate how he rattles stable stagnant articles and brings a viewpoint which at times is overlooked for long. -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No apology necessary, but thanks (same re your gracious and kind notice on my page). If YK could develop a better style of interacting with other editors, the better parts of his overlooked viewpoint could be more easily incorporated into WP. The origins of the Dickens fork article are a bit "dodgy" as the Brits would say, but I think the results are good. It is quite true as you say that YK's persistence was largely the origin of the Dickens fork article which is now in (I think) fairly good shape, but I'm afraid it is also true that his behavior is the origin of the article being tagged with a POV template at the top (which YK has made inappropriate objections to) and at least one or two editors were contemplating nominating the article for deletion.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate WickerGuy taking the time to write down this long reflection on Yogesh Khandke's participation. I think we are getting closer to the nub of things. I am certain that without Yogesh Khandke, Wikipedia would be poorer. While his bloody-mindedness may not always be on target (whose is?), there are enough times when it is. --JN466 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what you're saying is that wikipedia is made richer by an editor who misrepresents sources, deliberately changes quotes from sources, continuously reframes debates (he is doing this in his latest post by conflating Aryan invasion and Aryan migration), all to push a pov that is, even in India, associated with right wing fringe groups. Baffles me, this sort of logic. --regentspark (comment) 00:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban we are discussing here is not about the Dickens page. YK's defenders can have him on that page until both time and times are done. But, in South Asian history, where I have some expertise and experience, he is easily among the worst of the deceitful, biased, and time-wasting editors I have dealt with in my six years on Wikipedia. Others before him have all been topic banned or indefinitely banned. When his South Asia topic ban is in place, he will be available, even more unreconstructed and many-splendored, on the Dickens page for the enrichment of your Wikipedia experience. This is really win-win. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Short version: as per WickerGuy. Long version: This is the first ANI I've participated in, and I feel in a strange position. My dealings with YK have been largely confined to the Dickens page, where my contribution was almost entirely restricted to the search for a pragmatic solution to unblock a longstanding and depressing virtual standoff between YK and just about everyone else, which was itself becoming quite Dickensian. Like WG, I felt that the sort of subject matter which YK was anxious to shine the floodlights on, so to speak, was indeed of genuine encyclopedic note, but that his presentation and communication strategies were deeply misguided. As a proponent of -- rather than contributor to -- the present subarticle I feel WickerGuy deserves a really big round of applause both for his editorial work and, especially, the patience and understanding he has shown in trying to communicate constructively with YK. I recognize in myself some of the mixed feelings WG describes. Leaving aside the politics of POV, my impression is that YK hurts himself and his own causes by using quite inappropriate firepower (I believe this is the first time I've ever been accused of 'denialism') blasted off at all and sundry in a sort of me versus the rest of the world scenario, with replies -- often at cross purposes -- to multiple points and editors grouped together in a single paragraph, in such a way that it's rather difficult for everyone else to engage in a meaningful dialogue. How much of this is deliberately disruptive, how much a good-faith attempt to get a hearing? I've sometimes felt quite exasperated... But now that the sort of information which YK so wanted to be made available is present in a well-written, reasonably stable (albeit controversial) subarticle carefully supervised and authored by WG based on material largely gathered by YK the signs of systematic disruption here appear to be a thing of the past. Wasn't there an easier way of getting where we are now? Continuing to assume good faith, my hope is that YK will, more generally, come to see that it can be in his interests to relax a bit and start assuming some good faith in others (he's explained to me that certain misunderstandings were quite genuine, and I have no reason to doubt that). I also have a lot of sympathy with editors who are currently exasperated by the YK all guns blazing approach. I feel that one possible solution, if YK were willing, might be for him to allow himself be adopted by an enterprising and experienced editor (of the calibre of WG) who has sympathies with some of the issues which concern him so much. Adoption might entail mutual agreement to focus for a while on topic areas where it's easier for him to find consensus (while temporarily resting other, more contentious areas where he's locally lost goodwill from other editors). I feel that, with the right sort of guidance regarding communication and impartial implementation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he could be surprised by how much he can achieve with a lot less hassle. Having said that, I think it's really important for him to acknowledge the need for a constructive change in good-faith outlook and style. My 2 cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

To clarify my view on the "POV fork" issue: I think the article can be a legitimate subarticle (as distinct from "fork"), broadly along the same lines as Wagner controversies, even though Dickens's rather shocking racist views are far less widely publicized or influential than Wagner's. I'm not especially enamoured of the current title though. I've argued that Dickens deserves several other thematic subarticles, including questions surrounding other aspects of his his social involvement and influence. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support ban in all areas. Extremely tendentious editor, a perfect example of WP:CRUSH with novel interpretations of policy. As one editor has stated, it's sometimes easy to attribute his misreadings and IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the fact that he's a non-native English speaker. I came to the conclusion that he encourages that perception as yet another tactic of his strategy of attrition, because in other interactions he's quick to grasp what is being discussed it it's to his advantage. I interacted with him on the Charles Dickens page (which BTW is a disgrace to Wikipedia the last I checked) to try to bring it up to at least good status, but his edit-warring behavior and tendentiousness caused me to retreat after only a few days. I have dealt with his like before, and I don't have another two years of my life to waste trying to impose WP policies on someone who's only interested in their POV-pushing. He doesn't care about any other part of the page except for his particular interest, which in the case of the Dickens page was to expose the colonialistic racism at the core of everything Dickens wrote. It is gaming editors such as him who cause others to walk away from Wikipedia in disgust. And IMO the new Dickens article is nothing but a POV fork and should be deleted. Any valid points should be neutrally handled in the main article and given due weight. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note I believe this proposal has been discussed to death. The discussion has gone off-topic, even off-off-topic. I believe we need input from a closing admin. For what it's worth, there are 13 support votes for a topic ban (of at least 6 months duration) for YK in South Asian history-related topics. There are 4 oppose votes. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC) PS I had not counted my own vote as it had become inconspicuous as a result of this edit by Yogesh Khandke. Now restored. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine. When WP decides to block him indefinitely, let us know and we'll get to work on the Charles Dickens article. As one of the two greatest authors in English literature, his article should be an FA, but it's not even a good article, and is likely to remain that way as long as YK is allowed to edit it. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Yogesh Khandke brings excellent, A grade content to Wikipedia that no one else is either capable of bringing, moslty because they are blinded by their POV. Dickens' racism towards Indians is an excellent example of this. Thanks to Yogesh Khandke, we now have a better article on Charles Dickens which a potential 1.3 billion Indians, most of whom have never ever heard of Dickens will find interesting to read. This cabal mentioned above almost has an orwellian zeal to maintain "NPOV" which makes it impossible for them to see the slightest criticism of their British heroes. Unfortunately, almost every British hero in colonial affairs (and sometimes outside of colonial affairs) between 1818 and 1947 is by definition a villan in Indian eyes. Incidentally Saravask, the person pushing for this ban, has pigeonholed people into a category of people who should be killed off. [[14]] He tells his buddies that these people should be hunted down by the FBI or the CIA or the MI5 and be killed. The Wikipedia system/ANI is setup in a way that some people will never get fair treatment. In many ways it is not too dissimilar from the British colonial government and their system of justice which let off General Dyer largely unpunished for the most heinous crime in Indian history. Here's that relevant video from one of the most historically accurate films - Gandhi. Video Bob1781 (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Bob1781 appears possibly to be an SPA. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As of 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) a single edit account: Bob1781 (talk · contribs) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Bob1781 has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed [15] sock of Yogesh Khandke. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you guys behave like this? If someone complaints against you on ANI you shout its "content dispute" and ask to close the discussion and take it somewhere else. Then one of you just blocks the editor who is complaining by giving some excuse of edit war so then he cant respond to the ANI thread. Example case. Someone (me) proposes that disambiguation pages related to Ganga should be changed and you rudely just try to throw away those comments. When still explained further you close the discussion saying its not the right place. Someone like YK says something and you ppl always ignore it because you have had fights with him before. Now some unknown Bob1781 comes and posts something what you have to say is he is a Sock, probably of YK. But what are all these ppl saying? Oh lets trash them! Either they are at wrong place or rude or single purpose accounts. Its like some professor dumbing someone's journal because the page margins are not right! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regretful Support Though none of the Dickens' editors seem innocent, alas. Wikipedia is ill-served by some of the related clearly unsourced or improperly sourced POV pushing zeal evinced. I also note this !vote is elicited by the post above implying that it is somehow improper to see NPOV as being a proper goal, when it is one of the "pilllars" of Wikipedia. I would suggest that he be topic banned from colonialism and racism articles broadly construed, per what I read above. I think he would benefit, moreover, from studying the racialism in the Indian literature to gain some historical perspective on the history of racism in that sub-continent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This user is incorrigible, tendentious, and still doesn't get it, after multiple trips to this board. In this very discussion, he is accusing others of 'hanging' him, attacking him 'with knives', and of wanting a 'submissive, fawning Indian', when even other Indian editors have blasted his inability to properly weigh views and to compromise. He has wasted the time of dozens of productive editors around Dickens and other hot-button Indian nationalist topics. His time here has long passed. Shrigley (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National Autism Society

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

---

I request a block on the National Autism Society (NAS) IP address for a period of one week (as agreed with the society's computer manager). The address is 217.204.11.194.

The society's network is open to both staff and to patients. Recently there have been a significant amount of "reordering" of junction numbers on various British motorways (see contributions page at here. I telephoned to the society's computer manager and both he and I are of the opinion that these changes are being carried out by a patient who is suffering from autism (and who therefore will not respond to normal reasoning). The manager quite reasonably challenged me to "prove" my assertion that the NAS network was the "guilty" party and after I led him through the Wikipedia audit trail, he proved very cooperativce. He is quite happy that there be a one week block on the IP address so that the patient concerned will get bored trying to make any changes. A study of the changes associated with that address suggest that few changes, if any, are appropriate to Wikipedia's aims and therefore neither Wikipedia nor the society will be harmed. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What might work better is if the Society's IP address(es) are indefinitely soft-blocked, thus allowing those with accounts to continue to edit while avoiding vandalism from unregistered users. IIRC, this has been done before for other institutions, particularly schools. However, the technical officer/manager/whoever you're talking to should probably email such a request to info-enwikimedia.org or functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org from an official email address, so if any questions arise from the IP we can be confident in saying "ask your manager, they're the ones who requested the block." Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, you called them? Whoa there Nelly, let's back the truck up a little bit here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Hersfold's suggestion of an indef soft block. That way genuine editors can continue editing from that IP, and anyone minded to engage in vandalism can be dealt with individually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding this somewhat disquieting. As far as I can tell, the National Autistic (sic) Society doesn't have "patients" and would not use such terms as "suffering from autism". It does provide community and residential services for people with autism. There may well be a range of constructive and respected Wikipedia editors among its service users. I can't see that it's constructive to deter any future such editors by confronting them with an indefinite soft-block placed because of a batch of edits of motorway junction numbers made in late March 2012. NebY (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If a soft block comes with an automatic notice something along the lines of "You must create an account to edit from this address" if someone tries to edit, then I can't see it being a problem. (And yes, I'm an Autie, too!) Pesky (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's certain, I'm sure, that there must be Wikipedia veterans amongst the membership of the National Autistic Society. After all, to paraphrase Mel Brooks, without aspies, trannies and queers, there is no Wikipedia. :) --Tristessa (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

After examining some edits, I'd oppose any action until Martinvl can demonstrate that this editing is actually vandalism. This fundamental prerequisite step has been overlooked. 217.204.11.194 stands accused of editing wikipedia. Penyulap ☏ 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to see Martinvl establish that "a patient who is suffering from autism ... therefore will not respond to normal reasoning", a presumption which might explain why after warning the user twice Martinvl called the NAS to discuss how the user could be blocked. NebY (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we not have any guidelines discouraging users from sleuthing/contacting people on their own? I would be surprised if this has not been discussed within the context of schools.. I also strongly object to the sweeping characterization of all people on the autistic spectrum as suffering people who cannot behave nor respond to anything. Kansan (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Although autism varies widely in severity, I agree that the phone call in question is either being misrepresented or invented, as explained by NebY. NAS is not a hospital and the people who work there are, for the most part, not autistic; moreover, most autistic people capable of editing Wikipedia are also quite capable of having a conversation about their actions. Talking about an indef soft block of the entire NAS in response to unproven vandalism by a single IP is premature, and is nothing like the persistent vandalism by many people that we see from a typical high school. Dcoetzee 09:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on several articles

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

I am reposting this because it was archived before it was resolved. There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W. 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arzel is continuing to make disruptive edits on the Philadelphia Water Department page and is leaving messages at my talk page rather than discussing the article on its own talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved and disinterested party checking in. The issue appears to be content driven and may require either an expert to intervene or having a RFC devoted to individual articles. This entire spat brings to mind the directive found at the bottom of the page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

The editor SMM201'0 seems to think that the removal of sourced Original Research and Synthesis of material is disruptive. I have asked the editor what the "Haliburton Rule" regarding Hydraulic Fracking has to do with the Philidelphia Water Department, but the editor has yet to respond how it is related. None of the sources he is using mention the PWD. There is some concern that HF may be responsible for some issues of water quality in Philadelphia, but that is no reason to proceed to lay out a lengthy argument against HF within the PWD article. It follows a clear WP:COAT and WP:SYNTH pattern. Present the arguement and then go off on an unrelated tangent that has no sourced connection to the PWD. The editor seems to have a strong feeling regarding HF and has been editing from what appears to be an activist approach in order to present HF in as negative of a light as possible violating several WP policies. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Arzel deleted large sections of text and references again today. I would welcome administrator input. Arzel has wanted to discuss the article on my talk page rather than the article's talk page. I have answered on the article's talk page. Arzel is also being disruptive on the HF pages, see their talk pages as well.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put in a request for comment regarding the PWD page. There is a larger pattern, however.Smm201`0 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on other articles, but regarding Philadelphia Water Department, Smm201, your homework assignment is to read and understand Wikipedia:Coatrack. Hydraulic fracturing has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article; even the mention of a minor water quality issue is of questionable notability, but I have left it in for now as a compromise. A mild scolding to both sides for edit warring, and if you don't like what I've done, take it up with me here. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article on the Philadelphia Water Department. The water quality issue regarding iodine-131 is a big deal in Philadelphia. A lot of people are affected by the water quality. Because of the politics involved, the PADEP and EPA's reports are not always consistent. EPA recently took over the investigation. WP is one place people can read info from the EPA, PADEP, and other sources and come to their own conclusion. The problem now is that the article is now inaccurate. Even if you and Arzel didn't like what the page said, every fact was well documented. The EPA reported levels above the acceptable level several times from 2007 to 2011, and said that Philadelphia's levels were among the highest in the US. The Water Department report actually talks about the Safe Drinking Water Act and says the iodine-131 is coming from effluent from treatment plants. Thyroid cancer patient urine has been suggested as an explanation, but they are still trying to pin the source down. The article does not accurately state the uses of iodine-131. I can understand wanting to punish me for edit warring and asking for intervention...but you are also making the article inaccurate. But I asked for that I suppose. Again, thanks for taking the trouble. Smm201`0 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate about the article as it stands now. It is properly sourced, and all statements (in the water quality section, I have not vetted other sections) are verifiable. I can not say the same for the previous version of the page, which was in gross violation of WP:SYNTH.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability was not an issue on this page. All statements had RS. The page seems to have gone from alleged synthesis to censorship. Not sure that's an improvement.Smm201`0 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You obviously have not completed your homework assignment. Do you actually understand what we mean when we say you are using improper synthesis of sources and using the article as a coatrack? Because you are undeniably violating these policies/guidelines. An article should cover a subject, not serve as a soapbox for independent conclusions critical of something only (extremely) tangentially related.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Honest...I did my required reading. Really. A very early draft might have toed the line, but at this point it was statements and refs. I had cut down on the verbiage too to balance the focus. The PWD itself had posted information about these issues and discussed them on their web site, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the limits of what it did and didn't know about the origin of the iodine-131, and a warning about iodine-131 levels because they were periodically over the EPA limit. The PWD has been holding public meetings about it, and it is getting news coverage (see deleted refs). The Delaware River Commission has gotten involved. But...thanks again for taking the time to comment, even if we disagree.Smm201`0 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"We," eh? You two know each other? I was wondering why a neutral party would take such drastic action as deleting most of the content of a page, and call it a compromise. It didn't make sense.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I'm going to revert the deletion to allow others to more easily read what's there and comment. I'll also check again to make sure each statement is well sourced. Let's allow a consensus to emerge.Smm201`0 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Runningonbrains, so I am not sure where you are comming to that assumption. However, it is clear that other agree with my view that you are violating Synth and continue to do so on that article. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Smm201`0, RunningOnBrains^(talk) was using the royal we, referring to all Wikepedians. It's a common thing when referring people to our (in the collective sense) policies and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your actions are unacceptable, and I have reverted your unilateral re-addition of material. I have never had prior interaction with Arzel of which I am immediately aware, and I called it a compromise because in my honest opinion the minor water quality issue does not deserve mention at all in this article.

The problem is not that your text is not sourced, as I have stated clearly above. Since you are not capable of seeing the flaws in your own writing on your own, allow me to point-by-point go through your material to point out all the flaws:

• In April 2011, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found elevated iodine-131 levels in Philadelphia's drinking water.[6][7] Nothing wrong here; a statement of fact about the subject of the article.
• In response to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings, the Philadelphia Water Department posted a notice that Iodine-131 had been found in the water supply.[8] Repetitive, probably unnecessary to the article.
• Iodine-131 is associated with the treatment of thyroid cancer,[9][10] nuclear energy, and is a popular radioactive tracer used to determine the location of fractures created by hydraulic fracturing,[11][12] [13][14] [15] We have already hit a serious problem. Here you have taken a sourced statement of fact ("Iodine was found in the drinking water") and modified it with another sourced fact ("Iodine is used in hydraulic fracturing") to reach an implied conclusion ("The iodine found in the water was a result of hydraulic fracturing"), a statement which is not supported by any source. This is the definition, to the letter, of improper synthesis of sources.
• The National Cancer Institute has reported that children exposed to iodine-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer. [16] Another blatant violation of WP:SYNTH; you have now attempted to imply that the iodine in the water in this specific circumstance may be dangerous, a fact which is not supported by any source.
• Initially the Philadelphia Water department attributed the presence of Iodine-131 to nuclear energy production and the March 2011 Japanese nuclear incident (Fukushima Nuclear Incident). Iodine-131 was later found in the Wissahickon Creek, and at several sewage treatment plants along the creek near Philadelphia in late July 2011, after the fallout from the Japanese incident would have decayed.[9][10] Iodine-131 had been found in several Philadelphia drinking water samples before. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) records showed that Philadelphia's iodine-131 levels were the highest in the last decade in the set of those measured at 59 locations across the United States.[10] All of this can be succinctly summed up in the way I have in the article: "Originally this was suspected to be related to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, but it was later determined to be due to patients undergoing iodine therapy for thyroid cancer.[8]"
• EPA records show readings above the acceptable limit of 3 pCi were recorded at Queens Lane Water Treatment Plant on three occasions and Belmont Water Treatment Plant on four occasions since October 2007. This is specifically contradicted by this source: "The EPA's drinking water standard is three picocuries per liter - but only over a long-term average [emphasis mine]. A single sample that was higher would not constitute an excess."
• Readings at Baxter Water Treatment Plant were lower.[4] Nothing specifically wrong with this sentence, but it becomes unnecessary with other offending material cut out.
• The EPA also found elevated levels of Iodine-131 in the water discharged from water treatment plants in nearby Ambler and Abington in April 2011.[17] These places are not Philadelphia, so I don't see how this is relevant.
• The EPA is concerned about radionuclide levels in drinking water. In Pennsylvania, much of this wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed by public sewage treatment plants which are not designed to remove the natural or man-made radioactive components of this waste, which is often released into major rivers. I suppose that the EPA is "concerned with radionuclide levels in drinking water" could be inferred from the letter cited below, and I suppose we could infer that they were concerned about Philadelphia's water specifically, but on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume.
• Some are concerned that this provides the opportunity for radioactive waste to enter public water supplies.[18] "Some" is a weasel word, and the source has nothing to do with Philadelphia; another example of a WP:SYNTH violation.
• In March 2011 the EPA asked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) to require "community water systems (CWSs) near publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and centralized wastewater treatment (CWT) facilities receiving Marcellus Shale wastewater to conduct sampling immediately for radionuclides." They note that "in previous monitoring, radionuclides were not detected or were detected at levels less than one-half of maximum contaminant levels," but that "the CWS have not sampled after the introduction of Marcellus Shale operations." The EPA letter adds that "Discharges from these operations could increase radionuclide levels substantially."[19] Sourced, but why is this relevant? This is all from a letter to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, not addressed to the Philadelphia Water Department, and certainly not in relation to the above-mentioned levels of iodine. WP:SYNTH rears its ugly head again.
• In 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Philadelphia Water Department were working together to test surface water (rivers and streams) and discharge from water treatment plants. By June 2011, the EPA had ruled out hospital sources and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as causes and were still trying to identify the source.[17] In July 2011 and March 2012 the Philadelphia Water Department attributed the elevated levels to thyroid cancer patients' urine because it was found in wastewater plant effluent.[10] Again, neatly summed up by the sentence I left in the article, avoiding unnecessarily verbose step-by-step language.
• The Philadelphia Water Department reports that Philadelphia's drinking water meets the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is unsourced, but true and verifiable, as it is covered in the source I mentioned above. You have neatly used this sentence to build up the false premise that you are still talking about the Philadelphia Water Department, as is immediately apparent in the next sentence...
• The EPA and the state authorities generally have the authority "to regulate discharge of produced waters from hydraulic operations" (EPA, 2011) under the Clean Water Act, which is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.[20][21][22] Instantly back to facts unrelated to Philadelphia. You are attempting to synthesize the statement that the iodine found in Philadelphia's drinking water had anything to do with hydraulic fracturing, which, I reiterate, is not found in any reliable source.
• Although this waste is regulated, oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes are exempt from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing contains toxins such as total dissolved solids (TDS), metals, and radionuclides.[23][24] Straying even further from the topic at hand...
• Companies are not required to provide the names of chemicals in "proprietary" formulas, so the chemical lists provided on company web sites are incomplete and the substances are not monitored by EPA. [25][26] Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption ("Halliburton Loophole") under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by supporting The FRAC Act, but has so far refused.[27] The oil and gas industry contributes heavily to campaign funds.[28]5 The FRAC Act would eliminate the exemption and might allow producing wells to be reclassified as injection wells placing them under federal jurisdiction in states without approved UIC programs. The FRAC Act was re-introduced in both houses of the 112th United States Congress. In the Senate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced S. 587 on March 15, 2011.[29] In the House, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced H.R. 1084 on March 24, 2011.[30]As of March 2012 Congress had not yet passed either of The FRAC Act bills[31][32] We are now in the complete opposite direction of an article describing Philadelphia Water Department. This is the most blatant violation of WP:COATRACK I have ever seen an author try to defend. There are exactly zero sources that relate any of this to Philadelphia, its water, or the specific incident this whole section started off with.
• On March 28, 2012, the Philadelphia Water Department reported that during the period between April 2011 and February 2012, iodine-131 levels were lower in the Queen's Lane (from graph, average about .5 pCi; highest about 1.5 pCi) and Belmont facilities (average about .4 pCi; maximum about 1.4 pCi). No iodine-131 was detected at the Baxter facility. You clearly do not understand what a box and whisker plot is, and so you have introduced statements that are not supported by the linked source.
• The report notes that wastewater plant effluent has been confirmed as one source of the iodine-131; other potential pathways have not been confirmed. The article on Philadelphia Water Department should not be detailing minute details of a single minor water contamination incident, likely one of many that have occurred over the years.
• The report also said that there have been periodic elevations of iodine-131 in the Wissahickon Creek that decrease over time and do not affect drinking water. "Do not affect drinking water", so again, why is this in the article?
• Iodine-131 has was also detected in the Schuylkill River during this period, especially when the river is low. The amounts found in the river and creek were not specified.[33] You have now included almost the entire text of the linked slide show, without good reason.
• No contaminant levels have been posted on the EPA web site since April 2011.[8] Okay, and neither have they been posted to the Harlem Globetrotters web site. Sorry if I seem a bit snarky, but at this point...I mean, come on. How can you not see how ridiculous it is to include these minute details, and pretend that they are in the article for any reason other than to prejudice the reader towards your point of view that there is something in the water from hydraulic fracturing.
• The Philadelphia Water Department plans to upgrade its water treatment facilities and water management systems to better deal with the waste water. The water department plans to raise funds for the project by increasing Philadelphia residents' water and sewer rates over the next four years.[6] Finally, the very last sentence actually has something relevant, but I don't see that a statement that water treatment is undergoing upgrades is notable enough for the Wikipedia article. No doubt every water department in every American city has upgraded their facilities at one time or another; you are using this sourced statement to stealthily imply that it is being done because of your above assertions of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing.

Your entire textual rant, sourced or not, synth or not, was hung on the coatrack of the article under the false premise of describing the subject of the article (which, I remind you, is Philadelphia Water Department). This is different from a "criticism" or "controversy" section of an article; you are not criticizing the subject, you are criticizing hydraulic fracturing, and doing so without any sources that directly relate to the subject of the article.

Your assertion that the material needs to be on the page to develop consensus is absurd. All previous versions of every page are visible in the page history.

In conclusion, the material does not belong on the page, and you will be blocked for edit warring if you re-add it again.

Sincerely,

Summer Glau - RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur - those are egrerious and, frankly, ridiculous violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Smm201`0, do not re-add these to the article, as they are in utter violation of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and values - as noted, you will be blocked if you do so. It's up you to make the case to have these included (of which there is no case, but you're welcome to discuss why you think there is), not for others to argue against them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This water quality issue is ongoing in Philly, not a single event. I've tried to incorporate a lot of your feedback. Nobody can see the revisions I've made unless I post it somewhere, so at another editor's suggestion, I've put it on the talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out earlier, everyone can see your revisions simply by going to the History tab of the article. Posting it to the Talk page was unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they can't see revisions made in response to runningonbrains comments because they were done after the last time I reinserted the material. They have never been on the PWD page.Smm201`0 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

... wait, what? Are you talking about further changes, beyond the ones that were posted above? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to bring the content into compliance with Wikipedia policies in a way that allows me to get feedback from other editors, but don't worry, I didn't reinsert it in the article. I had not had a chance to edit in response to runningonbrains list of comments before it was deleted. Had it been left on the page, I could have revised it there.Smm201`0 (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page there, even your revised text would make the article into a WP:SYNTH-infested WP:COATRACK. Please stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, you didn't re-insert it. That was my point earlier about what you had previously inserted already being in the article history. That said, Bushranger is right, the points made above are clear: the majority of what you want added has no place in the article. It's not a matter of "bringing it into compliance," as it is non-compliant by its very nature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I still respectfully disagree about the content being synthesis and coat rack because the PWD itself discusses the same topics at length on its own web site, though not with the RS that Wikipedia requires and I added. I agree that the original rendition was too verbose and wasn't well focused. But this kinda of discussion really belongs on a talk page and not here. I'm relative new at this and only came here for help with disruptive editing. Won't ask for help again. End of story.Smm201`0 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The United States government talks about a lot of things on their websites, but it doesn't make it valid for inclusion on Government of the United States. That said, perhaps an article on Iodine contamination of groundwater might be a worthy subject? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I nearly suggested that in the PWD talk because there are several RS-compliant sources that discuss groundwater issues that Smm is trying to use in a coatrack manner in the PWD article. I am, however, afraid that such a page would develop into a synth sinkhole of anti-hydraulic-fracturing advocacy. Chillllls (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1 and Template:Use dmy dates

• 1exec1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

1exec1 is systematically adding the templat {{Use dmy dates}} to articles with the edit comment of "date formats per WP:MOSNUM". WP:MOSNUM covers a multitude of points among which are:

• MOS:DATEUNIFY
• WP:STRONGNAT

As can be seen on archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, British dates can either be in the format of "dmy" or "md, y" it depends on the sources used (EG The Daily Telegraph uses "dmy" while the The Times uses "md, y").

While there is a good argument for adding {{Use dmy dates}} to cope with British articles with dates that already have the dates formatted as "mdy", as there is no agreement in sources or guidelines for British dates to be exclusively formatted that way, {{Use dmy dates}} should not be imposed on articles that have no day month information or are already formatted a different way.

My concerns were raised by edits made by user:1exec1 because of the number of British articles that I watch which 1exec1 has been editing in the last few days.

On looking further I left a comment on user talk:1exec1:

Take for example this change to the article John Du Cameron there are no dates in article in the format of either dmy or md,y so it can not be justified on dates already in the article.[16]

1exec1 has not replied to this comment although 1exec1 has since replied to another user's comment placed on the talk page after mine, indicating that my posts have been read.

After the reply to the last posting on user talk:1exec1 in which 1exec1 says "The script doesn't run on its own, I would need a bot account for that. All edits are rechecked by me, so there should be few such errors, since I've manually fixed most of them, this one must have slipped below my radar"[17] which on the face of it would seem to indicate due diligence, (a similar comment was posted before "I agree that sometimes I could make an error judging which format is used more, or just changed to DMY because there were few accessdates at all. I'll try to recheck some of my past edits and fix them if there are problems."[18]), so I decided to look at the User contributions of 1exec1.

I only had to look back eight edits from the most recent to see that 1exec1 made 15 edits in the minute 01:33, 3 April 2012. On examining the first of those edits it is clear that more than simple tagging is talking place as the article Roy Campbell (poet) has had all its dates changed from mdy to dmy and like the other 15 edits it was marked as a minor edit although it made many changes to the text.

So it seems clear that 1exec1 can not be observing due diligence if 15 edits are being made in a minute and that 1exec1 is imposing a format on British articles that is not justified by article content.

I suggest that 1exec1 desists from changing dates in articles unless there is consensus to do so (or split usage), and does not add the template to {{Use dmy dates}} unless before 1exec1 starts to edit the dates in an article an article they are already all formatted as dmy or there is a consensus on the talk page of the article to use dmy in the article and to place the template {{Use dmy dates}} in article space. Also these automated edits should not be marked as a minor change.

Until a consensus emerges here on what is acceptable, 1exec1 should desists from running the script that is being used. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I did these changes was that these pages were already in a hidden category Use DMY dates. ALL articles are about a British subject and should have DMY dates anyway per WP:STRONGNAT. Only articles about an American subject can be in MDY, and even then there are exceptions, such as the military. Since I was editing pages related to military, specifically from Category:British Army officers, I'm almost sure that all articles would use DMY per WP:STRONGNAT, since even if an article is mistagged, almost all Commonwealth countries use DMY (Date format by country) and even then, the US military uses DMY also. Finally, my edits are not disruptive and can always be reverted if I'm wrong, so I see little misconduct here. But I'll stop until consensus is reached here. 1exec1 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As for very high edit speed, I do all my edits in batches. I.e. open e.g. 300 articles in edit mode in tabs, do all changes, preview all changes and then commit all changes. This results in a lot of pages edited in short time, however this doesn't represent the time I spend on the articles. 1exec1 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1's edits are consistent with WP:MOSDATE. If anybody wishes to change policy to have articles on British subjects use dates in US format, they should raise it on the talk page there and gain consensus for change. --Pete (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reread the relevant policy (WP:STRONGNAT) and it seems to be pretty clear: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. (emphasis mine). Because my edits are not disruptive (i.e. are very minor, often with no visible changes and can be easily reverted), I'm continuing to edit. If there are any other issues with my edits, please contact me on the talk page. Thank you. 1exec1 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What 1exec1 said has been my understanding all along. Our conventions tend to ignore the mix of date formats used in the "real world" in US and the UK. I'm sure that if he cares to delve into the archives, PBS should find the above wording of MOSNUM reflects the consensus position. WP articles on British, Irish, Australian, NZ, SA, India, Pakistan subjects almost universally use dmy format, and American articles almost always use mdy. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in which case adding the template to those pages where the format is already consistent is in my opinion a minor edit. But altering the dates in a page is not a minor edit and there should be consultation on the talk page before the format is changed. Also placing a template on an article that will automate date formats on a page which does not yet have such a format under the argument of WP:STRONGNAT flies in the face of the spirit of WP:TIES "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article". --PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what national ownership means. The spirit of WP:OWN is that being the author of a piece of content doesn't make your opinion more important when that piece is edited. In this case national ownership means that being a national of some country shouldn't make your opinion more important. Thus this doesn't apply here. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1exec1 I think you are ignoring the word "generally" in that quote from the guideline. Also there is no explicit mention of what is the most common format in Britain (see above both are used when the date is expressed with month in letters so neither is wrong) therefor I do not think it appropriate to make mass changes as you did to Roy Campbell (poet) (particularly as a minor edits), or to add the templates to articles where the format has not yet been decided by a first major contributor, needs discussion on the talk page for a consensus to emerge if one is using semi-automated methods to impose dates on an article different from that which already exists, or on articles that do not already have a predetermined date format.

1exec1 what is the name of the tool you are using to make automate these changes? I ask because the changes do not look as if they are hand made as they change similar strings in all of the pages I have looked at, and it is also implied from the comments you have made on your talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a multitude of views what a minor edit is. But here on wikipedia it has a very specific meaning. As WP:MINOR states, a minor edit is any edit which changes only the presentation of the content, such as typographical or spelling fixes, formatting changes or rearrangement of text. My edits never change the content, only formatting, and even then, only in minor way. Thus I think my edits qualify for being marked as minor.

It also says "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." I think that this ANI is an indication of dispute, and two other editors have objected to changes you made under minor. So I suggest most strongly that any change other than adding the template to the top of the article is not marked as a minor change. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you prove that my edits are prone to objections and needs a review? So far I've made around 7000 edits and there were only 5 cases where my edits contained an error which was then fixed. I'd say it's acceptable rate of errors. 1exec1 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is proof that there are objections. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the generality, there is consensus that articles about British subject should have DMY format. Whether the article already uses DMY or MDY shouldn't matter. WP:DATERET even has a separate exception for that: The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic (emphasis mine). If we combine this with WP:STRONGNAT, it becomes clear, that consensus is needed for using other format than DMY, not the other way round. Thus, it's the opposite, my edits are generally good. One could argue only about specific articles, but then one should have strong arguments. As for Roy Campbell (poet), I see nothing problematic, he's British and article almost doesn't talk about things related to countries that have MDY style. Pretty good candidate for format conversion on the grounds of WP:STRONGNAT.

Finally, ask for consensus first isn't a policy endorsed by Wikipedia. Even WP:CONSENSUS itself says that an edit should be made first (also, look at the flowchart in the right). WP:BRD and WP:BOLD also advocate for edit first, ask later style. The sheer number of edits I make, while irritating, shouldn't make a difference, since the error rate is so low. I use a modified script made by User:Ohconfucius, you can find it on his user page. 1exec1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that BOLD applies to mass edits which are close to BOT edits and are inserting a template that leaves the article open to BOT enforcement. My evidence that these are close to BOT edits is your posting to User talk:Ohconfucius [19]. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, there's currently no such automatic bot which enforces the date formats. Secondly, all edits are firstly reviewed and approved by me and I'm not a bot. You argue that I do bad job reviewing my edits, could you prove that? With links to disputed diffs and so on? 1exec1 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support what 1exec1 is doing to improve and harmonise date formats. Not sure why it has been brought here; wouldn't WT:MOSNUM be a better venue for this discussion? --John (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • This is not a question of MOSNUM but a question of editor actions. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohconfucius I think you should have declared an interest in this section -- That you are in co-operation with 1exec1. You say "care to delve into the archives" Yes I will. But also please show me where in the archives it was agreed what is most common in the UK and that the word generally should be ignored and that all British articles should conform to that format (rather than generally conform to that format)? -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk archives at WP:MOSDATE contain comprehensive discussions on the topic dating, if I may use the word, from the earliest days of the project. What we have now works and while you are welcome to propose changes, this is not the place to do so. --Pete (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My "cooperation" with 1exec1 is to ensure that my script, which is used by him/her amongst others, functions within the perscribed parameters. I'm grateful for the bug reports, but ANI does not appear to be the legitimate venue for arguing to change the consensus convention for "British" vs "American" dates. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While I can't say too much about what we do for British and American articles, I'd like to ask that this be avoided for Trinidad and Tobago-related articles, given that while we abbreviate dmy, most long-form dates are written md,y. I suspect that there are other countries that don't fit into this strict division either. Guettarda (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistent editor at University of Ottawa article

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

---

Resolved

User:24.114.252.234 is engaged in an edit war with many different editors at University of Ottawa. There is an outstanding 3RR report (although he or she is at 8 or 9RR by my count, just today!) and an SPI request. Those requests have been outstanding for several hours but the edit warring continues. Can someone please block this editor? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Up to 10RR, which is a record for anything I have ever seen..... Yeah hopefully this gets resolved soon. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article semied by Bwilkins. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I have been concerned about the behaviour of Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · block user) for about a month now. He has been making comments that are consistently aggressive towards other editors. A sample of examples follow: [20], [21], [22] (edit summary), [23], [24], [25], [26] (edit summary), [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Other users have approached me as an admin with concerns about these and other comments. One of these comments in isolation would be easily forgivable. But the attacks and negative tone seem to be incessant.

I made an attempt to raise these concerns with the user here, and my edit was simply reverted with a put-down edit summary.

The user has twice been blocked in the past six months for disruptive editing, and it is starting to reach that stage again. Normally, I would have no hesitation to block the editor for the accumulated nature of the comments he has made, but since I have been the target of some of his attacks, I feel it is best dealt with here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have had a few run-ins with KW over the years, and I consistently found him to be disruptive, counter-productive, and often quite rude. He always seems to be the first one to accuse others of personally attacking him (often when they're not), while simultaneously dealing out personal attacks of his own. The diffs towards the end of the list in the above post are particularly concerning. Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that "Life is confusing when you have a brain." Any of those diffs on their own are not a blockable offense, but I agree that the demonstrated long-term pattern is problematic. At the very least, I would support issuing a final warning to KW, to let him know that future incivility will result in blocks of significant and increasing duration. —SW— ^chatter 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents For what it's worth, I brought this to Good OlFactory's attention and I have previously had run-ins with Kiefer before. I explicitly told him on two occasions that he needed to stop this belligerence or else I would have an admin intervene (if someone really needs diffs, I'm sure I can find them.) He then posted more positive notes on my and his talk pages--it's impossible to say if that was genuine good faith or just hoping that I would forget about him for awhile, but he has made it a point to be needlessly provocative and it really needs to stop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I've had a lot of troubles with this user over the past year or so, but recently we've been getting along (especially since we agreed to stop discussing our past). I have been a little worried about his recent behaviour - declaring only people who have tought statistics should edit an article, Telling an editor who has created around 85 chemistry articles that he "writes so little". The above disruptive editing mentioned by Good Ol'factory, which I also raised with KW, I hoped had passed. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would this be worth starting a RFC over? --Rschen7754 08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a blue link. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

From that RfC's summary, [...] KW has agreed voluntarily with two viewpoints in particular (Fetchcomms and Sławomir Biały) that he can be tactless and aggressive in discussions, although most editors can be at times, and that he should try to minimize the behavior and be a little more respectful to those around him (close paraphrasing of Sławomir Biały) and also that he should say things in a nicer and non-demeaning manner (close paraphrasing of Fetchcomms). Apparently, he has not changed his ways and can still be tactless and aggressive. If there are no objections, in a couple of hours I'll impose a week-long block due to the ongoing pattern of violations of WP:CIV. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have been the previous recipient of some of KW's hostility, and although we've not had much interaction since, I do not think he has learned from the RFC despite his claims to have done so. He still treats editors he disagrees with (or, perhaps more correctly, editors who disagree with him) with contempt — perhaps to intimidate, I'm not sure. But I'm not convinced a block will do anything. It's probably time for civility parole, or failing that, bringing this to a higher court. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any point in a final warning after the RfC, earlier ANI discussions and his blocks. Maybe being blocked for a week will change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I wasn't aware of his previous RfC. Looks like he has already received plenty of warning. —SW— ^chat 13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I, too, have had to speak to Kiefer in the recent past about his civility issues, and he responded to me with extreme anger (though he did eventually redact what I had asked him to redact). It doesn't look to me like the RfC on him made much of an impression on him, and I think Salvio is probably right that it's time to start actually holding him responsible for his behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• KW never seems to miss an opportunity to needlessly insult or attempt to belittle someone - there is a little club of editors who conduct themselves in a similar fashion, all of whom are very unpleasant to deal with. Perhaps the most astonishing and concerning thing is that he and they genuinely believe that they are somehow superior to other editors, with little or nothing to support that view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• I should note that after I called him out on casting nonsense, disruptive !votes ([32], [33]) in a CfD ([34]), KW responded by Wikilawyering over WP:POINT, claiming that I was misusing WP:DISRUPT, and also falsely accusing me of altering his comments ([35]), which (a) I did not do and (b) the striking of the bolded part of a !vote when a user has cast multiple !votes in a discussion is a standard admin task, especially when said !votes are cast disruptively and in bad faith. I agree that a block for disruptive and uncivil editing that goes contrary to the collaborative goals of the project would not be out of the question here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I also have asked User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz to tone down his comments, both during a CfD discussion (which he blew off with what appears to be his typical rhetoric), and at his talk page, only to be told to "go away" (which he later redacted). Archived here. And after User:Good Olfactory dropped further concerns on my talk page, I suggested this AN post to get more eyes on this. This would seem to be consistent behaviour. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Devil in the details

The ANI choir sings in tune, with no caveats or concerns about the "alert" by Good Olfactory, who lists the following edit summary:

• "redact personal attack with hysterical vindictive invitation to nuke my contributions. What the fuck is wrong with this page?"

Anybody who bothered to investigate the surrounding diffs knows that Elen of the Roads commented on that thread, as she commented (most actively!) on my RfC. I submit that Elen is well aware of WP policy and the black stains on my soul. Nonetheless, she did not consider that comment as block-worthy as Good Olfactory, who has with considerable restraint, he assures us, not blocked me himself.

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block, and failure to discuss any of these diffs? Why didn't anybody object to Good Olfactory's listing of this diff? Isn't that prime facie evidence of misfeasance by you all?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would any of you explain your rush to judgment and to pass a civility block... This thread has been going some 20ish hours (forever by ANI standards) and you have not been handed any civility block. How on earth is this a rush to judgement? Your regular misinterpretation of comments (either deliberatley or for some other reason - AGF says the latter) is one of the thing that most irritates and this is a prime example. Kiefer - I'm afraid I have to agree you seemed to have learnt nothing from the RFC linked above; a shame as I assumed you had. Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pedro,

A "rush to judgment" is a cliche in US legal discussions, describing a failure to show due diligence in discussing a case. ANI is not a courtroom, of course, but some discussion is usually advised.

Please focus on the substance of my remarks. Where is there any discussion of any of the diffs cited? Where is there any caveat that in e.g. one diff, KW may have actually been helping protect the encyclopedia?

We all have off days. I have noted being irritated by my year's work on Peter Orno, which included my politely accepting comments about my lack of logic and misunderstanding of "author" and striving for consensus (resulting in a TLTR page), being left off the April Fools Day DYK, and so losing 10 thousand or more readers, commenting that "even Homer nods". Comparing Crisco1492 to Homer was not intended as a personal attack.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on "rush to judgement". Luckily I'm not an American so didn't parse it as a reference. Indeed I seem to recall us disagreeing in the past, partly because you couldn't quite grasp my Bitish humour? On a multi-cultural site these things are tough, and I'm a regular offender in that respect too, I suspect. No matter. I would note that opening this sub-heading with "The ANI choir sings in tune" is hardly likely to win people over however. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pedro!

We almost always disagree, and you usually show up criticizing me, but I still like you because you are a good person. I don't like persons behaving well because of conformity or a wish to become administrators, etc. I do appreciate you because you are sincere---"Before all Temples th' upright heart..."--- both when you are good, in which case you are very good, and even when you are bad .... ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If I "usually show up criticizing" then that's likely for a reason. I don't tend to go aound criticising for the good of my health :) Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly discussed the diffs in my initial post in this thread. I referred to specific comments in the diffs and how they violate policy: "Calling other editors stupid, moronic, and idiotic is unhelpful and clearly incompatible with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, as is telling an editor that 'Life is confusing when you have a brain.'" For further recent discussion and evidence of KW's typical WP:IDHT response, see Talk:Design of experiments#Competence. I'd fully support a block, but KW appears to be set in his ways such that I doubt it would change his behavior for very long. It would certainly be sad to lose a prolific contributor, but being prolific/experienced/intelligent does not afford you special treatment here. —SW— ^converse 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Scottywong (formerly Snottywong),

  You are continuing to repeat falsehoods, confusing my labeling statements as "idiotic" with my labeling editors as "idiotic". There is one editor that I frequently insult in comment summaries, but nobody has ever complained about those.... In my youth, I would have labeled such falsehoods with an f-word, but I have matured with the help of my friends....

  A reader complaining that they were confused by an infobox did not have the patience to read a few sentences of the lede of John Rainwater, which explained things. Of course, an article about a mathematical in-joke may make some readers puzzled, until they read the lede.... (Mathematical scientists spend most of your lives being puzzled and frequently cursing our stupidity, and I obviously have trouble understanding why puzzlement is regarded as a problem.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In this ANI thread, I count 11 editors who unanimously see a problem. In the Talk:Design of experiments#Competence thread, two editors are telling you that your comments are inappropriate. How many editors need to tell you the same thing before you will begin to even consider the possibility that maybe you're wrong? —SW— ^communicate 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that my opinion particularly matters, but this comment pretty much tips the balance for me. I'm with everyone above, some admin action seems to be needed here unfortunately. Kiefer apparently can't help himself, even here at ANI, so he probably needs to (metaphorically) go sit in a corner for a bit to consider his actions.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The degree to which you are cryptic when you try to label me as dishonest and/or inauthentic does not change the reality that you are attempting to insult me rather than discuss the real issue. This is the status quo for KW. —SW— ^talk 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see what's wrong with this here. Using a vandal template to list someone is in poor taste, and the edit summary is an appropriate response. I don't work on the same articles that Kiefer does, I do think they could tone it down, I detect verbosity and hyperbole--but I don't see a reason to start throwing punitive terminology around. Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going back to where I was. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  The first nemesis in my tragic attempts to bring Peter Orno to the main page... kindly forgave my first Ornoery period. I appreciate his letting my latest Milton quote pass without complaint....

  When it was applied to me, twice, the vandal template did not have Elen's helpful note that "nuke" only removes very recent contributions, not all of the contributions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe I should not have included that particular diff, as it seems to be a distraction for Kiefer from the main issue. Had I not included that one, there were several others I could have used in its place. The point is that there is a consistent problem with incivility and aggressiveness towards other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

• Update. I have just blocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) for a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, I support the block. - jc37 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• And so do I. Even the most brilliant content creation doesn't excuse the attitude he displays. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• No. I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Yes, I'll admit that KW is very confrontational at times. He's blunt, at times painfully so. I also think he is outright wrong on many occasions. If there were an ongoing dispute where he was being abusive to another editor in calling them names - then yes, I'd support a block as a preventative action. KW is (in my personal opinion) an arrogant person - and I can not stand arrogant people. I'll suffer fools gladly before I'll tolerate arrogance, but this block is just flat out wrong. "We don't like you because you don't conform to our standards" is what this block is saying - and that reeks of "punitive" which blocks are NOT supposed to be about. Sure, it would be very nice if we could all come together and build a kumbaya utopia - that would be great ... but that's not reality. KW, to be blunt - you can be a royal pain in the ass. But I'm sorry - that's simply not a blockable offense in my opinion. We are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia. Much of what I'm seeing lately is a whole bunch of political game playing. This is a global project, so there are going to be differences of opinion. What should be happening is everyone putting their cards on the table, offering their very best views backed by facts and documentation. What is happening is people falling into cliques of "you watch my back, and I'll watch yours". People don't agree? .. Fine - talk it out. Salvio, I have a huge amount of respect for you - but I think you're wrong here in blocking KW. Bush - I think the world of the work you do .. but sorry: content creation doesn't excuse the attitude ??? Wow - you really lost me on that one. "Content creation" is what this project is supposed to be about. A person's "attitude" has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. Since when are we a judge and jury of a person's attitude? There is WAY too much "block him, ban her" bs going on within this project - and if it continues it will be a case of us destroying ourselves from within. This entire idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit was founded upon ... well ... the idea that "anyone" can edit. You don't like what KW puts forth? .. Then prove him wrong with facts. Sorry, I just can't get behind this whole thing. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not "we don't like you and you don't conform to our standards", it's "we appreciate your contributions but you refuse to conform to our policies". WP:CIVIL is a policy, not an option - if somebody cannot contibute in a civil manner, and when they, in fact, consistently seem to go out of their way to flaunt the civility policy, then all the content in the world doesn't change the fact that they are being disruptive to the project - and stopping current/avoiding future disruption is what blocks are all about. (as for "not liking what he puts forth" - 'putting forth' two deliberatly ridiculous, bad-faith, and disruptive !votes at a CfD ([36] [37]) because it's going against his wishes - when he's already registered his opposition ([38]) - and then Wikilawyering when called on it ([39] [40])...it's clearly not what the project is about and is not what it should be forced to tolerate because "he makes good content, therefore he gets a pass".) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia Content creation is not the purpose--it's collaborative (quality) content creation. If one user is so belligerent and aggressive that other users don't want to add to the encyclopedia, then that's a bad thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. "Would it help you to know that I am naked and carrying a lamp?" --Rschen7754 05:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, as initiator of this thread. For a user to suggest that someone can continue to act like a complete dick towards other users over and over again without repercussions "as long as he's doing good work" is an attitude that I won't get behind. WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars, not just a suggestion. It's not a punitive block, it looks to me like a last resort attempt to try to help the user "get the message" that his behaviour is not acceptable. He'll get another chance—a week is not forever, nor is it indefinite. Here's hoping the week off will do some good. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandlisim and slander being repeated

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

---

Resolved

Slander about a third party is being posted on the American Digger page. It has been removed twice in three days by those who monitor it, but was reposted. Here is one view of the coments, calling a former employee a fraud and fake. It was not posted by anyone with any knowledge of such things nor connected with the magazine, but purely as a revenge tactic against the person slandered, Ric Savage. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Digger_(magazine)&diff=485402608&oldid=485279098 Even though we are 99% dertain who it is, we can not prove it. If it is the person we suspect, we have warned them before about slander and such abuse. Can this action be stopped and the poster either warned again or blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.124.165 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Ankitbhatt and User:Ashermadan

I have come across two editors in articles related to Indian films named Ankitbhatt and Ashermadan. The former has been here for three years. They have been repeatedly indulging in behavior consisting of a spurt of personal attacks, bad faith comments and threats to other editors. Ankitbhatt also seemed to harass a couple of editors in the process. To note, he had taken a wiki-break for around sixty days in the period of November and December, but even after that, there seemed to be no change in his attitude. Ashermadan has been repeatedly using caps-lock in edit-summaries and has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Caps indicate shouting. I would, hence, like to bring it to the notice of admins, their behavior over the past six-eight months through a report, which can be found below. Regards, Secret of success 10:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_1#Reliable_sources Ankitbhatt to Bollywood Dreamz "Until then, since my edits are so obviously receiving the boot very frequently in comparison to others, I will stop editing on this article. Perhaps that will give you the peace of mind you so obviously desire." "I suggest that you do either one of two things: either stop over-reacting whenever my edits come up, since you seem to be extremely touchy over that (God knows why), and get a life; or second, just completely stop interacting with me." "But since you are acting mostly like a little child, I shall not over-saddle you with things you obviously are too lazy to do." "I also can keep this discussion going on, and believe me, if it does so, it will certainly not be as pretty and polite as it is now." "You and I are just not meant to get along, so it's best to be separate and not interfere in each other's matters. However, I'm warning you, if I find that any of my edits, which have perfectly reliable sources attached, are deleted with lame excuses, the consequences will again not be pretty." "Perhaps if you had had the brains to use this method before, we could have avoided a lot of unnecessary ugliness." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_1#Word_of_Mouth "Perhaps our biased salman-lover gurucoolguy is up to his mischief again!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_1#Blocking the user "I strongly feel that GuruCoolguy is a vandal of an extreme nature, who is trying to use a legitimate Wikipedia account to falsify facts. he is clearly an srk-hater, and severely hell-bent on calling the film negatively reviewed." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Ra.One/Archive_2#Comments "In addition, our darling Mis Goody-Goody Oh-so-delicate Feminist has also "he he"d this issue. Isn't that so Little Miss Sunshine?" "Mrs. Seeta Maya, as I said, I'm going to ignore the viewpoints of a mentally reatrded and outdated person. Perhaps I could help you? I'll be freeing up some much-needed consensus space and be doing everyone a favour. Please do not feel bad and hurt that "this happened to a gril" ROTFL! Seriously, I completely support Meryam; she's a she, yet she doesn't wail like a helpless baby whenever she is given a counter-argument. Grow up girl." "Miss Seeta Mayya, I'm giving you pretty much an ultimatum. You are an incompetent nincompoop who doesn't deserve the attention of a street dog. Simply speaking, your claim that you are "a huge srk fan" is so outright laughable that I suggest you to shut your trap rather than embarrass yourself so much. Second, if you love 3 Idiots so much and hate Ra.One so much, I suggest that you get lost from my sight and sound. We are not here to predict the Box Office of any film; only you are so remarkably stupid to even attempt such a thing. Miss Oh-So-Crap, i also suggest that you learn proper Wikipedia rules" "Good day Miss Loser." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scieberking&diff=460429021&oldid=459792600 "I have no idea why he is acting so prickly and bruised and arrogant with me when I asked him to peer review Ra.One. I think the miserable failure of the Co-ordinator election of WP:Film, hit him really hard." - Addressing Lugnuts ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scieberking&diff=461296107&oldid=461285319 "Your comments show that you are an srk-hater." "SRK fans are less biased that Aamir or Lallu fans, but obviously you will attempt at proving otherwise." "Equating Don 2 with Ready is enough to show exactly who your allegiance lies with. Please do not give the excuse of generally disliking Bollywood to cover up your obvious dislike for SRK." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scieberking&diff=462575230&oldid=462573718#Coloring "Scieberg, this has to be the lamest excuse. And Fae is clearly using it to his advantage. I seriously doubt his neutrality, and suggest that you talk it over with him." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User_talk:Meryam90/Archive_1#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "Its seriously hilarious, and you should check out Scieberking's die-hard attempts to pull down Ra.One and push up Bodyguard." "And what is even more disgusting is that he is getting some support, especially about his rant that BOI is not reliable. And X.One is going a step further, by mailing stuff rather than talk face to face. Cowards; when they can't use logic or consistency, they resort to below-the-belt methods and cheap arm-twists to get their way. And then they irritatingly preach about "divas"." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=476798086&oldid=476791553 "I think this problem with HereToSaveWiki is going out of bounds. He has the strong and undivided backing from a select group of editors (one of them being an administrator) who always patrol articles in an attempt to downgrade figures etc. This sort of backing has buoyed him on and he's getting that feeling of being unstoppable, so he'll do whatever he wishes knowing that there will always be that group to back him up in whatever he does, right or wrong." "And also expect Scieberking to go all-out madly against Ra.One for anything and everything, and don't expect him not to turn away the PR off to some totally unrelated topic as well (much as he tried to do in that Bodyguard discussion). Believe me, he'll do everything possible to ensure Ra.One doesn't become an FA, and he'll get a whole load of support from his close gang of friends and trolls whom he nurtured; he's basically making it a game of numbers, and his friends are extending their wings through mails too." "Now we have a very serious problem, as Scieberking has clearly called back his favorite troll Seeta mayya back into business; and I can't believe that she's back to her former antics without even a shred of change." "And LOL, she wants a higher figure for Bodyguard put up no matter what the cost; and then she says that she is a "fairly neutral and unbiased editor" HA HA HA HA LMAO ROTFL! Talk about SRK hatred. That too stupidly covered-up SRK hatred, exactly like what Scieberking shows." "HereToSaveWiki and Seeta mayya are joing hands to expand their trolling activities all over Wikipedia. Meryam, be prepared for some seriously irritating problems in whichever SRK article you go." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=475960382&oldid=475958493 "Btw, what happened to that hilariously trashy "consensus" going on over Bodyguard, that finally got hijacked by the gang of editors idolizing Salman" "Seriously, that discussion is so lame and one-sides, and just because a certain administrator is part of their gang, the gang members are becoming confident and attempting to over-rule all dissenting voices." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=475938785&oldid=475938570 "Scieberking is getting himself worked up. Its a common thing among the haters; point out their hatred and they get all huffy. Prove their hatred, they blast up on others." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=474997364&oldid=474996582 "X.One is simply marvellous; seriously, I've never seen an editor this attached to hatred." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Don 2/GA1 "No consensus was obtained simply because consensus-making was purposely disrupted, diverted and man-handled by Scieberking and his gang of trolls, and that's not even a secret (notice that HereToSaveWiki and Seeta Mayya are nowhere here)." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film) "I'm sorry Scieberking, you are weaving your own trap bit by bit, and your comments are becoming increasingly funny to read. Your stand has been greatly diluted, and your views no longer carry the sort of weight they used to carry before, mainly due to this back-tracking and double-facedness." "Scieberking has been very silly in Ra.One and he is becoming quite silly here as well. A shame, really. Neutrals have already run down Scieberking's arguments (Karthik), and still he stands defiantly. Clap-worthy." "I don't know what sort of nonsense Scieberking is feeding you" "Support Scieberking if you wish, but don't try to pull the wool over my eyes." "As if voting against your opinion is bad. If an editor feels that the range should not be present, see it and keep quiet. Don't go about asking as to why the editor is doing as such." "The editor is required to give the reason of consensus only once; you are to read it and shut your trap. You are not authorized to go about asking as to "why have you posted as this, is it because you are voting?" etc. as it means you are discrediting the consensus. Frankly, I can't care less what you and your gang of buddies say, as you guys are capable only of posting flowery lies and laughable excuses to cover up a horde of shams you carry out in multiple articles. Let this be the last bit of nonsense I hear from you or your gang members. Clear?" "As usual, attempts to curb the discussion into a single editor's favor. Such gross man-handling and arm-twisting is rarely seen in Wikipedia. There is no problem in using BOI figures, but you are free to teach SM as otherwise. I won't be surprised to see SM supporting this editor sometime in the near future. Wonderful tactics." "Clearly, X.One has a great fondness for posting all sorts of Wikipedia policies, perhaps as a way to show his extensive knowledge." "Sciebrking, get off the high horse. Your answers are not the final truth, and they will be discussed. And your answers have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. Truly, this is getting very silly, but assuredly sense will prevail over illogical insistence." "Ah, the mega-troll is back. I was wondering how this "highly notable" editor, who gets such huge backing from some editors, had failed to appear in this "consensus". And wonderfully, this troll has plainly over-looked so many details that I'm dying to give this troll a proper and fitting answer." "Sorry troll, you got your first rant wrong. Better luck next time." "Best of luck in that endeavour. Two "die-hard fanboys" it is then, and I am loving this title to bits. I can't wait to use the title of "anti-SRK ranter" for you. Please don't cry, or run to your backers for support, or do some more foolish thing." "I suggest this troll to read carefully and thoroughly before performing more trolling and pushing an already-bursting "consensus" to the limit of readability. Adios, and I will be waiting for some more rants." "what more can this editor do other than make expressions eh? Cover-ups and shams are rapidly falling off; hard times lay ahead for the gang." "Troll, I'd suggest you read through the discussion before ranting here; there are numerous film forums where you can rant and rave to your heart's content, but this is certainly not it." "...if there is any sort of neutrality here then X.One will also agree, but frankly I can hardly care as to the whims of some street-side know-all." "Excellent, you find it insulting; you have no idea how I feel talking to something like you. You can keep your mouth shut and not talk to me." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Sharukh_slaps_Sirish_Kunder "This is pure fanboyism and a deliberate attempt by you to deface a Wikipedia article with irrelevant (and questionable) facts." "Btw, LOL at the "can't take not winning Filmfare" bullshit; this is not a forum for you to spew ranting hatred against a star." "In fact, your name and your level of shit talk is strongly telling myself that you are the infamous Seeta Mayya. Remember the takkar we had? I haven't forgotten it yet; believe me, this time I will throw you out of Wikipedia for good." "X.One is blowing the entire thing out of proportion; he has also forgotten exactly how quickly the controversy died down when both SRK-Shirish patched up." "HereToSaveWiki's desperate attempt to bring this controversy into the article should not be encouraged, no matter how many supporters line up behind him." "...is so laughably fanboyistic that I'm finidng it hard to type with all this laughter. Yet, the said editor is getting a load of support for this ridiculous inclusion into the article from X.One." "X.One, become neutral before commenting. I do not like Salman Khan, and I do not go around his page insisting for silly inclusions that warrant no need." "What was most hilarious was the blatant lying going on." "I was laughing like nothing before. Great comedy circus going on here, especially by those who say that they are neutral and we are fanboys. No wonder trolls like HereToSaveWiki and Seeta mayya are encouraged and nurtured. " ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User talk:HereToSaveWiki "Be prepared for the trial. You will be expected to answer tough questions, and can face an indefinite IP ban if you are found guilty." "HereToSaveWiki, you have been officially summoned to a currently on-going discussion taking place at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You are expected to appear in front of the examining administrators and respond to any questions put forth. Any attempt at misbehavior, trolling and non-consensus related content will be viewed extremely seriously and may endanger an on-the-spot ban." "You will be expected to respond on the discussion within a day; failure to do so can be viewed in a negative light and you may lose your editing rights. You are expected to defend yourself fully, and no mid-discussion walkouts or tantrums are allowed. Any attempt at such a thing will be dealt with in a very strict manner." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meryam90&diff=484395422&oldid=484394745 "..evidently shows that you are just arguing for your personal dislike.."

Ashermadan

Talk:Shahrukh_Khan#Sharukh_slaps_Sirish_Kunder "X.One SOS: Congrats for being the biggest Salman Khan fanboy on Wikipedia and being the biggest hypocrite on the internet. If you include the slap incident where SRK slapped some guy, then why won't you include Salman Khan murdering a man in 2002, him hitting countless women, and killing endangered species for fun? Good job! Keep it up!" "Now that Shirish Kunder has been revealed as the guy who was drunk, messing with women, sending vulgar tests to Sanjay's wife, Mr. Fanboy aka X.One will go cry to his lord and master Salman Khan and leave this topic. How much do you guys want to bet? I would heed the following advice to people like him: Stop being a Salman fanboy and stop trolling SRK's every move. The media has revealed how truly vulgar Shirish Kunder is and no matter how many Salman fanboys like you try to put nonsense like a slap on Wikipedia, the fact is that Wikipedia is not a place for such news. You may love to spread useless news about some nobody getting slapped but do so in the comfort of you own homes, stop putting rubbish on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA Mr. X.One SOS. An encyclopedia has no use for a slap. If he had run over someone or if there was a case lodged against him then that would be news. So, Mr. X.One SOS, stop being a Salman fanboy and grow the heck up." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ User_talk:Meryam90/Archive_1#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "Scieberking is vandalizing the Bodyguard 2011 page. He is changing it to 253 crores when we still use BOI for HINDI ONLY films. Help me stop him. He has gone crazy with the mad-for-Salman disease." "Scieberking has gone crazy and is trying to pull down Ra.One! The Lallu fan inside him awoke finally." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeLynch&diff=prev&oldid=475997997 "Funny coming from the biggest abuser on Wikipedia. Ha ha." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475975360 "Here's looking at your Salman Khan fans." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=475974519 "The reference says 210 crores, which cheap Salman Khan fan change it? STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE IDIOTS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ashermadan&diff=prev&oldid=476584567 "I'm not going to assume good faith, X.One SOS. Wikipedia isn't paying you so stop being so personal." "You better stop trolling me, X.One SOS. Or you'll indeed need to say SOS. Ha ha. Stop ruining Wikipedia and stop pretending like you're getting money from it. Stop being a troll." "I don't want to have any dealings with you at all. Go cry home to Lallu." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Talk:Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)#Bodyguard_Worldwide_Gross "I thought Scieberking was actually confused as first but his double standards are clearly showing through." "I will oppose using that source no matter what. Zubeida, Anikit, Meryam will too. The last thing I will say before I sleep is that you need to stop being a Salman fanboy and think of wikipedia first." "Scieberking must be useless" "He is Salman Khan fan who is upset that RaOne broke Bodyguard record. He is not a trade analyst so he does not know what he is talking about. He is two faced and a manipulator." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475346178 "ADDED WARNING, I AM DONE WITH REVERTING VANDALISM. I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=475345653 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 16.5 CRORE (BOI) YOU IDIOT, STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE. AGNEEPATH IS NOT DOING SO WELL OVERSEAS! STOP IT." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467357781 "WE DO NOT ADD THE FINAL VERDIT UNTIL ALL REVIEWS ARE IN! STOP CHANGING IT BLOODY VANDALS! WE DISCUSSED THIS ALREADY! YOU PEOPLE STUPID?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desi_Boyz&diff=prev&oldid=462473828 "VANDALS, STOP LYING ABOUT REVIEWS! DON'T CHANGE THE RATINGS AND DON'T LIE! I'M SICK OF FIXING THEM." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=474039432 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 14 TIMES IVE HAD TO FIX THEM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473997657 "STOP VANDALIZING THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES! THIS IS THE 12 TIMES IVE HAD TO REVERT VANDALISM!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agneepath_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=473826752 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS THE RELIABLE SOURCE, KOIMOI CANNOT BE USED. EVERY OTHER ARTICLE USES BOX OFFICE INDIA FIGURES. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472576708 "WE DISCUSSED IT AND 240 WAS THE AMOUNT AGREED UPON UNTIL BOI PROVIDES DATA FOR WORLDWIDE GROSS ALL VERSIONS" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=472190453 "STOP CHANGING THE POSTER! JUST LEAVE IT AS THE DEFAULT ONE WHICH WE HAVE PERMISSION TO USE!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=469663137 "WORLDWIDE GROSS IS NOT OUT YET! JUST WAIT A FEW WEEKS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468631127 "THERE IS NO SEQUEL ANNOUNCED. STOP ADDING STUFF WITHOUT REFERENCES." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468629822 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES IT GOES [[ ]] GOES TO WRONG PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468557397 "PLEASE PROTECT THIS PAGE, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE MESSING IT UP, SOMEONE PLEASE HELP" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468556825 "NO SEQUEL HAS BEEN CONFIMRED" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468319316 "ALY KHAN AND NAWAB SHAH DONT HAVE WIKIPEDIA PAGES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468029725 "THE SCREEN COUNT IS 3105 ACCORDING TO LIKE 10 DIFFERENT SOURCES. WHY DOES THIS ARTICLE SAY 2800 WHEN THAT'S WRONG?" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=468007871 "THERE IS NO ARTICLE FOR ALY KHAN BOLLYWOOD ACTOR, THE LINK LEAD US TO THE KING OF OMAN OR SOMETHING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467940068 "FART SCENE? REALLY? DELETE THIS NONSENSE. SUCH ABUSE AND IDIOCY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467720077 "BASIC MATH, ADDED ALL THE NUMBERS UP!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467600378 "WORLDWIDE GROSS FROM ALL VERSIONS TO UPDATE THE INFO BOX. UNTIL THEN USE THE BOX OFFICE SECTION OF THE ARTCILE." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467570916 "DABANGG ALSO RELEASED ON FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 10 2010 so it beat DABANGG. PLEASE LEAVE iT IN SALMAN KHAN FANS! STOP MESSING AROUND WITH THIS PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467578411 "75+% POSITIVE, 85% MIXED TO POSITIVE, ONLY 4 REVIEWS ARE COMPLETELY NEGATIVE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467517057 "WE ONLY USE BOX OFFICE INDIA, WE USE OTHER SOURCES ONLY IF BOI DOESNT GIVE US THE NECESSARY DATA AS IN RAONE's and TDP's case." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467498682 "FIRST DAY DOMESTIC NETT! WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BECAUSE USUALLY WE HAVE GROSS WORLDWIDE (GROSS IS BEFORE TAX AND OTHER FEES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454399 "THESE ARE ALL EARLY ESTIMATES AND USE WORDS LIKE 'AROUND" and "EARLY ESTIMATES" PLEASE WAIT FOR CONFIRMED NUMBERS!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454191 "BOX OFFICE INDIA ONLY! UNLESS DISCUSSED! WAIT A FEW DAYS UNTIL FINAL FIGURES ARE IN!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467454014 "ONLY WORLDWIDE GROSS FIGURES GO THERE. THEY ARE NOT IN YET SO DONT PUT NETT FIGURES IN THE INFO BOX. THERES A SECTION FOR BOX OFFICE NETT FIGURES DOWN BELOW!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467452493 "BOX OFFICE INDIA IS USED, DONT QUOTE SOME RANDOMASS SOURCE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467378199 "JUST WAIT TO ADD THE OVERALL VERDICT ABOUT MIXED REVIEWS ETC WHEN ALL THE REVIEWS ARE IN. SO MANY REVIEWS ARE PENDING! PLEASE. DON'T JUMP THE GUN LIKE RA.ONE. WE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE WHEN WE JUMPED THE GUN WITH RA.ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_2&diff=prev&oldid=467353164 "TOOK OUT THE LAST PART OF MY PLOT BECAUSE IT RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE IF YOU HAVENT SEEN IT. WE"LL ADD IT IN LATER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=466853929 "CRITICIZED FOR "OVERRATING"? WHY WOULD YOU ADD SOMETHING. AND THE SOURCE JUST GIVES TARAN'S RATING!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Love_Story_2050&diff=prev&oldid=466394712 "THE GUY WANTED TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME BUT ACCIDENTALLY TRAVELLED TO 2050! JESUS. GET YOUR PLOT RIGHT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sohompramanick&oldid=465157247 "DONT VANDALIZE THE RA.ONE PAGE. THE SOURCE SAYS THE COST IS 135 CRORES. YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED FOR THIS ACTION." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=465156256 "THE SOURCE SAYS 135 CRORES SO STOP CHANGING THE NUMBER!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Shahrukh_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=463828795 "SHOULD BE A , AFTER BEN KINGSLEY AND BEFORE ETC" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodyguard_(2011_Hindi_film)&diff=prev&oldid=463250533 "THE REFERENCE SAYS 227 CRORES, NOT 252 CRORES. STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE!" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=463101304 "EROS INTERNATIONAL CFO KAMAL JAIN SAID IT IS AT 230 CRORES IN AN INTERVIEW" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=458390617 "SHAHRUKH SAID BUDGET OF RA.ONE IS 130 CRORES ON TALKING CINEMA WITH TARAN ADARSH, HE SAYS MEDIA IS SPECULATING AND IS WRONG" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712886 "ROTTEN TOMATOES REVIEW ADDED, NO ONE SHOULD REMOVE THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE FIRST UNBIASED ONE" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457712729 "ADDED FIRST NONBIASED RATING FROM ROTTEN TOMATOES" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457626400 "TARAN ARARSH UPDATED IT, BOX OFFICE INDIA IS WRONG)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Varunn_pandya&diff=prev&oldid=457467684 "STOP VANDALIZING OUR RA.ONE ARTICLE. IT RECEIVED MOSTLY POSITIVE REVIEWS AS STATED. DO NOT CHANGE THE INTRODUCTION AGAIN." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457454121 "STOP MENTIONING OTHER FILMS IN RA ONE ARTICLE. MENTION 7 AM ARRIVU IN ITS ARTICLE. ILL REPORT YOU IF YOU DONT STOP." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457453705 "FILMFARE REVIEW IS OUT. REDIFF ALREADY MENTIONED DOWN BELOW. TOP PART FOR TOP CRITICS." ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457412307 "THESE PEOPLE ARENT PROPER MOVIE CRITICS! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? PEOPLE LIKE OMAR QURESHI, KHALID MOHAMMED, etc. are" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ra.One&diff=prev&oldid=457410976 "DO NOT ADD WEBBLOGS, ONLY GO WITH PROPER CRITICS! CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, as its something of a rule that an editor should respond to a call at ANI, I am writing here. That's about it. I have made no statement, and I am not going to make one. I am not going to defend myself. I can partially predict the outcome of this, but I am not saying anything and I'm not going to do anything. I leave it to ANI to do whatever it think correct. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• We've been here before discussing various matters of Ankitbhatt's behavior. Civility is not optional, Ankit, and if you're not sure if something would be uncivil or not, then assume it would be and don't say it. You need to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about what you're saying before you say it. If you're unable to do that, you may end up blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at the above report, I believe one can immediately get an impression that it is not a question of "may end up blocked" anymore. It has gone on for a considerably long time, and all possible solutions of preventing it were implemented, just for nothing. Secret of success 16:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I would (personally) be willing to hold off on a block if we got some indication from Akitbhatt that he understands why his behavior is an issue and that he intends to change it, but I agree with you that given his refusal a few lines up to engage with this thread, the likelihood of that happening is small. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ankitbhatt has been here long enough to know what might get him blocked; he should have taken a hint when he came to ANI the first, second or third time for civility issues. I don't support him getting blocked outright; I ask for completely civil behavior from him, closely monitored by a trusted user. Lynch7 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I have not stated I will refuse to listen to the comments on this thread; I only said I won't defend myself and I won't comment. I leave it to ANI to decide, and I can predict what happens afterwards but I am not going to say anything. I have tried my best to show both sides of the discussions but I am just tired of people not listening, not understanding. I would just like to be left alone. If a complete interaction ban is what you deem fit, I have no problem and anyways I don't have the energy or willingness to protest. I'm just sick of this. I only wish to edit in Wikipedia, and I feel my contributions are good even though most editors don't think so. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• But that's what we're telling you, Ankit - you need to comment here. If you don't say anything, we have no way of knowing if you understand what's going on or if you intend to change anything. This issue is not something that can be handled by an interaction ban, because the issue isn't that you can't get along with one person, it's that you can't get along with almost anyone. This is a collaborative project, where people have to work with others, and you can't be "left alone" in the sense you seem to want, where you never have to speak to anyone or explain anything you do.

  So, here's what needs to happen: You need to express to us some understanding of WP:CIVIL and that you understand that the way you've been acting isn't following that policy. You then need to commit to adhering to WP:CIVIL in the future, from this moment on, everywhere on Wikipedia. Even to people you don't like. Even to people you think are stupid or doing things all wrong. Your behavior has been disruptive enough, for long enough, that if you can't or won't rein in your incivility starting today, you're going to be blocked until you are able to assert the necessary level of control over yourself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been able to get along with a considerable number of editors, many of whom are good friends. There were instances of temper loss for a few editors which has more than patched up (Bollywood Dreamz, Meryam90). I share an excellent working rapport with some editors, and I am in pretty good terms with most people I meet. The above comments are select and directed only towards a few users. Your claim is unfounded and is your personal opinion; I am giving a nice and completely non-angry suggestion, because many have ecstatically "proved" my "uncivil and egotist" behavior through this harmless suggestion: go through more details and see the other things. I would not like to point out how many of the things in the above "report" have been placed in a negative light, but if you are going to look at the superficial alone (such as the report above) and not look deeper, it is unfortunate. That's all. You can force me to accept that I don't get along with anyone; you have caught me at the right time because I don't want to protest so it is easier to force things out. But it will turn me off from really enjoying my editing, and that's my loss. I am well-aware that most of my contributions have been looked upon with continuous disdain, though I still struggle to understand why, but I want to enjoy my editing just like any other contributor to the project. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No one's judging your contributions; I, for one, appreciate and like your contributions. Its your interactions with other editors that's being raised as a concern. Are you, in any way, disowning all the comments (which have been called incivil) that have been shown above? You may have hundreds of other civil comments, but that does not take away the uncivil ones you have made. Negative light? Of course its in a negative light, we're here to tell you why those are bad. Lynch7 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would also look at things a bit broader. I was responding to Fluffernutter's comment that I don't get along with "almost anyone", which is untrue. As I said, you can force me to accept that I don't get along with anybody ever. I have not disowned any comment, and I have never said that; point out where I said such a thing. Look, I do not deny that the comments were uncivil; all I ask is that you look at the arguments in a broader context and not fling observations basing only on the comments posted here, as they only show select negative comments without full context or without explanations. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, it was my question, I wasn't accusing you of disowning any comment. I don't think you get the point; whatever may be the context, it is not a justification for continued uncivil behavior. You need to understand that being uncivil hurts the collaborative nature of the project. Lynch7 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

View by MikeLynch

Ankitbhatt is a useful editor; on its own, his content contributions are very good. Having said that, his interactions with people who disagree with is a matter of serious concern. User:Secret of success compiles a collection of his uncivil comments, and that, really, tells the story here. Ankitbhatt has the habit of immediately classifying dissenting voices into what he calls a group of "SRK haters" or "Salman lovers", and behaves as though there's an anti-SRK cabal that's set out to destroy anything that is remotely positive about SRK and his films. The nature and tone of many of his comments are nothing but confrontative, and often destructive to the congenial atmosphere that should ideally be maintained onwiki. As a result, many discussions which could have found an easy compromise end up being long and winding (Talk:Bodyguard (2011 film)); it does nothing to help the project, really, and ends up souring the mood of other editors as well.

This, apart from his partially nonsensical talk page notice (User talk:Ankitbhatt) in which he "prohibits" users from digging up and reproducing talk page archives. Some users may remember his ANI report and the subsequent "Official notice" doled out to a user User_talk:HereToSaveWiki#Official_Notice. I can dismiss these as amateurish (though he's far from being a newbie here), but the civility issues are serious.

I do not advocate any kind of sanction being placed on Ankitbhatt; I only ask him to maintain civility, and if deemed necessary, I would like a mentor being asked to monitor his interactions closely.

Note: I was previously involved in a talk page dispute on Talk:Bodyguard (2011 film) with him, and the last time I remember him mentioning me was in this kind comment.

For the Bollywood illiterate, "SRK" stands for Shah Rukh Khan and "Salman" stands for Salman Khan, both of whom are actors. Lynch7 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not all that familiar with Ashermadan's contributions, except that he was found using a sockpuppet in the discussion I mentioned above. Lynch7 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

One clarification which the above user has wholly wrongly represented; I do not nonsensically prevent people from digging up the archives. Read the notice in my talk page carefully; I said (and I quote, they are visible in the talk page itself) :-

"Under no circumstances whatsoever are the contents of the archives to be tampered with. The archived contents can only be copy-pasted here; nobody is allowed to directly reproduce any portion of the archive in this, or any other page. You are allowed only to quote it. This is a strict rule, and must not be violated under any circumstances."

Perhaps I was unclear, so let me explain: by tampering, I refer to users continuing old and archived conversations in the archive itself. This means that if I had a certain conversation with X, and I later archived the conversation, I don't want X to continue the conversation in the archive page. He is supposed to copy the previous conversation into my talk page (if he wishes to do so) and then continue the conversation in my talk page. I forbid continuing in the archives because my archives do not provide me a notice for new messages, and I have once missed out an important notification which was placed in my archives, resulting in me being called "unresponsive". I wish to prevent such things, though it has happened once or twice later (to not so drastic consequences). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be an English-as-a-second-language problem that led to some accidentally-borked text. Ankitbhatt, your warning actually says that users may copy-paste from your archives but that they may not copy-paste ("reproduce") anything from your archives anywhere. The two parts of that contradict each other and make the whole thing make little sense. You could probably get your point across more effectively with a wording like "If you wish to discuss something that's in one of my archives, please copy the archived material here to re-start the discussion; do not edit the archive page itself." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, maybe an ESL problem. But there is the bigger issue here. Lynch7 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall make necessary changes. To point out, English is my first language; I must have made a typing error and repeated a sentence by mistake, adding a "not" in between. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, by "reproduce" I refer to cutting-and-pasting, not copy-and-pasting. I shall elaborate accordingly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of them pointed above, the talk page notice was a minor issue, and the incivility exhibited by the editor has crossed an alarming point. Secret of success 16:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I only need to look at a handful of interactions to see that their attitude towards people they disagree with is horrific. This is a collegial environment, even if you disagree. That type of interaction should have led to a long term block long ago. I truly think we need to see a) an understand that that behaviour is unacceptable, b) some guarantees that it will not happen again; period. Otherwise, it's time to protect this project from such abuse (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to point out is that when I asked him to not accuse others and quoted the good faith guideline, he has called that "preaching attitude" (1). Secret of success 05:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

His harassment towards editors also went beyond control. User:Scieberking, who has been the main victim of the comments described in the above report, quit Wikipedia less than a week after a discussion at Talk:Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film), in which Ankit's attitude went to its peak (perhaps). Ankitbhatt's reaction to that was "I care little for him and am very happy he is no longer causing me endless trouble." Secret of success 05:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Email badgering by DeFacto

Since the last series of block appeals, DeFacto (talk · contribs) has continued to badger me via email, despite my request for her/him to stop. I believe that s/he should have email revoked but since I am the recipient, I'd rather someone else set the bit. His/her talk page privileges have already been revoked. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we're defacto done with this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He is? He was also in email conversation with me regarding potentially restoring talk page access so he could appeal again. (He also wanted me to unilaterally unblock him, but I flatly told him no.) How many people is he appealing to? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You, me, and Toddst1 make at least three. TNXMan 14:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for a community ban discussion? This user doesn't seem to get it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

From WP:BAN, "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." I believe this already applies here. Calabe1992 18:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference being any admin in the future could decide to unblock him under the current circumstances. A community ban would pretty much cement that he cannot be unilaterally unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto ban discussion

Propose community siteban of DeFacto for ongoing abuse of e-mail, shopping multiple admins for unblocks, etc.

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Since we're going this far, I also support. Calabe1992 21:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked + socking to evade should = ban automatically anyway. This is just icing on the cake. → ROUX ₪ 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as Hand points out, the difference between a de facto ban and a community ban is that a community ban requires the community's consensus to overturn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite ban, with NO opportunity to appeal for a minimum of 6 months. Any attempts to request unblock/unban through any channel automatically resets the clock for a fresh 6 months. On October 5, 2012 they may contact the ban appeals subcommittee as per their policies - any other requests or methods reset the ban to a new 6 months (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support He's gone off the deep end and needs a while before we're ready to re-consider editorship. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. There is no doubt that DeFacto bought this upon himself with his by hook or by crook attempts to keep the strawberry story in Metrication in the United Kingdom by filibustering other participants who didn't have as much time on their hands as he did and there's no doubt that he needs a long break. However, the other participants in the threads (1 and 2) that lead to his block didn't have clean hands either. Particularly troubling comments were But it is a vote - that's how you reach a consensus in a democracy! So far 3:1 in favour of binning the irrelevant Asda paragraph. Probably 5:1 by tomorrow if HiLo48 and Martinvl do what I suspect they'll do [41] (canvassing perhaps?) and Some like deFacto himself have been toiling away in their Mums' basements making all the "Down with Metric Measures" and "British Imperial Measures for the British Worker" placards ready for the Great Defence of ASDA [42] The whole thread eventually looked more like "let's gang up on defacto" then it did a discussion. However, one might attribute some of this to their frustration with DeFacto's fillibustering. Still battlegrounding is battlegrounding and both sides are guilty of it. As an alternative proposal, I would like to suggest a block of fixed duration, let's say 3 to 6 months followed by an indefinite topic ban on anything related to British metrication. From looking at his contribs, he does have other interests so it might be wise that he stays away from anything he's very passionate about. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I was never canvassed.

2. I avoided battlegrounding by leaving the page, often for weeks at a time. (I DO have a life.) But do recognise that such action was only necessary because DeFacto was always there as self appointed article owner. Nobody should feel forced, as I truly did, into giving up on the quality of an article because one editor was a pain in the ass. And he really was. His actions were the root cause of all the other unacceptable behaviour. Don't make excuses for him.

3. DeFacto's most recent public request to have his block removed on his Talk page is an outrageous, insulting diatribe containing blatant personal attacks on other editors. He has completely lost perspective here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Does not have the social skills necessary to engage effectively and constructively disagree. See WP:COMPETENCE Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposing indef ban of the Stephanie Adams sockpuppet...

I am proposing a community ban of Hershebar (talk · contribs), or, for that matter, whoever the person is that keeps reappearing, claiming that Stephanie Adams is notable enough for her own article, adding non-notable information about her, and abusively using sockpuppets. This IP's contributions are a pretty good sample of the articles that are being hit.

See this for at least some of the socks. The latest one was NEMESISGOTCHA (talk · contribs), who only left what was evidently an abusive message at User:Fasttimes68's talk page (edit has been hidden). Because of the returning flow of puppets and apparently lack of intent to discontinue disruption, I am proposing an indefinite community ban. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Calabe1992 23:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Time to go. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Whip out the weapons, wax the motherfucker and deposit him directly into /dev/null! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

More puppets

LIJUAL (talk · contribs) is the latest. SPI has been opened. Calabe1992 14:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Juan José Nieto Gil

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

---

This article needs someone's attention. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal accounts blocked. As you know, however there's an appropriate place to report vandals. This ain't it. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If I have to pick between AIV, RPP, or SPI, I'll take ANI. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV

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

---

This also needs attention from one of you fat cats. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are only 3 active reports at the moment - not much of a backlog, really. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So--I reported a redundant issue to a redundant board? But man, they're like totally destroying everything we worked so hard for! 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

John @ George Galloway

I'm new to wikipedia, sorry if I do something wrong

User "John" has constantly engaged in edit wars with other users, and seems to completely flaunt the 3RR rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&action=history

Completely reluctant to discuss anything, just bashes the "undo" button, even though the additions I have been making are perfectly sourced in a newspaper article.

Please help. I have tried very hard to maintain WP:AGF but I feel like this article is under attack from an evidently elite group with anti-Islamic/Islamophobic agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowlocust (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:John is an admin, and WP:3RR is allowed to be ignored in cases of vandalism...and also for WP:BLP policy violations, which appears to be the concern here. Look out for those WP:BOOMERANGs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That he is an admin is irrelevant (or at least, I should hope so), also he wasn't reverting vandalism or WL:BLP policy violations. Snowlocust (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

doesn't appear to be 3RR as his reverts are in different areas or the article. Have you discussed this in the talk page as he suggested?Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And, Snowlocust, please be aware that, under WP:BLP, we do not indicate that a person follows a given religion – or even imply it – unless said person has publicly self-identified as a member of said religion. In this case, George Galloway has not self-identified as a muslim and, therefore, to imply that he is may be construed as a violation of WP:BLP. Please, do not restore the contentious information and discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Using cherry-picked and questionable sources to make assertions about Galloway's religious beliefs - particularly those flatly contradicted by one of the sources cited ([43] He carries a copy of the Koran around, which has caused speculation he's a Muslim. He says: "That's between me and my God."' But asked by The Observer, Galloway denied any intention to convert) is a BLP violation. We have repeatedly asked Snowlocust to discuss contentious edits, but instead, all we seem to get is accusations of Islamophobia (for which he presents no evidence whatsoever). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)As Salvio says, claiming he belongs to a religion when he has explicitly states he does not is a WP:BLP violation. Please don't re-add it, as if you do, that'll be edit warring and you'd be blocked. Please discuss it on the article talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The deletions he made at 21:41, 21:18, 17:24 and 12:21 all concern the same part of the article. Sad that because he is an admin he thinks he is exempt from any edit-war rules and rules the article with an iron fist, reluctant to talk things over, just simply bashes the undo button. His most recent revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&diff=prev&oldid=485604049 was deletion - WITHOUT discussion - of statements that are taken DIRECTLY from the guardian (reputable UK newspaper). Snowlocust (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify for those confused (e.g. Bushranger, no idea why you are talking about that!) that nobody is proposing to say he is a member of any religion. Thanks :) Snowlocust (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the material you cite was originally from the Observer (both papers are part of the same group, and share the website) - and I have already quoted the relevant section above, which states that (at least in 2004 when it was written) "[Galloway] carries a copy of the Koran around", but also states that "Galloway denied any intention to convert". Why are you using it as a source for the former, but not for the latter? As for 'nobody is proposing to say he is a member of any religion' you spent much of your time on the article talk page doing that - and still seem intent on suggesting that Galloway is a Moslem by implication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Because when one sources Statement X from Article Y, one does not need to automatically include every single other statement also made in Article Y. In answer to your seciont question, I have heard about deeply-entrenched anti-Islamic/Islamophobic agendas in Wikipedia, and now believing to be witness to one, I intend to fight tooth and nail for a neutral POV (one only has to look at the WP debate on the images of Mohammed to see that Wikipedians - newbies and admins alike - will take any chance they can get to degrade Islam, regardless of any Wikipedia stances contrary to it. Snowlocust (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you intend to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? If everybody else holds one position, and you hold another, it's entirely possible that they might all be right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I intend to fight Islamophobia and anti-Islamic agendas to the best of my ability, hence I am requesting admin intervention on this issue. If even the admins fail to tackle anti-Islamic agendas on WP then I will attempt to take it to some higher level than the admins. If even the higher level fail to tackle anti-Islamic agendas then there will be little we proponents of equality and neutrality can do. Also, that's twice you have made completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated comments.Snowlocust (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, I happen to be in the apparent minority amongst Wikipedians regarding the debate over the placement of images of Mohammed in articles - and have made it quite clear that I consider them generally inappropriate. Still, can't let the evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, can we? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't, doesn't disprove the general trend. Still, good on you, I suppose. But this is getting off track.. Snowlocust (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It disproves the proposition that those who are opposing your attempts to spin the Galloway article your way are necessarily driven by Islamophobia (and BTW, there is a quote from the Qur'an on my user page: I suggest you read it, and consider whether your attempts to "rend the earth asunder" are appropriate) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Stating that "I intend to fight tooth and nail for a neutral POV", when the WP:CONSENSUS is that the current state of the article is already at a neutral POV and your proposed neutral POV is not neutral at all and, in fact, violates the BLP policy, is indeed a declaration that you will engage in disruption as determined by the community consensus, and calling you on it is hardly "completely irrelevant and unsubstantiated". You believe that this should be included in the article. The rest of Wikipedia does not. The dead horse beckons; but I'm done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The WP:CONSENSUS amongst my communities is that Wikipedia is an anti-Islamic, Islamophobic encyclopaedia that mendaciously prides itself on "neutrality". People like you propagate that bias, people like me wish to restore it to previous levels of neutrality before the agenda-driven editors got their hands on the articles. Snowlocust (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You are the one with the agenda - you have just told us so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Everyone has an agenda. Some have the agenda of anti-Islam and are victims of Islamophobia. My agenda is neutrality. Snowlocust (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, thoughts on my recent proposal on the talk page of George's article? Snowlocust (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"No. The WP:CONSENSUS amongst my communities..." - Which is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia's consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And regarding my thoughts on your recent proposal, I think you should reconsider making yet more personal attacks on a talk page [44] while the issue is being discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"And regarding my thoughts on your recent proposal" you said this, but didn't comment on the actual proposal itself. Shame that you also are not willing to discuss this on the talk page like a neutral WP editor would. Also in the link you gave there are no personal attacks, only comments on anti-Islamic agendas. Snowlocust (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly not going to go very far. Clearest example of "Who will guard the guards themselves?" I have ever seen. Could anyone recommend me a higher authority that I could go to on this matter? I take anti-Islamic agendas and Islamophobia extremely seriously. Snowlocust (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So do I - if I see evidence of them. Regarding the Galloway article, the only Islamophobia I have seen any evidence of was from the person who posted the YouTube video you tried to cite as a source for Galloway being a Moslem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop right there, Snowlocust. Unless you have diffs showing clear Islamophobia on the part of User:John, you need to retract that statement. That's a very serious accusation, and you do not get to just throw it out because your edits were reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Has already been linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&diff=prev&oldid=485604049 diff showing John reverting direct quotes taken from the guardian. Snowlocust (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And what part of that establishes islamophoba on his part? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, the edit where you tried to cite an article that said "Galloway denied any intention to convert" for a statement that he "refuses to either confirm or deny he has converted to Islam". Islamophobia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The part where he is desperately trying to delete any attempt at associating George with Islamic beliefs or practices, even though they are perfectly sourced and verified. Snowlocust (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note this is not an isolated incident. Look through the page history yourself. John adamantly smashes any association of George with Islam - even when the association is perfectly sourced and verified, as per WP:BLP - and seems to desperately be trying to keep the viewpoint that George is a Christian Roman Catholic, completely at odds with WP:FALSESnowlocust (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Find a source, a WP:RELIABLE one, that states this person is unambigiously of this faith, or it cannot be added per BLP. Insinuations and half-baked extrapolations are not enough. Heiro 23:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to list George's faith on his WP page? He clearly keeps it ambiguous for a reason.Snowlocust (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to discuss this - you seem to be the one making an issue out of it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As stated, "I take anti-Islamic agendas and Islamophobia extremely seriously", hence the reporting of this member to the Admin Incidents board. Snowlocust (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Galloway is often seen with a Koran, but refuses to confirm or deny conversion" carries the obvious implcation "but it's clear he has" - which makes the article non-neutral and a WP:BLP violation. Unless Galloway has explictly stated that he has converted to Islam, we cannot even imply that he has, even if the implcation is worded using "confirm or deny". Your constant refusal to listen on this matter does not help your case here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Locust, Why is every edit you have made here connected with having this person listed as Islamic? Religious POV pushing of any stripe wont get you far here. Find a source or drop it, period. Heiro 00:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Snowlocust, you have clearly misunderstood my last post: I was asking why you were so desperate to discuss Galloway's faith on his WP page. And why are you so desperate to show links with Islam that you conveniently omit the part of a source that suggests that he is not a convert? If he wants to 'keep it ambiguous', why shouldn't we respect his wishes, rather than digging around for evidence? We have clear policy on this, as has been explained to you multiple times. And no, nothing you have provided indicates 'Islamophobia' in regard to the Galloway article - merely a concern for our policies - which coincide with Galloway's wishes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for any other admin input on this. Obviously I am acting as an editor rather than an admin in reverting contentious and poorly referenced BLP matter from this article, as I have edited the article 85 times. I would continue to suggest seeking a compromise in article talk before adding speculative material on religious affiliation to the article. I am convinced there is one to be found. I welcome review of my actions here as well as additional talk page contributions. --John (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• "User:John is an admin" It seems all I needed to know about how Wikipedia handles admin complaints was held within the first few words that I got in reply to this section. Whilst I'm here, is there any system for "higher up" complaints, or is this admin incidents section the final step in the ladder for editors/commentators? Snowlocust (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• And can I confirm that no action is going to be taken against him as per my complaints of blatant edit-warring or my perceived anti-Islamic agenda? Snowlocust (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologise for not providing sufficent context; I didn't mean that he was "above the law" by being an admin - none of us are - merely that he wasn't some two-bit newcomer unaware of the rules. And WP:EW is suspended for WP:BLP issues, which this was; and you are the only person perceiving an anti-Islamic agenda, so.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What action are you proposing? So far you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that anyone has done anything wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you continue accusing John of Islamophobia with no evidence to support such an accusation, it is more likely that you will be blocked for violating WP:NPA. If you insist on going forward with this complaint, dispute resolution is the process to follow. Oh, and please note: whether John is an admin or not is irrelevant. You are taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here, while pushing your opinion into a BLP. In other words, you're the one in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will continue to take this argument through dispute resolution. Your attempts to threaten me do not scare me - if a man cannot speak his mind freely in ANI, where can he? I intend to continue to fight deeply entrenched anti-Islamic agendas within Wikipedia editors, be they held within admins, normal editors, or anonymous users, in the hopes of helping return WP:NPOV in relation to any Islamic-related articles. Snowlocust (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no threats - there are simple statments of policy, ones you have continually chosen to ignore. I'd suggest that reading WP:TRUTH and WP:FREESPEECH might be of some use, but the simple fact is, if you continue as you have in the discussion here, we'll see you in the block logs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE anybody? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I give him a week at most with that attitude. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I wasn't so lazy, I'd write WP:NOTHEREBUTYOUNERDSDONTRESPECTMYPROPHET. Chillllls (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to Snowlocust, I'd agree with him that there have been problems regarding the way issues related to Islam have been treated in some Wikipedia articles - but I don't see this as symptomatic of anything other than the general POV-pushing that tends to go on in relation to articles on religion, or ethnicity, or all of the other contentious-and-not-actually-verifiable-except-as-opinion issues. What is certain though is that you can't 'fix' such problems by making endless accusations of bias, engaging in soapboxing, and generally acting like you have discovered some huge criminal conspiracy, which the world must be informed about immediately, so they rally to your cause. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. It isn't the way the outside world works either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Snowlocust, there is no Wikipedia policy called WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA. Your rants are relatively devoid of references to valid policies and guidelines, and claiming that there's an anti-Muslim cabal seems to be your answer to everything. Question: does it seem to you that your arguments are convincing anyone? Ravenswing 04:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What there is, of course, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam - I wonder if anyone from the project might like to comment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:174.1.50.249

I believe this IP user (174.1.50.249 (talk · contribs)) who changed the teams' status names in HaMerotz LaMillion 1 and HaMerotz LaMillion 2 that the IP editor had disrupted editing the second season with unsourced team relationship names translated from Hebrew, but in the Hebrew article, for example "חברות" which literally translated to "Friends" in Hebrew language. There, the editor had changed the winners' team relationship's name was to "Painter & Saleswoman" instead of "Childhood Friends" [45] that causes undiscussed on not give the proper English to Hebrew transliteration standards. To note, that editor did edit warring in the second season article and needs to get a block.

Then, the IP editor got a message from my talk page [46]:

Excuse me my good sir, but you are the one doing disruptive editing.

When I saw the "Broke up" thing for Tom & Adele, I figured I would go check it out myself, just to be sure. When I translated their "relationship" tag, which appeared on screen, I noticed it wasn't "Dating". It was "Footballer and his girlfriend".

On a whim, I translated all of the other teams and found they were also different than what was listed.

So I'm not making stuff up and pulling it out of my rear-end, thank you very much. I'm helping Wikipedia by correcting what is incorrect.

You say "Ah Okay", then change them back anyway. AND you give me a block warning. Look, I'm trying to do this the proper way, but you're not listening. The fact is that the old names aren't correct. I don't know how else to put it.

Dude, What is your problem? I'm trying to discuss this with you, but you're just deleting my comments. Am I going to have to take this up with a third party, possibly someone with more power than you? You keep accusing me of "Article ownership", but all I'm doing is trying to correct information that is incorrect. I don't know how else to say it. I translated the relationships from the show. What I'm changing them to are what is written on the screen. I don't know how much more proof you need than that.

Then, the editor did an edit war of that said season article and it may do not give an article censorship on this IP's behavior. ApprenticeFan ^work 00:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this. I seriously don't believe this.

Okay, a few questions: First, how can I cite what I see on the screen? Do I take a screenshot?

Second: It doesn't matter if Bar & Inna, for example, are Childhood Friends. For all of the TAR pages, we have put in the "Relationship" table what is written under their names when their team identifier when it appears on-screen. Peggy & Claire were probably friends, but instead we wrote "Gutsy Grannies" because that's what appeared with their team identifier (Or at least we DID, until I now see that someone has changed them).

Third: As an example, under Bar & Inna's team identifier on the actual show, it is written ציירת ואשת מכירות which translates to "Painter and Saleswoman". Citing another language of Wikipedia isn't good enough, I'm afraid. I can only assume that the Hebrew Wikipedia is also incorrect.

Fourth: I do not appreciate my comments being deleted from his talk page. I was trying to avoid an edit war by discussing this with Mr. ApprenticeFan and coming to a peaceful solution. Instead, I'm being reported.

174.1.50.249 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In the original U.S. version, Peggy and Claire's team relationship on screen has not recognized by CBS and "Gutsy Grannies" is not on the old early 2000s CBS website, but they labeled as "Friends". In the Wiki article on TAR2, the relationship labeled as Grandmothers. Herb and Nate changed to "Flight Time and Big Easy", but their team relationships' names from "Friends" to "Harlem Globetrotters". But, there is no case there. ApprenticeFan ^work 01:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm really sorry, and I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm having a really difficult time understanding you because of your English. What's the problem with Flight Time & Big Easy? They're identified on-screen as "Harlem Globetrotters" and their wiki page says "Harlem Globetrotters". That's what I'm trying to do with the Israeli races. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the CBS website has been continually unreliable in the past. They once spelled Hungary as Hungry. They also one said the Bransen Family were the winners. I don't know exactly how the hierarchy of information works here, but I should think that information taken directly from the show that the wiki page is about trumps over the website's info, and especially trumps info gathered from foreign language wikipedias. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Other wikipedias are never reliable sources, but the show is a primary source and, thus, superceded by secondary sources unless those are proven inaccurate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? The primary source can be overwritten by secondary sources? What? That doesn't sound right. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Bushrangers, that isn't correct at all. Primary sources cannot be used to support analysis of themselves, but they can be generally scrupulously trusted to say what the actually say. Direct quotes are a form of primary sourcing, and we don't require a secondary source to confirm a quote; though we would to provide information about what the quote means. In other words, we can't say what a primary source means by only citing it itself, but we can say what it says. The fact that Wikipedia tends to like to use secondary sources for information is because secondary sources are those which analyze and provide context for primary sources, but that doesn't mean that we always assume a primary source is wrong. --Jayron32 04:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I say, the information is coming directly from the show itself, and I don't know how to cite that beyond taking a screenshot. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up; I did say that all wrong, didn't I? As for sourcing, just put something like <ref>Foos of our Bars, season X, episode Y "The Foo Bar", originally aired 25 May 2525</ref> and that should be sufficent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not from any specific episode though. It's on most all of them. 174.1.50.249 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Returning IP sock of BLOCKED/BANNED editor?

• 74.163.16.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Patrolling Admin please take a look at this edit, as my alarm bells just went a-klaxon-ringing again~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So I forgot my password.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I had notified the user that he's being disgusted discussed here. He's been on here for part of a day (under that IP) and has already started making personal attacks at me for no particular reason. His style does seem vaguely familiar, but I can't say from where. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not helping.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not. But if you did, by telling us who you used to edit as, it could help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is not necessary. 74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you won't own up to your previous account, it raises suspicions that you're evading a block, and things could get ugly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It was years since I had that account.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to 'fess up. It will be good for your sole. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

what's his fish got to do with anything? Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Gizmo the Cat?,my family moved around alot so I had a hard life,I haven't seen this account in years.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Gizmo the Cat? (talk · contribs) Interesting, an account with one notification and no edits, some 6 years ago. That could account for your not remembering the password. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Noticed how adept he is able to use WP markups and templates even though his account clearly shows he's a newbie? FWIW, I would like to AGF but I find it very hard to take his word for it. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My article was deleted.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you're talking about, it's not your article. Once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article, get it? --MuZemike 01:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

True.74.163.16.52 (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nathanielfirst and massive link insertion

Nathanielfirst (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

This new user has done almost nothing but add "see also"s to many articles, marking them all as minor, and a group of us have been reverting nearly all of them as not really appropriate. Talk page entreaties have gotten no response nor change of behavior. Their only other edits are two failed AfCs and some expansion of Zhe school (painting) very early on. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice all his pages are almost about the same topic,the pages are related.74.163.16.52 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If he doesn't respond here or on his talk page tonight I will be blocking him, I've been concerned about his edits since they began. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin Poll

Someone is trying to run a poll on the page regarding some content. The poll may or may not be helpful at this point, but that is not really the issue. User HiLo48 strongly objects to the concept of the poll even being run, and is disrupting it by posting a large swearing comment in the middle of the poll, and refuses to let people move it (reverting when someone else moves). Could an admin step in, move the comment, and tell it to stay? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting such a narrow perspective on this. I responded politely to your comment on your Talk page. Then you come straight here!!! Show some manners ((I was very tempted to add an adjective there that you wouldn't like) and let's continue the conversation there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

sigh, you also responded to several other people saying not to fucking move your comment again, and that the rules of civility needed to be broken. reap. sow. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So what was the point of even posting on my Talk page? (The normal expected response is a reply on YOUR Talk page, which is what I did.) Might as well have come straight here and wasted Admins' time because you don't like me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I will admit to one mistake, which is that I saw your comment on the article talk page saying "rules need to be broken", after your comment on my page, which indicated to me that you had no intention of changing your mind. therefore I came here. and it has nothing to not liking you. I like you just fine, but your disagreement with the way someone wants to gather consensus does not allow you to disrupt it.Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hilo is Trolling.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that straight-up-or-down polls are not appropriate in most places on Wikipedia, and basic article content is one of those places. We need to make decisions through discussion, not simply votes. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they arent often useful. And HiLo is free to make that point. But actively stopping others from doing the poll is not ok imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "rules need to be broken", and what I did seems to have killed that time-wasting, destructive poll anyway. (We had another one earlier on that page. I thought people would have learnt.) All good for Wikipedia :-) See you back at that article, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No Damn excuse for acting the WP:DICK.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And you really think that using one swear word, that would be a perfectly normal part of conversation in some of the circles I move in, is worse than all the other crap that's appeared on that page? Crap with a façade of niceness is still crap. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a Hugh freaking diff,I'm not bitching in all caps,I let stuff play out,and see the results.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Crap with a facade of niceness" may still be crap, but at least it's policy-conforming crap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Inserting comments into the middle of a poll to make a point [47], well advised or no, is as good of example of disruptive behavior as I can come up with. Per this edit, disruption in fact appears to be your intent. Whether this is in practice any different than wiki-approved ways of closing a poll early such as hatnotes is a valid question, but in my opinion a hatnote is a fair bit more palatable than big, expletive-laden text. WP:CIVIL is not optional. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen.74.163.16.52 (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, there's consensus in this discussion that your comments were disruptive. Although I think they should be deleted from the talk page, I've reverted to Bob K31416's revision and moved your comments to the appropriate section. Frankly, both your edits and your edit summary are highly inappropriate and you should stop this behavior immediately. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it was disruptive, but in a sense, that was my goal. I wanted to stop people adding comments to a nonsensical, inappropriate poll. Many have agreed that the poll was inappropriate, but it's still there, wide open now for people to add comments to. It's the second attempt at a POLL on that Talk page since I started paying attention a couple of days ago. What bothers me is that the word that has so offended the masses here is much less of the sin where I come from than the absolute racist and bigoted garbage that's appeared throughout that page. So, I can work hard on following conservative American conversational practices, but how about getting rid of that stupid poll, and all the other idiotic and bigoted garbage on that page? HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it was disruptive, but in a sense, that was my goal. - so you were being deliberatly disruptive to make a point? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. There's just been another "vote", explicitly described as such in the Edit summary, in the earlier poll on that page, but that's OK, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: We use polls all the time on Wikipedia, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. What is inherently wrong is being disruptive just because you don't quite like the form of the discussion. I agree that many people don't provide much of an explanation with their poll response, but we can't MAKE people do anything here. So you can politely ask for people to post a full explanation with their poll answer and see if they respond, but hey, just relax. If people don't do it, they don't do it. Consensus is a policy, polling is an option. ("polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting.") Simply remind people that "polling is not a substitute for discussion" and move on.... but relax, ok? Can we wrap up this AN/I soon....? -- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems to want to miss my point. Maybe they like artificial niceness. You say "we can't MAKE people do anything here." Me sticking an ugly notice in the middle of an ill-conceived poll DID stop people voting in it. Ugly tactic, but hey, it was an ugly poll. I still say there's been far worse and ignorant things said on the racist front on that page, but that's all OK because they didn't swear. VERY bad priorities here, I'm afraid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please overturn the speedy deletion of Michael Joseph Miller

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

---

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowinternetsucks (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why we should. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean.--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That isn't an answer. Why should Wikipedia have an article on "Michael Joseph Miller"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Joseph Miller--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:GNG. Would this person pass this? Are there WP:RELIABLE sources that discuss this person? Did you use these sources as WP:CITEs when you wrote the article? Heiro 06:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

So who is he, and why is he notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Slowinternetsucks: You can either re-create the article supported appropriately with reliable sources (for verification) that are independent of the subject (to establish notability), or make a request at WP:REFUND WP:DRV. Bmusician 06:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to disrespect GB fan :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowinternetsucks (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to disrespect him, take it to deletion review, as he suggested when you asked the question on his talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather than WP:REFUND, the place for deletion review (as the OP had already contacted the deleting admin) is WP:DRV. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

CAN YOU HELP A BROTHA OUT??--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV or just recreate the article with adequate support by reliable sources. Sir, there are no other options. Bmusician 06:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be "too" religious, but...did any of you look at the references (it's not even a big article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowinternetsucks (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Reliable sources deleted and replaced with unsourced material at Allied Artists International

Anonymous IP editor 173.116.161.246 aka User:Warriorboy55 is completely ignoring all talk page discussion and ignoring any WP policies or guidelines, especially WP:RS. Would it be possible to restore the reliable sourced version here[48], then lock the article and notify me when it is unlocked, so I and others can monitor it? Thanks.

I am mentoring a new editor on use of reliable sources at Allied Artists International. The existing blatantly advert article had not a single reliable source properly used. The article had been gradually grown by COI editor Warriorboy55 by using outright false statements, corporate promotions, and no reliable sources whatseover. The one reliable source used was grossly misquoted, as discussed in the talk page.

This was all corrected by this point here[49].

Then an anoymous IP editor User:173.116.161.246 appeared, removed the construction tags repeatedly, removed ALL of the reliable sources and content, and replaced the whole article with unsourced material, to restore the unsourced false appearance that this company has anything at all to do with the historic Mongram Pictrures and Allied Artists Pictures Corporation movie company. It does not.

USER:173.116.161.246 is likely an anonymous IP for User:Warriorboy55, aka Kimball Dean Richards, the president and owner of the Allied Artists company, and subject of the newspaper stories in the article. Please read some of the quotes in the references in this[50] correctly and completely reliably sourced version, and you will get an idea of what is really going on, what Allied Artists International really is, and who Warriorboy55 is.

USER:173.116.161.246 keeps removing any construction tags, removing all reliably sourced material such as multiple LA Times sources, and keeps putting back up material based on self promoting websites, or about historic movie companies, as if this company has anything to do with them. He apparantly wants WP users to think he owns the historic movie company, not just the company described in all of the LA Times stories in the reference section here[51]. He appears to be using Wikipedia to lure investors. He keeps replacing reliable Los Angeles Times sourced material, and putting in nonsense sources like this.

He constantly deletes anything new put in, and thinks if sources do not say what he wants them to, then they can be deleted, ignoring basic WP policies and guidelines Here are a few examples where construction tags, and all new and well sourced material was deleted and replaced with unsourced adverts - [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

Please help restore the reliable sources such as LA TImes, and the completely NPOV wording of sentences sourced by them. Thank you. PPdd (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the false allegations, I am not participating in any edit war, but did report it. I do disagree with changing the article from one that discusses a company into a blatant attack against one person within that company. The two editors involved obviously have a vendetta against the target of their attacks. I feel as though a neutral party should arbitrate the matter before further editing occurs. Also, I am not associated with any of the principals of Allied Artists International but am familiar with some of the artists and producers associated with the company. Their CEO has a similar name as the one being cited in the sources. However, I am told it is not the same person. Since PPdd thinks my nick ends in 55, maybe he also thinks it's my birth year. It actually ends in 85, which is my birth year. PPdd is accusing me of being the anonymous IP editor and even accuses me of being the target of his attack on one of the principals of the company. He ignores filed government documents that establish the fact that the original Allied Artists Pictures Corporation was assigned to the predecessor to Allied Artists International and takes the position that they are unrelated. The filed documents establish the fact that the trademarks were assigned and the date they were assigned. Regardless, I have not participated in this edit war because I have been accused of not being a neutral editor. Reading PPdd's accusations here make it clear he has a bias against the company and someone he believes to be a principal. If the admins believe Allied Artists International is not associated with the original Allied Artists Pictures, then the article is not noteworthy and should be nominated for speedy deletion, rather than using it to attack people. Thank you. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam

Unresolved

( Section titles here must not be prejudicially phrased. Converted heading to neutral, w/ anchor to original.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC) )

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [57], [58] and [59] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[60] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [61], [62], [63] and [64].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [65].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[66] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [67]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[68] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [69]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[70], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[71] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[72], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[73], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[74], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[75], and falsely attributing comments to me[76]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[77][78], after indicating something was only his opinion[79][80], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[81][82], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[83].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [84],[85]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [86] and "windbaggery" [87]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[88]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

• It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
  
• It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).
  

For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [89],[90],[91],[92]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [93]
Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [94] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam makes various out-of-context claims above about my past edits he's selected, most of which he accused me of back in 2010 based on his fixated efforts of trawling through my edit history for various edits from years before that, to which I've previously responded here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.

AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.

Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".

AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that the reason he doesn't properly address editor disputes at User Talk is because of a guideline stating, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do." However, AuthorityTam's constant belittling and attacking motives of editors with whom he does not get along absolutely constitutes interaction, and not in any way that can be seen as conciliatory. If AuthorityTam were to actually apply that guideline, he would stick to content, and rely on the merits of content-related arguments at article Talk pages, and he would follow correct avenues of dispute resolution if there are problems with editors. If he feels so unsure that his views can be supported on their own merits without making attacks on other editors' motives, then he should review the quality of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.

The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AuthorityTam is now also canvassing for support at an article Talk page. I see this has already been linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Assumption?? There's nothing to assume (or presume). AuthorityTam linked to this ANI from an article Talk page, with a false claim that other editors are trying to have him banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Fazilfazil, AuthorityTam has extremely weak defences to my accusations. He has provided a very lame and unconvincing excuse for repeatedly using the "aka LTSally" phrase; he does escalate arguments by constantly referring back to events from years earlier (often twisting comments and misrepresenting editors to inflame the situation); his level of invective, bile and taunting are proof that he makes little effort to collaborate harmoniously with other editors. I do not expect other editors to always agree with me, and I have disagreed with you in the past. Yet we remain civil and respectful. AuthorityTam treats editing here as a sport and craves conflict. That is the conduct I want him to stop. BlackCab (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading through all this again, it's obvious that AuthorityTam sees nothing wrong with his antagonistic and hostile behaviour, is completely unrepentant and very clearly intends to continue in the same vein. He refuses to put the past behind him and views historic offences as justification for more combative and inflammatory conduct. All this in a community that demands cooperation and collaboration to work properly. His ongoing comments and his responses in this thread strongly suggest personality and behavioral issues: where others try to identify issues and resolve them, he flails out with "you did it too!" accusations, refuses to engage with other editors and simply escalates problems. The initial trigger for this ANI notice was his strange "aka LTSally" tactic and despite the observations of others that it serves no purpose -- and my direct appeal to him to cease -- he has decided to continue to do it. The lack of admin involvement in this complaint is disappointing and AuthorityTam will almost certainly read this as a green light for more of his ugly and infantile behaviour. Where to from here? BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Though I am somewhat uninvolved in this discussion and haven't read the particular comment thatBlackCab has found to be offensive, I did run across the ANI and after reading most of it, I thought I would interject a comment as a personal observation. I apologize in advance, as at least two editors will likely find my comments to be somewhat offensive and objectionable, but in consideration of the setting, I will make them here only. I would have to completely agree 100% with AuthorityTam's observation that " For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia" as looking back at the edit history and actions of editors Jeffro77 and BlackCab they have demonstrated a Pattern of working as a tandem force in not only attempting to add negative POV spin to Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, but also in being disruptive towards other editors good faith, well sourced edits, which they seem to consider not negative enough to suit their personal tastes. Examining their edit histories, I have noted a pattern of both editors bringing ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses, accusing them of numerous offenses [95][96][[97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107]. I could go on and on but it would be tiresome to look for all the instances where these two editors have worked in tandem to discredit and harass editors who they deemed pro Jehovah's Witness, either with reports to ANI or through reverting good faith edits with nonsensical excuses such as "too much detail" or "belongs on a different article page and not this one"(paraphrase) These two editors have shown a "historical pattern" of being both disruptive and also uncivil. Personally I think they are more than just a tandem working in conjunction(WP:Meatpuppet), I personally have a suspicion they may be the same editor(WP:Sock), but have no solid evidence to demonstrate this. I also have a suspicion they may be using several other user id's to give a false impression of consensus and to aid in the harassment of others on a continuous basis, but again an lacking in evidence to truly present such as an accusation, thus I have only my own suspicion to rely upon. As a very new editor I was even reported by these two editors, falsely I might add, for sockpuppetry the very day I established an account[108], because a friend of mine signed up for an account and used my computer to complete an AFD nomination I had started as a IP address. I explained to them the situation[109], but they reported me as a sockpuppet regardless, because their intent is to be insidious to editors they perceive to have a pro Jehovah's Witness stance. Personally I think these two editors should be at a minimum barred from editing the same page, talk or article, within a 31 day time frame. I further, think that consideration should be given to barring them from editing Jehovah's Witness related pages altogether, and quite possibly barring them from editing pages associated with religion in general is not out of the realm of being reasonable as they have demonstrated a historical pattern of uncivil behavior, as well as disruptive edit warring and WP:tendentious editing on these particular type of pages. Willietell (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If Willietell would like to examine each of the ANI complaints listed (of which I think I have only ever made one) he will find the complaints were about clear cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry and generally strongly supported by other editors. The JW pages have certainly attracted a range of very oddball editors over the years. His comments are ignorant in the extreme. He is very welcome to examine any edit of mine in the past year and report me for either uncivil or disruptive behaviour if he sees it. He is also very welcome to request an investigation into his allegation against me of sockpuppetry. His suggestion that Jeffro and I are the same person is fanciful. It's disappointing to see him offering unquestioning support to an editor who is so clearly working in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of collaboration. Evidently whether one is "for" or "against" the JWs determines whether one is a cooperative and productive editor or not, and whether one's appeal for improved behavior has any validity. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell is not "somewhat uninvolved" at all. It is unsurprising that Willietell has also come to attack my motives, and he is really not a stellar witness in support of AuthorityTam. It is also entirely unsurprising that Willietell would support a pro-JW editor and oppose editors who do not support every positive statement about the religion. He began editing in December 2011 under anonymous IPs, making claims that the entire Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article is "POV spin" and that it should be deleted, and later made false claims that it is "an attack page", and then made a false allegation of a copyright violation, showing he's not above lying to suit his ends. He claims that any statement about JWs he doesn't like to be "POV spin" (he uses this stock phrase incessantly, particularly when he has no real other argument against something) though the many responses at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted to his initial barrage of claims were shown to be completely unsupportable by a wide range of editors. Willietell claims above that I have reported editors on the basis of them being in favour of JWs (though this is particularly irrelevant, as I didn't report AuthorityTam). This claim is entirely false, and examination of each of those cases will show that user conduct was the problem in every instance. Willietell also conveniently ignores cases I have raised against editors making negative false claims about JWs and other issues. I don't have time to trawl for an exhaustive list as does Willietell, but for example see [110].

I had to stop to laugh out loud when I read that Willietell is actually claiming BlackCab and I are the same person. I really don't know how I would manage edit conflicts with myself while logged on as a different user (let alone change residence). I can type pretty quickly, but not that quickly. Please, please do a CheckUser, then Willietell can publicly apologise. It's quite clear that Willietell's many strange (and conveniently vague) suspicions that I (and/or BlackCab) am a sockpuppet of "several other user id's" is a fairly desperate attempt to discredit me—this allegation really sounds like "tin foil hat" stuff, and I look forward to hearing from the other editors whom Willietell believes to be me. If/when Willietell proposes any actual username(s) or any actual evidence, again, do a CheckUser, and then Willietell can apologise. Willietell's own case of being reported for sockpuppetry was entirely reasonable—after he could not complete an AfD of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as an IP editor he 'threatened', "Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?", and then shortly after, Spudpicker_01 was created to complete the AfD, in support of the new editor, Willietell. A sockpuppetry case was lodged, and confirmed. It was entirely reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry. Religious subjects often become heated, and I acknowledge that I have at times been as uncivil as other editors involved in such disputes. However, this is not a "historical pattern", and Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors.

Willietell's (false) attacks on BlackCab and myself do not in any way nullify AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour, about which Willietell has decided to remain silent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of the many links Willietell provides what he claims are "ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses", only two were raised by me (of the remainder, seven were raised by neither me nor BlackCab; three of the four matters raised by BlackCab were sockpuppet queries upheld by admins, and the fourth was to report unambiguous vandalism). The first was uncontroversially given admin support[111]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[112] Notably, Willietell's further inattention to facts is shown by his inclusion of an arbitration case against User:Alastair Haines (which I did not initiate), against whom I had argued at length in favour of JWs in regard to their definition as a Christian group (see from about halfway through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_49, Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_50, and about one third through Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_51).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier when I stated that the links were to show the tandem relationship between the two editors in question and not to show whether the other party was in the right or wrong, I will repost my statement that Jeffro77 pretends to have missed:

"The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 8:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)" Willietell (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First, lets clear up one thing, you filed the sockpuppet claim after I told everyone on the talk page what had happened, so you knew in advance of filing the sockpuppet claim what had happened, got me blocked for about 2 or 3 days and complained during that time that I wasn't detailing my objections to the beliefs page, even while you knew I was blocked for a false sockpuppetry claim. Still you repeatedly bring this subject up when addressing any disagreement with me to attempt to taint the perception with which I am held by anyone considering the argument at hand. Secondly, I don't really care how many user ID's you use, you can have a dozen for all I care, and pretend that each and every one is another Sybil. You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student...I simply really don't care. What I object to is the constant goading and smear tactics employed to create a hostile environment for fellow editors, this I find objectionable, the other stuff is simply childishly funny. I have finally read the long diatribe on the talk page, and there is no way in an unbiased persons eyes that the two of you, namelyJeffro77 AND BlackCab CAN BE VIEWED AS FAULTLESS IN THE EXCHANGE THAT BROUGHT US ALL TO THIS PAGE. As you stated, I have only been active on Wikipedia since some time in late November or early December, I can't remember the exact date, yet I personally have endured sustained and repeated attempts by both editors to drive me away from Wikipedia as is shown here[113] inBlackCab's insistence that maybe it would be better if I just leave Wikipedia altogether and also here[114] with more insistence that I just don't work well within Wikipedia, even as I am continuously hounded from page to page having edit after edit reverted by one of the two editors based upon one flimsy excuse after another. I have personally experienced the points that AuthorityTam describes. I am therefore not just "taking his side" without knowing what is going on, I am speaking because I have observed firsthand what he has had to endure for an even longer period than I. Willietell (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite baffled by your bizarre suggestions about editing from other accounts. Your ranting claim that "You can pretend that one can't spell and that another uses bad grammar and that one is a scientist while another is a student" suggests you imagine specific user accounts (though I have no idea who), and if so, it's unclear why you seem reluctant to name them so a CheckUser can be performed and summarily show you to be dishonest. Your continued dishonesty about the supposed ANI links above, your paranoid claims about me (and/or BlackCab) acting as other editors, your false claims of copyright violation in attempt to have an article you don't like deleted do not tend toward veracity, and are directly counter to claims of honesty made in your unblock request. I was alerted to the likely sockpuppetry by another editor (not BlackCab)[115] regarding User:Spudpicker_01, and the sockpuppetry case against Spudpicker_01 was lodged 12 December 2011[116] (before the Williewell account had been created on 13 December). After I subsequently explained at the SPI that "The editor has since claimed the other nominator was a friend of his (ergo a meatpuppet). The anonymous editor has now created an account as Willietell"[117], the closing admin decided to block you. It's also amusing that you've gone from being "somewhat uninvolved" to "have personally experienced".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Somewhat uninvolved" because I had no involvement in the issue that brought us to this ANI, namely the diatribe on the main Jehovah's Witnesses talk page, my having a personal experience with the complaining editors is a separate issue, but I'm sure you already know that. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, you're claiming that two editors, who you believe to be one person, are operating in 'tandem', while also claiming to be several other editors, each with different fictitious strengths and weaknesses. Since I've been on Wikipedia longer than BlackCab, you are actually accusing me of this. So, I don't care if you care. If you are making these allegations, you are expected to prove it or retract your lies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, experienced editors can sometimes become frustrated by new editors who spring up and attempt to make drastic changes, as you've done. You tried repeatedly to have an exhaustively sourced article deleted, ignored repeated and earnest requests from a range of editors to explain your specific objections to the page and now regard as harassment the reversion of your often poorly conceived edits. I have tried to be patient with you, and I'm sorry if sometimes my patience wears thin. Jeffro has also been courteous towards you, but you test everyone's patience with these quite bizarre suggestions of dishonesty and deviousness, particularly when you refuse to back them up with any evidence. You are also driving me nuts with this empty "POV spin" phrase every time you don't get your way. I again implore you to report me for any incivility or disruption. Report me if you seriously think I am a sockpuppet of Jeffro, whom I have never met, and with whom I once had one brief email exchange. If you do not, then stop this stupid behaviour. We are here to discuss the belligerent and inflammatory behavior of AuthorityTam, though apparently it's not something of any great interest to the admins. My suspicion is that this thread will soon go stale, be removed and we'll be back at square one. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep bringing up that I tried to have the page [Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia] deleted, which I did initially as a very new IP editor to Wikipedia because I felt that the page was so full of biased material that it would be nearly impossible to fix[118]. I changed my mind after several editors demanded that I present a breakdown of what I thought was biased, I did present several points that I thought, and still think need improvement and was in discussions with editors to make such improvements[119], when an editor posted a link to a page that I concluded was the source material for almost all the content on the page[120]. Due to this conclusion, I posted a tag stating that I thought the page was a copyright violation, only to have several editors assure me that it wasn't. I was skeptical, but nonetheless, relented and decided that with effort the page could be corrected in such a way as to make this irrelevant in the long term and began working to fix the page in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies, which I am currently attempting to do. I have not attempted to have the page deleted recently nor do I intend to attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. To continue to bring these issues up along with the false sockpuppet claim is simply a form of character assassination and needs to end. Additionally, since Jeffro77 went to the trouble of requesting a sockpuppet investigation (which was declined on the reason that check user is not used to prove innocence)[121], I will assume good faith and take the two editors word for it that they are not the same editor and no longer speculate on this page or any other whether they are the same editor. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was you who first discussed the sockpuppet case against you at this discussion, and you who accused me of sockpuppetry here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A cursory look through Willitel's talk page shows that s/he is far from uninvolved with JW issues. It appears as though that which disagrees with their POV is "POV spin," and it may be the case that they have confused WP for a No Spin Zone as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed to be uninvolved in JW issues. I only stated that I was uninvolved in the current issue of the long diatribe and back and forth argument that happened in the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page that was the straw for bring us to this ANI. Willietell (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this seems to be repeated, I'd like something to come out of it. I would like to propose:

• A topic ban for JW articles to AuthorityTam,
• An interaction ban between AuthorityTam and BlackCab (and maybe topic ban for him too, depending on responses from people more knowledgeable),
• Possible sanctions of some sort against Willietell (which, while he engages in some tendentious editing and such (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), I have not seen him break any rules egregiously yet in my personal interaction. I will not propose these personally, as I do not feel what would fit (the WP:IDHT behavior continues across a selection of articles, from Genesis creation narrative to the topic of this discussion).

I'm going to run a few options up the flagpole and see who salutes. Feel free to propose modified sanctions or comment to dismiss or oppose all sanctions. I apologize in advance if these are draconian, but I oft get aggravated with the same old shit being brought to AN/I over and over again with no end in sight, but just turning in to a bitch-fest or vent with no proposed solutions to the problems. I have not interacted with BlackCab enough to know if he should get a topic ban too, but I have no doubt that interaction between the two editors is poisonous from comments here alone. (AuthorityTam has seemed fair when I've dealt with him, but from the diffs and a perusal of edit history, there is a problem.)

(AuthorityTam's contempt has consistently been directed at editors whom he believes to be former members of JWs. AuthorityTam employs circumlocutory regarding his claims that he 'does not wish to self-identify at Wikipedia as a JW' and has never denied that he is a member. The manner of his edits not only in support of JWs but also unsupportive of other groups such as other Bible Student movement groups, along with various other edits, make it appear very likely that he is a member of the religion, which in itself is immaterial, but seems to be a contributing factor to his attitude of contempt toward other editors whom he believes to be former members of the religion.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam: Topic Ban

Please suggest alternate sanctions if these are unacceptable - something to keep this from coming back to AN/I over and over.
We propose AuthorityTam be blocked from editing JW-related articles for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Nothing to date has impressed upon AuthorityTam that he can't continue this type of interaction with other users. I support comments from other users that he often includes valuable information to JW articles and provides pro-JW balance. Despite his allegation at the talk page, I have not asked for him to be banned. (Another editor has falsely suggested I am trying to knock off pro-JW editors one by one, which is also utter rubbish). But I think a temporary block may be useful to help modify his conduct. BlackCab (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Authority/Tam is an important editor to the project and his use or continued use of the reference to TSally does not in any way harm editor BlackCab, even if it seems distasteful to him. Additionally, to bring up an editors previous edit history seems to be a common practice on Wikipedia, and AuthorityTam is certainly not alone in doing so. I personally think this ANI resulted from an overreaction by a couple of editors who seem to judge their own action through rose colored glasses and filed the ANI without first considering WP:boomerang. It seems to me that AuthorityTam has reacted as many people would after having spent many years being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI. I think that sanctions enacted against him would be tantamount to a punish the victim mentality. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the "aka LTSally" phrase "distasteful"; it is a pejorative term that implies deviousness or subterfuge on my part. He has used it now for two years without letup. I have asked him to stop, and three other editors have agreed it is unnecessary. His continued use of it, even in this very ANI complaint,[122] is further evidence of his determination to goad, and his lack of willingness to cooperate. We all over-react sometimes. But AuthorityTam has a deeply embedded pattern of taunting. He is disruptive. He refuses to put the past behind him. He is unrepentant. He doesn't know when to stop. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are separate problems with Willietell's behaviour, as have already been commented on above, and his claim about "being double-teamed by the editors who filed the ANI" is dishonest, because only one editor filed the ANI. I learned of the ANI because AuthorityTam's Talk page is on my Watch List (all pages I edit are automatically added to my Watch List).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional Support - It seems AuthorityTam has not learned that his attacks on the motives of other editors are inappropriate and not relevant to discussions of specific topics related to JWs, and that such tangents certainly constitute 'interaction', even if AuthorityTam believes he is merely 'advising' other editors. (There are various channels of dispute resolution for editors to indicate such concerns.) AuthorityTam also needs to acknowledge that continuous claims about the motives of other editors constitute a personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's [former] affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream") and that frequently dredging up irrelevant edits that he believes to be incriminating constitutes harassment, and goes far beyond merely "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest". Specifically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that there is a massive difference between "BlackCab is a former JW" and "BlackCab aka LTSally said blah blah blah blah blah [x years ago]"—indeed, a comment from years ago may not even be a person's current view), and BlackCab's former membership of the religion is not a wildcard that can be played in any old editing dispute. Though most of his vitriol is vented about BlackCab, AuthorityTam is also to retract and refrain from his false claims that I have 'chosen to self-identify on Wikipedia', as it was explicitly explained to him at his Talk page over a year ago that "I am not a member of and have never been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses". Basically, AuthorityTam needs to learn that, on occasion, AuthorityTam should just apologise. If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not find anything disruptive from AuthorityTam. His pro-JW defensive edits and comments might be not fitting to the JW-defaming taste of user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77. However he have contributed a lot in removing ex-witness bias from the article and have played a leading historical role in raising JWs article to GA status. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that comment is inappropriate and out of line with Wikipedia policy as I read it: a "pro-JW bias" which doesn't fit the "JW-defaming bias" of everyone else are reasons for blocks all around if true. I have to pull a modification of a line of Avraham's: Thou hast been accused by editors four; go forth now and battle no more; for if on yon lame wars many doth proceed to yammer; ye great Adminnes will break out ye olde bannehammer. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Digging out through the edit history of user:BlackCab and Jeffro77 I could'nt find anywhere they are helping to increase the fame of JW's. These two editors are from Australia, one of them explicitly written an essay regarding his reasons to renounce the JWs faith. Further in most cases I find these two are taking sides almost together and tend to be a watchdog for JW supportive edits as user:Willietell brought-out. On the other hand through the edit history of user:AuthorityTam I could'nt find anything that is trying to defame JWs and he is not as active as the other two editors. Further I personally know few-self claimed ex-witnesses and they always have a tendency to defame their former faith and not so happy as well. May be because they feel so pissed off that they were not able to do anything for years to collapse the growth of religion. So generalizing self advertising ex-witnesses I thought the phrases I used were appropriate. If it is inappropriate I apologize because I am very busy person with no much time to read all Wiki policies and guidelines. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I do not like the JW religion, but I do not come to Wikipedia to defame it. I simply present accurate information from reliable sources. Every WP article on a subject of controversy will attract editors who are supporters and opposers. Fazilfazil is welcome to his assessment of ex-JWs (which happens to mirror the statements of the religion), but he is wrong. I simply want people to have facts so they can make an informed choice. The fact that Jeffro77 and I agree on many things doesn't mean we are "taking sides." This discussion (as with many discussions at JW talk pages) sadly degenerates to team-like face-offs where the details of the complaint are forgotten in an effort to simply protect a team member. Let's stick with the specific complaint about AuthorityTam's specific conduct. BlackCab (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's irrelevant ad hominem regarding former JWs (and Australians??) has very little to do with AuthorityTam's persistent inappropriate conduct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - AuthoityTam has made significant contributions to JW-related articles, and is an important piece to keep the article balanced. I don't concider his behavior significant worse than some of the other users. The fact it appairs only two users have serious objections with his behavior, makes it easier to oppose for topic-ban, though I do think it could be justified to give him some kind of warning regarding the use of "aka LTSally". I think several users could need a topic break, the article won't disappair within a few weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose: Having observed and intermittently participated at the JW talkpgae for some five years now I must state that I believe that the article's current state is a result of a balanced stalemate between editors with complementary viewpoints. Furthermore I don't think that AuthorityTam's conduct is more egregious than that of BlackCab - I would perhaps support a topic ban for both, but not for either one of them alone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello Maunus! And what evidence would you cite in support of a topic ban on me? I have provided specific complaints about AuthorityTam's behaviour, including a refusal to acknowledge my direct request to him to cease this infantile "aka LTSally" tactic that suggests duplicity on my part, and his ongoing pattern of goading and taunting. I'd be interested in seeing what specific edits of mine from, say, the past year suggest a failure to collaborate or a tendency to disrupt that would warrant me being blocked from editing JW pages. I have always insisted on reliable, verifiable sources and I have always sought outside comment when discussions meet a stalemate. I have provided diffs for examples of that above. AuthorityTam has had the opportunity to defend himself against my grievances, so do me the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself against your accusations. BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Blackcab - I don't know why you'd be surprised to see me. I am not the one making any accusations here, and so am under no requirement to present evidence. I acknowledge that you are generally civil (if often curt and abrasive) and respect policy guiding content creation. In my experience so does AuthorityTam - he just doesn't consistently have someone to back him up in arguments, which I can only imagine leads to some measure of added frustration. The double topic ban I think would be to the benefit of both you (since it would let you both focus on less stressful stuff), and for the article (since topic banning only one of you would likely lead to gradual degradation of the article). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: AuthorityTam/BlackCab: Interaction Block

We propose an indefinite interaction ban between AuthorityTam/BlackCab. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not so sure that would work. There are times when we do need to discuss edits. And given the lengthy (and potentially infinitely-lasting) tit-for-tat discussion here I think any such interaction ban should also include at least one other editor. Quarantining me, alone, from any discussions with AuthorityTam would not be helpful or fair. But someone may like to explain the practicalities of such a proposal. Bottom line is the need for a change in AuthorityTam's behaviour, just as I have learned to do. BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest that the three editors Jeffro77, BlackCab and AuthorityTam be restricted from reverting one another's recent edits(30 days) without first taking the matter to discussion in talk in a civil attempt to reach consensus before making any change. This would allow for cooler heads to prevail and keep tempers from flaring so much. This could be put in place for a time period that will allow the editors to learn to "play nice". Willietell (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am "nice". I do discuss. I am civil. I do seek external comment when discussions reach a deadlock,[123][124] and I accept the consensus at those noticeboards. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There have not really been frequent recent issues of edit warring. Most of the problems related to AuthorityTam's behaviour at article Talk pages. I am not claiming that this is all AuthorityTam's fault. I have previously advised BlackCab about some things that 'trigger' AuthorityTam's tirades, and also acknowledged that I've also been uncivil at times when things get heated. The main problem is that AuthorityTam just doesn't stop, particularly with comments about editors that have absolutely nothing to do with article Talk, and frequently rehashes past irrelevant disputes. (There is the 'two to tango' aspect, however, although I don't like having to rebut AuthorityTam's misleading claims about me at article Talk pages, nor will I allow him to malign me undefended.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose When not attacking or making oblique snide remarks about other editors, AuthorityTam is also capable of improving articles. Content-related debates at article Talk—even vigorous civil debates—can lead to gradual improvement of articles (a bit like tacking), and if AuthorityTam is to continue editing JW-related articles, it would be impractical to not discuss article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - This would help to cool down the issue. Because I believe if you cannot work along with a person just stop interacting would help for while --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has not acknowledged that any of his behaviour is inappropriate, but has actually described his current behaviour of frequently attacking other editors' motives as 'avoiding interaction'. Because of this distorted perception of what constitutes 'interaction', it's not clear that he would understand what an 'interaction block' would require.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Sanctions: Willietell: Topic Ban

We propose that Willietell be blocked from editing articles related to Christianity for a minimum of one month. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I may live to regret this, but at this stage there are probably better ways to deal with Willietell. There are significant issues involved with his editing. He finds it very difficult to accept consensus, and does not listen to other editors. The thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#This whole page should be deleted and the resulting thread immediately below it strongly demonstrate the difficulties of dealing with him. That thread produced a good range of uninvolved editors who all tried to help Willietell, without great result. See User talk:Willietell/Archives/2012 1#Your recent edits. He has responded to these effort, and outside intervention, by threatening admins[125] or complaining of COI[126]. He has seen agreement among other editors as evidence of sockpuppetry[127] and hostility[128] and constantly describes any statement that differs from his unique view of the world as "POV spin".[129] Willietell is a deeply irritating editor and borderline disruptive because of his recycling of previously settled debates (because they didn't produce the result he wanted). He accuses me and others of hostility, despite earnest efforts to walk him through the issues involved. There are issues of maturity here, but hopefully he is on a learning curve. I think a block here may be counter-productive because it may fuel his paranoia. Hopefully at some stage the weight of opposition to his views may persuade him there are alternative viewpoints that sometimes have greater validity than his. BlackCab (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• oppose As you yourself point out, my edits on the page Genesis creation narrative were no more egregious than any other editor on that page, including yourself[130]]. While, at first I had little understanding of how things worked on Wikipedia, I have made attempts to learn how to do things properly and have not repeated the early missteps I made as a new editor. My opinion that material which does not fall within the guidelines of WP:NPOV represents POV spin is "my opinion" and as such can be expressed in a civil manner and should not be cause for character assassination, whether you personally like the term or not. I have performed no action nor exhibited any behavior which would in any way justify such a proposed "Topic Ban". I would like to thank BlackCab for notifying me of the existence of this proposed topic ban, since the proposing editor failed to do so. Willietell (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally here[131] is the diff on that page, showing the edit in question was not only a minor one, but justified, as the current page content shows[132] . Willietell (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support Willietell has asserted some quite bizarre suspicions about the motives and actions of other editors without any evidence, and has also asserted a fairly narrow world view in various articles related to religion. However, he does claim to have learned from his problematic behaviour. My main concerns largely relate to matters discussed at the essay, Wikipedia:Competency is required, and I would like to think that Willietell can continue to develop skills that may make him a better contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Each new editor have his own way of approaching discussions and they will adapt. Some may be vigorous and some may be calm. Nevertheless it contributes to the whole improvement and to reach consensus. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I am running out of daylight, I will have to continue with this ANI tomorrow, and I have some sanctions of myself to propose. Willietell (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose that proposal of proposed sanctions (if any) be left to admins

[non admin comment] In the words of the Bard of Ayrshire “Oh what some power the gift he give us, to see ourselves as others see us!” ... I admit to being totally uninformed here, I've only had my eye caught by one relatively well conducted and resolved edit fuffle in JW-article space about the church's excommunication practices, plus there was a cooperative attitude shown by participants (AuthTam and Jeffro) from both sides in getting Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion pulled back into generic WP:Christianity space. Seeing as that can be acheived, why not just drop this before something like the "vile nutcase" comment WP:BOOMERANGs into all 4 being invited to spend a month contributing to the non-JW bits of Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I will bend to the editors suggestion and withhold requesting sanctions against Jeffro77 and BlackCab to allow time to see if the editor who filed the ANI (since I have been corrected and Jeffro77 didn't file it, but discovered it in some manner) heeds your advice and withdraws it. If he chooses to do so then this will be a moot point. However if he persists, then I will propose a Topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors based upon their hostile behavior towards editors who disagree with their POV as well as barring both editors from editing the same article or talk page within a 31 day period the lessen the tagteam effect of their overly co-operative tandem edits, which a perusal of each editors contributions will demonstrate without much investigation. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As I will not be able to contribute to Wikipedia tomorrow, this will allow about a 36 hour period for the editor to make up his mind as to what he chooses to do. Willietell (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's quite an ultimatum, Willietell. Numerous editors have advised you to stop screaming "POV spin!" every time you see wording you disagree with. The latest example is Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Lede in which Willitell keeps complaining of a "factual inaccuracy" about who establishes doctrines for the religion, and yet is apparently unable to see that the article simply does not contradict his claim. The long thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns is a window into the thinking of an editor who throughout the entire exchange gained no support for any change from a wide variety of editors. I don't think an editor whose biggest response is a thunderous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is in much a position to be sitting on the judge's bench. We all agree that this subject is something that divides editors. I will happily work with editors with whom I disagree. I do not, however, accept that editors who continually goad, taunt and ignore requests to engage on matters of conduct should be permitted to do so freely without a sanction of some kind. BlackCab (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly bizarre that Willietell insists on "topic barring for an indefinite period for both editors" unless some action is taken by BlackCab. And then he accuses me of being "overly co-operative"(?!), but conveniently ignores all the times I've also agreed with other editors, including AuthorityTam.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've already stated above, AuthorityTam is capable of collaboration. The problems largely arise when he verges off into irrelevant attacks on the motives of other editors (mostly of BlackCab) at the mildest of perceived provocation, and often with no provocation at all.

I should note that although I expressed agreement with some of his suggestions at Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, he did not actually acknowledge any contribution by or agreement with me, and the only time he mentioned me was earlier at that page when he felt the need to state that "the AfD proposal [opposed by AuthorityTam] by User:Jeffro77 was closed with Keep", which seemed to have been stated that way to highlight the supposed 'failure' of my proposal, despite the fact that a) the closure was self-evident from the removal of the AfD template, b) all the editors involved at the Talk page were also involved in the AfD, and c) I had accepted the result of the AfD—in isolation, the comment might seem innocuous, but in a broader context is part of AuthorityTam's dismissive comments about editors he doesn't like. If this is not the case, AuthorityTam should be able to provide evidence where he's made special mention of AfD closures that were a) not closed the way he wanted or b) not proposed by me, BlackCab, or other editors he considers to be former JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good thing. I was never a JW, but my most vocal support at the Jesus Crucifixion page came from AuthorityTam - my personal interaction has been fine, but the diffs and a trawling of edit history (since I had nothing better to do than keep refreshing this page and work on some Wikidramatics) reveal problems. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI process: a final thought

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I see a view coalescing that my complaint that AuthorityTam’s actions in (a) repeatedly goading me with his mischievous “aka LTSally” line despite my asking him several times to stop, (b) maintaining generally antagonistic and combative comments towards me, (c) recycling years-old exchanges and (d) repeatedly quoting a line I deleted from my user page two years ago .... was not worth raising. Apparently I should stop bullying the poor soul, because he’s just reacting to the fact that sometimes there are two editors in a discussion who disagree with him.

Maunus has previously warned AuthorityTam to minimise his personal attacks[133] and has also advised editors to treat others as they would like to be treated.[134]. He has also suggested (without supporting evidence) that Jeffro77 and I have bullied AuthorityTam.[135].

In the past year I have done my best to treat AuthorityTam with restraint, despite his best efforts to pour gasoline on the fire. It’s worth noting that in the dreadful Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Can we wrap this RfC up? thread, which is probably one of the low points of all JW discussions, the thread began on February 6 and was still going at March 30. I withdrew from the thread on March 3. My earlier condemnation of AuthorityTam’s behaviour was all turned around as evidence of my “attacks” on him. If you can stomach it, read the thread in its entirety.

Or try this one for a prime example of his tactics of misrepresentation and escalation. Follow this trail of breadcrumbs: (1) AT's "Keep" vote of Feb 27 that concludes with a sneering dig at "the nominator's decision" (that's Jeffro) that clearly misconstrues Jeffro's initial comment. (2) History2007's comment of Feb 28 seizing on ATam's "evidence" that Jeffro is being devious. (3) My comment immediately afterwards with the fairly innocuous observation that "I think AuthorityTam is being mischievous in his suggestion". Then ... (4) AuthorityTam's over-the-top spray of March 1 employing his "aka LTSally" device, links to comments of mine from 2009 and April 2010, before he (yet again) parades my userpage comments before I deleted them in January 2010. My chiding his unnecessary denigration of anothereditor as "mischevous" prompts his rants of "hyperventilatingly caterwauls" and "outrageous namecalling". His links are all ancient history. They're three years old! Again, I have learned a lot about civility and respect since mid-2009. AuthorityTam has learned nothing.

Put simply, I can’t win. I can’t make him stop this shit, and when I try, I’m accused of bullying or being thin-skinned. Really, this whole ANI complaint was a complete waste of time. AuthorityTam doesn’t admit any fault, few others see anything wrong with his conduct and now editors are discussing possible sanctions against me for doing nothing more than asking him to stop. Really, I’d rather just drop the whole thing. I have zero faith in Wikipedia processes for dealing with inflammatory behaviour ... but then I would, wouldn't I? BlackCab (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly some frustration here. Thing is, even the editors supporting AuthorityTam, despite some fairly evident bias, have acknowledged above that at least some of his conduct has been improper. Maybe the admins are just busy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a loser!

Michael Joseph Miller ftw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowinternetsucks (talk • contribs) 07:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Epic Fail--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

FART

--Slowinternetsucks (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)