Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive789

Revert war, block/unblock, and all sorts of mess

Arts on the Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen a revert war ongoing due to disagreements of whether NFCC applies to the 17 images it currently has/had in a table. There's ongoing discussions taking place on the article talk page. But Slowking4 (talk · contribs) and Werieth (talk · contribs) decide to have a rather large revert war, and the revert war basically short-circuited the discussion (somewhat). Foxj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked both Slowking4 and Werieth for 60 hours, and Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) immediately granted an unblock, followed by a revert on the article. I am requesting more comments on this issue, as I do not feel that Kww's unblock reasoning is sound (the discussion on the article page, for me, doesn't feel that it's a clear NFCC violation). Thus I'm calling into question as to whether the 3RR exception applies here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

both Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) clearly noted the violation on the talk page, both of those users have extensive histories with the non-free content policy. Werieth (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

They are clearly WP:NFCC violations, although there are editors on on Talk:Arts on the Line that don't appear to be particularly concerned about that. There's a pretty clear consensus among editors that are not specifically concerned with the article that the images are in violation. The images need to stay out until there is a consensus to include, and this kind of problem is specifically the reason we have that exemption in WP:3RR.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed people arguing re: #3, #8, NFLISTS/NFTABLE; I can only see #8 being the valid issue. NFLISTS - this isn't really a list article (and, frankly, we'd fall to bullet point 6 for this). NFTABLE - the current wording of NFCC allows consideration. #3a/b - 19/20 separate pieces of art laying across Boston demonstrates the impossibility of actually reducing it (unless, obviously, a blueprint or something exists). #8 is the only one that I would consider to be the valid challenge (and even then, this can be fixed by writing the appropriate paragraphs). I'm seeing the argument, but relevant bullet clearly indicates that this should have been discussed in other forums prior to the revert war; thus, I still believe Werieth has to shoulder part of the blame. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • NFCC problems clearly favor removal of material, and that's why the exemption is in WP:3RR, so that we will block the person adding the material and not the person removing it. Explaining an arts program doesn't require an illustration of each and every piece of art selected by the program, and "writing a few paragraphs" won't fix the #8 problem.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Involved editor here - contributed a couple of the files in question, and responsible for a lot of the talking on the talk page. Regardless of the final decision on this specific article, this should perhaps prompt a fresh look at the wording of the NFCC policy, and particularly at the validity of NFTABLE. Trying to word my arguments on the talk page was very difficult because so much of the disagreement here comes down to the semantics. NFTABLE was also (so far as I understand) written considering lists and tables of a) albums, b) TV episodes, and c) currency. Trying to apply it to a list of artworks has proven both difficult and polarizing - one very quickly either sees Arts on the Line as a giant NFCC violation or a perfectly reasonable application of it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think that this looks like a clear violation of WP:NFTABLE. However, instead of engaging in an edit war, I think that it is better to discuss things like this at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear; the images were a violation of WP:NFC _GUIDELINE_ not WP:NFCC _POLICY_. WP:NFTABLE, a part of WP:NFC, is NOT policy. It is a guideline. This is an important distinction. WP:NOT3RR contains an exemption for blatant violations of NFCC policy, not guideline. The use of the images in the table is a judgment call, not a blatant violation. A blatant violation would be, for example, missing a rationale for the use. All the images had rationales for the use. Whether it violated NFC or not is irrelevant. There is nothing in NFCC POLICY which prohibits the use of non-free images in tables. If there were, we would not have articles displaying non-free images like History of British film certificates, Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) and South African Navy do in tables. This is a judgment call, one that was heavily disputed on the talk page. The appropriate action was not edit warring, and both User:Werieth and user:Slowking4 were blatantly out of line for the pointless dozens-of-reverts-long edit war conducted over the span of less than an hour. Additionally, administrator User:Kww was out of line for granting the unblock of Werieth and at a minimum should have discussed the issue with administrator User:Foxj before doing so, but this did not happen. Kww's actions effectively condoned User:Werieth, and this is utterly wrong. The edit war was clearly, blatantly disruptive and no exemption in 3RR trumps that. Had it been 4 or 5 times by Werieth, I could maybe..maybe...see it. 18 reverts in less than an hour by Werieth and Kww effectively condones Werieth's actions? Absolutely the wrong call. User:Slowking4 should be unblocked since the article can not be edited by non-admins for the next month, and an RfC should be initiated with Slowking4 as a participant. Kww should be admonished for undoing the block of another administrator in this case, and should be reminded of the importance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by editors, and the importance of following Wikipedia:BLOCK#Unblocking in so far as it says that an unblock should be performed when "the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake." That was not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The images violated WP:NFCC#8 as well, not just the guideline. The primary problem is that with a number of admins having commented on the talk (and presumably watching the article), no one moved to block User:Slowking4 earlier.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, the violation of WP:NFCC #8 or #3a is a judgment call. If it were not, then the articles I noted above would have had their images stripped already. That's why I noted those articles. A certain someone attempted to use the 3RR exemption for this same purpose. Their efforts were soundly rejected by the community. This exemption does NOT trump disruptive editing nor further discussion at an RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you can get consensus to change WP:3RR to specifically exclude #8 and #3a from the exemption, I'll behave accordingly in the future.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Hammersoft. The existing 3rr text says: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (emphasis original). It's not clear to me how to improve that. (Adding Kww, this means you, stop acting like a doofus is prohibited per point.) NE Ent 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus that the quantity of images violated WP:NFCC as the article stands, so the "should be established as a violation first" standard had been met. The images had already been removed by Black Kite, who specifically stated that he felt the removal of the images was subject to the 3RR exemption, which Werieth says that he relied upon. There was considerable discussion about what could be modified to make the article compliant or whether there should be a specific exemption for arts projects, but there was no consensus about what degree of modification would be required or how sweeping of an exemption would be required.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There at no point was any consensus to remove the images. In this diff, Found5dollar established the basic arguments as to why the images are acceptable within the fair use guidelines - and neither Werieth nor Black Kite at any point could name why any of them were wrong. However, it's become very clear that the NFCC patrollers consider their opinions to be more important than any of those who dissent; note this diff where Werieth calls for myself and others to be "enlightened" as though we are children. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

With non-free material there must be consensus for inclusion, without that, removal is necessary until such time as consensus is reached. Werieth (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff for that policy? NE Ent 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; ... see burden of proof Werieth (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That says a fair use rationale must be provided; one is provided here. Whether the rationale is sufficient or not is a matter for consensus discussion. NE Ent 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the concerns about "endorsement" noted above, and have left this message.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate it. I think, given the fact that a concern is raised elsewhere re: this, it can continue elsewhere (unless anyone else have anything else to add?) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Can we seriously get this user banned from editing again. It seems all he is doing is trolling the Wikipedia for pages with images and removing them, there seems to be no pattern to the types of pages he is removing images from. I see he was blocked yesterday and then unblocked minutes later and basically back at it again. I see the user has removed all the warnings from his talk page and if I see today has received a warning for 3RR on the article FTSE 100 Index, so he hasn't learnt his lesson at all. All this user is doing is upsetting other users who have worked hard to contribute information to the Wikipedia. I do understand the users edits may be making pages comply to some standard but the amount of removing of images this user is doing is just insane. Bhowden (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• The images clearly and unequivocally failed WP:NFCC#3a (overuse) and WP:NFCC#8 (significance), which are policy. Therefore the 3RR exemption clearly applies, and Kww was correct to unblock Werieth. Regardless of whether they are in tabular form or not, 17 images which are purely decorative are a clear fail of our policies. As I pointed out on the talkpage, one or two may be admissible if they were clearly described in the text as representative and/or iconic, but the editors there appeared to believe that our policies did not apply here. They were incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Having said that, I'bve just seen the history; this all started after I was asleep (I'd removed the images earlier). Yes, that was a rather daft revert-war and Werieth should have stopped and simply reported Slowking to WP:AN3, he was already over 3RR before Werieth was. Ah well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• How is illustrating the primary subjects of an article "purely decorative"? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• In the same way as discographies don't have album cover images despite being the subjects of the article, or articles about lists of characters from TV shows don't have images of all but the most notable. Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves. That's why I said that a few (at most) representative images may be acceptable. There's also the issue of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). Since the table already says (for example) "A large stained glass wall composed of mostly blue glass with the exception of a red band that runs the length of the work.", does that need an image as well for the reader to understand what it is? I'd say it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves." That makes sense, and I'll accept that as a reason for limited fair use in the article to one or two images. But that's the first time that's been said - at no point was that articulated previously. While a simple point, that's critical to this entire debacle. While I think the issue for this article has thus been settled, there needs to be a process for those points to be articulated sooner, as it appears that issues like this have come up previously in the removal of large numbers of non-free images for articles. I'll perhaps make an RFC on the NFCC talk page (I believe the rule is that I should wait for the ANI to be closed first?) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If a rational argument can be made for inclusion of something, the situation is not so obvious that any admin has the right to take action on the basis that something is "clear and unequivocal". If the community agrees, the material would very soon be removed and we wouldn't need this sort of conflict. (this is not an expression of any view on these particular images.) DGG ( talk ) 01

53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that very clear, and very rational, statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

98.14.244.165

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.

---

a new proxy of the multiply banned user, probably nocal, continues his pov edit war.--Severino (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveExternalSites

An extended discussion; currently consists of:
1 Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK (currently closed)
1.1 Proposal to reduce MZ's block length
1.2 Proposal to restore the Status Que Ex Ante
1.3 Increasing drama
NE Ent 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Jericho needs to be put under Arab-Israeli conflict sanctions

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.

---

Should Jericho be under the sanctions for articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Given the current edit-warring there I think it should. I'm about to do some RL stuff so could someone add the appropriate template if they agree? Thanks Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, a good old-fashioned "who owns this city" edit-war. I'll issue some blocks, warnings, etc. to the edit warriors. Not sure that anything else needs to be done. Per WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, it is already the case that "all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR", although I have reservations about whether this apparently community-imposed sanction is enforceable as written.  Sandstein  19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The same vandal (or socks) is active on Palestinian people; can someone please protect the article and block the vandals,? Huldra (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please protect Palestinian people now. Huldra (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! (I suspect some of the ips that were active there were open proxies--> more trouble?) Huldra (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If that's the vandal I think it is, then there's always more to come. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

My old fan Grp, then? I am quite used to him..thanks for cleaning up! Huldra (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

....and now 4chan is on my user-page.. could some-one please block/rinse/clean? Thanks Huldra (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC) ......that was quick, thanks Ronhjones! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Worrying stalky SPA

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[Link removed since it has now been dealt with]. Formerip (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Indeffed by Elockid without so much as a howd'ya do - and rightly so. Totally unsuitable username worthy of an instant WP:UAA hammer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Turning Wikipedia into Spamapedia

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.

---

User:Causeandedit seems to be misusing Wikipedia to promote numerous record labels, artists, and turning articles into link farms with bogus references, consistently ignoring polite requests to follow WP's rules. An occasional good reference is swamped by junk. It creates a huge amount of work for others here to undo; Hoopla Worldwide is just the tip of the iceberg.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. This user does not appear to be here to help the project; I support a block. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• FWIW, another editor started a discussion on the COI noticeboard, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Hay_.28publicist.29. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• for what it's worth, they deny having a COI, and that they only write about stuff that happens in their town, but their contributions are laser-focused on two specific non-notable people as well as being unabashedly promotional, so it's kind of hard to take them at their word. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Would it not just be best to await the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Causeandedit? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't see why. Socking isn't the only issue, or even the primary issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• That looks more like meatpuppets than anything else. But this is definitely a concerted and focused PR push. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice that User:Causeandedit is vengefully putting up a satisfactory Nat Gertler article for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I think it's time some other admin has a look at this. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Some interesting comments have been made at User talk:AGK#Harrasment By User and someone with time to work out what this all about should study the situation because it looks like it will get ugly quite soon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that in the history Causeandedit's interesting comments from 8:04 12 March are struck and not accessible yet they still appear at User_talk:AGK#Harrasment_By_User. Oversight gone not quite right? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • General comment. We are all volunteers. We help in various ways of our own choosing. Some fix typos. Some add content. Others delete content. Some fix grammar. Some add photos. Some settle disputes. The only way different agendas can cooperate is if we try to follow Wikipedia's self-made rules. The result is an incredible source of information, a powerful first for humankind, widely read, and has such a powerful web presence that it is highly tempting to misuse it for promotional purposes. Spam, advertising, and other promotional junk can undermine the entire project, reducing our encyclopedia into one big sales blurb, so the community has decided, wisely, to keep spam out. Most contributors who look into this matter will agree that User:Causeandedit is a prolific spammer who is bombarding "articles" with bogus references. When challenged, Causeandedit complains of harassment or strikes back; for example, a Wikipedian and notable author Nat Gertler voted to delete some of the spam, prompting User:Causeandedit to slap a spurious AfD tag on apparently from spite. In my view, Causeandedit is a nuisance to the community, is not following Wikipedia's rules, is not acting in good faith, is harming the project, and should be blocked, hopefully permanently.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Somebody had indeed tried to suppress that content but not quite did it right. I've fixed the mess. AGK [•] 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen that AfD, it's blatantly frivolous and is borderline an attack. The user also went back to edit it after the AfD was closed... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Causeandedit indefinitely as an advertising-only account that is WP:NOTHERE to establish an encyclopedia. Now I'm going to check the recent AfDs for their merits. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I !voted "not sure yet" for Sabrina (pop singer) but I can assure I will shed no tears if you speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G11 right here and now if you so wish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left that one sitting for now but !voted for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm speedying by G11 what I can find, except for some of the musicians , because I lack confidence in that area--I see they are now being taken care of also. It is conceivable that some might be notable, but it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose formal ban of Causeandedit and any socks

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.

---

Are there any objections to a formal ban of Causeandedit and his socks, if any? It looks at first glance like typical advertising activity but I totally lost any good faith in this user after they were called out on falsely claiming Sabrina had been certified gold in the United Kingdom and then, with all the eloquence of a toddler claiming Darth Vader had raided the cookie jar, they tried to claim that by UK they meant "University of Kentucky". If that isn't silly enough on the surface, the article said "United Kingdom" (not just UK), linked to the BPI site, and gold records are certified by industry groups like the RIAA and IFPI, not by colleges. But that's a once-in-a-lifetime wackiness, right? Wrong. He did it again on the Audio Stepchild AFD. Not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The assertion of gold status in the UK by Causeandedit for Sabrina (pop singer) appears to be an obvious falsification. Perhaps the editor was hoping to benefit from the confusion with Sabrina Salerno, who does have a Silver certification in the UK and is a much better known performer. Sabrina Salerno has sold 10 million records worldwide. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have little objection with a community ban or whatever of this user, as they are very blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd support a formal ban. Amongst so much deception the claim of accidently mistaking "United Kingdom" for "University of Kentucky" show that this editor has no respect for the truth, this project, everyone here. If claims of Mr Hay talking to this editor are to be believed (source redacted for other reasons) then Mr Hay should express issue with how bad CaE is making him look. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a possible sock of User:Causeandedit here? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Sockpuppeting and disruption make this a good call. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - He certainly was making no effort to understand the concept of "significant coverage" in my interactions with him. There's either serious promotional, or competence, problems with him. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. TBrandley ^(review) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Since when does an IP account erase a deletion discussion? Another sock?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - User is not here to improve wikipedia. 71.94.5.228 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

The discussion above 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.

Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200

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.

---

I had some discussions with Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200 (see his/hers recent contributions). It seems to me that he/she is a combination of WP:LISTEN with WP:COMPETENCE. It seems to me that he/she is a troll who wants to harass editors. He/she produces some preposterous arguments from the fringe of the fringe, like that there would be historical proof for Jesus's resurrection and in general that historians should seek to falsify supernatural causation. Such arguments should not be expected from anyone with a minimal scientific education, this is why I said he/she is a case of lacking editorial competence. I have explained what historians do and that history has a naturalistic methodology because historians of all faiths have consensually agreed upon it, but he/she refuses such arguments, which shows that he/she is a case of failing to get the point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a red herring, it was a distraction from my main point. While I know that you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus resurrected, I was just explaining that some people like me believe that and thus "the strong scientific evidence" that is an exception in Wikipedia's FRINGE policy would be satisfied.

All I wanted to do was make some edits to the extremely biased material on the History and the Bible Wikipedia page as it exists right now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as we agree that proving miracles isn't, cannot be and will never be part of any empirical science, we can smoke the pipe of peace. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Google gives the definition of empirical as:

• Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

I think miracles fit this definition. We can observe things in the present that would have happened if a certain miracle occurred. The Shroud of Turin is a very interesting archaeological discovery that atheists aren't quite sure about.

Obviously we can't "prove" that something happened, supernatural or not.

So no, I disagree with you. While miracles themselves can't be explained by natural laws since some of them are temporarily withheld, the events that follow afterwards are definitely part of empirical science.

And that is still a distraction from my main point of removing the horrendously biased statements that are present on the article now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And now I have a username and have created an account! JasperTech (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, I had already admitted that I got irritated by your claim that historians could prove the occurrence of miracles and that I was vitriolic about it. But please don't pour gas on the fire. You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever or you have unlearned what you learned in it, otherwise I see no possibility to deviate from the idea that empirical sciences are by definition naturalistic. E.g. name one science (but not a pseudoscience) which studies the supernatural. There is a contradiction between the idea of arbitrary divine intervention and the idea of empirical science. The Age of Enlightenment has taught us what is admissible as fact and what should be relegated to the realm of mere faith. It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia editors have respect for science and your mockery of the scientific method could irritate them. I hope you do understand that attempting to pass supernatural claims through peer-review is extremely ill-advised for anyone who wants his studies published in a respectable scientific journal. Wikipedia can only take the side of the reviewers, they are the gatekeepers who forbid the entrance of pseudoscience in respectable scientific publications. I don't attack your right to believe in miracles, I just say that by definition sciences could never attest the existence of miracles: physics has naturalistic methodology, chemistry has naturalistic methodology, biology has naturalistic methodology, psychology has naturalistic methodology, sociology has naturalistic methodology, anthropology has naturalistic methodology, history has naturalistic methodology, religious studies have naturalistic methodology and so on. I would advise you to watch the short movie at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cweYRarq664 , wherein Bart D. Ehrman makes it expressly clear that claims that miracles have really happened are not historical claims, but they are theological claims. Any historian worth his salt would agree with Ehrman, except practitioners of pseudoscience, who conflate history with theology. Historical facts should be valid for people regardless of their faith and of their theological persuasion. What you want is eat your cake and still have it. You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method. As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK sure, I won't pour any gas on the fire! I'm definitely hoping to get a consensus that everyone is happy with.

"You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever...."

You just finished speaking about not pouring gas on the fire, and then you say that. Very interesting. I'm just a high school student, and if you classify that as "no scientific instruction whatsoever" then, well, OK.

"It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia...."

Let's consider the scientific method. It's all about why does this happen? People try to explain things with laws. These laws are mostly consistent, but not always. For example, virtual particles pop in and out of existence without any cause. These are quantum fluctuations and the first law of thermodynamics is temporarily withheld. Are miracles any different?

I watched your recommended video and it is not "expressly clear" to me that a supernatural claim is not historical, but theological. I know it's theological, but how would it not be historical? It depends on what you define as historical, but I think that would be determined according to one's biases. I'll explain. Take the Shroud of Turin. Historians, like with all other archaeological discoveries, are interested in an explanation of how it got there. They want to know if it could have been forged, the person that rested inside the shroud if it wasn't forged, and so on. There is no consensus as to where it came from. Some Christians think that the Resurrection could explain how it came about. That's their hypothesis. It's definitely a theological claim, but since it's explaining archaeological evidence wouldn't it also be a historical one?

You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method.

You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method, but a miracle could be set forth as a hypothesis to explain some evidence. Whatever hypothesis best explains the evidence.

On the other hand, a miracle is by definition something that can't be explained by natural laws. But then again, virtual particles are one example of something that can't be explained either. It just "happens." In fact, since laws are immaterial, then you could say everything just "happens." How do we determine a scientific law? From things that consistently "happen." But then we could also define laws as things that we observe to happen, rather than the cause of why things happen. Some Christians argue that God is the basis for the scientific method and for natural laws.

"As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals."

So to sum it up, I know that empirical science can't prove miracles, but a supernatural causation hypothesis could be used to explain some evidence. Obviously this shouldn't be overused like some Christians, but we also shouldn't avoid all the evidence if it points to this conclusion.

As for the "serious scientific journals," I noticed you used the word "serious." I guess that must be because I referenced some theological journals that are considered academic. But your word "serious" excludes these journals. Apparently they aren't "serious" journals. But you only determine that according to your bias, so it doesn't mean anything.

I guess now you might be really ticked off with me, but I was just saying what I think.

Oh, and why are you so against having other (i.e., Christian) opinions expressed on Wikipedia? Why are you so against a neutral point of view? It's not like any of the existing opinions will be removed. JasperTech (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This user abuses this encyclopedia in order to mock the scientific method, the academia and the system of peer-review through advocating pseudo-scientific (supernatural) explanations for historical events as if they would constitute science. I was inclined to believe that I was my mistake of being so harsh on him and recurring to vitriolic condemnations of pseudoscience, but this user simply refuses to get the point. As he persists in bashing whatever is relevant for the historical articles inside Wikipedia, he is a case of WP:COMPETENCE: he does not understand how history works, yet he pretends to correct bias in articles edited by many competent editors. He has to submit to the idea that history has a naturalistic methodology and that this is not something open for discussion. Even if the issue were open to discussion, Wikipedia would not be the place to discuss it, but such discussion would have to take place in peer-reviewed scientific journals, among the most prominent scholars in historical research. This user simply ignores Occam's razor and with it most of the scientific method. Furthermore, he does not admit that this is his problem, but has accused me of bias and violating WP:NPOV and attempting to silence Christians, and together with me he has accused the many editors of The Bible and history of having an anti-biblical bias. My sincere recommendation to him is to take science classes and come back an edit Wikipedia when he has at least basic understanding of how science works.

Since he is not able to understand abstract ideas, like having a scientific consensus upon methodology, I will give him an example of what historical research could establish in respect to relics. I saw a Discovery Channel show, advertised at http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/john-baptist-bones-120615.htm . Discovery has gathered a team of scientists who tried to establish if some bones (relics) found in Bulgaria would be the bones of John the Baptist.

"The result from the metacarpal hand bone is clearly consistent with someone who lived in the early first century AD," Oxford University professor Tom Higham said of the new study. "Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will."

To the best ability of those scientists, it could not be proven that the bones belong to John the Baptist, since we don't have his DNA nor his dental X-Ray. It was not disproved either, since the data could not demonstrate that the relics were a forgery. So, the relics has been relegated to the limbo of neither proven genuine nor proven false. Remember that this does not mean falsifying a miracle, it simply means attempting to establish if some real bones belonged to a real person mentioned by the Bible. That's all history could do. It cannot be used to prove supernatural claims like the resurrection of Jesus and the divinity of Vespasian. I recommend him not to waste our time with such rubbish. He just takes for granted pseudohistory published in fringey fundamentalist magazines and conflates theological arguments with historical research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I get it. Tgeorgescue is showing that I'm a fraud by letting me post all my "crazy ideas" over here. I know that I'm not supposed to fill the talk pages with debates about something, but about their content. I'm very sorry for getting off topic, but in the original "Bible and history" talk page was where it began. I recommend that any other person who is wondering about me look into that discussion over there and the points I raised about the bias of the article.

From now on I won't go into debates over beliefs in talk pages. But it seemed almost inevitable since Tgeorgescu was discussing the nature of pseudoscience and claiming that supernatural causation fits into that category. I know that many scientists consider supernatural explanations as pseudoscience, but according to WP:FRINGE the weight given to a certain view should be relevant to the number of people who hold it (it's acceptance). Since there is a large number of Christians who do not hold that view, and since the creation/evolution debate is one that is continuing today, I don't think Wikipedia should call miracles "pseudoscience," although it's perfectly fine to explain who believes that they are pseudoscience. I think all opinions should be allowed on Wikipedia (although we have to of course give them their due weight). Christianity seems to have a lot of weight to me.

Anyway, back to my main point. My main point was the bias in the Wikipedia page "The Bible and History." Tgeorgescue seems to think that the bias is perfectly acceptable, but to me it seems like an unambiguous contradiction of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

And just so all the viewers know, in response to the example provided by Tgeorgescue, I must say I absolutely agree. He seems to have set up a straw man argument against me, because I never said that miracles can be "proven" (actually, nothing can be proven with absolute confidence).

Looking forward to what others think! But I definitely want to comply with Wikipedia standards and I don't want to break the rules of competence. As for his charge that I refuse to get the point, I must ask, what point? The page he referenced talked about accepting the "consensus," although right now I see no consensus with just him arguing against me. There were in fact two other people who took my side who responded in the discussion on "The Bible and History," but that's not very many people. So I don't see how I broke that Wikipedia policy. JasperTech (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of you stop. This is not a forum for discussing scientific method versus religion. In fact, Wikipedia is not a forum for this sort of discussion. JasperTech, the first thing you should go do is read a veritable alphabet soup of policy pages. WP:V and WP:RS are the two most important ones. Also, consider WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. If you are seeking to discuss the merits of this versus that, then WP is not the place for you. We are not here to discuss validating one person's view over another, but to report the views of reliable sources. If you find that something is missing or slanted in the article, find a reliable source that says the contrary and most importantly discuss the source on the talk page not the material in the source. Whether you think Christianity has a lot of weight is irrelevant, since you are not a reliable source. Tgeorgescu, please refrain from dismissing a new editor's misunderstanding of how to edit here as rubbish as it's not civil. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Further comment. JasperTech, please also read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blackmane! I think I remember reading those before, and yes, I do have a secondary source for my proposed change. What I would add would be based off of an Apologetics Press article, but since I'm not sure if those kinds of sources are allowed I would quote the first sources that the Apologetics Press article in turn cites. The paragraph or sentences I proposed adding onto the existing text to express a variety of opinions were cited from an academic journal called The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, and since Tgeorgescue said that it must be academic, I think this journal would qualify. But apparently he still doesn't think that the source qualifies because it's not a "serious" academic journal. But I don't know what that means since it seems to me he defines what a "serious" journal is according to his particular bias.

And yes, I promise I will no longer make Wikipedia into a forum. JasperTech (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you take it to WP:RS/N the reliable sources noticeboard. A number of more experienced editors will be able to help you there. That noticeboard is a very good way to widen the discussion. On one hand you be editing a very obscure article which is only frequented by 1 or 2 editors with opposing views making consensus difficult, but on the other you might be editing an article which has many editors who are divided in any number of ways. In such cases, WP:RSN or perhaps WP:3O a third opinion is what you are seeking. Another source of help is the Wikiproject that the article is associated with. This can be found towards the top of the talk page. In any case, I believe that this may be closed as no admin action required merely guidance to the appropriate locations for help. Blackmane (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not pass judgment on the seriousness of The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, what I said that apologetic articles should be used with utmost caution, since they don't give an objective view of research, e.g. through ignoring evidence to the contrary, giving undue weight and even using cherry-picked quotations which may give a false idea of the claims made in peer-reviewed journals. I said that I do not know if the purported fact got widely accepted by scholars or if it is a fringe/minority view, but there are surely other Wikipedia editors who are more informed about that and could pass a reliable judgment upon the acceptance of such claim by the academic community. Without referring to your personal views but simply evaluating the reliability of sources, any journal which claims there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus falls into WP:FRINGE/PS and therefore should be ignored by Wikipedia as pseudohistory. I don't know if the discussed journal published anything like that, that's why I don't dismiss it yet as unreliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And on that note I'm going to NAC this as resolved and redirected to the appropriate venues. Unless I'm mistaken, this could have been hammered out on a talk page and sent to WP:RSN rather than drama central and no admin action is really called for. Blackmane (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Reference deletion by User:Herr Gruber

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.

---

User:Herr Gruber deleted references, content, and ELs over a whole series of article with no rational other than the note "Mike Sparks is not a reliable source":

diffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiff

It came to my attention when Herr Gruber deleted a link to an online copy of a 1990 article by an unrelated author diff at Collimator sight. User seems to be claiming anything on a Mike Sparks related webpage is "something he made up"[1]. The writer in question (Mike Sparks) seems to have many published articles in the field and it looks like the material being referenced in the articles was not opinion, but instead was technical information and re-posted old articles/documents. Since the linked article in question used at the Collimator sight article was not even written by Mike Sparks I asked the user to take it to WP:RSN to show the claims of "not a reliable source", "altered or forged", "some crank's website full of his own hideous opinions", "He is a lunatic", "a crank and a liar" was more than the user's opinion[2][3], but the user simply keeps deleting the link diff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you my initial thoughts. From my mile high view, combatreform.org claims it is staffed by experts, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Herr Gruber's opinion on the reliability (or otherwise) on Mike Sparks needs to be documented on WP:RSN and agreed by consensus. More importantly, I see you edit warring with your reverts on Collimator sight here, here and here. Further reverts could have resulted in you being blocked for a short period. As soon as you get into a back-and-forth revert pattern with anyone, you need to step back, take it to talk, and wait for consensus. I know it means the article sits in what you might consider to be a "worse" state, but it probably doesn't matter too much in the long term scheme of things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. "edit warring" is why I brought it here since Herr Gruber shows no signs of wanting to take it to WP:RSN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• No opinion on cranks and liars yet, but I don't think one can link to this in a Wikipedia article--I suppose I can't do it myself here--since that's probably a copyright violation. No? Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• I have an opinion now, after reading this. Read it for yourself and judge whether this person should be considered an authority on anything--I wouldn't trust him with lunch.

  Anyways, that website, combatreform.org, is bigger than just him, but it appears to be the regular fairly indiscriminate collection of quotes, scans, videos, rants, editorial commentary, libertarian/militaristic opinion, etc etc. The opening sentence speaks volumes: "An elite group composed of military professionals, aircraft and ground vehicle designers and civilians dedicated towards creating an excellent U.S. military capable of defending freedom both at home and abroad that has a moral compass." We can't cite something like that, and while one can post this at RSN it'll be a quick discussion. Linking to its pages for verification of printed material is problematic: I don't see anywhere that the elite group got permission from various journals and magazines to scan and post those articles (see WP:LINKVIO). In other words, for all practical purposes, don't link to it.

  As for Herr Gruber's style of communication, I think it's a bit rough around the edges, but he gave reasons for his reversals, brief as they are, and actually used a talk page; that's nice, considering those don't seem to be his favorite places on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the edit warring: if my analysis of the website does not suffice, it should be taken up on the RSN and decided there. If edit-warring continues after that, this elite group of dedicated administrators, armed with the latest technology and with unwavering dedication to the principles of free knowledge, capitalism, and benign oligarchy will bring some kind of hammer down. Yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition: see if ArbCom cares. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• A brief look at http://www.combatreform.org indicates that, whatever one may think about the merits of its contents or contributors, it is pretty obviously a WP:SPS and thereore should not be cited as a source under most circumstances. Herr Gruber was therefore right to remove such references. If anything, he should also have removed the content sourced to that site. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and removing obviously unreliable sources does not need the rubber-stamp of approval by any noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my rationale for documenting on RSN isn't so much rubber stamping as providing a reference to future editors. If I find a source I'm unsure about (which frequently happens when reviewing new stuff at AfC), an RSN search is my first port of call as a search. If even a one line entry containing "Not reliable in the slightest. Get rid." had existed, we might not have needed to come here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Somebody needs to add that "not reliable in the slightest. get rid" then. I can't stress this enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As I noted, there is no pressing need to link to an online copy of a source if the full citation to the original work is given; there's plenty of FA-grade articles that link to journals, periodicals and other works that aren't stored online. What concerns me with using combatreform as a source is the site has a reputation as being the work of a crank (in particular his attempts to claim the M113 is called the "Gavin" are very well known on military forums), which makes it a dubious source for proof of the original content of a document. It's like linking to a pie chart on immigration that's hosted on Stormfront. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; CombatReform's positions on military matters start at "dubious" and go downhill from there. Basically: keep far away from that site if you value your brain cells, although I will link this as an example of the sort of stuff we're dealing with here (although the one Drimes found above pretty much says it all!). Unfortunatly, the video Sparky put on Youtube for his straight-faced proposal for a flying M113 capable of shooting down MiGs was pulled due to using copyrighted music. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the WP:LINKVIO link. I was looking for the rational NOT to link an online copy of RS on a potential non-RS site per WP and that seems to be the crux of it, much more helpful than repeating "He is a lunatic" 10 or 20 times. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think misrepresenting what I said is going to help anyone. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No fighting in the war room please, gentlemen. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Comment on Jimbo's talkpage

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.

---

[4]. Is this a threat or just a personal attack?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The thing to do with trolls is make sure as many people as possible see what offensive thing they have written.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What happened to "Don't Feed the Troll"? Was it seriously necessary to post this here Amadscientist? Lololond (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is not considered a threat and is just a troll needing to be starved off. I do not object to this being hatted or removed. It appears that Materialscientist has blocked the editor involved.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if it could be classified as a "threat", it is so obviously not going to happen, so what was the outcome you were hoping for if the user has been indef blocked for trolling/disruptive editing anyway? Lololond (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean you hardly thought his family were in any danger, and since he could be indefinitely blocked for personal attack anyway; why did you feel the need to post it here and ask about whether it was a threat? Seems like just attention seeking to me. Lololond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd for someone who created an account almost immediatly to comment here accusing another of seeking attention.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say "for the purpose of commenting here", based on the logs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The same applies with the original comment. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I made this before, or simultaneously as the user was being blocked. That works for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The remarks have been scrubbed. I call that

Resolved

no matter how you look at it.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Junebea1

• User:Junebea1 long-term disruptive editing. Recent WP:3RR on Bad Girls Club (season 11) along with User:Badgirlsclub1, WP:OWN creation and attempt to protect new article Bad Girls All-Star Battle (WP:CRYSTAL , lack of WP:RS). Has been given multiple warnings and blocks. Does this WP:SPA editor have a WP:COI too, or are we just talking fan club? (I've reported User:Badgirlsclub1 as username vio.) Widefox; talk 23:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That was actually a couple of days ago, so, in my opinion, it doesn't qualify as 'current'. Myself and some other users have reached a solution that will work for right now on the talk page. The only user who has not engaged in the discussion is user:Badgirlsclub1. He/she has refused to listen to anybody else's opinions and will not even participate in the talk page discussions. Thanks--Junebea1 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing is the issue, and that is current. By not allowing (edit conflict merging) my uncontroversial edit just now on Bad Girls All-Star Battle it may appear like an ongoing WP:OWN issue. Widefox; talk 01:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

While I have had some problems with Junebea1 in regards to their edits to Bad Girls Club seasons' articles, there has been massive amounts of vandalism that has resulted in most of them being protected. I have brought up my past issues with Junebea1 and they have been working on them. The edit war over the color in a season infobox has stopped for now since I removed the color and stated a discussion on the talk page in hopes of gaining a consensus. Junebea1 has responded there while the other editor has not responded but has not added back a color to the infobox.

This entire section is unwarranted since Widefox first warned Junebea1 against edit warring with a template for something that has not happened for three days and is in the middle of a discussion. Then Widefox left a more personal section on Junebea1's talk page six minutes before starting this discussion, leaving Junebea1 no time to respond to the criticism that could have averted this being brought here. Aspects (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm increasingly less concerned. Both of us having to make the same edit indicates a problem. Would be good that this ownership and edit summary are made clear as a minimum. Widefox; talk 02:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have come across this editor before. Junebea1 is a problematic SPA editor who exhibits the worst WP:OWN behaviour on a very small number of articles and does not listen to advice or warnings from any editor. I think Widefox is fully justified in bringing the issue to this forum's attention. I would add that in my opinion we are most likely dealing with a juvenile who does not have the maturity to behave as we expected Wikipedians to do. We would be far better off without this editor. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't insult me. I find that extremely rude and unprofessional. We can have a mature conversation without insulting each other. Junebea1 (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Junebea1, personal attacks are not acceptable.

but, as I came here completely independently from a noticeboard, no previous interaction, I'm fully confident that if we can just get across the WP:OWN issue with this WP:SPA editor, this will be a step in the right direction. As I feel my efforts to point out this are not yet being heard by Junebea1, I will now remove myself from this. Widefox; talk 11:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WA 2000 personal attacks

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.

---

I have been attempting to make some small edits on the page devoted to the WA 2000 rifle. A user ROG5728 has been accusing me of being a SOCK. I dont pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia as I mainly just read articles and seldom edit them. The accusations on that page are defamatory and serve no purpose other than to ridicule. English is also not my first language so I apologize for any confusion. Anyone who has supported my position, including me, has been accused of being a SOCK. I don't pretend to understand fully how these things work but I am a college student and I do most of my posting from the campus library so his threats about tracking me down by my IP seem quite ridiculous, petty, and threatening. I think this matter should be looked at objectively by an outside party. In the past he has called in Admins that he has collaborated with in the past. I would appreciate a neutral party, who is not involved in the Wikipedia weapons project, investigate this.

Below is the link to the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walther_WA_2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrad2001 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is currently a sockpuppet investigation open against you. No one said anything about "tracking down" or threatening you. I explained to you that socking (and/or edit warring on said sock accounts) could likely earn you a block from editing Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Inappropriate NAC?

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.

---

• Why did Hahc21 close the contentious discussion linked? As far as I am aware he is already under restrictions due to incompetence: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21 is ΛΧΣ21. The discussion he closed is here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#wikipediocracy.com. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've been informed elsewhere that the restrictions were lifted. Isn't the close pretty much similar to the original issue though? It's a premature close of a discussion; it was NACed after 1 day, before any non-involved editors could comment (and is probably partially why the issue spilled over here). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Indeed, the restrictions were lifted here. I had actually blocked on the basis of this final warning because I had not seen the lifting. I apologise to Hahc21 for the block. However I do feel the NAC was unwarranted and it's possible that a topic ban on this editor performing NACs might be in order. They just generate too much hoo-hah. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add to that. Nobody in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive245#Request_to_lift_restriction appears to have noticed the final warning, and the comments are written without addressing it. Hahc1 also didn't mention it in his request either. Bwilkins, Kudpung and newyorkbrad didn't take part in the ANI discussion; possibly because they didn't know about it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that we are going to hold this "final warning", where he closed a withdrawn RfA (extremely contentious and definitely requiring a judgement call), against Hahc. I also can't imagine that the extreme unimportance of that "final warning" wasn't a factor in no one mentioning it. But, you know, to each their own. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• *sigh* Make someone an ArbCom clerk and hand them a couple of other trophies for their shelf, and they lose sight of what their authority and common sense really is. I do recall warning both Hahc to be careful, and also the community of what could happen, and was lambasted by his minions for suggesting that Hahc could possibly slip up. I feel slightly vindicated now, but I hate it ... and I do mean hate it when I have to say "I told you so" - especially after WP:AGFing all the way to the edge of the trees. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your condescension towards Hahc (and his "minions", not sure what that's supposed to mean) is ... interesting to see, Bwilkins. Moving to the topic at hand, which you essentially didn't address in your comment, while it certainly wasn't an ideal close, it's far from a bad close—unless you really want to argue that consensus was going to swing in favor of blacklisting the site. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about Ed ... what "condescension" are you making up? I'm utterly and excrutiatingly flabbergasted and saddended at Hahc's decision to have closed something that was so controvertial. The controvertial nature of it does make it a bad close - but was most certainly not one that Hahc could make. And WTF is your "minions" comment about? I'm sure you've read the attacks on my talkpage about a comment where his friends horfifically misunderstood a comment I made to Hahc and attacked me for a couple of days? I'm also certain you have followed my contributions today and have read all about minions? You're an intelligent and respected person ... I'm sure you did your homework before making the above comment? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a discussion which was closed after one day, I think it's hard to tell where it would have gone, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• • BWilkins, are you an uninvolved party with respect to Hahc? Tony (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd consider myself not involved - others who have misread in the past would not agree :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• To be fair to Hahc21, the "hoo-hah" in this case comes from both sides of the ridiculous drama that has been and is with outing, WO, ArbCom, blocking, unblocking, blacklist et al. Let's not crucify Hahc21 for others, a lot of very experienced editors, acting like idiots. -- KTC (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hahc21 shouldn't have closed that discussion. NAC closures are generally expected to be less controversial topics. WP:BOLD NACs are done with the understanding that you will explain it in full detail, and you understand you are sticking your neck out and someone might take a chop at at it. That means you do so at some risk, which means sometimes there are negative consequences. Is it block-worthy? No, but it was ill-advised and poorly executed. This is partially why many in the community wanted to restrict Hahc from NAC'ing anything to begin with, and did topic ban him for a time (and may end up leading to another topic ban discussion, unfortunately). I strongly suggest you simply refrain from closing complicated discussions because the drama the closing causes is problematic. As I would tell any editor, Thank you for closing the simple stuff, but leave the contentious discussions for admin to close. This is what we do and what the community expect, and they hand pick who they want to close the contentious stuff, via RfA. If someone wants to start a topic ban discussion, I would suggest doing it at WP:AN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Besides, we get paid to close this stuff.--v/r - TP 14:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep, paid less than everyone else when you count our expenses... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• I apologize for what I did. I am not in favour or against the inclusion of the website, and my explanation of that action is now rendered as useless. I was blocked, which was the last thing I wanted to happen in my career. I would revert myself, but I don't really have the desire to press the save button again. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Per your desire to revert yourself, I've just re-opened it. And don't feel bad about being blocked, most of our best users have been at one time or another. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd mention one of, if not, the absolute best, but he has too many enemies... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'd go so far as to say very few of the best have a clean block log. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Hear that Dennis, you're a minority.--v/r - TP 15:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Hear hear! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with The ed17 that there is no need to be so condescending or patronising while criticising a bad call—we're fellow editors, not his teachers. wctaiwan (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• The NAC close was a poor judgment, the block was a mistake due to not knowing the restrictions had been lifted, everyone has apologised, the unblock in the log clearly states that the block was a mistake - I move that we should be abundant with our forgiveness all round, and close this and let an excellent contributor carry on with all the good stuff he does for the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded. No admin action called for or necessary here. I'd close myself but prefer not to close threads I've been involved in. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In the future I encourage editors to both log restrictions at editing restrictions and remove them when restrictions are over turned. NE Ent 20:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Blackgaia02

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.

---

Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs · count)

Well I'm not involved in the issues at all (User:Ryulong is his target), but I have this user on my watch list for some edit warring I blocked them for over a year ago. Not really important. What is important is that I think this user is having issues editing Wikipedia lately. They've been a bit uncommunicative, gets a little mad, doesn't want the rules to apply to him, some more hate for the rules, some shouting in the edit summary, more edit summary silliness, more shutups, and a new one 'sourcefags'. All in all, the guy isn't really that disruptive on a blockable scale. But per WP:CIR, I think he needs to find a new hobby. Read the bottom of his talk page and tell me if I'm being silly. I haven't discussed this with him because User:Bbb23 has already tried to discuss it with him.--v/r - TP 13:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok my reply to this is quite simple, I just don't like how much people were reverting all of my edits. Fine I do understand those but I just hate being told by many people who to do in this site or what should I add or not. This is like taking away my own freedom to edit any articles as I wish. As I knows, it was on the Dokidoki! PreCure I got seriously mad because they keep on removing my edits, and I'm only just adding vital info that is shown on their names. So what, I just hated people telling me that "You cannot edit as you please. Sources and Rules allowed" again and again. It pisses me off.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 14:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

They're telling you that because you have no 'freedom' to edit 'as you wish.' Editing here is a privilege that requires you to obey Wikipedia policies. You've been reverted for not following those policies several times and then yelled in frustration. If you cannot edit in a collaborative environment, by the policies the community has set, without getting angry then you should find another hobby.--v/r - TP 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not fair at all. You're telling me to leave forever because you guys never like how I edit? Fine.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 14:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this user is not here to edit an encyclopedia. Yes, anyone can edit - but there are rules and guidelines for promoting an academic and collaborative environment, which Blackgaia is obviously not willing to follow (in fact, on this ANI thread alone, he is already in contravention of one guideline). Any objections to an indef?--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm at work so I can't delve deep enough to comment on any block, but this account should be included in any result. Tiderolls 15:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Look I get it! I'll work with everyone here if anyone won't eventually annoy me on what to do.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 15:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You also need to include links to your user page and talk page in your signature, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand Blackgaia's problems, whether they are attitudinal or medical or something else, or a combination of more than one problem. However, from a Wikipedia perspective, he wants to edit in his own bubble, which is not possible. Otherwise, he is going to have these periodic outbursts. He should be indeffed. If he corrects the problem in the future and can edit collaboratively without tantrums, then he can always come back and request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Done. User has been here for seven years and still can't behave like an adult. We are not here to guide young people through life, and temper tantrums call for a naughty chair. If user can promise to behave, they might could be let back in, but I see nothing but a net negative here (note also the long list of notifications on the talk page: typically such lists are evidence that the editor simply doesn't know what we are and what we do). Drmies (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Administrator Dougweller's Apparent Misrepresenations

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.

---

• Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed Baptist Church

---

1. Dougweller has put much time and attention into getting a page deleted (Covenant Reformed Baptist Church).
2. I noted (copied below) that Dougweller stated a notability tag had been on the article for 2 months when, in fact, he had put it up only 5 days previous.
3. I ascertained that The Caswell Messenger is owned by Womack Publishing Company (http://womackpublishing.com/our_papers/) while the Danville Register and Bee is owned by World Media Enterprises, a division of Berkshire Hathaway (http://www.worldmediaenterprise.com/section/wme02).
4. Why, then, did Dougweller state that The Caswell Messenger and The Danville Register and Bee were owned by the same company? (copied below)

This appears to be two misrepresentations of fact: (1) about the duration of the notability tag and (2) about the ownership of the two newspapers.

copy of my order of events March 14 with assertion of fact following:

1. a notability tag was put on the article on January 23 and removed that same day because the organization, having two separate sources for published articles, seemed to meet the standard stated on the tag.
2. another notability tag was placed on the article on March 9 by Dougweller, writing, "I've restored the notability tag which was removed without discussion...".
3. To that, Rjensen responded defending the article's notability on the "talk" page, including: "the editor of a local newspaper can be considered a RS on institutions in that county."
4. On March 13, I wrote, "The notability tag wasn't removed without discussion. The reasons for this page meeting the notability requirements were given briefly and are still above."
5. Only 5 days after placing the notability tag on it, Dougweller nominated the article for deletion, saying "A notability tag has been on this article for almost 2 months" (above).
6. A new source has been added: "Covenant marks first anniversary," Danville Register & Bee, March 8, 2009. This is the newspaper serving Danville, Virginia.

Yeoberry (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Owned by the same company as the Caswell Messenger. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Yeoberry (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The tag was added here dated 2013-01-23T15:27:37. You removed it here, half an hour later. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's noted above. Dougweller's statement was that a notability tag had been up two months. It had not been. He used that statement to move toward the deletion of the article.Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what admin action is necessary here. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What do we do when multiple misrepresentations are used as the basis to delete an article? Yeoberry (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You've already responded, multiple times, to the alleged misrepresentations on the AfD, so anyone going there to comment will see your claims, and will !vote with full knowledge of them. What more do you want? No one is going to take down the AfD on the basis of your claim of misrepresntation, the AfD is just going to run its course. There's really nothing for an admin to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Edits and discussions unproductive and disruptive editing User:Jfeise

Jfeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to block efforts to improve and add information to International Technological University. I am operating under undisclosed COI as a representative for the university in the entry. Regardless of how my approach is with Jfeise, he persists in keeping any additions from being made. It is an uphill battle for any additions, and he always labels everything I propose as advertising. Jfeise continues to rely on the fact that I am operating under undisclosed COI as his argument knowing that it is a gray area, however, I am doing my best to be be neutral, and receptive. His responses are never productive, and he always goes back to the same points of "sockpuppetry" (which I'm contacting the admin that passed judgement to explain the situation, and will be happy to address if necessary), or advertising. Most recently, ITU received accreditation, and therefore, we would like to add the fact and expand upon our wikipedia entry to reflect that information. In accordance to wikipedia best practices, I post the proposed content onto the talk page, however, Jfeise is always quick to tear it down rather than suggest improvements. He is quick to label it as advertising, revert the changes without discussion, and carry on in a non-productive manner. I try to have a reasonable discussion with him, but he adds nothing new and keeps going on about unrelated incidents: Removing content without warning; another example is he reverted a change after only 5 min. . For the second example, the content was posted taking into consideration Jfeise's concerns of the neutrality, but still he continued his comments about sockpuppetry and advertising with no positive contribution. I hope that some administrators can help take notice, and offer some assistance. Ituhubert (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Ituhubert misrepresents the issues. I am reverting his advertising on that page, but there are lots of constructive additions and changes that I have no problems with, so Ituhubert's assertion that I "persist in keeping any additions from being made" is simply untrue. Again, the reverts I have made on that article had to do with advertisements. jfeise (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the the user Ituhubert has previously operated a sock, which had harassed me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. Recently, the same style of harassment was posted on my talk page from an IP (Special:Contributions/207.204.229.209,) and the same IP also removed content from the article in question, which was reverted first by me, and then by another editor. Yet, Ituhubert only attacks me, which looks like yet another harassment in the previous style. jfeise (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you view the talkpage [6], you'll see that the dialogue almost always goes to Jfeise referring to my operating under undisclosed COI, or to the sockpuppetry investigation, he seems to completely ignore any assumptions of good faith, and constantly labels the content as advertising. It's like talking to a broken record pretty much, and makes progress a tiresome and frustrating experience. I understand that statements should be backed and referenced, but constantly having to respond to allegations without any forward movement seems pointless. Regarding the sockpuppetry, as I have mentioned, there was someone from the same university that was found committing the violations - this person was asked immediately to cease and desist. I cannot control the actions of those that are around me, and even less so online.

I have never harassed or attacked Jfeise, nor have I asked anyone else harass him in any way. The sockpuppetry investigation is inaccurate. Instead I've put all of my efforts into discussing things and working towards a mutual conclusion. Regarding his reverts, he does not discuss it on talkpage, and when he does it always goes back to the same two points: Undisclosed COI and Sockpuppetry. I could understand if the long discussions led to more progress, however, it's always the same song. Ituhubert (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was real. It was found by Wikipedia administrators to be sockpuppetry, and the sock accounts got blocked indef. You obviously did not consider the findings inaccurate at that time. And you need to learn that advertising has no place on Wikipedia. Please put your advertising elsewhere. And stop harassing people who clean up advertising. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, even Jimbo has said that those with COI should not be directly editing the articles that they have COI on - merely suggesting changes on the article talkpage to obtain consensus ... declaring COI does not absolve you from it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is of course what I have told Ituhubert several times, as the talk page shows. He just has chosen to ignore that, and instead accuses me of disruptive editing, when in reality it is he who does the disruptive edits. jfeise (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested changes on the article many times, however, the dialogue is always overshadowed with Jfeise's comments. I understand the gray area of COI, but Wikipedia policies do not specify that editors with a COI are not allowed, only advised not to: [7]. Now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am sure to post my content on the talk page before just blatantly making it public. However, every time I propose content, this is the type of responses that Jfeise offers:

“ I agree there's no need to bring up the sockpuppetry here, and the focus should be on content. I have updated the "Student Services" information to sound more neutral: The Student and Career Services Center supports students in identifying and planning for internships with local and national hi-tech companies. Such internships are an integral part of ITU’s educational program.[14] ITU’s Good Neighbor program is the university discount program for students and staff of the university. [15]. Jfeise, which parts do you think are inappropriate, and how can I improve it? Ituhubert (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please keep advertising off this page. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

”

If the purpose of having other editors comment on the talk page is to discuss improvements, then I don't see how this comment and other comments like...

“ I understand your concern, and I've done my best to explain to an admin regarding the accusation of sockpuppetry. I hope that rather than using the talkpage to dispute unrelated details to this article, that you may instead provide suggestions on how to improve the removed content. You may e-mail me from my user page if you would like to find out more regarding the sockpuppetry investigation. You can see from my past activity that I do openly operate under undisclosed coi, and hope that you also realize that in our interactions I have done my best to act in good faith with a neutral point of view. I appreciate any suggestions on improving or changes if anything I post seems biased. Ituhubert (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, your sockpuppet Orientalsoul, quite frankly, did not act in good faith, in particular concerning me. As for emailing you, I won't. If you have something to say regarding the sockpuppetry investigation, please do it in the open. As of now, I strongly suggest you hold off on any edits of this article. You are having a conflict of interest. jfeise (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

”

... are in any way progress towards building a consensus rather Jfeise's method of derailing the conversation, and going off-topic. Ituhubert (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you copy from a conversation from July 2012, which was around the time when your sockpuppet OrientalSoul attacked me. It is obviously you who is trying to derail the conversation and going off-topic. It is obviously you who is doing disruptive edits. I have told you lots of times to keep advertising and promotional material off the page. Yet you continue to post advertising and promotional material in blatant disregard of the COI policies. When that gets pointed out to you, you attack me, and post a bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, Jfeise, we're only replaying what is already on our talkpage here. I have never attacked you, nor have I asked anyone else to attack you. I had often hoped that rather than you telling me my content is advertising and promotional that you would offer a rewrite or suggest a rewrite of your own. Every time my expectations were shot as soon as the mention of "sock puppetry" came about in your reply. I do appreciate comments like:

“ The last half-sentence, starting with "making ITU the first WASC accredited" is, sorry to say, completely vacuous. In the text about CSU Fullerton that you quote, there is no reference to the accreditation agency at all. Accreditation by a recognized accreditation agency is what matters, not which one. Also, if you limit things arbitrarily, like region, accreditation agency, etc., you can always come up with "being the first." First on the block, first on the street, comes to mind. And finally, quoting from ITU's press release doesn't make things true to begin with. jfeise (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) ”

Though there is some good points, I took those, and responded.. then the next comment:

“ Since you quote the CalState Fullerton Wikipedia page, CSUF is also the only university in Fullerton that offers doctoral degrees. Yet, that is not listed on the Wikipedia page for CSUF. Similarly, this is not noteworthy for ITU. And I suggest you stop trying to bully me. Your sockpuppet OrientalSoul seems to have gone back to that as well, under an IP address. jfeise (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ”

We go back to the same cycle, plus your example was false after my own research, WASC accredited two other universities for their doctoral degrees. It just seems like you're reaching to make points on a whim and just to spite my suggested content. Ituhubert (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And then you posted your advertising without getting consensus. Again, against COI policies. And instead, you were posting this bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and selectively quoting from the talk page is counterproductive to begin with. I am sure the admins know how to get to the talk page, and they can read the whole context there. The bottom line is that your recent proposed change was not noteworthy, not sourced, and promotional material. That's why I opposed it. The modified change was only marginally better, but it still was promotional material. That's why I reverted it. You have since made some changes that were not promotional, and I am happy with that. You need to understand that promotional material does not belong on Wikipedia, and you need to understand that you can't threaten and harass people who revert promotional material. ANd this whole discussion doesn't belong on ANI, anyway. Discuss this on the article's talk page. jfeise (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

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.

---

I was editing an article in my own Wikipedia user space when User:Darkness Shines issued a message on my talk page that struck me as Wikipedia:Harassment,[8] and so soon after he had been warned about his behavior in an AN/I that's not even a week old. I did not answer this (thereby going against your advice above to talk it out first), but the reason is that this would, in my previous experience, only yield another negative reaction. Crtew (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't like DS, and he doesn't like you. Does that mean that anytime the two of you interact you're going to bring it to ANI? Why don't you work on the article that he promises to nominate for deletion? Surely we all have better things to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User Space should mean something. And why is he watching whatever I do? There are rules against that, and it's policy. See above. Also see past warnings against him in these archives. Crtew (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all pages on Wikipedia belong to the Foundation ... even userpages. For example, userpages are subject to copyright, BLP and can be MFD'd and speedy deleted ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Also I would hardly call this "interacting". That makes it sounds so innocent, as if I were actually on mainspace and editing an article and another user wanted to talk about something I was doing. This is someone watching my own development space, uninvited, and then intimidating me with warning messages. Yes, this is a statement of intimidation: He's saying when it's in mainspace, it will be nominated for deletion. If you look at past interactions, there is a pattern. Furthermore, since the closure of the last AN/I, I have gone out of my way not to "interact" with him in mainspace. You can look at my edit history to verify that.Crtew (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Then he should propose a speedy delete and see where that will get him.Crtew (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here you go, if you think it can be speedy deleted: User:Crtew/Press intimidation in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtew (talk • contribs) of 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As long as he doesn't edit your userspace pages, I think he's allowed to read them and comment on them. Although his message wasn't very friendly, I don't think it is strictly against the rules. If he posts on your talk page again, you're free to revert him. Just make sure the page you are working on is notable and you don't have anything to fear from him. I suppose you could request an interaction ban, but I don't know if there are grounds for that or not. It would have to be based on more than this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just so we're all reading the same policy here I quote: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

Taken with his past history (see his history for what I'm talking about and his long list of complaints here in AN/I), this is tendentious and disruptive.Crtew (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The two of you have a history, and I'm not going to dig up all the diffs to compare the childlike behavior to see who "wins". I've seen enough of it. As an aside, he didn't say he'd tag it for speedy deletion; he said he'd nominate it for deletion. As Mark said, you can revert him; it's your talk page. You can also tell him not to post on your talk page again (better to do that on his talk page rather than in an edit summary). This topic should be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've already told him never to post on my page again and several times, both on my page and on his page. That's not going to work.Crtew (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Diffs for that would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've viewed Crtw's talk page and the requests for DS to stay away are still there. I've warned DS not to post to Crtew's talk again. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the speedy delete point was about what bwilkins says, not what DS said. There's no way in a million years that what I have even it a half finished form as it is would be a speedy delete. The point here is that there is no need for him to be poking his nose around in my user space and then to be issuing me disruptive comments.Crtew (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As for diffs it's all Mizabotted. Right after he put me on his fake warning list (where he was posing as administrator and issuing me warnings about my behavior -- for copying editing an article) I wrote this on his talk page:

You have absolutely no right to put me on any kind of noticeboard list. You must stop this immediately, take me off the list and leave me alone. Crtew (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to stalk me to a highly contentious article it is only right that I inform you that it is under arbitration enforcement. I inform quite a few people, it is no bigge. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

NO it is a very big deal. You need to leave me alone. This is a backlash. Do not address me or contact me or put me on any kind of listing. Why do you think my editing on this site is about YOU? Are you that egocentric? Get over yourself. I was there to explore a connection between Bergman and the article and I have every right to do that. You have crossed a line Buddy/ I feel intimidated by your actions and no longer safe in this environment. And I will not tolerate this. You need to cease and desist. Crtew (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sake Crtew, ease off. You brought a complaint, DS has been warned. Don't pour fuel on the fire by continuing to post here. There is no further admin action likely or necessary. The pair of you are heading for an interaction ban if either of you pursues this quarrel any further. DS, lay off as well. There is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by extending this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

The Scottywong, the Wikipediocracy, and the blacklist

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.

---

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.

---

An editor has expressed concern that this thread contains too little drama.
Please help add more drama to this thread. When enough drama has been added, please change the name of this noticeboard to Wikipedia:Drama board for people who don't have enough conflict going on in their lives and need to create more of it to give their lives some semblance of meaning and purpose.

Not quite the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but anyways... just when you think the eDrama was dying down, we have the recent kerfuffle over the Wikipediocracy brought about two separate blacklist discussions; one at talk:Spam-blacklist, the other at the Village Pump, both of which garnered rather tepid responses from the WIkipedia community. AGK unilaterally added the URL to the black list the other day, then self-reverted in the face of opposition. Scottywong has now taken it upon himself to ignore the community and wrong-headedly invoke WP:IAR to overrule by decree.

Admin attention is necessary to revert this edit and to caution Scottywong against thumbing his nose at the Wikipedia community. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we please just stop it with all the STUPID that's seems to be going around like a virus lately? Scotty, just undo what you did, then let's close it quick and everyone relax.Volunteer Marek 03:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to say that Tarc was wrong to bring this here, but perhaps we should try to determine consensus on whether or not the site that shall not be named should be blacklisted. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that was partially the point of the VP discussions, so I don't think bringing it up again (at AN/I) is the best venue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Just for the record. I am the one who closed the discussion as rejected. Clearly, some people here has been overreacting as of late. First, the damage is already done; Russavia is outed, and blocking users for posting a link (i) will do more harm than good, (ii) won't change the status of Russavia's personal information, and (iii) won't prevent more users to see the private information. Wikipedia and its users are not the only way that people can get to that website, and punishing our users won't change anything. Also, seems like adding the website to the blacklist is a way to climb up the drama-hill again. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary seems to suggest that editors are being blocked for linking to this site. If so, who? It seems like admin time would be better spent unblocking those editors, surely. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll explain my reasoning here, and then let whatever happens happen:

• Multiple editors (including admins) have recently been blocked for posting a link to Wikipediocracy. It has been demonstrated that anyone recently posting a link to Wikipediocracy will get blocked. Therefore, we can either allow people to continue posting links and getting blocked, or we can not allow it and prevent those blocks. Perhaps it will prevent the blocking of someone who is unaware of this new de facto rule. This helps improve the encyclopedia by preventing the unnecessary blocking of editors.
• People are getting blocked because Wikipediocracy is currently hosting an article that publishes the identity and personal details of a Wikipedia editor. If this article goes away, then I would agree that Wikipediocracy should be removed from the blacklist.
• The above-mentioned discussions on VP and the blacklist talk page were contributed to primarily by WO regulars, since the discussions were advertised on their forum. I don't consider either of these discussions to represent the unbiased consensus of Wikipedia editors, therefore I don't consider my action to be against consensus, nor is it my intention to "thumb my nose at the Wikipedia community".
• The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write encyclopedia articles. If we continue to lose editors due to something as stupid as posting a link to a site with questionable content, then we are not serving our own best interests. We can't write articles without editors. We can write articles without linking to a site that will immediately get you blocked. This is my rationale for invoking IAR with regard to this action. If you can't link to a site without getting blocked, then there is no reason to give editors enough rope to hang themselves.
• Further discussion on the subject can be found on my talk page.
• If my action is to be reverted, I would prefer that it is done either after a consensus discussion that is not dominated by WO regulars, or by an admin who has no connection to Wikipediocracy. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm off for the night. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Easy solution: Stop blocking people for linking to a Wikipedia critic forum site (it's petty and stupid), then the above arguments for blacklisting it (against the will of community discussion) won't hold water. (Keeping my essay up to date is getting to be a full-time job these days.) *Dan T.* (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

--MZMcBride (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WTF? This debate is like Michael Myers, no matter how many times people try to kill it the damn thing never seems to die. What Scotty fails to disclose here is that he actually participated in the VPP discussion to express support for such a listing making him WP:INVOLVED and the fact that several editors with no apparent connection to WO have opposed the measure in that same discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor to these particular discussions, and I've never edited at WO or its predecessor, so perhaps Scottywong will accept me as neutral. There has already been the sufficient discussion he asks for, and the consensus has been found. Not only is there no consensus for blacklisting the site; there is consistent good consensus against it. And rightly so, in my opinion: trying to hide the mention of one's critics is wholly against the spirit of WP, and the letter of policy. As an analogy, removing links to criticism is the sort of thing we routinely find from paid and other COI editors, and which has cast such editing into disrepute. I think the discussion is over here, and I would regard trying to restart it as disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of why it's proposed. They out people on their front page, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And exactly who is a Wikipediocracy regular? I don't post there. Look, this a turning into an attempt to overturn the old attack sites ARBCOM case by admin fiat. The purpose of all of this is to drum up a lot of counterproductive drama. If everyone would quit pointing at then and crying about how awful they are, the problem would blow over. I do not want a precedent by which admins are essentially authorized to delete links because they don't like the Wikipedia criticism at the other end. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's what Scottywong and others have asked now. For all of you (Tarc, Hex, Kevin, etc.) who were involved on WO in the past weeks to stop trying to turn consensus your way (and by the way, I have proof that there has been canvassing on WO for these discussions). Leave it to the uninvolved, i.e. never posted on WO, community to decide this instead of bringing all of WO here and not letting anyone else who isn't on WO discuss it. Thanks. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of foolishness that led to your block in the first place, and is providing ample reason that it may have been too hasty to grant you a reprieve. No one is, or even can, "turn consensus"; to my knowledge, no one around here is a psychic, a confidence man, or a shyster. Many editors, regardless of what external websites they may or may not also be a member of, have presented their opinions on the matter. It is quite a simple fact that more editors simply do not wish to resort to blacklisting and other such vilification tactics, and that opposition comes from many editors who have nothing to do at all with any such website. For you to whip out that broad brush is the height of intellectual dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Scottywong, I guess you missed the fact that AGK (who is not just a fellow admin but also a very important member of the shrinking ArbCom) unblocked MZMcBride, who he had earlier blocked for linking to the site in question. AGK's unblock edit summary was "community consensus has held that linking to pages that out another editor is a legitimate thing for contributors to do, so this block cannot stand for much longer". Now, I think AGK may not have chosen his words carefully when he wrote that, but he seems to think that there is no consensus to add the site to the blacklist or to block people for linking to it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are we still talking about this site? Is there really nothing better to do? Is it really that important of a website? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's done quite a bit to promote that site, hasn't it? They're probably hoping there are some more blocks/bans/desysoppings/blacklistings over it; it's the best marketing they can get. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I posted this at Wikipediocracy, but if you look at the Alexa stats, in the past month alone the ranking dropped (improved) by 31,073 (compared to a 3 month total of 47,788), number of pageviews was up 53%, pageviews per user up 50%, time on site up 115%.Volunteer Marek 04:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• IMO, Scottywong's reasoning and rationale is irrelevant; we've had this discussion twice now, and these people can't be allowed to just keep flinging their junk at the wall hoping that sooner or later it will stick. I am off for the night as well now; I hope tonight someone steps up and revert this blacklist absurdity, which is supported by neither policy nor community. Tarc (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Similar to a situation in which no admin is willing to unblock a user (creating a community ban), I think you may find that no admin is willing to revert this edit to the spam blacklist. On the other hand, it seems like it's trivial to work around (for now). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

News about Wikipedia doing anything which has even the appearance of trying to stop people from reaching sites that are critical of Wikipedia is just the sort of thing that often turns into a full-blown Streisand effect. The best thing we can do to limit any damage to someone who is outed on another site is to do nothing at all and wait for something else to grab people's attention. --Guy Macon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have undone the entry as IAR is not and can never be a satisfactory alternative to consensus and admins don't have a supervote to chose whether to accept a consensus or not. If you don't like it you need to challenge it, not ignore it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Having removed several links from User talk:MZMcBride, perhaps you could remove the purple button above linking to WO. Seems like another WP:POINTy edit. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• My evaluation is that we are trying to solve a rather tricky situation from the wrong end. The problem is not at Wikipedia, but at Wikipediocrazy. Blocking users here won't work. Adding the site to the blacklist won't work. Lynching ArbCom won't work. Every attempt to solve the situation from this end of the river won't work. If we want to put an end to this, the matter has to be squashed from the website that created all this mess, not from the one that is receiving it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting way to put it: makes me use a Water Treatment Plant analogy. We're the treatment plant, but we're downstream from something that does nothing but pollute the water. Every time we add a new filter to the plant, they just dump more potent industrial waste or raw sewage into the water. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's not clear how anybody could change anything on wikipediocracy. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The last few times someone from outside Wikipediocracy honestly engaged them, content was removed, members were asked to reconsider some of their actions, and the site created a support email address and posted it prominently. →StaniStani  09:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In December 2012 Roger Davies commented, "I am dismayed that we are providing a platform to interaction-banned editors who are closely associated with site-banned editors and who are seemingly running the same arguments as those proffered by the site-banned people and already rejected on numerous occasions by the committee." Amongst other things, Wikipediocracy provides exactly such a platform, with a twist. It is a place for site-banned editors to link to posts here that were added by editors closely associated with them. Mathsci (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcomm's outing of Malleus

The latest report on Malleus, now by Inspector Clouseau, follows an even more serious outing by an incompetent Arbcom that couldn't even manage its mailing list. Where was the concern for privacy then? Where was the ban on WR/Wikipediocracy?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain how they have outed him - As far as I'm aware, they announced that he was using a sock that was possibly being used in a somewhat abusive manner. That's not outing someone! Where have they identified him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No outing. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see a Spartacus analogy. Didn't the Romans crucify all the rebels? Then again...they were slaves and not just volunteers.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Beware the Ides of March. Now I am off to bed. Good night Wikipedia...wherever you are.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, that's quite a serious accusation to make, and as far as I can see there was no outing (ArbCom state that MF and GP had possible links, and at least shared an IP address) - do you have any diffs please? GiantSnowman 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You might consider Google, or ask somebody who has been editing for more than a year. I don't post diffs of arbs saying, forgive us for fucking you over, Malleus, because of our incompetence. We shall really try harder to protect your privacy and not be such fuck ups in the future. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not an accusation. After the last outing, many arbs, including the most severe critics of Malleus, stated that they had no idea that their security was so incompetent, and they were very troubled by their fuck ups. They pledged to redo their security. They also rewrote their page, giving a warning that users should be aware that private communications were liable to be pilfered again, as in the past.

Even now, it is surprising to me that somebody would label these facts to be an "accusation", or censor the heading with the misleading edit summary that "accusations don't belong in headings"---a rather strange claim for anybody honest who views a few days of threads here.

Please check the facts. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Until this discussion, I had never visited that "Wikipediocracy" site. If we want to downplay "outing", bringing it here ain't the way to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Angelo6397 - continued copyright violations, disregard of Wikipedia policy despite repeated warnings

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.

---

As you can immediately tell from this user's talk page, said user had been constantly warned previously for uploading copyrighted images, page-move vandalism, and creating non-notable articles. Said user has previously been blocked for similar incidents. Most recently, this user uploaded image, claiming it under the public domain when the author field is filled in with "Dont know". I [9] the bad image off the page it was edited into, which the user, just a few minutes later, reverted. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Pope Francis image was tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#F8. I deleted it per WP:CSD#F9. The user was blocked in July 2012 for a month for copyright violations. They still upload images that are later deleted. They also create articles that are deleted. They appear to have a few useful edits sprinkled here and there. Some of this may be competence issues. Plus they don't appear to talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user. The continued copyright violation, combined with the almost total lack of communication, are very worrisome. This is not intended to be an infinite block, though if there continues to be no communication it may become such by default. But if the user will begin to communicate, and especially if they will show some understanding that there are problems with the copyrights of many of their edits, then I have no problem in them being unblocked by any other admin. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

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.

---

Why does the close say the editor has been blocked indefinitely, but the notice on their Talk page says they are blocked temporarily? RNealK (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the block log says indefinitely so temporarily is likely a typo especially since the person that blocked them specifically said that it was indefinitely above. That may need to be changed unless I am missing something--64.229.164.74 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The boilerplate block template has that wording if indef isn't specified, I've modified it accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Vercelli

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.

---

A few days back User:Gixz moved the Italian city Vercelli to its unused old dialect name Varsei. A ridiculous move and one that flies in the face of the entire naming convention. I reverted this move, but all interwiki links on wikidata still point to Varsei and worse, there is just one interwiki link left at Vercelli; could someone please fix this interwiki issue. thanks, noclador (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You just need to purge the page Vercelli using a null edit [Click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Click "Save" at the bottom of the edit box without making any changes.] This clears the cache and rebuilds the page to show the transclusions of the wikidata links. It should be OK now [they're working for me]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks! yes that helped :-) noclador (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

IP-based abuse

There has been a long-term IP-based abuser active on Syncopy Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the past several months. The IPs include 98.67.161.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.67.168.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.81.14.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.67.162.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This individual has been warned on multiple occasions, and has even been blocked at one point. Discussions about this user's edits, which are not always overtly vandalism, are nonetheless disruptive as they are constantly made despite objections by other editors and their good faith attempts at discussing the issue on the talk page. Such discussions go nowhere as the person behind the IPs resorts to ad hominem attacks, red herring arguments, baseless accusations, and other methods that fail to actually address the topic of discussion. I am not too sure what course of action should be taken, but I do believe some form of blocking and page protection are in order. – Zntrip 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The most recent thing is a somewhat ridiculous edit war. I've warned both participants; the IP is just as guilty there as their opponent. I will grant you that the IP's contributions appear to be much more combative than necessary, and their refusal to sign their messages is more than irritating. What helps is establishing a consensus on the talk page so there is something to fall back on. But that talk page, and the rest of the history, reveals that there is dispute among other editors as well, so I don't know how easy it is to come by consensus on individual issues. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Tell you one thing--this sort of stuff is just stupid and disruptive, and was warred over as well. It warrants semi-protection on the one hand and a block on the other, but blocking a changing IP is useless, and that particular idiocy was a few months ago, so semi-protection now isn't necessarily warranted. I don't see anything in the article history from those other two IPs, so I cannot argue there has been constant disruption over the last couple of months. If it continues, then semi-protection is warranted. Right now, I don't see what I could do. Is there an admin with a shorter fuse and bigger balls around, and does that admin disagree? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In response, users such as Zntrip act as a pack of wolves whose only purpose on Wikipedia ppears to be to tear apart every common user on Wikipedia. Look at this horrible page and think about their behaviors. They play by rules they don't even keep themselves (calling people delusional then sending repeated warnings to the other users over lesser implied comments) and they repeatedly bully or group bully anyone they disagree with by abusing the warning mechanisms and admin mechanisms. I think if someone at Wikipedia looked at their behavior closely as shown on this page that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. They do not own Wikipedia and they discourage people from using Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.110.153 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• This rant, left also on the article talk page (unsigned, of course), is sufficient indication of the editor's disruptive intentions and lack of good faith. I'll lock the article; that much seems fair now, and I've blocked the IP after also looking at User:98.67.162.21. Is the range too big for a range block? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So speaking reasonable language is now a rant? Wow, do you make this stuff up as you go along? Obviously there is a group of regular users who now cyber bully common users, ban for rules they don't follow themselves and show absolutely zero good faith. Never seen anything like it. Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.157.46 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, IP User needs to back off. He raised his point/proposed addition. It was rejected due to lack of evidence/reliable sources supporting it and yet he still insists on beating the dead horse in the hopes it will come alive. Secondly, Drmies also needs to take a step back and perhaps should review his block decisions as he is an involved admin. I would also strongly suggest he stops feeding the troll. Forgive me I can't link the relevant humorous essay as I am on my mobile. MisterShiney ✉ 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I mean, disagree with Znip or Mister Shiney you get insulted, threatened, and reported. Neither user shows any ability to reason ans seems to be on self appointed admin power trips, they will cyber bully, and never treat a common user with any respect. If getting your way and insulting users is what Wikipedia is all about then Wikipedia should rethink these users who want to wield power instead of information. Is this what Wikipedia really is all about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.157.46 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• MisterShiney, you should probably explain to the non-clairvoyant how I am involved, but I'm not really that interested since you are wrong. To the IP: nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh sorry I miss read who made the report. My mistake. So sorry. I withdraw my previous comment. Except for the IP user needing to drop the stick MisterShiney ✉ 06:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

See Drmies? You have been Shineyed! He shoots his opinions at you first, and asks questions later. If you would take the time to read all of his comments he likes to speak as a Wiki-dictator. Any reasonable person could see that this is all a sham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.10.112 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA, even if you have been wronged, two of them don't make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet ten pages of nothing that resembles dialogue with all the banning and bullying never solves the real problem -- absolute power corrupts absolutely. Funny how comments like these always favor the bully and never present anything truthful. Is Wikipedia now a playground with no adult supervision given these juvenile behaviors? Ten pages of no solutions says "yes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.10.112 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Franek K.

Franek K. (talk · contribs)

Abuses warning templates and accuses users of vandalism for edits he disagrees with [10][11]; continues an edit war (albeit with slightly altered versions) on Slavic Languages. Previously warned for edit-warring about the same topic on a different article. (notified. I will be offline for an hour or so.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I not abuses warning templates, User Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 made ​​a typical vandalism (remove text + sources from Wikipedia) [12] and this user start new edit war (two reverts in 16 minutes) and reverted to yesterday version by Benwing (for which there is no consensus). The use of warning template is appropriate. About my edit, this is new edit, I only added opinion by linguistic organisations and political issue (about regional language) + sources, do not change the tree of languages. We can freely edit Wikipedia, I added new data + sources. I have a right to this. The problem of the Slavic languages‎ is complicated and users involved in the discussion are not neutral, therefore, I propose the creation of a neutral RFC. Is this a good idea? Franek K. (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Franek, WP:Vandalism is a very narrowly defined concept here, meaning edits that are designed to deface or undermine the encyclopedia. The two examples given are clearly NOT vandalism. Throwing vandalism templates at people when their edits are not vandalism is considered incivil, and as such, unacceptable. You need to familiarize yourself with the wikilink I've provided, and not template people in this way. You can argue about the appropriateness, the neutrality, etc. of the edits, on the talk page of the article. That is what the talk page is for, and not what we decide at ANI. If you keep accusing people of vandalism for edits you disagree with, you will end up getting blocked, which is something I would rather avoid. I assume you would, too, so stop the templates and use the article talk page and conduct a civil discussion on the merits. If you can't agree, go to WP:DRN and hash it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see, though Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is new case but edits by user Benwing have signs of vandalism. Benwing deliberately remove the data and sources from Wikipedia (eg opinions by linguistic organisations) because they have a different opinion and also pushing only one POV-version despite the fact, that the topic is contentious (different opinions between linguists and linguistic organisations and politicians and sociolinguists and other). This falls under the Wikipedia:Vandalism: deliberate action on your site and weakening the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. However, you're right, better avoid these terms. Vandalisms better report to administrators. If the fight is not over, I think on the DRN or RFC. Franek K. (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

NONE of these are vandalism; from now on, each time you repeat that word in this manner, I will give you escalating NPA-warnings and you'll eventually be blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is not vandalism. Vandalism is something like replacing the content with garbage or obviously unrelated information. Period. Do not template as vandalism edits that you think have neutrality isssues. As for the content, I have no opinion, but when it comes to your actions, Seb is completely right here. You will get NPA warnings and blocked if you continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll try to do not write terms of "vandalism" describing the action of other users. Wikipedia:No personal attacks (NPA) works both ways? So, why user Benwing in their posts lying about me and says that I am an activist; and nationalist editor and other? (for example: [13] and ten times on other sites). This is personal attacks. I asked user Benwing several times to not write about me and do not lie about me. It does not work. Also, user Seb_az86556 who wrote to me about the NPA here should be impartial and should be write about NPA also to user Benwing. Franek K. (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of non-notable individual into Aix-en-Provence

Putting the socks in their drawer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Spanish version of the Aix article was recently modified to include information about Antonio J. Wassermann living there on Rue Cardinal.[14] I cannot find any sources that suggest this is an important person so I wonder if anyone can back up this addition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.216.52.43 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately we have no control over the Spanish Wikipedia, only the English (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nickst and User:EpidemiaCorinthiana

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.

---

Nickst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday, I reported the user over his disruptive editing and he got blocked as a result of the 3RR. However, I really reported him because he refuses to listen to reason or regulations and he even had a little spat with a few of the administrators on his talk page to the point they needed to block him from editing his talk page. Well...the first thing he does the second he is unblocked is deliberately disrupt any article that I have edited regardless of how much I try to explain to him that I am merely following certain basic regulation. On top of that, it seems he is trying to game the system in order to excuse his erratic behavior. I just don't think he learned his lesson and I will not even bother reversing anything anymore. His attitude yesterday at his talk page is more than proof of the futility of it.

I reported him, again, to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, I was directed here per User:Monty845. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk · contribs) renamed today all Intercontinental Cup pages by moving text (!) without any discussion on WP:RM. See [15] [16]. Also [17] [18] I just reverted that renaming. I ask admins to check his contribution and revert other his today renaming. NickSt (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Cut-and-paste moves are, indeed, a major no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), for restoration of the International Cup articles names that was moved today by user EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk · contribs) without WP:RM discussion. Please, see also this edit [19] I think the change of the lead section and infobox info to unconsensus Toyota Cup is also disruptive edit. But I am afraid to change it because this user reverted all my useful changes in "his articles". NickSt (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not seeing anything disruptive from Nickst nor do I see WP:GAMEing, certainly not since the block expired, which seems to be the time period referred to. Those kind of accusations would require diffs backing them up, and maybe I'm just missing something but those seem to be lacking. On a side note EpidemiaCorinthiana, NickSt is allowed to remove comments from his talk page, removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. Reverting that removal (and removing one of this responses in the process) is inappropriate. - SudoGhost 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we all need to step down for a bit, this has become a bit silly. EpidemiaCorinthiana has made a number of edits which contravene WP:COPYPASTE & WP:SPEEDY and failed to acknowledge that mass moves which may be controversial should go via WP:RM. I've informed EpidemiaCorinthiana of this and we're trying to get to an understanding. Certainly I believe there's no justification in calling User:Nickst a "vandal". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Rambling Man. By letting this user get away with gaming the system the way he has just to derail anything I have touched is simply opening a can of worms. Since I was extremely busy today, I decided to take a short wikibreak and my hunch was right: he was merely waiting to be unblocked to become a disruptive editor. I have had my disagreements with a few editors. This guy's case is blatantly obvious if you look at his edits today. Ultimately, it isn't my choice. I would recommend blocking him for a month. By his logic and pattern of editing, anything he doesn't agree with must be discussed and that derails any real progress to any article. I am not even going to entertain this any longer. He walks like a duck and if the relevant people want to ignore that, that's them.

And in case no one has noticed, this has nothing to do with editing any certain pages on my behalf. His behavior yesterday with the administrators who were trying to help him is more than enough proof of the kind of persona you are dealing with. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk · contribs) now is under sockpuppet investigation with indef blocked God Football (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Football. NickSt (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Two Three new related users; could be socks, could be meat

• Hira.abbasi (talk · contribs)
• Omar.nawabi (talk · contribs)
• Ahmednawabi (talk · contribs)

The accounts have been working in concert, first making unsourced test edits, now adding references like this [20], which leads to a university library site, not the professed source. Overall these still amount to test edits, and though there's been discussion attempted at both user talk pages, there's been no reply. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Omar account hasn't edited since you posted the warning, which leads me to assume that it was in fact heeded. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding a third to the collection, with a similar edit to the same source and university library website [21]. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think the most recent additions to Self-image, even if the sources are fixed, add much to the article. But to continue reverting him/her/them is tiresome and looks bad. Other thoughts appreciated. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The added content was terrible. It's possible (though not likely) that these are students. If you don't mind, drop a line on their talk pages with a link to some acronym for "Don't Edit With Two Accounts". Again, it is possible that they have an explanation for this. Kindalike the Alabama Republicans think it will improve education if they take up to $300 million out of the education budget to hand it over as tax breaks to parents who send their kids to private schools. Kindalike there are people who want to have relations with the Kardashians. It's hard to imagine that one would, but there are people who do, so it's possible. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, mr. Invisible IP, consider looking at Cct881 and Luluchan04 and Chuntingchan. Or mosey on over to SPI. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oy. Socks everywhere, or else a group of affiliated students who are experimenting here. How did you manage to work in editorial comments on Alabama education and the Kardashian clan? You know, we have universities north of the Mason Dixon, too. Just saying. And I'm not invisible, but I am transparent. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, I think a small group of students or people acting as a group is more likely. Not necessarily meatpuppetry, just working together. Polite notes welcoming and explaining things would be the better first step, ie: assuming good faith. Doesn't look like they are intentionally trying to break anything, from the contribs I sampled, although they are of questionable quality. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding two more, in addition to those mentioned by Drmies. Every reason to assume good faith, but as a group these are problematic, often linking to the University of Toronto library website, which can not be freely accessed, rather than to the cited sources. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, he did mention Lulu. Well, there's a bonus listing. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Galgegod (talk · contribs)
• Luluchan04 (talk · contribs)

I'm also certain Hira2024 (talk · contribs) is related to this possible sockfarm... same type of edits with the same poor grammar, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve Walsh (rugby referee)

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.

---

Steve Walsh (rugby referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be heavily vandalised. Uberaccount (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It was semi-protected by Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) shortly after you posted here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User: 109.151.98.87

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.

---

User has engaged in personal attacks and edit-warring, although this last is outside this page's jurisdiction.

Diff 1: His edit summary says, "rv as per WP:OWN - Fantr if you don't like people editing you're words don't go on Wikipedia. (Besides they're only being edited because you can't write for shit.) Did you graduate high school?)"

Diff 2: "Undid revision 544689632 by Fantr (talk) Get stuffed. Read the reference, if you want to get stroppy. I did. What has a credit got to do with anything?)"

I left a message cautioning him against personal attacks. He replied with:

Diff 3: "Piss off fag! If you can't take the heat don't hang out in the kitchen! 109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)"

-Fantr (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK goodness sake. Is this like running to mummy? Geez grow a pair, why don't you! All I did was edit substandard English and amend the words to fit the reference. Look at the article here here when gentle-of-heart rested on the seventh day because they had done all that they could. Then look here to what I added. Seems to me there might be a tad more here than when twinkle toes tried to be an editor. Besides the quote is wrong in the sentence the novelist doesn't "claim" to be a writer on the film, because they were a writer on the film. At the end of the day, I don't suffer fools gladly and as this one has only being around since last October they get what they deserve.109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff 4: He writes on my talk page: "Look you obviously have a very thin skin and also an inability to write clearly and concisely in English. So >with a sigh< I have to take your hand and walk you through the facts: <snip> In the end if you don't want grief then my advice is walk away now? There are no rewards for this, none whatsoever, except unwarranted self importance and eventually a chance to advance to a new level. Despite my crass manner I am trying to be nice, but others who play here will not."

- Fantr (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

But you omit what is wrong with your edit! Ah how very picky of you. I just edit content and add reference. That's all I do. The last time I was dragged here to Admin land must have been a good few years ago. I am more than a gnome, I just like to add information, tighten copy, find sources and improve articles that lack details. However I think sweet, little Fantr is more interested in the drama and lawyering than content. 109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff 5: He writes on my talk page: "Wow such a drama queen. Why don't you grow a pair and learn to write properly?"

- Fantr (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In contrast, the bravery of IP addresses knows no bounds. However, there's a theme to his comments. Being from "Man"chester, he's obsessed with "Man"hood. I've reported him to AIV, and we'll see where he gets blocked first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked 48 hours. Hut 8.5 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

I'd kick up the block another 24 hours for accusing others of not being able to write well, while demonstrating their own inability to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Youkilis

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.

---

This is a copy-paste of my post to WP:BASEBALL

User:Nyyfnfrvr is actively disrupting this page, adding a non-free image and the whole "2013-present" WP:CRYSTAL violation. S/He reverted Muboshgu once and me three times. I have issued 3 disruptive editing warnings which have not even bean read. Don't want to be involved in an edit war here - any and all assistance would be awesome. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

and s/he just did this to my talk page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really consider the talk page thing an emergency or a threat, but quick admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Filed an AIV report. Go Phightins! 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

please also see this latest message. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Continued violation of WP:BLP

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.

---

Tramadul (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times on his talk page and at the Paul Frampton talk page to stop using Wikipedia to exact vengeance on the subject of that article. Paul Frampton was duped into carrying a package out of Argentina which turned out to be cocaine. He was arrested and convicted, but Tramadul has been adding nonsense such as "The Paul Frampton ring operated for the purpose of cocaine traffic between Latin America and Europe at least until the arrest of its namesake in early 2012." to numerous article's See also sections,[22][23][24] despite being warned. He also created Paul Frampton cocaine syndicate as a redirect, which he added to multiple articles. A block is already warranted in my opinion. First Light (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tramadul is an out-of-control editor who's primary purpose, based on his edit history, seems to be to do a hatchet job on Paul Frampton. Please see the current BLP/N discussion. Among his many, many outrageous edits is this one he made at Mule (smuggling). Also see this thread on the Frampton talk page about highly inappropriate images he added to this BLP. Look at those images and read his reasoning for adding them. He will not listen to anyone, ignores everything he is told by other editors, continues to make contentious edits (and while a BLP/N exists), and most importantly, appears to be on a mission to destroy the subject's reputation. He acts calm in the various discussions, but then repeatedly proceeds to disruptively edit about Frampton and violate BLP. I agree with First Light that a block is already warranted and also that Tramadul should be permanently banned from editing the Frampton article and from inserting content about him in any other articles. I don't know what Tramadul's beef is with Frampton, but his apparent vendetta needs to stop. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above analysis. User:Tramadul should be banned from editing the Paul Frampton page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC).

Any ban of this sort may need to expand beyond Frampton's page since they also added info about him to the Mule (smuggling) page meaning they may try to insert stuff via a back door if we are not careful.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's simple enough. Extend to matters relating to Paul Frampton. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC).

Absolutely, just as I said above: "Tramadul should be permanently banned from editing the Frampton article and from inserting content about him in any other articles". But that's at the very least. I don't know what it takes to warrant an indefinite ban or a long-term ban, but I'd like to hear from others if this perhaps is an example of it. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this list of highly inappropriate edits make Tramadul's intentions clear: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] It also appears quite possible that there is a significant sockpuppet issue here, but that will have to be dealt with separately. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly trolling. a13ean (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Blocked for three days. If they return to this article or any article related to this person, or if they commit similar BLP violations elsewhere, it's an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! First Light (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:LesLein

Following the line of Goldbergs Liberal fascism User:LesLein tries to portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US [58]. After finding out that Goldbergs Liberal fascism is reagarded as fringe and not as a reliable source he changed his strategy. As he admittet to the noticeboard "Since Goldberg is so controversial at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I only use his book to find other sources." He Cherry picked some quotes out of context and arranged them in a way that imposes the notion of New Deal Liberal fascism upon the readers. Since then he continuously makes edits like that one until today.

A request at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Charges_of_fascism_and_charges_of_communism was commented by several users all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals. It is now resolved by User:UseTheCommandLine with the comment relentless WP:POVPUSH, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DEADHORSE, progress towards WP:CON seems unlikely.

As User:RashersTierney [59] and User:Wing gundam [60] have done before, User:UseTheCommandLine left a note at LesLeins talk page to stop his disruptive editing [61] LesLein responded that Wikipedia tells him to be bold and that NPOV takes precedence over consensus so he "would rather continue to give it a try at the article a little while longer." [62]. I am afraid that dispute resolution is pointless since User:LesLein apparently does not listen to anyone. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I spent some time looking into this and Pass3456 has a point: we're dealing with a POV warrior. There are two options here, both of which leaning on "I didn't hear that", basically: a topic ban for the article, in indef block until the editor understands that those fringey theories aren't making it through the consensus-making processes and that their work is nothing but disruptive. Such editors are a timesink and help drive away positive editors. Now, a topic ban is easily proposed, but I don't know if the editor's behavior on other articles is any better. If the answer to that is "no", then an indef block is the proper way to go here, along with the standard offer of course. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for the length, but the complain has many errors of omission and commission requiring a response. I think that a long response is better than providing a bunch of links. I am also staying up late to submit a timely response; so please forgive me if the editing isn’t as smooth as I prefer.

Pass3456 says that I try to “portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US.” The first of my edits that Pass3456 goes to says In his college textbook historian John Garraty, a leading New Deal scholar, wrote that the NRA “was also similar to experiments being carried out by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini in Italy and by the Nazis in Adolf Hitler’s Germany. It did not, of course, turn America into a fascist state, but it did herald an increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of interest groups, both industrialists’ organizations and labor unions.” This was a very prominent college textbook, not fringe at all. If readers check Garraty’s Wiki article they will see that he held prominent positions among historians. On the New Deal talk page Pass3456 indicated that Garraty was a good reference, but this editor then ends up removing what Garraty has to say on the subject. Another editor previously restored my Garraty material was “well sourced and temporarily restored it.” If the information I originally provided from the Garraty article had been retained, I probably would be long gone from the New Deal.

I’m probably the only one with the textbook handy, so I could have left out the part that NRA didn’t turn America into a fascist country. At other points, I provide quotations that Roosevelt was neither a totalitarian nor a dictator. I also provide examples (handling unemployment, rural electrification, deurbanization, regulations etc.) from other sources to make sure that readers won’t think that the articles were referring to dictatorial aspects of fascism. This isn’t especially derogatory; one could even say FDR’s willingness to consider radical sources to deal with desperate times was laudatory.

What most bothers Pass3456 is when I provided a quote indicating that on October 5, 1933, Harold Ickes recorded a private conversation in his diary. Roosevelt told Ickes that “what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.”

My first source was Goldberg’s article. On December 23, another editor reverted it as unreliable because even the title did not pass a “BS detector.” The user did not call it fringe. (The fact that so many Wikipedia editors take for granted that Goldberg’s book is unreliable without reading any of it can be considered bias.) I then got a used copy of Ickes’ diary and found the quote. Pass3456 reverted it as original research, even though the Ickes diaries are used as sources for four articles and he does not object to other original research in the article. (I did not know about OR at the time.) I then found an excellent academic article by Lewis Feuer with the quote (Wiki’s Feuer article says that in 1963, the year after the article, Feuer was invited to Moscow to lecture the Soviets on Marxism). On January 17, Pass3456 reverted it as original research without checking the source. Pass3456 and others keep moving the goal line to justify removing my edits.

I am unaware of any Wikipedia noticeboard decision that Goldberg’s book is fringe. (BTW, one of Pass3456’s favorite sources, Stanley Payne, agrees with Goldberg on several key points. More on this later.) Even if it is, there’s nothing wrong with using the footnotes and text to find good sources and verify information. If the administrators determine otherwise, it will become Wikipedia’s practice to determine what books editors are allowed to read and use offline before doing Wikipedia edits. I don’t think we want to go there.

At the fringe noticeboard I asked for Pass3456 and others to provide the real context for situations where I took quotes out of context. I request that Pass3456 check the Feuer article and Ickes diary and provide the real context of the Ickes quote, not using context I previously provided. Pass3456 can quote up to 300 words from the Ickes diary without a copyright violation. Pass3456 can also provide a few exact sentences from the Feuer article (along with the page numbers); the first page doesn’t count. This should not take long since Pass3456 is confident about knowing the context. I already know the context and can check on what is provided.

I don’t have time to comment on the long list of links. An administrator checking them will find that I often rebutted them. If an administrator has questions, please let me know. One point I’d like to make is that one of the link titles states that a quote is “falsified.” Falsified means dishonesty; besides that the name of the author is wrong. Pass3456 knows that I previously reported this as a BLP issue, yet repeats it. It is dangerous to Wikipedia for editors to repeat unsubstantiated accusations against writers.

Pass3456 states that my edits were “commented by several users [at the noticeboard] all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals.” This is not true. Near the end, one editor wrote, “There obviously are some similarities between FDR's policies on the one hand and communist and fascist policies on the other.”

At the fringe noticeboard a second editor wrote “I am increasingly convinced that the problem is mostly an original research (well and NPOV and undue weight) problem. If we could all agree that the notion of ‘liberal fascism’, that basically implicates that any political group (exept libertarians) are fascists is a not notable subject, we could move on to the original research noticeboard.” The editor is Pass3456.

As the New Deal Revision History https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&offset=&limit=250&action=history indicates, on March 6 I added a quote from Stanley Payne, whom Pass3456 holds in high regard, indicating that he agreed with the types of edits I had been making, saying that the New Deal’s work programs were “rather like” the Germans’. UseTheCommandLine edited the short paragraph with the quote. This editor and another must not have thought that I was pushing a fringe theory. Pass3456 indicated that the Payne quote was fringe theory. It was probably an honest mistake, but once UseTheCommandLine got involved in this, he or she should have avoided doing any more arbitration. It is like a judge ruling on a case after getting personally involved. In any fair-minded legal system, I would win an appeal easily.

UseTheCommandLine acknowledged that he had no enforcement authority. He only said I shouldn’t make any more disruptive edits. When I said I make a few more edits, I also said that they would all be reliable and relevant.” I was working on one today. It is based on information in Foreign Affairs and a Pulitizer Prize winning book. I can provide a summary or draft if you want.

I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood the “Be Bold” advice. I think there’s a statement that core principles such as NPOV trump consensus. Wikipedia states “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” That is what I have been trying to do. For example, the article has a block quote from FDR completely denying any interest in radicalism. To me NPOV means providing information that Roosevelt said something very different in private. Readers can then review some details and judge for themselves. I am not the one preventing this.

The article also quotes Herbert Hoover’s claim that the New Deal implemented the Swope Plan. My edits to indicate that this is true was reverted. If administrators go to the Gerard Swope article they will find evidence from a Leon Keyserling interview that a major piece of the New Deal was based on the Swope Plan (I made the edits). Right now, the article says nothing about what happened to the Swope Plan. Garraty said that the New Deal and Nazi anti-depression policies had “striking similarities.” He also said that it was “neither capricious nor perverse” to point this out. Pass3456 and others simply won’t allow any of this.

Pass3455 does not mention something else I said on my talk page: “I may end up going to an administrator as a last resort.” I wrote earlier that I might submit a fringe complaint myself. Saying that the Payne quote is fringe is itself an example of fringe theory. (The quote is not out of context; it is the only sentence in Payne’s book comparing New Deal unemployment policies to Germany’s.) It is the same with Garraty and Feuer. There is also a BLP problem since some of these writers, such as Payne and Dan P. Silverman are still alive. I was also considering a NPOV complaint for reasons described earlier.

The reason I don’t usually listen to Pass3456 is that his own conduct is often wrong. This editor wrote on the New Deal talk page that my edits were wrong because the ratio between quoted text and non-quotation text was too high. There is no such rule; Wikipedia encourages quotations. Pass3456 says one time that Payne is an expert and later says that a quote from Payne is “fringe.” I can cite other invalid reasons my edits were reverted, such as a false statement about the context of the Ickes quote.

I also believe that Pass3456 engaged in Wikihounding. Thirty minutes after he or she last reverted my New Deal edits, he or she reverted my edit on Joseph McCarthy without providing a single reason. (Before it comes up, I am not trying to rehabilitate McCarthy, just provide information to fill gaps.)

At the noticeboard Pass3456 accused me of “fabricating an analogy,” without providing a single example. I considered making a complaint about personal attacks. I considered submitting a BLP complaint but don’t know if I can do that for derogatory statements about myself.

I only started making substantial Wikipedia edits late last year. The only other “war” I can think of (it’s getting late) was the Hollywood Blacklist. This link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollywood_blacklist&action=historysubmit&diff=543930352&oldid=508972529) compares the last version before I got involved to the current version. I added the paragraph where Huston describes the Hollywood ten’s motives. I also wrote that the Communist party advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and took money and direction from the Soviet Union. The objection to me was that this was POV. It is only POV in the sense that it is POV to say that Paris is in France. My sources were described as unreliable because they are “professional anti-communists,” as if that isn’t POV. None are unreliable. One, Theodore Draper, was an award-winning historian who used to write for the Daily Worker. He was a professional communist if anything. After another editor joined me, all of the ridiculous praise of the old American communist party was removed. The net effect of my involvement was an improvement.

I have purchased books, including one recommended by Pass3456, to make sure my information on the New Deal isn’t inaccurate or distorted. This shouldn’t affect your decision, but it indicates a willingness to ensure that my edits aren’t fringe. When administrators look over my other edits (Gandhi, Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, the Caning of Charles Sumner, John Brown’s Raid, John Brown, and Joe McCarthy) because I have read multiple related works on these subjects. I try to fill gaps with interesting and relevant information. I usually pick old topics to avoid a lot of controversy. That is what I tried to do with the New Deal, though perhaps in a misguided way.

I deny attempts to promote fringe theories or push a POV. My interpretation of NPOV varies from others but seems consistent with the quotation from the NPOV page. To same everyone time, I am willing to operate as follows at the New Deal article and others where edits may be controversial:

1. I will go to the talk page first to see what others think for everything but the most obvious problems (of course a lot of my New Deal edits were made in the same spirit; I will be more careful) 2. I will propose compromises 3. I will escalate to noticeboards, teahouse, or other places to discuss serious issues

In return, I request that administrators:

1. Do not jump to conclusions. I too was surprised at some of the things authors said about the New Deal and radical influences 2. Provide specifics when questioning this response 3. Give me a decent amount of time to respond to others 4. Allow me later to provide evidence (short) from other scholars (there are plenty) 5. Allow me to continue editing the articles mentioned above 6. Permit me to submit my own complaints no matter what happens

Another editor suggested that I go to the article called Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pass3456 suggested on my talk page that I go to Conservopedia. That is not a welcoming approach to a relatively new editor. I prefer to stay here.

Thank you for your time. LesLein (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Um...no offence, but when you post an essay of almost 15K, WP:TLDR kicks in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am keeping the response a lot shorter.

First of all: The article allready describes the relevant scholarly conclusions. Adding and discussing proposals for alledged similarities and differences would overlay the whole rest of the article and give undue weight to a topic that every major work on the New Deal ignores as irrelevant. E.g. David M. Kennedy (historian) has written a pulitzer price winning thick book on that subject called Freedom From Fear that can be considered thoroughly covering on it´s subject. It does not make any charges of fascism or communism. It is the same with every other scholarly book on the New Deal.

Second: Yes, there are a lot of problems in how User:Lesleins uses his quote picks too. First of all they are cherry picked, he only cites quotes that Goldberg quoted to make his statement of Liberal fascism. Then they are cited out of context. E.g. he cited that Hitler and Mussolini send diplomatic notes to Roosevelt -> it is true but doesn´t mean anything since it is standard diplomatic behaviour. By presenting that non-topic (instead of a lot other relevant topics) he gives it a weight that historians don´t do (for good reasons). A historian might display that incident in an 300 pages book (without making anything near to a charge of fascism), that does not mean that an 8 page Wikipedia article should present the same under the heading charges of fascism. Several users suggested that LesLein should stick to scholarly research -> presenting scholarly conclusion. He should not pick one out of many sentences he likes most since it seems to link FDR to Hitler when the secondary source in the end does not link FDR to Hitler since LesLein is then drawing a conclusion that the cited book does not. Another example: one could say that Hitler and Roosevelt both were the first to regularly use radio to reach the people. On the other hand Roosevelt did that in a fireside chat way, Hitler almost every time in a hate speech. Now is it a similarity or a difference? I belive that it is not up to Wikipedia user to draw such conclusions. As long as no historian gives an example for something the scholar evaluates as a fascist move of the Roosevelt administration it is at least original research when User:LesLein does otherwise.

By the way: LesLein does not present similarities and differences but only similarities which obviously violates WP:NPOV. --Pass3456 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your statement that mentioning similarities without mentioning differences violates NPOV is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy discusses an aspiration about articles, not about each and every editor contributing to each and every article. It is true that we accuse editors of violating NPOV, but we do so when we see that the article violates NPOV and we an editor or editors contributing to a bias. However, we typically see one editor trying to add some material and remove other material. If you have evidence that LesLein is adding similarities, and removing or edit warring to remove differences, then I would agree that is a violation. Is that the case? To use an analogy, article History of basketball is mostly about the history of men's basketball, with too little on the history of women's basketball. I plan to increase the coverage in Wikipedia, of the history of women's basketball. But I would be upset if someone accused me of violating NPOV simply because I rarely write about men's basketball. I don't accuse editors who write solely about men's basketball of violating NPOV. I would only see a problem if some editors, in addition to writing about one aspect, affirmatively took steps to exclude coverage of women's basketball. (This may be controversial, and it is possibly to see NPOV problems with editors only adding, and not removing material, but I think the charge in this instance is unfair.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree on your baseball-example but this is a different case. To start with comparisons between fascism and New Deal (that have been made in the 1930s e.g. Hoover) ended mostly after 1945 when the full scale of Nazi terror and murder came to light. In the 1960s and 1970s a few historians startet to compare the economic policies of Hitler and Roosevelt - explicitly not to make an argument from analogy but as an comparative study to find out in which way the depression has been overcome in Germany and the US. German historian Kiran Klaus Patel summarized that studies in a recent work -> giving a valuable hint how to use them. He said that those comparative studies were made on the basis that they were not ment as an apology for Nazism since these comparisons were ment to highlight similarities and differences Soldiers of Labor: Labor Service in Nazi Germany and New Deal America, 1933-1945 page 6.

Summary: a few studies were drawing conclusions of how the Great Depression has been overcome in Germany and the US by analyzing similarities and differences. They were not intended to make an argument from analogy (therefore there are no deliberations on relevance, amount and variety and number of characteristics in those studies).

User:LesLein is making an argument from analogy (-> charges of fascism). But those studies are not intended to do an analogy, these were comparative studies just as historians have made comparative studies on weapons and tactics of Wehrmacht and US army in WW II without making an argument from analogy. LesLein uses those studies in an unintended way and necessarily ends in an False Analogy. By the way the correct context would have been Great_depression#Common responses to the crises. It would be similarly false to use a comparative study on Wehrmacht and US army strategies for United States Army#Charges of Fascism. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be even shorter. The response by LesLein is typical and there is no way to discuss an issue with someone who insists on posting those types of responses who nobody who has a life has any time(or desire) to read. The editors edit history is the epitome of disruptive editing. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 8:10 am, Today (UTC−4)

LesLein is new, with under 200 edits, so deserves AGF for not fully understanding how this is best done. You, on the other hand, have 7K edits so can be presumed to know how this place works. LesLein has been accused of inappropriate editing, and has responded, admittedly at length, but without acrimony, and with cogent examples. In contrast, you accuse LesLein of disruptive editing, yet do not provide a single example. Which editor is doing better at making a case?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, you have a point, though I hate to admit it of course. That someone wouldn't have a life because they post at length is, by the way, really a personal attack. I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go, or a couple of them with some pointed, individual questions. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the "nobody who has a life" comment as a statement about the type of people who would read it, not the person who wrote it. Sperril (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• It takes a writer with lots of time and little life to produce something like that. I didn't issue any warnings, didn't block anyone--but I don't like the tone of that remark, especially since I'm not sure what that editor is doing here. Nor does pointing at an edit history mean anything at all. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am cognizant of the warning signs. I've read Goldberg's book, understand it is not mainstream, but do not consider it fringe. It must be used with care, but that pretty much applies to all sources. It looks like we have an editor who thinks some position are under-represented, and a large number of Wikipedia editors do not accept the central thesis of Goldberg's book, but we have the challenge of NPOV, which does not require the inclusion of literally all views, but neither does it insist that only "central" views be published. I haven't read the article in question closely, so am not yet ready to have an opinion on whether any of the attempted edits fall afoul of Wp:Weight, but I do see reactions to this editor that aren't well grounded in policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with Richard Bernstein I don´t think that Goldberg himself meant it serious when he stated that Liberals since the "American fascist" Woodrow Wilson are "nice fascists" [63]. Anyway he is an political columnist not at all an historian and therefore fails Wikipedia:HISTRS. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For another source by a reputable historian, see Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Warden (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven´t read that book by heart by I remind a passage (perhaps the introduction?) where Schivelbusch wrote that the notion of "nice" fascism doesn´t illuminate anything. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR

Could someone please give a quick nutshell of what LesLein said (preferably by Leslein himself), in no more than a single paragraph? Thanks, Shiny Bauble! ^{Pretty Shinies...} 18:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"I'm right, you're wrong, NPOV trumps consensus" seems to be the jist of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, how uncharacteristically dismissive of you! What's the matter--did you run out of coffee, or did you have a flat tire? Try to see the glass as half-full, even if this particular glass holds gallons and gallons. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was indeed a tad grumpy due to having to deal with RL idiocy, alas, next time I'll try to keep Oscar in his can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The parallels and explicit links between the New Deal and Mussolini's fascism are well-known and therefore not fringe. We have another page which comments on this extensively — the New Deal and corporatism. Pass3456 seems disingenuous because he has edited that long-standing page while User:LesLein has not. This therefore looks like a case of WP:OWN — an incumbent trying to defend his turf against a newcomer. Warden (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is a case of article ownership or of a newcomer misunderstanding the nuances of NPOV or both... I will say (echoing the Colonel) that LesLein is not coming at this from Tinfoil Hat City, there is scholarship down the avenue he wishes to travel, although one must be careful not to overstate the parallels. I am guessing there is a conservative/liberal difference at root here rather than ownership of the piece pure and simple. RJensen, a conservative historian and a solid wikipedian, would be a good person to get the newcomer versed in NPOV. If he has been talking to LesLein, I hope he continues, and I hope Les listens. I don't have time tonight to dive into this controversy but will take a look at things tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took a quick look at Les's edit history before I head off for beddy bye... He's a conservative new editor who has dropped in a few tendentious factoids attempting to "expose" the nature of the Communist Party USA. He's also made some edits regarding 19th Century US history that I haven't looked at. I hope that RJensen or some other simpatico wikipedian can either get the new editor up to speed contributing somewhat more useful content on 20th Century history or else steer him towards matters in which he has greater expertise. More tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven’t written or read anything here since my first response and may not be back again for a few days. Like others, I have a day job and personal matters to attend to. Outside of Wikipedia, I too have a very nice life. It is too short to be consumed by some of the things concerning the New Deal edits. I am rapidly losing interest and may not use Wikipedia much more.

My view, in a nutshell: Roosevelt was neither a dictator nor a totalitarian. The similarities are in economic policies, not politics. To let FDR’s denial stand without indicating his private views (Ickes diary) is misleading. The subarticle should make it clear that it wasn’t just folks like HUAC, McCarthy, and Hoover making claims of radicalism, but New Dealers themselves. If you scroll to the end of this edit, you will see an example where FDR’s ambassador to Berlin supports my information in my edits. One or two examples of radical influences on policies (mass unemployment, rural electrification) would be helpful. These examples are not necessarily pejorative.

An administrator or someone should check the New Deal talk page. There is a possible case of plagiarism or copyright violation. It appears minor and accidental.

Pass3456 is not the only bloodhound on my trail. Another is DD2K. This user’s edit summary did not say one thing that is accurate.

In addition, Pass3456 insists that it is nothing personal. In this edit at my talk page Pass3456 wrote “About New Deal: I don´t know what your pain is.” Pass3456 wasn't talking about physical pain. He or she was talking about mental anguish. Now it is fringe theory. I am also a fabricator. Someone should tell Pass3456 not to practice psychiatry without a license. If he or she is a psychiatrist, then Doctor Pass3456 should know better than to publish a diagnosis, especially without knowing the patient. It may be a problem with phrasing, but alleging that dissidents have mental issues is a practice that went out with the Soviet Union.

This user stated that I “admitted” using Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism to identify references. It is true. I read a book and used the information. Is there an article on what books we may read or how we find references? What does Pass3456 want me to do with the book, burn it? I have another confession: I went to the bank and grocery store this morning.

This comparisonshows edits of mine that user rjensen partially restored after removal by Pass3456 (who ignored consensus here). See the paragraphs starting with “Other historians …” and “In 1934 German author ...” The second paragraph says:

“In 1934 German author, Helmut Magers wrote ‘'Roosevelt: A Revolutionary with Common Sense'’. The book stated that the New Deal bore ‘surprising similarities’ with the Nazi revolution. U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd wrote a foreword to Magers’ book. He praised Magers’ ‘outstanding success’ in describing conditions in the U.S. and Germany. Dodd was emphatically anti-Nazi and hoped that moderates would overthrow or at least restrain Hitler. Dodd wrote of ‘the heroic efforts being made in Germany and the United States to solve the basic problems of social balance.’ He described Magers’s book as ‘excellent, friendly unpartisan book … without a sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.’ Dodd allowed his foreword to be published despite State Department objections. “

Roosevelt’s ambassador to Berlin was not a fringe theorist. Ambassador Dodd, an important official in FDR’s government, said that a book noting “surprising similarities” does not include a “sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.” If that is the case, why can’t I note “surprising similarities” (with due balance) in Wikipedia? This is not a rhetorical question. LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don´t think that there is a need to get personal ("bloodhound"). By the way I neither am nor do I think that I am an psychiatrist. And I never thought that you were in something like "mental anguish", actually I was allways well aware that you are not too much into Wikipedia. "You don´t talk to me so please request third opinion." was an attempt to get the dissence solved.[64]. By the way I have shown with a lot of difflinks that I am not the only one taking issue on your edits.

There is nothing honorless in taking an advice, I actually took that one LesLein pointed at in his above statement (please note: Rjensen referred to the public debate that ended in 1945).

To get that straight I never denied that there are comparisons between New Deal and Fascism. I never said that these comparisons are without relevance (they actually are relevant in the right context). I took issue that LesLein wants to add his findings under the heading "Charges of Fascism" and asked him to provide prove that the various quotes he wants to insert actually are charges of fascism. E.g. he added a quote from FDR himself that in his opinion proved his point. I responded that FRD never considered himself fascist -> no match [65].

I could give a source for the fact that Goldberg called Woodrow Wilson an American fascist -> match [66]. That is exactly what I wanted from LesLein, a source (book, page) with an unambiguous charge of fascism.

It is not meant as a harassment. You have to be carefull with a charge of fascism since it is very serious. E.g. Hitler was famous for building controlled-access highways. Eisenhower is famous for building controlled-access highways. This is a comparison and there is a similarity. But was Eisenhower a fascist? (I don´t think so). Now if some historians think that FDR was a Fascist they must have written a sentence like "FDR was such a fascist" or something like that. That is what I ask from LesLein to prove his point. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a content dispute, nothing actionable here unless I'm missing something. Take it to the talk pages, my friends. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati

LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) is currently engaged in bad faith editing. In the article Undivided Kamrup district he is trying to insert some his own POV, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from references. He are some examples of his activities.

• He started making POV edits (diff). I asked him to discuss edits before making changes (diff)
• He ignored the invitation to discuss and continued aggressively editing, which included removal of references (diff). He removed the reference to Richards 1995.
• I inserted some text, which he then proceeded to move around. He even arbitrarily changed direct quote from references. (diff). Please note the change in the quote: "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the British occupation" to "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the Burmese occupation". This change is buried in the text, and not easily noticed. The direct quote is available freely (http://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&q=page+247#v=onepage&q=british%20occupation&f=false)

Chaipau (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything is as per source which is in article itself. Parts of Assam are under Burmese Empire from 1821 to 1825 before British forces take control in 1826. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is your ignoring request for discussion, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from them. Your POV and disruptive attitude has been noted by others. (diff, diff) Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing ? भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that issue could be construed as canvassing, though that wasn't my intention at all, as I have admitted (diff). The editor in question refrained from voting, rightfully so. In that instance I wanted to let him know since he too found your edits "disturbing" and wanted me to bring your activity to admin notice (diff). But my notices to the other editors were not. I wanted to let them know I was using their quotes, so they could either refute or endorse the connotations. They endorsed, and this one was explicit (diff). Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How can we see it differently when you involve in such practice few days ago too here and here with whom i have some disputes in past. I cleared air here but you still indulged in vote bank tactics which was termed by user concern as vote banking.

In your earlier post you said conduct is the issue not references, than why you posted link to google books as references in current discussion. I have edited as per sources and i have discussed issues with you on dozen of talk pages and noticeboards from mid last year which are not vandalism. Main problem is your primary topic which you want to glorified on every possible article which your recent history shows and correcting the same is equal to vandalism or disruptive editing for you. You used to be a neutral editor in past but it is lacking in your current conduct which i hope you work on. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please advise how these issues may best be addressed? Chaipau (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:LesLein

Following the line of Goldbergs Liberal fascism User:LesLein tries to portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US [67]. After finding out that Goldbergs Liberal fascism is reagarded as fringe and not as a reliable source he changed his strategy. As he admittet to the noticeboard "Since Goldberg is so controversial at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I only use his book to find other sources." He Cherry picked some quotes out of context and arranged them in a way that imposes the notion of New Deal Liberal fascism upon the readers. Since then he continuously makes edits like that one until today.

A request at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Charges_of_fascism_and_charges_of_communism was commented by several users all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals. It is now resolved by User:UseTheCommandLine with the comment relentless WP:POVPUSH, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DEADHORSE, progress towards WP:CON seems unlikely.

As User:RashersTierney [68] and User:Wing gundam [69] have done before, User:UseTheCommandLine left a note at LesLeins talk page to stop his disruptive editing [70] LesLein responded that Wikipedia tells him to be bold and that NPOV takes precedence over consensus so he "would rather continue to give it a try at the article a little while longer." [71]. I am afraid that dispute resolution is pointless since User:LesLein apparently does not listen to anyone. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I spent some time looking into this and Pass3456 has a point: we're dealing with a POV warrior. There are two options here, both of which leaning on "I didn't hear that", basically: a topic ban for the article, in indef block until the editor understands that those fringey theories aren't making it through the consensus-making processes and that their work is nothing but disruptive. Such editors are a timesink and help drive away positive editors. Now, a topic ban is easily proposed, but I don't know if the editor's behavior on other articles is any better. If the answer to that is "no", then an indef block is the proper way to go here, along with the standard offer of course. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for the length, but the complain has many errors of omission and commission requiring a response. I think that a long response is better than providing a bunch of links. I am also staying up late to submit a timely response; so please forgive me if the editing isn’t as smooth as I prefer.

Pass3456 says that I try to “portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US.” The first of my edits that Pass3456 goes to says In his college textbook historian John Garraty, a leading New Deal scholar, wrote that the NRA “was also similar to experiments being carried out by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini in Italy and by the Nazis in Adolf Hitler’s Germany. It did not, of course, turn America into a fascist state, but it did herald an increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of interest groups, both industrialists’ organizations and labor unions.” This was a very prominent college textbook, not fringe at all. If readers check Garraty’s Wiki article they will see that he held prominent positions among historians. On the New Deal talk page Pass3456 indicated that Garraty was a good reference, but this editor then ends up removing what Garraty has to say on the subject. Another editor previously restored my Garraty material was “well sourced and temporarily restored it.” If the information I originally provided from the Garraty article had been retained, I probably would be long gone from the New Deal.

I’m probably the only one with the textbook handy, so I could have left out the part that NRA didn’t turn America into a fascist country. At other points, I provide quotations that Roosevelt was neither a totalitarian nor a dictator. I also provide examples (handling unemployment, rural electrification, deurbanization, regulations etc.) from other sources to make sure that readers won’t think that the articles were referring to dictatorial aspects of fascism. This isn’t especially derogatory; one could even say FDR’s willingness to consider radical sources to deal with desperate times was laudatory.

What most bothers Pass3456 is when I provided a quote indicating that on October 5, 1933, Harold Ickes recorded a private conversation in his diary. Roosevelt told Ickes that “what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.”

My first source was Goldberg’s article. On December 23, another editor reverted it as unreliable because even the title did not pass a “BS detector.” The user did not call it fringe. (The fact that so many Wikipedia editors take for granted that Goldberg’s book is unreliable without reading any of it can be considered bias.) I then got a used copy of Ickes’ diary and found the quote. Pass3456 reverted it as original research, even though the Ickes diaries are used as sources for four articles and he does not object to other original research in the article. (I did not know about OR at the time.) I then found an excellent academic article by Lewis Feuer with the quote (Wiki’s Feuer article says that in 1963, the year after the article, Feuer was invited to Moscow to lecture the Soviets on Marxism). On January 17, Pass3456 reverted it as original research without checking the source. Pass3456 and others keep moving the goal line to justify removing my edits.

I am unaware of any Wikipedia noticeboard decision that Goldberg’s book is fringe. (BTW, one of Pass3456’s favorite sources, Stanley Payne, agrees with Goldberg on several key points. More on this later.) Even if it is, there’s nothing wrong with using the footnotes and text to find good sources and verify information. If the administrators determine otherwise, it will become Wikipedia’s practice to determine what books editors are allowed to read and use offline before doing Wikipedia edits. I don’t think we want to go there.

At the fringe noticeboard I asked for Pass3456 and others to provide the real context for situations where I took quotes out of context. I request that Pass3456 check the Feuer article and Ickes diary and provide the real context of the Ickes quote, not using context I previously provided. Pass3456 can quote up to 300 words from the Ickes diary without a copyright violation. Pass3456 can also provide a few exact sentences from the Feuer article (along with the page numbers); the first page doesn’t count. This should not take long since Pass3456 is confident about knowing the context. I already know the context and can check on what is provided.

I don’t have time to comment on the long list of links. An administrator checking them will find that I often rebutted them. If an administrator has questions, please let me know. One point I’d like to make is that one of the link titles states that a quote is “falsified.” Falsified means dishonesty; besides that the name of the author is wrong. Pass3456 knows that I previously reported this as a BLP issue, yet repeats it. It is dangerous to Wikipedia for editors to repeat unsubstantiated accusations against writers.

Pass3456 states that my edits were “commented by several users [at the noticeboard] all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals.” This is not true. Near the end, one editor wrote, “There obviously are some similarities between FDR's policies on the one hand and communist and fascist policies on the other.”

At the fringe noticeboard a second editor wrote “I am increasingly convinced that the problem is mostly an original research (well and NPOV and undue weight) problem. If we could all agree that the notion of ‘liberal fascism’, that basically implicates that any political group (exept libertarians) are fascists is a not notable subject, we could move on to the original research noticeboard.” The editor is Pass3456.

As the New Deal Revision History https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&offset=&limit=250&action=history indicates, on March 6 I added a quote from Stanley Payne, whom Pass3456 holds in high regard, indicating that he agreed with the types of edits I had been making, saying that the New Deal’s work programs were “rather like” the Germans’. UseTheCommandLine edited the short paragraph with the quote. This editor and another must not have thought that I was pushing a fringe theory. Pass3456 indicated that the Payne quote was fringe theory. It was probably an honest mistake, but once UseTheCommandLine got involved in this, he or she should have avoided doing any more arbitration. It is like a judge ruling on a case after getting personally involved. In any fair-minded legal system, I would win an appeal easily.

UseTheCommandLine acknowledged that he had no enforcement authority. He only said I shouldn’t make any more disruptive edits. When I said I make a few more edits, I also said that they would all be reliable and relevant.” I was working on one today. It is based on information in Foreign Affairs and a Pulitizer Prize winning book. I can provide a summary or draft if you want.

I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood the “Be Bold” advice. I think there’s a statement that core principles such as NPOV trump consensus. Wikipedia states “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” That is what I have been trying to do. For example, the article has a block quote from FDR completely denying any interest in radicalism. To me NPOV means providing information that Roosevelt said something very different in private. Readers can then review some details and judge for themselves. I am not the one preventing this.

The article also quotes Herbert Hoover’s claim that the New Deal implemented the Swope Plan. My edits to indicate that this is true was reverted. If administrators go to the Gerard Swope article they will find evidence from a Leon Keyserling interview that a major piece of the New Deal was based on the Swope Plan (I made the edits). Right now, the article says nothing about what happened to the Swope Plan. Garraty said that the New Deal and Nazi anti-depression policies had “striking similarities.” He also said that it was “neither capricious nor perverse” to point this out. Pass3456 and others simply won’t allow any of this.

Pass3455 does not mention something else I said on my talk page: “I may end up going to an administrator as a last resort.” I wrote earlier that I might submit a fringe complaint myself. Saying that the Payne quote is fringe is itself an example of fringe theory. (The quote is not out of context; it is the only sentence in Payne’s book comparing New Deal unemployment policies to Germany’s.) It is the same with Garraty and Feuer. There is also a BLP problem since some of these writers, such as Payne and Dan P. Silverman are still alive. I was also considering a NPOV complaint for reasons described earlier.

The reason I don’t usually listen to Pass3456 is that his own conduct is often wrong. This editor wrote on the New Deal talk page that my edits were wrong because the ratio between quoted text and non-quotation text was too high. There is no such rule; Wikipedia encourages quotations. Pass3456 says one time that Payne is an expert and later says that a quote from Payne is “fringe.” I can cite other invalid reasons my edits were reverted, such as a false statement about the context of the Ickes quote.

I also believe that Pass3456 engaged in Wikihounding. Thirty minutes after he or she last reverted my New Deal edits, he or she reverted my edit on Joseph McCarthy without providing a single reason. (Before it comes up, I am not trying to rehabilitate McCarthy, just provide information to fill gaps.)

At the noticeboard Pass3456 accused me of “fabricating an analogy,” without providing a single example. I considered making a complaint about personal attacks. I considered submitting a BLP complaint but don’t know if I can do that for derogatory statements about myself.

I only started making substantial Wikipedia edits late last year. The only other “war” I can think of (it’s getting late) was the Hollywood Blacklist. This link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollywood_blacklist&action=historysubmit&diff=543930352&oldid=508972529) compares the last version before I got involved to the current version. I added the paragraph where Huston describes the Hollywood ten’s motives. I also wrote that the Communist party advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and took money and direction from the Soviet Union. The objection to me was that this was POV. It is only POV in the sense that it is POV to say that Paris is in France. My sources were described as unreliable because they are “professional anti-communists,” as if that isn’t POV. None are unreliable. One, Theodore Draper, was an award-winning historian who used to write for the Daily Worker. He was a professional communist if anything. After another editor joined me, all of the ridiculous praise of the old American communist party was removed. The net effect of my involvement was an improvement.

I have purchased books, including one recommended by Pass3456, to make sure my information on the New Deal isn’t inaccurate or distorted. This shouldn’t affect your decision, but it indicates a willingness to ensure that my edits aren’t fringe. When administrators look over my other edits (Gandhi, Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, the Caning of Charles Sumner, John Brown’s Raid, John Brown, and Joe McCarthy) because I have read multiple related works on these subjects. I try to fill gaps with interesting and relevant information. I usually pick old topics to avoid a lot of controversy. That is what I tried to do with the New Deal, though perhaps in a misguided way.

I deny attempts to promote fringe theories or push a POV. My interpretation of NPOV varies from others but seems consistent with the quotation from the NPOV page. To same everyone time, I am willing to operate as follows at the New Deal article and others where edits may be controversial:

1. I will go to the talk page first to see what others think for everything but the most obvious problems (of course a lot of my New Deal edits were made in the same spirit; I will be more careful) 2. I will propose compromises 3. I will escalate to noticeboards, teahouse, or other places to discuss serious issues

In return, I request that administrators:

1. Do not jump to conclusions. I too was surprised at some of the things authors said about the New Deal and radical influences 2. Provide specifics when questioning this response 3. Give me a decent amount of time to respond to others 4. Allow me later to provide evidence (short) from other scholars (there are plenty) 5. Allow me to continue editing the articles mentioned above 6. Permit me to submit my own complaints no matter what happens

Another editor suggested that I go to the article called Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pass3456 suggested on my talk page that I go to Conservopedia. That is not a welcoming approach to a relatively new editor. I prefer to stay here.

Thank you for your time. LesLein (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Um...no offence, but when you post an essay of almost 15K, WP:TLDR kicks in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am keeping the response a lot shorter.

First of all: The article allready describes the relevant scholarly conclusions. Adding and discussing proposals for alledged similarities and differences would overlay the whole rest of the article and give undue weight to a topic that every major work on the New Deal ignores as irrelevant. E.g. David M. Kennedy (historian) has written a pulitzer price winning thick book on that subject called Freedom From Fear that can be considered thoroughly covering on it´s subject. It does not make any charges of fascism or communism. It is the same with every other scholarly book on the New Deal.

Second: Yes, there are a lot of problems in how User:Lesleins uses his quote picks too. First of all they are cherry picked, he only cites quotes that Goldberg quoted to make his statement of Liberal fascism. Then they are cited out of context. E.g. he cited that Hitler and Mussolini send diplomatic notes to Roosevelt -> it is true but doesn´t mean anything since it is standard diplomatic behaviour. By presenting that non-topic (instead of a lot other relevant topics) he gives it a weight that historians don´t do (for good reasons). A historian might display that incident in an 300 pages book (without making anything near to a charge of fascism), that does not mean that an 8 page Wikipedia article should present the same under the heading charges of fascism. Several users suggested that LesLein should stick to scholarly research -> presenting scholarly conclusion. He should not pick one out of many sentences he likes most since it seems to link FDR to Hitler when the secondary source in the end does not link FDR to Hitler since LesLein is then drawing a conclusion that the cited book does not. Another example: one could say that Hitler and Roosevelt both were the first to regularly use radio to reach the people. On the other hand Roosevelt did that in a fireside chat way, Hitler almost every time in a hate speech. Now is it a similarity or a difference? I belive that it is not up to Wikipedia user to draw such conclusions. As long as no historian gives an example for something the scholar evaluates as a fascist move of the Roosevelt administration it is at least original research when User:LesLein does otherwise.

By the way: LesLein does not present similarities and differences but only similarities which obviously violates WP:NPOV. --Pass3456 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your statement that mentioning similarities without mentioning differences violates NPOV is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy discusses an aspiration about articles, not about each and every editor contributing to each and every article. It is true that we accuse editors of violating NPOV, but we do so when we see that the article violates NPOV and we an editor or editors contributing to a bias. However, we typically see one editor trying to add some material and remove other material. If you have evidence that LesLein is adding similarities, and removing or edit warring to remove differences, then I would agree that is a violation. Is that the case? To use an analogy, article History of basketball is mostly about the history of men's basketball, with too little on the history of women's basketball. I plan to increase the coverage in Wikipedia, of the history of women's basketball. But I would be upset if someone accused me of violating NPOV simply because I rarely write about men's basketball. I don't accuse editors who write solely about men's basketball of violating NPOV. I would only see a problem if some editors, in addition to writing about one aspect, affirmatively took steps to exclude coverage of women's basketball. (This may be controversial, and it is possibly to see NPOV problems with editors only adding, and not removing material, but I think the charge in this instance is unfair.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree on your baseball-example but this is a different case. To start with comparisons between fascism and New Deal (that have been made in the 1930s e.g. Hoover) ended mostly after 1945 when the full scale of Nazi terror and murder came to light. In the 1960s and 1970s a few historians startet to compare the economic policies of Hitler and Roosevelt - explicitly not to make an argument from analogy but as an comparative study to find out in which way the depression has been overcome in Germany and the US. German historian Kiran Klaus Patel summarized that studies in a recent work -> giving a valuable hint how to use them. He said that those comparative studies were made on the basis that they were not ment as an apology for Nazism since these comparisons were ment to highlight similarities and differences Soldiers of Labor: Labor Service in Nazi Germany and New Deal America, 1933-1945 page 6.

Summary: a few studies were drawing conclusions of how the Great Depression has been overcome in Germany and the US by analyzing similarities and differences. They were not intended to make an argument from analogy (therefore there are no deliberations on relevance, amount and variety and number of characteristics in those studies).

User:LesLein is making an argument from analogy (-> charges of fascism). But those studies are not intended to do an analogy, these were comparative studies just as historians have made comparative studies on weapons and tactics of Wehrmacht and US army in WW II without making an argument from analogy. LesLein uses those studies in an unintended way and necessarily ends in an False Analogy. By the way the correct context would have been Great_depression#Common responses to the crises. It would be similarly false to use a comparative study on Wehrmacht and US army strategies for United States Army#Charges of Fascism. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be even shorter. The response by LesLein is typical and there is no way to discuss an issue with someone who insists on posting those types of responses who nobody who has a life has any time(or desire) to read. The editors edit history is the epitome of disruptive editing. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 8:10 am, Today (UTC−4)

LesLein is new, with under 200 edits, so deserves AGF for not fully understanding how this is best done. You, on the other hand, have 7K edits so can be presumed to know how this place works. LesLein has been accused of inappropriate editing, and has responded, admittedly at length, but without acrimony, and with cogent examples. In contrast, you accuse LesLein of disruptive editing, yet do not provide a single example. Which editor is doing better at making a case?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, you have a point, though I hate to admit it of course. That someone wouldn't have a life because they post at length is, by the way, really a personal attack. I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go, or a couple of them with some pointed, individual questions. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the "nobody who has a life" comment as a statement about the type of people who would read it, not the person who wrote it. Sperril (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• It takes a writer with lots of time and little life to produce something like that. I didn't issue any warnings, didn't block anyone--but I don't like the tone of that remark, especially since I'm not sure what that editor is doing here. Nor does pointing at an edit history mean anything at all. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am cognizant of the warning signs. I've read Goldberg's book, understand it is not mainstream, but do not consider it fringe. It must be used with care, but that pretty much applies to all sources. It looks like we have an editor who thinks some position are under-represented, and a large number of Wikipedia editors do not accept the central thesis of Goldberg's book, but we have the challenge of NPOV, which does not require the inclusion of literally all views, but neither does it insist that only "central" views be published. I haven't read the article in question closely, so am not yet ready to have an opinion on whether any of the attempted edits fall afoul of Wp:Weight, but I do see reactions to this editor that aren't well grounded in policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with Richard Bernstein I don´t think that Goldberg himself meant it serious when he stated that Liberals since the "American fascist" Woodrow Wilson are "nice fascists" [72]. Anyway he is an political columnist not at all an historian and therefore fails Wikipedia:HISTRS. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For another source by a reputable historian, see Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Warden (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven´t read that book by heart by I remind a passage (perhaps the introduction?) where Schivelbusch wrote that the notion of "nice" fascism doesn´t illuminate anything. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR

Could someone please give a quick nutshell of what LesLein said (preferably by Leslein himself), in no more than a single paragraph? Thanks, Shiny Bauble! ^{Pretty Shinies...} 18:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"I'm right, you're wrong, NPOV trumps consensus" seems to be the jist of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, how uncharacteristically dismissive of you! What's the matter--did you run out of coffee, or did you have a flat tire? Try to see the glass as half-full, even if this particular glass holds gallons and gallons. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was indeed a tad grumpy due to having to deal with RL idiocy, alas, next time I'll try to keep Oscar in his can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The parallels and explicit links between the New Deal and Mussolini's fascism are well-known and therefore not fringe. We have another page which comments on this extensively — the New Deal and corporatism. Pass3456 seems disingenuous because he has edited that long-standing page while User:LesLein has not. This therefore looks like a case of WP:OWN — an incumbent trying to defend his turf against a newcomer. Warden (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is a case of article ownership or of a newcomer misunderstanding the nuances of NPOV or both... I will say (echoing the Colonel) that LesLein is not coming at this from Tinfoil Hat City, there is scholarship down the avenue he wishes to travel, although one must be careful not to overstate the parallels. I am guessing there is a conservative/liberal difference at root here rather than ownership of the piece pure and simple. RJensen, a conservative historian and a solid wikipedian, would be a good person to get the newcomer versed in NPOV. If he has been talking to LesLein, I hope he continues, and I hope Les listens. I don't have time tonight to dive into this controversy but will take a look at things tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took a quick look at Les's edit history before I head off for beddy bye... He's a conservative new editor who has dropped in a few tendentious factoids attempting to "expose" the nature of the Communist Party USA. He's also made some edits regarding 19th Century US history that I haven't looked at. I hope that RJensen or some other simpatico wikipedian can either get the new editor up to speed contributing somewhat more useful content on 20th Century history or else steer him towards matters in which he has greater expertise. More tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven’t written or read anything here since my first response and may not be back again for a few days. Like others, I have a day job and personal matters to attend to. Outside of Wikipedia, I too have a very nice life. It is too short to be consumed by some of the things concerning the New Deal edits. I am rapidly losing interest and may not use Wikipedia much more.

My view, in a nutshell: Roosevelt was neither a dictator nor a totalitarian. The similarities are in economic policies, not politics. To let FDR’s denial stand without indicating his private views (Ickes diary) is misleading. The subarticle should make it clear that it wasn’t just folks like HUAC, McCarthy, and Hoover making claims of radicalism, but New Dealers themselves. If you scroll to the end of this edit, you will see an example where FDR’s ambassador to Berlin supports my information in my edits. One or two examples of radical influences on policies (mass unemployment, rural electrification) would be helpful. These examples are not necessarily pejorative.

An administrator or someone should check the New Deal talk page. There is a possible case of plagiarism or copyright violation. It appears minor and accidental.

Pass3456 is not the only bloodhound on my trail. Another is DD2K. This user’s edit summary did not say one thing that is accurate.

In addition, Pass3456 insists that it is nothing personal. In this edit at my talk page Pass3456 wrote “About New Deal: I don´t know what your pain is.” Pass3456 wasn't talking about physical pain. He or she was talking about mental anguish. Now it is fringe theory. I am also a fabricator. Someone should tell Pass3456 not to practice psychiatry without a license. If he or she is a psychiatrist, then Doctor Pass3456 should know better than to publish a diagnosis, especially without knowing the patient. It may be a problem with phrasing, but alleging that dissidents have mental issues is a practice that went out with the Soviet Union.

This user stated that I “admitted” using Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism to identify references. It is true. I read a book and used the information. Is there an article on what books we may read or how we find references? What does Pass3456 want me to do with the book, burn it? I have another confession: I went to the bank and grocery store this morning.

This comparisonshows edits of mine that user rjensen partially restored after removal by Pass3456 (who ignored consensus here). See the paragraphs starting with “Other historians …” and “In 1934 German author ...” The second paragraph says:

“In 1934 German author, Helmut Magers wrote ‘'Roosevelt: A Revolutionary with Common Sense'’. The book stated that the New Deal bore ‘surprising similarities’ with the Nazi revolution. U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd wrote a foreword to Magers’ book. He praised Magers’ ‘outstanding success’ in describing conditions in the U.S. and Germany. Dodd was emphatically anti-Nazi and hoped that moderates would overthrow or at least restrain Hitler. Dodd wrote of ‘the heroic efforts being made in Germany and the United States to solve the basic problems of social balance.’ He described Magers’s book as ‘excellent, friendly unpartisan book … without a sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.’ Dodd allowed his foreword to be published despite State Department objections. “

Roosevelt’s ambassador to Berlin was not a fringe theorist. Ambassador Dodd, an important official in FDR’s government, said that a book noting “surprising similarities” does not include a “sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.” If that is the case, why can’t I note “surprising similarities” (with due balance) in Wikipedia? This is not a rhetorical question. LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don´t think that there is a need to get personal ("bloodhound"). By the way I neither am nor do I think that I am an psychiatrist. And I never thought that you were in something like "mental anguish", actually I was allways well aware that you are not too much into Wikipedia. "You don´t talk to me so please request third opinion." was an attempt to get the dissence solved.[73]. By the way I have shown with a lot of difflinks that I am not the only one taking issue on your edits.

There is nothing honorless in taking an advice, I actually took that one LesLein pointed at in his above statement (please note: Rjensen referred to the public debate that ended in 1945).

To get that straight I never denied that there are comparisons between New Deal and Fascism. I never said that these comparisons are without relevance (they actually are relevant in the right context). I took issue that LesLein wants to add his findings under the heading "Charges of Fascism" and asked him to provide prove that the various quotes he wants to insert actually are charges of fascism. E.g. he added a quote from FDR himself that in his opinion proved his point. I responded that FRD never considered himself fascist -> no match [74].

I could give a source for the fact that Goldberg called Woodrow Wilson an American fascist -> match [75]. That is exactly what I wanted from LesLein, a source (book, page) with an unambiguous charge of fascism.

It is not meant as a harassment. You have to be carefull with a charge of fascism since it is very serious. E.g. Hitler was famous for building controlled-access highways. Eisenhower is famous for building controlled-access highways. This is a comparison and there is a similarity. But was Eisenhower a fascist? (I don´t think so). Now if some historians think that FDR was a Fascist they must have written a sentence like "FDR was such a fascist" or something like that. That is what I ask from LesLein to prove his point. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a content dispute, nothing actionable here unless I'm missing something. Take it to the talk pages, my friends. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

We're getting closer, Pass. I mentioned once before that the title of the subarticle didn't seem right. Maybe it was my misunderstanding. I attempted to add a subarticle called "Radical influences on New Deal ideology," or something similar at one time. At several times in these disputes I put "charges" in quotes. There used to be an article on the NRA that referenced Alistair Cooke's line that the early years of the NRA were a "benevolent dictatorship." Unfortunately, on the New Deal talk page I left out the adjective accidentally, as I pointed out shortly thereafter. That's when fringe theory talk started. I have never thought FDR was a fascist or a dictator. Neither did Goldberg. Goldberg repeatedly says liberals aren't fascists, though the book cover and title were intended to be provocative and marketable. I was trying to make the point that there were some fascist influences on some aspects of FDR's economic policies. Incidentally, I rank Roosevelt in the top 5 or 10 presidents, though it is still too early to determine how the New Deal turns out.

One of my main objections to the subarticle is that charges of radicalism only came from FDR's enemies. The only people mentioned are demagogue McCarthy, the HUAC (mostly yahoos), and sore loser Hoover. It seemed to me that these critics were used because they are easy to discredit. I tried to add the Ickes diary material because I wanted to show that some New Dealers acknowledged radical influences. FDR himself wrote a private letter in 1930 saying that radicalism is needed once in a while to head off revolution. Some historians say that this is what the New Deal accomplished.

I won't rehash some of the things you and others wrote that I interpreted as personal attacks. For the sake of future civility I'll assume a combination of misunderstanding on my part and hasty writing by others. I regret some of the things I wrote, particularly over the weekend.

The paragraph on the German book with Ambassador Dodd's forward may form a compromise. It may also help to paraphrase the Ickes diary entry ("In 1933 FDR acknowledged in private that the New Deal was somewhat influenced by radical European economic policies" or something similar). Some examples (rural electrification, the CCC) would make it clear that we're not talking about a fascist dictatorship. As you said, one can like autobahns or reliable train schedules without being a fascist. Regarding Wilson, during World War I the government took over much of the economy. It took all sort of measures against critics, shutting down magazines and jailing critics, including one moviemaker. It was motivated more by war time desperation than a fascist attitude.

I picked the New Deal because I thought an 80 year old collection of economic programs wouldn't be too controversial. I'm getting tired of writing "Garraty" and regard "Nazi" as the ultimate four letter word. In mid-May or June I'll go back to the New Deal to suggest a compromise. In the meantime I'll focus on 19th century history, which I like better anyway. In any event, I hope everyone enjoys their Wikipedia experience in spite of this war and is happy in their other endeavors. LesLein (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati

LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) is currently engaged in bad faith editing. In the article Undivided Kamrup district he is trying to insert some his own POV, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from references. He are some examples of his activities.

• He started making POV edits (diff). I asked him to discuss edits before making changes (diff)
• He ignored the invitation to discuss and continued aggressively editing, which included removal of references (diff). He removed the reference to Richards 1995.
• I inserted some text, which he then proceeded to move around. He even arbitrarily changed direct quote from references. (diff). Please note the change in the quote: "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the British occupation" to "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the Burmese occupation". This change is buried in the text, and not easily noticed. The direct quote is available freely (http://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&q=page+247#v=onepage&q=british%20occupation&f=false)

Chaipau (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything is as per source which is in article itself. Parts of Assam are under Burmese Empire from 1821 to 1825 before British forces take control in 1826. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is your ignoring request for discussion, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from them. Your POV and disruptive attitude has been noted by others. (diff, diff) Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing ? भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that issue could be construed as canvassing, though that wasn't my intention at all, as I have admitted (diff). The editor in question refrained from voting, rightfully so. In that instance I wanted to let him know since he too found your edits "disturbing" and wanted me to bring your activity to admin notice (diff). But my notices to the other editors were not. I wanted to let them know I was using their quotes, so they could either refute or endorse the connotations. They endorsed, and this one was explicit (diff). Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How can we see it differently when you involve in such practice few days ago too here and here with whom i have some disputes in past. I cleared air here but you still indulged in vote bank tactics which was termed by user concern as vote banking.

In your earlier post you said conduct is the issue not references, than why you posted link to google books as references in current discussion. I have edited as per sources and i have discussed issues with you on dozen of talk pages and noticeboards from mid last year which are not vandalism. Main problem is your primary topic which you want to glorified on every possible article which your recent history shows and correcting the same is equal to vandalism or disruptive editing for you. You used to be a neutral editor in past but it is lacking in your current conduct which i hope you work on. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please advise how these issues may best be addressed? Chaipau (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs on Office 365

Multiple IP addresses in a similar range (presumed to be the same person) have been engaged in an edit war and uncivil behaviour surrounding what the service Microsoft Office 365 is classified as (contending using original synthesises that it cannot be considered Software as a service or Software plus services, despite multiple reliable sources using the term "software as a service" to describe. The page was semi-protected in order to prevent their disruption, but their uncivil remarks continue on the talk page. One IP also made a personal attack directly against me. Their only edits have been on the one page, and I'm beginning to suspect possible sockpuppetry. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the link 3 times .... where's the personal attack? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Directly attacked me based off his opinion on my edits and for reporting him on edit warring, claims we cannot use "buzzwords" in articles, that my writing is poor, etc. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." ViperSnake151  Talk  18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the IP's talk-page contributions look constructive, other than accusing you of vandalism in one edit. A bit gruff perhaps, but I don't think there's need to semi-protect the talk page over this. I think continuing the discussion on the talk page would probably be best. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that there was a WP:DRN case opened on this: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Microsoft Office 365. I closed the DRN case per the intruction at the top of the page: "What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, everything is a tangled bureaucracy nowadays, sorry about that. I still think that these IP's are conducting disruptive editing practices that need to be rectified ASAP. Asserting ownership of the article (even without editing it) because he does not want it to use certain terms which are actually more confusing than he claims them to be. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Administrator abuse: User:Bbb23

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.

---

Below I have compiled a list of recent evidence of administrator abuse by User:Bbb23 against two other users: an IP user and subsequently myself. Note that, per policy, I have discussed this with the user being reported - see the last point below - before coming here.

Against the IP user:

1. Merging reports made by two different users into one without citing policy - I have been unable to find a policy that supports this myself - and more importantly doing so in such a way as to almost completely remove the second user's report
2. Clearly violating policy by semi-protecting this article, despite the fact that the reporting user was registered while the user being reported was not
   From WP:SEMI: "Semi-protection should not be used [...] to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes."
3. Favouring one version of a protected page over another by reverting after protecting

Against myself:

1. Making an implied threat against me for speaking out against - at least possible - administrator abuse, ignoring part of my unblock request, and most importantly responding to an unblock request despite not being an uninvolved (independent) administrator
2. Claiming to have been an uninvolved (independent) administrator despite policy
   (Note that a more detailed explanation of this point was written by me here)
3. Again claiming to have been an uninvolved (independent) administrator despite policy and more importantly implying that this administrator is willing to change a guideline without consensus
4. Actually changing a guideline without consensus
5. Closing a report for being retaliatory without citing policy - I have been unable to find a policy that supports this myself - and more importantly ignoring my specific request that this be handled by an uninvolved (independent) administrator
6. Refusing to cite policy even when specifically asked to do so and refusing to discuss this administrator abuse situation at all

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of this looks meritless. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I expect an explanation of this opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to expect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I now expect that other users who come across this case will disregard your opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I suspect that a lot of them will go through each diff as I did and will not see what you claim they are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

At least I got you to explain your opinion. A point-by-point explanation would be preferable, though, especially for other users who come across this case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dogmaticeclectic, please read WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. Continuing to stomp your feet is not going to get you your way here. Of course admins always protect the WP:WRONGVERSION, it's what we do. There's no "admin abuse" here. There's no "involved" here, and quite frankly your continuing along this path is leading into disruptive editing, and likely to lead to a longer block than your initial one. (See also: WP:BOOMERANG) Hopefully someone will close this down before you get yourself into any further mischief. — Ched :  ?  19:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you didn't read what I wrote about the protection issue carefully. More importantly, there is far more to this case than just the points you mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• I almost closed this as without merit after going through and reading the diffs, but felt there might be some educational value in leaving it open more than 10 minutes. After reviewing the diffs, I didn't see anything that qualifies as admin abuse, or incivility even. You can disagree with his conclusions, but that doesn't make them abuse. As Ched has pointed out, bringing unsubstantiated claims here wasn't wise, and trying to wikilawyer us isn't either. In the future, WP:AN and not WP:ANI is the appropriate place to register admin complaints. For what it is worth, I suggest withdrawing the complaint, or finding a diff that actually demonstrates some abuse. Or duck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should update WP:ADMINABUSE then, after obtaining consensus of course - it currently links here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite - these claims are simply wrong. Bbb23 is quite right about involved (he wasn't), he didn't "change a guideline" (he just wikilinked it), and the claim that Bbb23 made an implied threat when he was responding to an unblock request that did contain a threat (made by you) is really not wise. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you didn't read what I wrote about the guideline change issue carefully. More importantly, there is far more to this case than just the points you mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I have read it all - that's ten minutes of my life I won't get back. There is no merit to any of your claims. Bbb23 did nothing wrong whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I see it does, although for long term issues (like you are claiming) that are not singular incidents, WP:AN has traditionally been the venue of choice. That aside, my other advice stands. I strongly suggest you drop the stick as it appears several people have looked an no one has found merit to your claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It sounds like you didn't read what I wrote about the report closure issue carefully. More importantly, there is far more to this case than just the points you mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• None of these diffs indicate any administrative abuse. The section borders on abuse of an admin, though.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see: 1) No issue Merging two related reports is the norm - in any investigation (including ANI) the actions and activities of both (or all) parties are considered. In all cases of edit-warring, there are at least 2 parties involved - sometimes more. Merging reports is the best way to proceed so that all evidence is evaluated and weighed properly - of course, tit-for-tat filings usually don't end up well, and that becomes part of the evidence. As such, merging them removes the appearance of tit-for-tat, thus giving the reviewing admins better opportunity for objective review. 2) No issue Protection in lieu of blocks is the preferred M.O. If the most problematic edits are being made by an anonymous editor, then protection is common. It's also highly possible that the admin watchlisted the article in question to ensure that the registered user did not continue to abuse edit-warring, OR abuse the fact that the article was not protected. 3) No issue The protecting admin usually returns to a pre-edit-war version - or at least a version that appears to have the most references supporting it.

1) No issue Your unblock request was horribly non-GAB compliant, and was clearly the right thing to do. 2) No issue You're obviously mistaken about your reading of WP:INVOLVED 3) No issue See above 4) No issue He was WP:BOLD, and he actually made WP:AAB match policy - no discussion nor additional consensus required 5) No issue Retaliatory/tit-for-tat filings are typically closed for the benefit of whoever was silly enough to open a tit-for-tat filing to prevent them from being blocked for disruption instead 6) No issue He discussed - you simply didn't like the answers. probably just like you're going to do right now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest final warning be given and immediate block if Dogmaticeclectic pursues this any further. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly concur. When you reach the point where you are claiming that everybody on Wikipedia is wrong and you alone are right, you really need to find a place that is more to your liking. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I also support giving Dogmaticelectric a strict warning and a block if Dogmaticelectric pursues this any further. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seems a logical conclusion, warn when possible. I've tried to gently hint that backing away was in his best interest and that hasn't worked, perhaps Bwilkins or someone else can craft a proper warning that conveys the situation, and the consequences if the warning isn't heeded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Read all the material, report is cruft. Nothing there approaching admin abuse. Not that it matters what I (or anyone else) think as everyone is wrong, apparently. Support final warning and block if this continues. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• I took a shot at it on his talk page - he seems to have stepped away for the moment, so hopefully it can be a learning experience. So ..  Done — Ched :  ?  21:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Edit warring IP at Sega Genesis

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.

---

Now, I just noticed that I just hit four reverts in a day, so I realize that I'm not without sin here, but could an uninvolved admin take a look at the history at Sega Genesis?

The issue here is that the device is sold under different names in America verses other English-speaking nations, and it occasionally causes minor problems when people try to "Correct" parts of the article, which uses American eng-var throughout.

Right now there's an IP editor making various eng-var changes leaving edit summaries like "retarded yank is retarded". He was blocked for 12 hours for 3RR and immediately took it back up again when the block wore off.

Thanks. APL (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war. Maybe try talking to 'em? If it's "wrong" for a short time, that's not the end of the world... perhaps you could discuss it with the person, and come to some agreement. User talk:82.41.107.134 88.104.17.92 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've left him a final warning and full protected the page for 24 hours. Obviously, this isn't a person who takes to civil discussion very quickly, but I ask that you try on the article talk page, and give it the old college try. If they continue the incivility and warring, they will likely be blocked again. For your sins, which you have graciously admitted, go read WP:3RR three times for penance, and please don't do that again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it appears the IP invoked Godwin's Law [76] and has been blocked by Favonian. It does rather prove my previous point, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, can't win 'em all. 88.104.17.92 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Mitredestructor2, edit warring and repeated insertion of Non-RS BLOG links

Page: Kallistos Ware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mitredestructor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requested action: 1-week block

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

UNSOURCED BLP

• Revert 1 (restoring unsourced BLP violation) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542927913: restoring truthful comments about Ware's closeness to Moscow Patriarchate")
• Revert 2 (same as revert 1) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (edit summary: "No BLP issues in truthful comments. These issues are well known and do not stand to Ware's credit.")

REPEATED INSERTION OF Non-RS WP:SELFPUB SOURCE

• NonRS insertion 1 23:10, 10 March 2013 (edit summary: "Ware's relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad")
• NonRS insertion 2 10:23, 11 March 2013 (edit summary: "Ware's double allegiance to the Russian orthodox Church Abroad and to the Ecumenical Patriarchate")

TOLD IT IS NONRS19:40, 11 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mitredestructor2 (talk): Issues with WP:BLP; the only source offered is questionable (per WP:BLOGS). (TW)")

• NonRS insertion 3 11:21, 12 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 543479488 - ROCOR Studies article has been approved by M. Kallistos himself")

AGAIN told it is NonRS 13:12, 12 March 2013

• NonRS insertion 4 19:52, 12 March 2013 (edit summary: "Nothing incorrect in an article which has been specifically approved by M. Kallistos himself.")

Told his claimed exception to WP:SELFPUB is invalid 19:58, 12 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 543682096 by Mitredestructor2 (talk) Fails criteria #4 at WP:ABOUTSELF; plus you're WP:EDITWARRING")

20:03, 12 March 2013 Edit war warning

• NonRS insertion 5 20:28, 17 March 2013 (edit summary: "Adding reference")

Both and I and another user have attempted to engage mitredestructor2 at their talk page, and on the article talk page, but mitredestructor2 has not responded - other than to keep inserting the nonRS blog.

Request 1-week block NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TBSailors

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.

---

TBSailors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:TBSailors has been adding inappropriate pages to Category:Biblical scholars. The category page includes the "Category diffuse" template (which admittedly, I added myself, about a month ago) stating that "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable". TBSailors added several pages to this category. I removed them (since they were already in subcategories) and placed two friendly notices on the user's talk page.[77][78] In response, TBSailors has reverted my edits on eleven pages, each one with the edit summary "undoing vandalism by troll", e.g. [79] StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This was TB's first edit after not editing for almost 3 years. I've reverted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've left them a final warning for the edit summaries. As I told them, I'm not inclined to warn again and if they continue, I would expect to see them blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

• • It should be noted that User:StAnselm is a complete and utter dipshit. Creating a category for "African-American female physicists" might indeed be interesting and helpful to users of Wikipedia. Removing the category "physicist" from all of these pages, however, would be an enormous disservice. Under any normal circumstances, this would be almost self-evident. One must take into account, however, that those who edit entries dealing with "religious studies" on Wikipedia have about as much common sense (and knowledge of the subject) as a bag of rocks.77.2.229.114 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

DE user

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.

---

IvanOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Extremely disruptive edit warring after expired block for the same thing. Obvious national agenda, no talk page usage, blind revert of sources without comments of edit summary. Just check contribution. User is NOTHERE, in ARBMAC area. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week and edits reverted. I wouldn't normally escalate that fast (the previous block was just one day), but this is beyond simple vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Disruptive editor ignoring talk page, also engaged in WP:Hound

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.

---

Hello, consensus was reached by 6 editors to change the wording of a contentious sentence in an article, rather than removing it. One user, (RolandR), however, now refuses to acknowledge the talk page and reverted the rewording in the sentence, and was previously engaged in WP:Hounding to intimidate other editors. Warnings to his talk page he considers "trolling" Was wondering if we could get some help, the agreed change text is located on the talk page, after the RFC text, after the text "a possible change then?". Talk:Karl MarxPatriot1010 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• You must notify the editor in question when bringing a case to ANI. The easiest way is using the template at the top of this page, {{subst:ANI-notice}}. I've done this for you. Next, the discussion is in an ongoing RFC. I suggest completing that, then using WP:DRN if needed. It is hard to claim a consensus while the RFC is still ongoing. You didn't provide any links to the hounding claim, but if you do so, that can be looked at by someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Therre was no consensus in the talk page. Three editors favoured a proposal, three opposed it. I am hounding no-one; it was Patriot1010 who him/herself accused me of this, with no details or diffs,[80] after I reverted a clearly unacceptable personal attack by him/her against me at Talk:Karl Marx[81] and one against two other editors at Talk:Pogrom.[82] I did indeed remove as "trolling" repeated edits to my talk page by an editor who has since been warned by two admins to desist from this behaviour.[83] Patriot did not notify me about this complaint (thanks Denis for letting me know), and has not attempted to communicate with me except for the entirely non-specific warning template noted above. I don't think that there is any case to answer here, this is an ongoing content dispute. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Lugnuts and civility

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.

---

User:Lugnuts assigns stub tags to a lot of articles; I regularly stub-sort and inevitably come across a lot of the tags he's assigned. I've politely pointed out that if he adds {{stub}} rather than {{Stub}} it saves the stub-sorter a few keystrokes, and asked him to use the lower-case "stub". He ignores this and is still today adding {{Stub}}.

OK, it's trivial. But there seems no reason for him not to comply with a polite request to save other editors' time. His attitude to other editors is perhaps reflected in the abusive message displayed to anyone editing his talk page. PamD 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you fix whatever piece of software mishandles "Stub"? All code should be case-insensitive with respect to the first letter.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Implying that you should fix the "major malfunction"... That's where my edit notice comes from, BTW, as an active member of the Film Project, it's used in a tongue-in-cheek way. This is for fighting, this is for fun, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Lugnuts, please - there is a small benefit to using {{stub}} for the sake of future manual typists, and it costs nothing to do it that way first. How about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Take a look at the Usage section at Template:Stub. Lugnuts is doing what our documentation tells him to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon. I knew I'd read it somewhere. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd already noticed that, and was going to wait for any dust here to settle, but I've now proposed on the talk page that the wording there is amended to state that {{stub}} is the form which should be used. PamD 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Question: What, exactly, makes {{Stub}} more difficult to work with than {{stub}}? And why should that be any of Lugnuts's concern anyway? --NYKevin 19:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts', not Lugnuts's. I don't want to edit your comment, but I thought I'd point out that very important and non-trivial point. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Try amending {{Stub}} or {{stub}} to {{painting-stub}} (and sorting a dozen more similar stubs) and spot the difference. PamD 19:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this discussion worth bringing up on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents? What exactly do you think administrators should be doing about this? Giving him a telling off on his user talk page? Blocking him? Okay, I've grabbed my mop and will furiously shake it at him while saying: "Lugnuts, type stub with a lower case 's' rather than an upper case 'S' to be nice to the stub sorting people. If you don't, we will... not do anything about it, because it's pretty much completely trivial." —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Annoying IP vandal

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.

---

I went to AIV, but didn't end up posting anything because this isn't just simple vandalism. 24.135.72.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is edit-warring with me on my talk page, blanking virtually everything, and all because I semiprotected a page because this IP was disrupting it — the IP is seemingly being used by a blocked user, too, although the proof isn't so strong that I thought a sock block warranted. Crowning everything else is the messages at the IP's talk: "I will continue vandalising until someone blocks me" and "Remove the biased source or block thousands of people, BECAUSE I WILL GET A NEW ADDRESS IF I GET BLOCKED. REMOVE IT OR BLOCK ME NO THER CHOICE". I hesitate on WP:INVOLVED grounds to block, and I'm about to go to church, so I'll not be able to look out for socking; someone else will need to do it. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP and will try to keep an eye out for reincarnations. Favonian (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Favonian has just blocked the IP, but the threats of socking mean that we'll need to keep paying attention. Final note — please do not semiprotect my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldhouse2012/Archive 88.104.17.92 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Death threat by IP

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.

---

Should something be done about this? Revdel is obvious, of course, but can we lengthen the IP's block? – Richard BB 21:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been reverted, I've protected the talk page until the block expires. I don't see a need to extend the block as it's fairly obvious it's not a serious threat and just pure trolling. I don't even see a need to rev del.Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I did RevDel the edit, but the existing block should be sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

IP contributions, Spam????

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.

---

Could someone have a look at the contributions here, not sure what Topix is, but looks like spam to me. Mo ainm~Talk 10:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that myself and was going to leave the i.p. a note but you got there first. My initial thought as well was that it was spam but topix does seem to be a general political discussion site and most of the i.p.s contributions (for example here) do seem to contain suggestions on article improvement. I think in this case, encouraging them to add to the articles and discouraging them from linking to topix every single post would be best. Valenciano (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that Topix link contains information about a large number of issues that relate, which will help change the articles etcetera. I'm not a spammer....one link isn't spamming is it? On a number of the threads, too, such as Roy Acuff, Cadair Idris, Geology Of Great Britain, Mynydd Moel there is no Topix link. I'm almost done. I'm not going to post on every Wikipedia page!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.113 (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the topix links that you're posting. They appear to be to a political discussion forum, however Wikipedia requires reliable sources for material added. Why don't you have a go at editing the pages yourself, if you believe that information is missing? If you're not sure how to do that, you can ask me for help on my talk page. Valenciano (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made posts myself, on Topix. My words. Diary type extracts. Are you accusing me of making that up? So yes sources by me are reliable. I don't see what's so awful about one link in a number of Talk pages. And that link contains further links, for example from newspapers, politicians or wannabe politicians official websites, their twitter pages etcetera. I'm not sure if i want to edit main pages myself or whatever, i want to discuss, hence posting in the talk pages. I might get round to reading your link or links, or i might not get round to it, i've spent a long time typing a lot up. Anyway there's less than 5 left. Etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.113 (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, sources by you are not consideredreliable per the policy. It's not that we're saying you're lying. Far from it, you would count as a primary source but there are very strict usages of primary sourcing allowed on wikipedia. In general, only secondary sources are used.However, anything that comes from a reliable source like a newspaper, journal that sort of thing would be most appreciated. Blackmane (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've rolledback the edits as they violate a handful of policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The same. or very similar, edits are now being made, presumably by the same editor, from another IP: [84]. RolandR (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Soft-blocked 62.249.253.0/24 for one week.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Resolving a dispute about resolving disputes

Please take a look at recent edit history[85] of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer guide. Other than posting the usual ANI-notices, I am not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole, but perhaps someone wiser than I could intervene in some way... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteer guide, Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Why have two duplicate Volunteer Guidelines? and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RfC: should the DRN guideline be split into an overview page and detailed page?.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

please remove information about me immediately

• List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK)#Bea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bea Hamill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

my name is Bea Hamill, I want all information about me removed immediately. It is causing me a lot of distress. I have tried deleting and people keep putting it back. The information is of no interest to anyone. I want my privacy and I do not want my name, my surname, my date of birth, where I went to school and university being publically accessible. This is also having a very bad effect on my family, who obviously have the same surname and do not want to be associated with a tv show i was on 4 years ago. thank you

Beahamill5 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The above was a contestant on Big Brother. Her information is part of List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK); the BBC News website profile used as a source is still live. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Short of deleting the section entirely, we could pare it back. We could eliminate her last name, the birth year, and the part about the school. The part about the school is mainly there because the principal of the school expressed her displeasure with Bea appearing on the program; it's not really necessary. The other two pieces aren't necessary, either, but removal of them would make her section inconsistent with all the others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've unilaterally blanked this as a temporary measure. How about, just this once, we decide what to do first, then we set the content however we've decided it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I applaud Andy Dingley's removal of the information as an interim measure. I hope that permanent and complete removal is something that can be done. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The person involved should contact the sites being used as sources and have them take the information about her taken down first, otherwise, Wikipedia is reporting on past events that are reliably sourced. RNealK (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the OTRS ticket the user opened today regarding this request, with my recommendation that they discus this here instead. There are things we can do BLP and courtesy-wise, but I did explain that completely removing the section is not possible. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I don't think the unilateral removal was appropriate, but, as a temporary measure, it's not a big deal, either. BTW, the three points I highlighted are all independent, so, for example, we could remove the birth year and the school business but leave in her last name. Omitting the birth year wouldn't be as glaringly inconsistent as removing the last name, and the school stuff isn't really necessary. Related to RealK's point, though, I wonder how much more damage our article does to her vs. the information that is publicly available on which we're relying.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the whole article has been to AfD twice, before ARS rock up and claim that this trivia is the most important content on the whole of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Disagree with removing sourced, factual information. Put the whole article up for deletion, but we cannot respond to every request - we don't know who the person making the request is. Either the bio is within policy or it isn't, regardless of the requester. I have some doubts as to their identity. Leaky Caldron 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Then restore it and start the edit war ASAP. Please, will someone do this – I've got money riding on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you removed it in the hope of starting an edit war that seems a poor motive. I said I disagreed, that's all. Leaky Caldron 00:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy, please stop toeing the line of WP:POINT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please use the phrase "or I will block you". Someone has already restored it in mid-discussion, so that's lunch paid for. If I can get a threatened block too, I get free beer as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is a branch and the main article contains much more information that the claimant may not like. Leaky Caldron 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We may not treat the Bea section differently from the other entries; I agree that this is not particularly encyclopedic, but there's no good reason to pretend that the content was unsourced or improperly sourced. Let Bea nominate the whole thing for deletion (which I'd support) or persuade the BBC to take down their comments on her. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing sourced information. When someone goes on a show like Big Brother, they are putting themselves in the public eye, and what goes on is a matter of record. That is not something that can be suppressed later when they regret their decision. Even if we remove it, Googling her name produces plenty of references to her BB career. JohnCD (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Both Nyttend and JohnCD are correct. If you want to be a private person, don't go on Big Brother. If you put your personal life on a TV show, then don't complain when it doesn't get forgotten. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that has already dawned on Beahamill5 (talk · contribs) by now (and I find the linked article from her former teacher to be ironic in that sense), however we are here to explain to her why we cannot remove the information while being sensitive to her plight. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You go on BB, you get to live with the crap afterwards. However we have the option to act honourably and decently in the interim, while we decide what to do. Nor is information being available elsewhere a requirement for WP to duplicate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's not like this was the first season of the show and nobody knew what would happen. There was ample example of how show contestants are viewed/discussed and I submit that anyone who claims they were surprised is....well, I'll be polite. (that's me being sensitive to her plight) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Compared to whats out there - I would assume this entry here at Wikipedia is not a priority vs all the negative info about her on the net. I do feel bad for her - we all dont make the right life choices all the time - but we all have to live with them.Moxy (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate venue for this discussion. Wikipedia administrators are responsible only for the most obvious and pressing breaches of Wikipedia policy, which doesn't appear to apply in this case. The community in general is responsible for everything else. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page (with a courtesy link from BLP/N, or vice versa). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually what makes this the appropriate venue is that the editor who started the thread has been making legal threats - [86]. When warned to stop she asked if the person who told her that was crazy [87]. In line with WP:NLT the account should be blocked. I think all the information should be restored to the article, this person made the decision to publicise herself on a TV reality show and is now demanding that her name be removed from this entire site, which is not a reasonable demand in my opinion. Smeat75 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed the bulletin, Finlay, everything now belongs on ANI. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that if we include the most basic info, and remove anything not required for context, we aren't compromising our duty to publish facts, and remembering that she is a fellow human being. This is my opinion as an editor, not an admin. Pharmboy (alt. of Dennis Brown) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As Wikipedia, we report on what is notable. Notability is defined by us as having coverage in reliable sources. Barring libelous or slanderous material, or other legal considerations, we don't remove material or stop the addition thereof because someone asks. This person, although I sympathize for/with (darn English language) them, knew what would happen if they went on the show. They should not be surprised that the sources we use still have her information, and that we still have her information. If she wants it removed, she will need to make a formal legal request to the Foundation, which may or may not have merit. This all, of course, is pending the AfD on this article. I do feel bad for Bea, but we can't just remove anything that anyone asks at any time. Otherwise, I could go create the AngelMcKenzie73 user and come and say that I wanted my information removed, or others. The proper method for Bea to follow would be to file a formal request with the foundation, because we are not obligated to remove the information, nor should we, here. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If we knew she had made "a formal legal request" we would block the account per WP:NLT. She appears to have followed the instructions to email her request to OTRS, which would have ended up with a polite "sorry, we can't do anything" response not dissimilar to yours. I don't know how she ended up coming to ANI, but she will probably get the desired result because of it. The fact that she is a young woman and is not an entirely unsympathetic character will work in her favour. Perhaps she should claim that Wikipedia is trying to "blackmail" her into something by threatening to reveal general information about her which is already available on the internet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(because that sort of thing is only the evil crime of "outing" and "doxxing" when it's done to Wikipedians!) *Dan T.* (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outing is only a big deal when a user has made an effort to remain anonymous. For example, I haven't been on a reality tv show, there are no news articles about me, therefore if my personal details are added to Wikipedia it could be considered "outing". Bea Hamill has articles published about her. You can't really "out" an already public figure unless you post new private information (which Wikipedia does not). If it were her phone number/address etc. then it should be removed. Information published in reliable sources is reasonable to retain. James086^Talk 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I understand Andy's motivation behind blanking the section pending discussion, the Striesand effect needs to be considered here. Having one constestant's section blanked is a red flag for people to go looking for information to add to it, and if we were to delete one article on BB housemates, that creates a hole in the list that other people will ask "why?" and start poking. Wikipedia is not censored, we don't remove reliably sourced, verifiable material on notable subjects just because somebody is hurt or offended. I feel bad for the person involved, but unless the sources are dissapeared and the event unhappened, there's nothing we can really do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Gwickwire and Bushranger. I looked at the material before Andy removed it and it seemed to be pretty mild stuff. I'm sorry it's causing her distress, but removing it from here is really antithetical to what we do -- and it's all over the Net anyway.

    One thing we can do, though. is to get rid of the redirect at Bea Hamill, which seems pretty unnecessary for someone whose "fame" is basically a one-time thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Agreed, but that should be a matter of consensus as well at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify here, I never intended a permanent blanking of this material, merely a temporary one whilst discussion was ongoing and mostly to defuse an issue of hysterical forumshopping that was just getting untidy. I happen to think that detailed coverage of BB contestants belongs in Hello! (It means Hola!) magazine, not in an encyclopedia, so nuke the lot from orbit. As to this particular person, then the more I hear of them, the more I dislike them and their flakey pseudo-bohemianism. Certainly they signed the Faustian pact, so they can kiss their privacy goodbye and good luck to them. Me, I'm laughing - free lunch tomorrow, as I had a bet that WP couldn't behave decently over a BLP issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the figure voluntarily joined a nationally televised, controversial show and now wants that scrubbed. Uhm...am I missing something? Has the figure been defamed? Is the information inaccurate in any way? Are the sources adequate? Is the request based on an immediate need or danger or is this a simple request to take the spot light off her now that the show is over and they don't like the result? Yes, we should trim it back to what is firmly within policy but no...we don't blank BLPs in the middle of the discussion before a consensus and this is the wrong venue. This should be at the BLP noticeboard unless editors agree to ignore that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Eliminating the redirect is essential. Deleting the article is unacceptable. Clearly the initial version of the article, with some unsourced and highly unflattering personal commentary is also unacceptable under BLP. The first version got whacked down to a second shorter version which is pretty close to okay. The "scatty and bohemian" bit needs to go for sure, and further tightening could also easily be accomplished; but all information on the contestant should not be blanked. This is really a matter for the discussion page of the article and not AN/I, by the way. Thank you to Bea for alerting us all to the problem; the first version clearly was unacceptable. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• It looks to me like there aren't any sources for the full names or birth dates in most cases. When no reliable secondary source exists for personal information it should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is kind of my point: enforce BLP strictly here and only include the information actually needed and properly sourced. I agree with Carrite that the redirect isn't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect is not needed but do think it should go the normal route as has been done with other mentions of living persons such as Ryan Lanza.

• I don't see what deleting a redirect will change. Any one searching for her name will still get the list page in their top results.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You go on television - a primetime television show at that - you accept the consequences. I've had a look at the revision as it was then and in my opinion, there is nothing there that falls foul of WP:COI as reporting on offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. In addition, I don't like it is not a valid reason for removal.--Launchballer 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Bea's edits to the list article should be oversighted as she has revealed further personal information which is available under the edit history. –anemoneprojectors– 20:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a revdel, I think it's only right, but also felt I should notify this discussion as well! –anemoneprojectors– 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've now gone ahead and contacted an oversighter. Pretty sure this was the right thing to do. –anemoneprojectors– 20:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, there's some information at Big Brother 10 (UK)#Controversy and criticism and Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) that relates to this. –anemoneprojectors– 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The general question is what should be done with respect to someone who is engages in a very public activity under their real name, an activity that is either designed for publicity or will inevitably have publicity, and later in life thinks better of it. (There have been instance of people in beauty contests, for example.) My own personal moral feeling--a feeling that I would not impose on the community--is that many such activities, including this one, are to me so obnoxious that I would afford every degree of protection to someone who is eventually sensible enough to repent of them. (I would therefore cover a show like this without the names of the participants on the basis that their participation is not a subject for a rational encyclopedia, whether or not they wish it to be--if it were an encyclopedia catering to my point of view, which it is not.. To those who regard the activity as praiseworthy, it would be the different question of whether someone who has deliberately done something in public intrinsically notable and later is so eccentric as to want to hide their participation should be indulged in their peculiarity. I think these articles are often or usually dealt with by people who do regard the events or shows as a positive activity, and to that extent we do have a bias in favor of some forms of popular culture.. I suppose the only possible stance for WP is to regard the activities as a morally neutral choice, which like any other choice in life a person may later wish they had done otherwise,but I cannot see how to actually do this. We would normally apply the presumption of privacy, but that presumption is contrary to the purposes of this genre of entertainment, and we would therefore have to decide whether to accept or reject its purpose. I'm looking at the ongoing AfD and I see very few participants there actually regard it as neutral--they all of them on both sides would tailor WP to their own taste. Presumably those not interested in the matter who would therefore be neutral are not interested in the AfD. Thats how we make decisions at WP, but testing the strength of conflicting groups, not by rational analysis.

On balance, I think it helpful to use a different principle; since we're an encyclopedia, I think it wrong to cater to the publicity hungry in this or any other part of Wikipedia. We should either include all the candidates, or none of them. I suppose there is a compromise, by omitting the last names and other personal information, and just discuss the actions on the show. Unfortunately, to a considerable extent such shows are notable because the people have a real life; I suppose that's the main point of the genre. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • There is a degree of parity in our positions, to include the basic information of "who" and what happened on the actual show themselves, without the fluffy and unnecessary material that is more tabloid than encyclopedia. As a general rule, we would be a better encyclopedia for limiting ourselves to truly encyclopedic material, particularly with BLP considerations (thus, fellow humans) at stake. I think to claim that because they chose to be on the show, that there are no rules as to what we can publish (regardless of sourcing) is callous and doesn't advance us as an encyclopedia. I wouldn't exclude her name, but I would excluding activities and information outside of the events of the show itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here was details of events that happened on the show, though. –anemoneprojectors– 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To keep things in perspective, let's browse the entries of this list. Now, we don't hear any of these BLPs asking to be removed from Wikipedia. Most of them have their own business, so they get free of charge advertising on Wikipedia. So, Stuart Baggs probably does not mind that his entry says: "Before firing him, Lord Sugar told Stuart that he was "..full of shit.."[19]". Count Iblis (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's of prime importance to engage in as much whataboutery as possible on the main drama board when direct requests come in relating to BLP and privacy. That's absolutely what we should be doing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:AGF

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.

---

I made an edit to the "Lakeside High School (DeKalb County, Georgia)" to update the GHSA (Georgia High School Association) navbox to the correct navbox. User:TerriersFan placed a vandalism warning template on my talk page, which is a violation of AGF since my edit was not vandalism. TerriersFan also reverted my edit. Therefore if there is any vandalism being committed it is by TerriersFan, since the definition of vandalism is edit(s) that compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. However, because I actually adhere to AGF I am not going to accuse TerriersFan of vandalism since he/she might have thought my edit was improper, but anyway his/her action of posting the vandalism template was uncalled for - see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

I would like for appropriate sanctions to be applied, thank you in advance. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• The essay "don't template the regulars" is just that, an essay. It is not policy, so there is no enforceability to it. Your being an IP makes it impossible to tell if you are a regular anyway. You didn't bother trying to discuss this with him on his talk page first, something we expect in cases like this. That being the case, I would suggest closing this thread and if you have an issue, discuss it with the editor first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1. TerriersFan's talk page says to reply to messages he posts on the same page, therefore I would think that me replying to his post on my talk page, on my own talk page, is sufficient attempt of trying to discuss this with him/her. Additionally I notified the user of this AN/I discussion.
2. DTTR is just an aside, the main issue is the accusation of vandalism, which is clearly unfounded based on my edit to the "Lakeside High School (DeKalb County, Georgia)" page, and is thus likely a violation of WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith).

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just my view, I see no vandalism by this IP address at all in the history, nothing that even comes close (by this IP). gwickwire^talk_editing 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

96.32.138.125's edit added "AAAAA" to the article; seemingly random strings of letters like that are a common pattern in vandalism and editing tests. Particularly with the lack of an edit summary or reference, mistaking this edit as vandalism is unfortunate but understandable, in my opinion. An apology is in order I think, but this was a single mistake and there's no need for admin action here. Sanctions are imposed on editors only to prevent continuous disruption and not as punishment. Chamal ^T•C 02:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not '[add] "AAAAA"' but rather, changed "AAAA" to "AAAAA". Clearly if AAAAA is a random string then so is AAAA, and in any case the effects of my edit (not to add/change arbitrary strings but to correct a navbox template) should have at least been noticed before reverting. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

TerriersFan has already apologized and struck the template warning [88] [89] . Done? 88.104.17.92 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest closing this thread as resolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine w/ me --96.32.138.125 (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Regarding User:Deven94

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.

---

Good morning,

This is my first post on ANI, so I hope you understand I'm a bit rusty at this.

With regards to User:Deven94 I wish to request a possible block on this user for repeating vandalism of Hanley Castle High School whilst logged in and also using IP Address User_Talk:195.195.201.43 (which belongs to a college - currently anon and account creation blocked due to IP vandalism)

I also noticed that the user has requested on at least two occaisons to have a Biography article created about himself, which on both occaisions were rejected for being a possible test edit /insufficient evidence.

In regards to Hanley Castle High School, [90] is an edit where the user put himself as a former student without any actual evidence - I quickly reverted this edit using the unreferenced edit template and left a note on his talk page.

There was also this edit: [91] made by the user whilst logged out, which was reverted by another user as a test edit using STiki.

Thirdly, there was this edit: [92] again whilst logged out, which I believe was by this user,as it is the same article.

I have reason to believe that these edits were deliberate 'jokes' by this user as having been to that school myself, I have no recollection of him ever attending there.

I have tried to discuss the issue with the user outside WP, but it seems he wouldn't listen to me.

Are these reported edits block worthy?

Thanks

Usual people in life (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• The IP is already blocked via a schoolblock. He is a a kid (well, 18 or 19 according to him, which is still a kid to me) that did a little goofing off, nothing major. He just added his name to the school infobox. Blocking would be unnecessary here, since it wouldn't be preventing anything at this stage. The better response would be a personalized message on his talk page, letting him know that adding stuff like that, if he continues, would end up getting him blocked since it isn't helpful. It is best to try to start a conversation first, then if they won't listen, use a block as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I went ahead and left him a note on his talk page, and a pointer to the Teahouse. Hopefully he will take the hint, or just move on. If not, and the questionable behavior continues, then we can explore blocking the account. I think we are done for now, though. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Troll?

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.

---

Resolved

When combined with the username, the edit and the article in question -- is this a candidate for an indeff block? Rgrds. --64.85.214.112 (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, acct blocked, question answered. --64.85.214.112 (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Gamewizard71 at Glossary of musical terminology

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.

---

Despite requests by several editors to stop and present any proposed changes at the article's talk page, User:Gamewizard71 continues to destroy the article Glossary of musical terminology. According to the editor's comments at User talk:Gamewizard71#Glossary of musical terminology, there is no prospect of meaningful discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the editor has (for) now relented: diff, so no action is currently required. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Weird sandbox edits from 2 new users

• User:Keeleyhelp/sandbox
• [93]

I don't really know what to think about these, but they seem weird/troubling enough that I wanted to bring them here. They involve a cry for help and an accusation regarding a rape. I deleted the accusation because it mentioned a name; the link above is tho a previous version. Obviously I have no idea if these are real people or real events, but I just thought there should be some more eyes on them. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is a serious cry for help or not, so not willing to assume either way. It could be in reference to the actress Keeley Hawkes rape scene in the 2000 movie Complexity. That said, you might try dropping a note saying hello on their talk page, without references here (an exception to the notify rule). Coming from a female name (yours) might be a better way to approach, just in case it is a sincere cry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I left a brief note on her talk page inviting her to reply if she wanted to talk. I didn't mention any specifics, and my feeling is that this probably isn't sincere, but I used to volunteer on a rape crisis hotline, and my instinct is to reach out. Thanks, Dennis, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. Ping me on my talk page if I need to follow up or if you have a concern. Thank you, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:BlackJack: issues with WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:AGF, among other things

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.

---

Further I guess to this ANI report, in which User:BlackJack came to ANI declaring that an ongoing educational project was a "hoax," this editor has been increasingly problematic over the past few days. As I am now an involved admin (and fear I may have broken WP:3RR myself in the process), I'm reluctantly bringing this here. The last straw is User:BlackJack's moving the project page from Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket to Wikipedia:Englishness and Cricket, over two previous moves. I believe that this is the first time I've ever initiated a discussion in this venue.

Anyhow, here are some highlights. Plenty more diffs could be provided:

• Contravening WP:BITE: [94]
• Contravening WP:3RR: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:BlackJack_reported_by_User:Jbmurray_.28Result:_.29
• Contravening WP:OWN: [95]
• Contravening WP:AGF: [96]

Beyond multiple discussions on the Education Noticeboard (also here), on the project talk page (also here and here), plus on the various article talk pages, I also opened up a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

User:BlackJack seems to think that the underlying problem is with the use of a source he regards as unreliable. But he hasn't bothered to comment at the relevant venue. Throughout, moreover, his tone has been unwelcoming and hostile.

Please note that I agree that User:BlackJack has raised some relevant issues of detail about the information that students have been adding to a number of pages dealing with cricket. But in my view the way he has been going about things is unhelpful and repeatedly contrary to due process.

Advice and thoughts most welcome. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me say one more thing: I agree with many of BlackJack's specific points, and as I have said I think that (so far; the project is far from over) the students' contributions have had mixed results: some articles have definitely improved, in at least once case thanks to BlackJack's rewriting them in response to their interventions. At least one other has ended up rather askew, with undue weight put on (here) the importance of cricket on Englishness. But this is not a content dispute that I am raising here. The point is that Wikipedia articles improve thanks to good faith edits to which regular editors then respond with equal good faith, indeed correcting any errors that may have crept in, but taking into account new information, new sources, and so on. For a short while there may be some instability in an article before a new consensus is established. But this is the Wikipedia process. Sadly, User:BlackJack is not respecting it. I would have expected better of a long-term editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, responsibility for the 3RR rests with Murray who has repeatedly undone a bone fide reversion to remove false information introduced by the "Cricket and Englishness" group from the dubious source which he continues to defend. Please note that I am a subject expert re early cricket history and have written widely about it in and outside WP. Murray objects to the source being denounced (not only by me) and is intent on making a WP:POINT about the whole thing. During Murray's edit war, I twice spelled out to him that I am removing false information but he just ignores it so what can I do?

If there is one thing that is unwelcome and hostile it is Murray's attitude. I have the support of two other CRIC members at least and these two are both subject experts also. Murray arrogantly insists he is right about this source even though we have in numerous forums and citing the work of several recognised authorities proved that references taken from this book are false and misleading. No matter what we write, he ignores and reverts. By taking the view that we are attempting to subvert the work done by the students he is breaching WP:AGF because we have not removed anything done by them that is useful, only that which we as experts know to be false or misleading. Our view in CRIC is that our articles are there for the benefit of the readers and so must be credible and as accurate as possible. Murray just cannot see this and his behaviour throughout this dispute has been reprehensible. He simply will not communicate with anyone who doesn't agree with him. His attempts above and at the 3RR page to discredit are sad and pathetic.

The issue here is ensuring that long-standing articles, including one that is WP:GA remain credible and of use to the readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen the two ANI threads by BlackJack. I've not really understood his issue with this Wikiproject, and, having been told twice that this is not an appropriate venue for his complaints, and that there is no issue with this project, it is flat-out wrong of him to move it from the Wikiproject namespace. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That is a separate issue and my contention is that an exercise of that kind should not intrude on established articles: they should use sandboxes. I repeat that the issue here is protecting the credibility and accuracy of long-standing articles by preventing addition of dubious or false information. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Completely relevant - this ANI thread mentions your moving of the Wikiproject, which is therefore not a separate issue. As is the fact you've opened two ANIs here - also relevant. Don't try and pawn it off as irrelevant. Lukeno94 (talk)

I would ask whether or not User:BlackJack has read Dominic Malcom's book Globalizing Cricket and, if not, under what grounds he is able to judge its credibility. I believe that he certainly had not read it upon the first reversion of contributions made citing Malcom, and therefore his stating of credibility as the main, principle issue seems rather strange. Furthermore, to echo others, why has he not expressed his proof of its lack of credibility on the reliable sources page? In addition, as a student in the Englishness and Cricket project, User:BlackJack began his comments and suggestions regarding our project in an incredibly rude and condescending manner. Although I realized that it is not the job of Wikipedia or its users to provide a pleasant experience for contributors, his reaction to our project has been completely anti-academic in its stifling of education/learning. While I understand that as a newcomer to WP, my input in this subject "may be disregarded" (as mentioned on this page), I just thought I'd share my opinion and experience. Aependleton29 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As a Campus Ambassador involved in this project, I wanted to weigh in by saying that the last thing any of us want is controversy. We are simply trying to enrich the student experience by constructing knowledge and we fully expected push back and debate about student edits. The students are making every attempt to be conscientious. They are doing quality research, defending their facts with cited sources and behaving in a way that reflects well on our university, especially in the face of the enumerated violations of WP:BITE, WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Regardless of whether our project name was too similar to theirs, the hostility is uncalled for and violates the fundamental idea behind a wiki in general and Wikipedia specifically. I directly addressed this issue with BlackJack more than once in the last week, and as of our last exchange the WP:BITE issue hasn't resurfaced yet but the WP:OWN issue is unresolved. All we are asking is that our students are treated with civility and respect, as per the 5 pillars, and that our contributions are welcome even if they are removed after consensus has been reached through sourced evidence to the contrary. Discussion of sources should be a valuable learning experience and should improve the article for readers and project admins alike. Combative, insulting comments and misperceived ownership of a public wiki is out of bounds however and should not be tolerated in this community. I'd also add that this is an isolated incident for the most part and many of the other admins have been helpful and supportive, jbmurray being one shining example. --Oline73 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No you are not a Campus Ambassador, are you? You can't just call yourself one, you have to apply. I'd wait until you've been editing for more than a month. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am. I agree that you can't just call yourself one. I agree you have to apply first. I've been editing for years on and off, both anonymously and with this account. Please refrain from posting inaccurate statements. Ironically, much of this debate is about credible sources and you're not helping your cause with that last post. Maybe delete it and we can start over? Oline73 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you're not on the list, and your one-month-old user page doesn't say so. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That list is no longer maintained. (I'll mark it historical right now.) The current list of active Campus Ambassadors is Special:CampusAmbassadors. Oline73 is indeed one. Sorry for the confusion.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No class project is exempt form the WP rules, but if there are only minor problems, such as the acceptability of one particular source, and the matter is disputed, and the argument looks like it may be bitter or disruptive, it might well be deferred until the project is over. Courses are intended to teach students how to write Wikipedia articles, not how to engage in Wikipedia disputes. Obvious this does not apply to things like copyvio and the like. I remind BlackJack that nobody here is treated as an expert-- not the instructor, the students, or himself DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DGG has it. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, DGG makes a fair point but it says somewhere in amongst all the pedantic rules that WP welcomes subject matter experts. In terms of early cricket, I am an SME and have written widely about the subject outside WP. The way things are going with people like Murray who know everything and understand nothing, I will soon be writing exclusively outside WP. Whether you treat anyone as an expert or not doesn't address the fundamental issue here that Murray, Oline & Co. are trying to introduce material into long-standing articles, one of which is GA, that is false or misleading or, in one case, dangerous nonsense based on a single book that is outside the consensus view formed by numerous other works written by people who are acknowledged authorities. Whether I am an expert or not, I am trying to ensure that the early cricket histories contain information that is correct and will not misinform or confuse the readers, which should be what this discussion is about. The ball is in your court now as I am becoming sick and tired of pedantic, self-important admins who think they know more about articles than the people who write them do. I can quote numerous SMEs who have quit WP because they were undermined in that way and I am seriously thinking I should join them. Murray is not fit to be admin. He ignores anyone who doesn't agree with him and then makes a great big WP:POINT about it all not just here but also on the 3RR page. Absolutely pathetic. I think I will pack this in, actually, and you can rewrite all the cricket articles based on the definitive authority Malcolm and remove everything by crackpots like Arlott, Birley and Wisden who clearly didn't know what they were talking about. Absolute block-headed stupidity. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackJack, I am quite up for a proper discussion of the issues. The problem is that your attitude militates against it: for you, it is your way or the highway. As I've repeatedly said, I agree with many of your specific points. The issue is how to deal with them, in such a way that the encyclopedia (and these particular articles) benefit. Intransigence and insults don't seem to me to be the best way forward. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would just add by way of comment and context, and perhaps slightly to the one side of the specific issue raised in this thread, that there are some problems here, which it is not surprising Jack has reacted to and which are similar to those that came up with the last college wikiproject that I came across. While they are no doubt well intentioned, and indeed it is probably a good way of getting people involved here, the upshot is that a whole group of very enthusiastic people suddenly arrive en masse at existing pages (or create new ones) and start inputting some very analytical, comment-heavy and discursive essay-style content. That is happening here, eg on the Cricket in England page and also on the English national identity page, where it is not clear that the additions are an improvement from an encyclopedic perspective. The problem with this project is compounded by the fact that they seem to have at best a single-track and at worst a borderline-POV outlook from the start, in terms of being about the assumed relationship between cricket and Englishness, and also that they're focused on the one book, which leads to undue weight and further POV issues, even if it is an accurate and reliable source. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that - so our role is to educate them but more specifically, educate their instructor on how to prevent such encroachment on the Wikipedia norms ... and not to call them vandals (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c with Bwilkins) For what it's worth, I largely agree with N-HH's points here. I've repeatedly said that the issue is not with whether or not this text is a reliable source, but with questions of undue weight. It is also true that they have a particular perspective (I wouldn't call it a POV), in that they are specifically interested in one dimension of cricket--an important one, but not necessarily the one that interests BlackJack. So I quite agree that it's not at all a question of simply accepting the edits that they are making: some negotiation, refinement, and (well) education is in order. For which purpose subject-matter experts are invaluable! (There is nowhere here any attack on subject-matter experts.) But negotiation, refinement, and education are a far cry from the hostility that BlackJack has shown the project. What I'm asking here is for BlackJack to reign in that hostility; and if he refuses to do so (his responses on his user page suggest that in fact he prefers to lash out more widely still), I'm asking admins to intervene. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

And I'll just add that, as a result of negotiation and compromise, the page on English national identity is now improved. It's rather a good example of how things should go. Yes, for a while the enthusiastic efforts of the students meant that far too much emphasis was placed on the role of cricket. Now, as N-HH notes, it's much more reasonable. Again, this is the kind of to-and-fro that Wikipedia editing involves. Nobody is suggesting that the student edits (or anyone else's) are sacrosanct and can't be touched. The problem is when an experienced editor above all simply shows hostility and reverts wholesale. This is the issue with Jack's attitude. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I won't be intervening as I'm a member of the cricket project and can quite understand where Jack's coming from, even if he should have expressed himself better. I will give a few thoughts, though. First, I'd suggest that maybe a WikiProject isn't the best way to set up a class project/course any more, seeing as they have made Wikipedia:Course pages recently (apologies to Oline, I'd meant to tell him about this several days ago, but it slipped my mind). Second, Jack you need to cool down mate. I get that it can be frustrating when a whole bunch of people come in out of nowhere and start making what you feel to be edits that make the articles worse off, but if you keep going you'll end up blocked and, honestly, no one wants that. Just leave the articles in question for a bit – if the absolute worst comes to worst, the edits can always be reverted even in a month's time. Last, I think it would be positive move if we could just leave Jack's talk page alone for a while – telling him that it's his "job" and so on to educate these students is probably only going to make matters worse at this time. P.S. Bwilkins, has going to an editor's talk page who you don't already have positive relationship with and telling them they're being a "WP:DICK" ever made someone calm down? Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there - first, I have no idea that I "don't have a positive relationship" with the individual - as an uninvolved, totally 3rd party, I was taking it upon myself to pull them out of the void and communicate positively. I at no point called them a WP:DICK - please read the context of the statement a lot more carefully before making ridiculous accusations - honestly, based on your history on this project Jenks, I expected better from you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have worded that better, I didn't mean to imply you have a negative relationship with him, just that as you say, you have never been involved with him before. In my experience, editors being told they're acting or being a "WP:DICK" will only react poorly to being told that unless they have some sort of past friendship/positive communications with the person telling them that. And come on, surely if you write "they're complaining because you're being a WP:DICK to members of a class project" it's accurate to summarise that as "telling them they're being a 'WP:DICK'". It was never meant to be an accusation. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

On that as a side, side point, I really think people ought to stop the regular references to WP:DICK, let alone accusing people – as indeed was done here – of "being a WP:DICK". Regardless of what the page/essay actually says, and whatever people aim to mean by it, it comes across, to me at least, as a pretty direct and deliberately offensive insult. Maybe it's a North American vs British thing, but to these ears/eyes it's certainly not something that's going to help an already difficult situation calm down. It seems an especially odd phrase to use in discussions at ANI, all the more so in the context of any existing personal attacks. N-HH talk/edits 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,Jenks24, and thanks for the level-headed contribution to this discussion. I agree that it isn't Jack's job to educate anyone, except in the broad sense of the word. Meaning, everyone on Wikipedia is expected to "educate" people when they disagree with their edits by presenting proof that the source is bad for specific reasons and then reasoning out the continuing construction of the knowledge delivered in the article. I also agree that name calling or personal attacks from anyone for any reason are unacceptable. With regard to your suggestion to using course pages in the future, I think that is a good suggestion but somewhat tangential to this issue. It wouldn't have made a difference if the students were part of a certain kind of project or connected to no project at all. The debate is centered around 2 basic questions- 1) Does someone who spends a lot of time and effort editing an article have ownership of the article? and 2) Is it important to be civil and respectful when disputing edits to articles on Wikipedia? I feel it is clear that claiming "ownership" violates the fundamental principles of wikis and specifically Wikipedia (see WP:OWN), and that civil, respectful discussion is also a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia's process, especially toward newer editors, (see WP:BITE). I doubt anyone would disagree with those two statements, but I would appreciate confirmation that they are indeed accurate. If they are accurate, then I'd say we've reached consensus and this issue is settled. --Oline73 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree course page/WikiProject thing is relatively tangential, just thought I'd throw it out there. In response to your two basic questions, the second is easiest to answer: yes, it is important to be respectful and Jack went over the line – he could have made the same points without being as attacking. All I'm saying is that a block would probably make things worse. The first question, "ownership", is a bit harder. Yes, it's a wiki and anyone can edit, but sometimes you (just saying that sort of generally, not specifically at "you", Oline) need to understand how frustrating it can be to see an article you've spent a significant amount of time on and really invested in suddenly get changed in a way that you think makes the article worse off. And we need to give some leeway there. So I'm not saying the language or tone Jack used was OK, but his heart was in the right place and, from a relatively quick glance, some of the concerns he had were valid. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It was essentially rash for a group of American undergraduates to be asked to start editing articles on cricket - have any of them actually ever put bat to ball I wonder? If a group of English students had started major edits to major articles on baseball I'm sure the reaction of local editors would have been at least as intemperate. If the group had followed more closely the advice of the Education Program, and had actually had experienced advice from a Campus Ambassador or other editors, this rather common problem should have been avoided. I would advise the cricket editors to be a little patient. Sadly students doing WP editing as part of their course very rarely return to look at the pages after the assignment is finished. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what nationality the students are, or what their experience of cricket before this class may have been. Nor does it seem to me to matter too much. It is not, after all, as if hours of practice in the nets would particularly qualify anyone to opine on the history of cricket in the eighteenth century: this is knowledge that's gained through reading, not through playing. Still more to the point, I'm loath to encourage parochialism. I have asked students of mine to edit articles on Argentine literature or heroes of Cuban independence without their necessarily ever having been to Buenos Aires or Havana. What's important is that students proceed in line with both scholarly and Wikipedia norms. As a matter of fact, on the whole these particular students seem to me to have done so.

Meanwhile, I have no doubt that BlackJack knows plenty more than me about the history of cricket; I have never suggested otherwise. But I can identify what Wikipedia calls a reliable source, and I can also identify edit-warring, hostility to newcomers, possessiveness, and a refusal to see others' point of view. And these are the things at issue here.

I happen to be something of a "subject matter expert" (a term I don't much like) in other areas, though, and sometimes I note that pages that I have watchlisted suffer good-intentioned but problematic interventions from educational projects. So it's not as though I don't understand something of what BlackJack is feeling and saying. This happened quite recently, as a matter of fact. The edits I had to deal with were much more egregious than those under discussion about cricket: their sources included a book review from UWIRE and the account of a book-club leader briefly discussed in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; the referencing was also a problem, and it took me quite some time to track down the original sources, but I felt it important to do so. Anyhow, I reverted but also dropped a note on relevant editors' talk pages and on the project talk page, too. Unfortunately, that group of students is much less communicative than the Hofstra class. Still, as far as possible I'd rather encourage people's interest in an area in which I have some expertise, instead of telling them to go take a hike. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod understands it the way I do. First, there are a few topic areas I have learned never to touch, and cricket is one of them--it is much too easy to make really foolish errors when the subject is totally unfamiliar. Many things I never previously knew about I've learned enough about here to have some degree of confidence with minor edits, but this topic has defeated me--as it has most Americans. Even if the instructor and the ambassador are knowledgable, the students presumably aren't.

But a Wikiproject was not the way to do it, and those involved with the class should have realized this also. We have done several years of experimentation to find a class structure that works fairly well both in permitting the students to work on the subject and also in not disrupting other areas of the project. Further experimentation is always needed--there almost certainly will be better ways in some circumstances, as not all classes have been successful. And anyone has the right to work here as they see fit, or organize a class as they see fit, if they can do it within the usual guidelines. But if someone does experiment, they need to be particularly aware of the possibility of unexpected effects, and understand how to respond to them: experimentation on complicated live machinery in the RW that people depend on is inherently risky, and those taking responsible for the routine operation must protect against its disruption.

With regard to expertise, the way I have worded it is that any true expert should be in sufficient command of the sources to be able to prove their position without having to rely on credentials because they will have sufficient command of the subject and the sources to clearly justify their positions. Any true expert well-suited for work in a cooperative project should be very glad of the opportunity to do so. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I just wanted to plug the essay WP:Assignments for student editors, which I've helped write to provide guideance to all people involved in such activity: Wikipedians, students, ambassadors, and instructors. I didn't see it mentioned above, so feel free to take a look and help improve it. Biosthmors (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• And on the side issue of course article naming, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Should the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be reserved for "full projects/sub projects/task groups" or any gathering? The-Pope (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have expressed this in the previous ANI report but since the previous one was merged with this and didn't keep a record of my opinion. I also agree that BlackJack failed to uphold AGF and have bitten some new users. A seven-year veteran user should know better about those policies, so I can safely assume that he knowingly violates these policies and treat them with disregard. Furthermore, after a few days since the previous report, I think BlackJack calling it "hoax" is more than just violating AGF. It's more towards being incivil. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the drift of this discussion seemed to be in the direction of WP:COMMONSENSE, especially where Jenks was involved, until User:OhanaUnited got involved. I was the first regular editor to notice the impact of the student class and when I initially wrote to ANI about it I genuinely did not know what was going on. My impression was of a host of redlink userids seemingly investing a long-term GA with preposterous "theories" and I really thought it might be some elaborate hoax. I asked ANI to investigate and accepted the "class study" finding and that particular thread was closed. Then, after trying to stem the flow of these incursions and being ignored by Oline as a "pain in the arse" because I wanted to protect articles that had veracity and credibility, I came to ANI a second time with the suggestion that class studies of this kind should be restricted to sandbox or userspace where they can edit dev versions of articles to there heart's content without impacting the "live versions". But then we get the nonsensical attitude of jbmurray which is that the live articles must be used for what is essentially experimentation. I try to protect the articles, Murray starts an edit war and here we all are.

The issues here are, first, the protection by (sorry if I seem arrogant) a subject matter expert of longstanding articles including one that is GA, working almost singlehandely against a swarm of incomers using a single reference point which has been denonstrated to contain falsehoods and misleading information; secondly, the attitude and behaviour of jbmurray who is pursuing a WP:POINT and is acting in a way unbefitting an admin. I don't know what processes may be in place to vet and if necessary censure and sack admins but that is where he should be. Finally, why is this being discussed both here and at the 3RR page? Surely it should only be at 3RR where, incidentally, I have already demonstrated that jbmurray is the responsible party.

Finally, I apologise if I have overstepped in some of my responses but, as the subject of early cricket has only limited interest even at WP:CRIC, I felt I was fighting alone against a group of people who will not listen and who persist in citing a source that my colleague User:CDTPP (new to WP but nevertheless an expert like myself) has read and dismissed as "risible". I have made clear in History of cricket to 1725 what the consensus view among recognised authorities is about the theory of origin but still we have Oline and Murray insisting that this book is credible and must be used in the articles. Am I supposed to just sit back and wave them through so that the readers are presented with wild speculation and falsehoods? Wikipedia depends on articles, especially developed articles, having veracity and credibility. Murray just doesn't seem to get that where early cricket is concerned, hence this fine mess he has caused. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You're supposed to engage with them in the same way that you would engage with any new editor on Wikipedia. If there are problems with their edits, they can be dealt with in the same way that problems with anyone's edits can be dealt with. It's drastically inappropriate to accuse new editors of being malicious hoaxers conducting incursions in to your territory not here to improve the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Another one who is missing the point. If you would like to look at the initial enquiry you will see that it was an enquiry and a request for investigation. I was told that ot was a class study and I did not dispute the finding. Later, having tried and failed to convince their teacher that he is using a single dubious (indeed "risible") source and that his students were, perforce, disrupting established articles with false and misleasding information, I cam eback here with a second enquiry which was a suggestion that such study classes be confined to userspace. The two things are unconnected. Before you start using phrases like "drastically inappropriate" you should consider the fact that is even more drastically inappropriate to jump to conclusions without getting your facts right. How many times must I advise so-called admins that WP depends on its articles being accirate and credible? And isn't there somewhere a policy around all these rules that there are in fact no rules. May one advise that WP:COMMONSENSE is called for and the integrity of developed articles is paramount? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you know a lot about cricket, but the fact that you are a subject matter expert doesn't give you carte blanche to attack new editors, and neither does IAR. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose again that this should be restricted to the discussion on the 3RR page. It is ridiculous toing and froing when there is essentially one complaint which is the edit war started by jbmurray who is wasting everyone's time bringing his dispute here as well as 3RR. Please close this and let the 3RR thread sort things out. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackJack, there is not one complaint. I pointed out at least four: WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:AGF. Meanwhile, you go on about WP:RS but continue to ignore the relevant venue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to close the report at WP:ANEW as soon as I finish writing this comment. Both BlackJack and Jbmurray edit-warred on the article. They can think of this as a warning not to do so again. Neither has edited the article since March 13; therefore, any blocks, in my view, would be punitive. Kevin Gorman, has taken it upon himself to revert the article back to the pre-edit-warring version. I have no comment on that action other than to accord Kevin good faith for his attempts to assist. I have not studied the posts above here. I'm going to leave that to others to sort out. However, I will not permit any more posts to the 3RR report once it's closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough from Bbb23 but the final explanation I put into the 3RR page needs to be here now so I've added it below. I'm sure Kevin Gorman means well but he must be the first to admit that he knows nothing about early cricket and the article in question now has a very unsatisactory status as it contains content that is false and misleading, content that is extremely dubious subject to a thorough check by someone who knows the subject, and content that is completely out of scope. All of this has been brought about by Jbmurray who should be censured and removed from adminship. I'll go through the 3RR history as follows:

First off, History of cricket (1726–1740), unlike History of cricket to 1725, is nowhere near complete and I subsequently decided to reduce its scope by moving it from 1726–1763 to 1726–1740. On 11 March, about five members of the Cricket and Englishness course introduced numerous changes all based on their single source which is a new book written by one Dominic Malcolm. I found these changes two days later and immediately, given my extensive knowledge of the subject matter, realised that this statement is false and misleading: "Articles of Laws from 1727 first prohibited the questioning of umpires decisions and therefore decreed them as the final source on conflict resolution and dispute settlement. One such law decreed that "umpires were to be the judges of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended". Obviously, I could just have removed that or revised it somehow but I had serious doubts about several other inputs too, including some outside the scope of the article (e.g., events occurring in the 1770s). I decided, therefore, that the best thing to do was revert and make a note to review and improve the article.

Later the same day, without making any attempt to ask me for the details of my action, Jbmurray came along and reverted my edit. In doing so, he reinserted information that is false, dubious (subject to detailed checking) or out of scope. His stated reason was that "Malcolm is far from being an unreliable source". Jbmurray knows little about the early history of cricket while both User:CDTPP and myself are experts. CDTPP has read and reviewed the Malcolm book and has dismissed it as "risible" (see above). I am convinced, having seen the edits done at History of cricket to 1725 and in this article that it is unreliable and is completely out of step with the consensus achieved by the subject's recognised authorities in their respective works which are the ones I have used when building these articles.

I am not going to stand aside and allow someone who knows nothing about my subject to insert content that is frankly rubbish and so I reverted Jbmurray's edit and gave an explanation within the limits of the edit summary: "Reverted; the stuff in Malcolm's book if quoted correctly is wrong; e.g., nowhere in 1727 "laws" is the stated text included: see Articles of Agreement (cricket). The source is unreliable". Any reasonable person would at this point have checked the 1727 statement against the content of Articles of Agreement (cricket) but Jbmurray did not do so. That article includes the precise wording of the 1727 "rules" and a quick scan shows the falsity of the statement which the students found in Malcolm's book.

After making this revert and directing Jbmurray to Articles of Agreement (cricket), I decided I would make some improvements to the article. I moved it because when it is eventually finished it will be too long if it covers a forty-year period so I decided on a 15-year scope. I made some content adjustments to comply with that and a few copyedits, nothing too extensive as I didn't have time. Within an hour, Murray made his third revert and he clearly had not verified that the 1727 statement was false. He did at least maintain the edits I had just made given the new scope. Again, he made no attempt to discuss the matter and just wrote in the edit summary that he was undoing a mass revert.

After that it was a case of not giving in. I am the subject expert and the only other expert in this area who uses WP, although he is new, entirely agrees with me that the source is unreliable. As I see it, I have to prevent articles losing veracity and credibility. Jbmurray on the other hand is simply making a WP:POINT about allowing this university class carte blanche. You can see what his attitude is like in other discussions such as this one with his "let the madness continue" jibe.

My initial action in reverting the students' edits to this article was bona fide and done in the best interest of the article. If the students had written to me to ask why I had undone their work I would have told them; and I would have explained it to Jbmurray if he would ask and also listen but he has shown that he does not listen and thinks that he can ride roughshod over other people's work and expect them to wave him through. I did not commence an "edit war". That began with Jbmurray's revert here and was then escalated by him with this revert here which was done after I had made a start on improving the article. His attitude and actions are completely unreasonable and taking his point to both this page and ANI is completely OTT.

Whatever the outcome of this dispute, someone should report Jbmurray to whatever process screens admins with a view to him being removed from the adminship. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A few quick points:

1. At no point have I suggested that the student editors should be given "carte blanche." On the contrary: I merely think they should be treated like any other editors. See the series of edits at English national identity for what I have said more than once is a good example of the way in which Wikipedia process should work: The students added material, but in the process gave it undue weight (I've said all along that there are indeed problems with the student edits--as one might expect of any editors, indeed--but they have nothing to do with the red herring of supposedly unreliable sources); their edits are reverted; and then I added the material back, but at the same time cut it right down to deal with the problematic issue.
2. Regarding whether or not the source in question is indeed unreliable, once more I refer you to WP:RS, and to the discussion here, to which you haven't even bothered to contribute. You were too busy opening up ANI threads, without prior discussion or notification.
3. I think that the problem has been almost from the start that you have adopted the attitude of "not giving in." That's what leads to edit wars, as well as to the general unpleasantness that you have shown.
4. Finally, if you are serious that I should be "removed from the adminship" (though this seems to me another instance of your tendency to over-react), my talk page indicates clearly that "I am open to recall in line with the default process, although in my case only three editors are required to trigger the recall."

I'm not somebody to takes matters quickly to ANI. Indeed, you have opened twice as many ANI threads on this matter than I have. But I'm struck by how very obstinate you continue to be. Again, it doesn't seem to me that that's the Wikipedia way, and I'm surprised that an experienced editor such as yourself should think so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whilst I believe BlackJack may have been editing in good faith, there's no questioning that he did bite the newcomers, and there was also no justification for you "decommissioning", so to speak, the WikiProject by moving it into a different namespace. I think any call for desysopping is ridiculously unfair, to be honest. By the way, what exactly is the problem with the WikiProject discussion at EN? I can't see anything POINTy at all, just some light-hearted remarks that shouldn't have been taken seriously. The thing you've linked to as being edit warring, well, I can't evaluate the source due to my own lack of knowledge on the subject, I will say that some of the edited text appears to be appropriate (stuff about umpires, bats, etc), whilst the violence/gambling bit may need more discussion. Also, BlackJack, claiming you haven't edit warred is incorrect: I count 5 reversions of text on that article alone in one day. Based on the extensive edit-warring, both parties should get a block of 72 hours, or whatever the standard is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, Blackjack, that I don't know much about cricket. I reverted the page to the pre-edit war version because I don't think it's okay for someone to revert an article five times in less than 24 hours without even using the talk page to ensure that their preferred state 'wins.' We have well-established procedures for dealing with content disputes - use them. I find it absolutely stunning that a veteran editor would make five reverts while claiming to own a page and attacking new editors without making a comment on the talk page of the article or engaging with the ongoing WP:RSN discussion on one of the sources involved. It's great that you're a subject matter expert, but your behavior still is not okay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no point going to the WP:RSN forum because I would be outvoted and the result is a foregone conclusion even though, unless I can persuade CDTPP to take part, I would be the only contributor with any knowledge of the subject. You people assume the source is reliable because it has a reputable publisher. I have already shown in History of cricket to 1725 that the author is promoting a crackpot theory as near-fact and I have also shown in History of cricket (1726–1740) that a significant statement about the sport's earliest known written "rules" is a falsehood. In addition, CDTPP has read the book and condemned it as "risible". All that adds up to a source which should not be used if articles are to retain veracity and credibility.

Kevin Gorman has on a number of occasions stated that he is unfamiliar, has missed something, didn't know that, etc. yet he has effectively stirred things up again. One of the things he has missed is my statement above that "I apologise if I have overstepped in some of my responses, etc." How many times do I have to say something before some of you people actually take notice? I accept Luke's point about the edit war but he should read again my explanation above. True, I should have gone to the talk page but I do not believe Jbmurray would have done likewise: e.g., there is an open invitation to him to go there now and he hasn't appeared. I explained about the false information in one of the edit summaries and gave him the main article for verification but as always he just ignored me and ploughed on. Is that how an admin should behave? Okay, if I get a block I'll accept it and come back afterwards because for me as an editor it is a technicality like a footballer getting two yellow cards as a result of over-commitment. But Jbmurray is an admin and his attitude and behaviour is completely unacceptable for someone in a supposedly trusted position. I'm glad Luke agrees that I have acted in good faith but Jbmurray has not: he has ignored an article's main author and tried to use his admin status to railroad through a set of changes which are controversial and has not been prepared to discuss the matter. My original revert of the students' input was done because of multiple issues and, okay, perhaps I should have made time to deal with each issue individually. That would have ended with the same result, near enough, but would have taken a lot longer.

I've nothing else to say here and am taking ANI out of my watchlist. If anyone wants to ask me anything else, do so at my talk page and I'll give you a full answer there. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I filed a RFPP for the article related to this thread, hoping that a brief temporary full protection of the article would mean that those involved in the content dispute would take their problems to the talk page or RSN instead of continuing to editwar. I think that BJ's responses on that page as well as the diffs provided by jbmurray earlier in this thread demonstrate that BJ is unwilling to comply with our basic behavioral guidelines. I would ask for an uninvolved administrator take a look at BJ's behavior, especially his continuing violations of AGF/NPA/BITE/OWN. Even though BJ is obviously a knowledgeable contributor, I don't think his expertise excuses his behavior and I feel that a strong admonishment or a 24/48 hour block may be necessary to get through to him that our behavioral policies really are important. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• RFPP is a good idea. I'm beginning to believe less and less my statement about him acting in good faith, the more responses I see from him. If anything, his expertise in this field, and as a Wikipedia editor, makes all these edit warring and "I'm right, you're all wrong" stances all the worse. I also agree with Kevin restoring pre-edit war content, as no discussion was made by BlackJack. Furthermore, if RSN would find that the version jbmurray edited was correct, as BlackJack seems to think, then he's clearly forgotten that this is the version we should go with: from WP:NOTTRUTH. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Luke, if you would care to read Talk:History of cricket (1726–40) you will see that I have outlined my problems with the article including one of the statements which was false with a direction to the article which contains the true information for comparison. You will also see that no one has accepted my invitation to discuss changes that were needed in that article which is now finished for the time being as the falsehoods have been removed or corrected. So to say I have not made any discussion at the article is only true insofar as no one has accepted my invitation to discuss. I believe Gorman is making something personal out of this and is going out of his way here, at RFPP, on his talk page and at the article to make things as difficult for me as he can: see all his contribs in the last 12 hours or so which are focused on trying to stop me from working on that article. Why is Gorman raising the RFPP issue as well as there? Why can't he allow the people at RFPP to deal with his issue without attempting to prejudice the position by sounding off in another forum? His basic objection, stated elsewhere, is that he thinks I am out to remove all references to Malcolm's book and this is simply not so because I've accepted it as the key source for the gambling and violence section of the article. Your comment that RSN might agree with Murray does not mean for one second that the book is right, only that it is "reliable" and therefore "usable". If it contains information that is factually incorrect we don't use it, we use something that is factually correct as I have done in the article by replacing the false statements with correct ones taken from Ian Maun's book. In WP:NOTTRUTH, you need to read "If it's written in a book, it must be true!" Are you actually saying that a statement which is untrue and can be proved from content in another article on this site to be untrue must be used instead of one which is true? We come back to the basic issue which is the veracity and credibility of the article and this impacts the whole of Wikipedia because if you create a precedent whereby false information can be inserted just because the source is on the whole reliable, then the entire site will be discredited. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It flabbergasts me that you think my basic objection is that you are removing a source from an article. My basic objection is that you don't seem to realize or accept that our behavioral standards apply to you and seem completely unwilling to abide by them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll change my comment: You were edit-warring without discussing, and then later went to discuss it - 3 days later. Also, as far as I can determine (forgive me if I'm wrong, because this ANI is full of walls of text) you're the only one disputing the factual accuracy of the book? Therefore wholesale removals of text based on that is flat-out wrong. As I've said before, I know absolutely nothing about whether the book is accurate or not, but I do know that it's been determined a reliable source, so it can't be that inaccurate. Also, last time I checked, Wikipedia ISN'T a reliable source, so just because something in another article disagrees with it (even if you put it there), doesn't necessarily mean the book is flat-out wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Jbmurray was edit warring without discussion. I explained in an edit summary that the 1727 statement was false and referred him to the article which contains the true account, copied verbatim from the source, and he ignored me and carried on reverting. As for "later", you are twisting things. The article was left alone for a period until the 3RR discussion closed and then, with Gorman's apparent agreement, I set about editing each point individually (which to be fair is what I should have done at the outset but was short of time then). I went to the article talk page as you may now have seen, pointed out the main falsehood and invited discussion. None came so I set about correcting and improving the article using Ian Maun's book which is undeniably a reliable source (it is a prizewinning book highly valued in cricket literature) – contact User:CDTPP if you want verification – and the article is now okay except that it's incomplete. I've told you above and on the article talk page that Malcolm's book is fine for the social aspects and I've retained it in the article for that section so I don't understand your point about "it can't be that inaccurate". No, not in that area but as far as the early laws of cricket are concerned it is evidently way out, though personally I think the author has got his years mixed up because what he is talking about under 1727 actually occurred in 1755. So, he made an error but, given the historical significance, it is a major error that we cannot possibly transclude into a WP article; hence that statement has to be replaced with a correct statement taken from Maun or McCann who both have the 1727 information spot on (McCann even has a photograph of the original document). By the way, CDTPP also disputes the veracity of the book and User:Jhall1 has raised serious doubts about it, though not in connection with 1726/40, so I'm not "the only one". CDTPP is a subject expert and he is an authority on sources, so please don't ignore him just because he's new to WP. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I said as far as I could tell with regards to the book, so fair enough, and thanks for putting me straight. You both were edit-warring without discussion, this is why I said you both should be blocked for edit-warring earlier. The difference is, Jbmurray has admitted they broke 3RR, whereas you haven't. Also, I'm not twisting things, your edit warring was on the 13th of March, the talk page discussion that you showed started on the 16th. That's 3 days. I'm not questioning the expertise of you or other users, just your actions as a long-serving editor here (with regards to edit-warring) - you should've known the drill by now (as should Jbmurray). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit-warring issue was dealt with at the 3RR page and has been closed. We were both warned and I have accepted the warning. In future if someone does a similar thing, I will go to the talk page first and then come here. I will, as someone else suggested, stay cool in future. As the matter has been closed at 3RR, you should not still be talking about it here. The only question now seems to be about the veracity of the 1726/40 article and, given the recent changes, I suggest someone asks another member of CRIC to verify that they are okay. It has to be someone who knows about cricket even if they are not closely interested in that period. So I suggest you contact WT:CRIC and ask someone to do that. Then we can all move forward and get away from what you rightly call a "wall of text". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you see what was wrong with the way you have treated other editors in this whole mess as in, for example, the diffs jbmurray posted at the start of this thread? Are you willing to commit to not acting in such ways in the future? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look several posts above you will see an apology in there where I wrote " I apologise if I have overstepped in some of my responses". That was meant for the Englishness & Cricket group. And I have said to Lukeno94 in the last post that when confronted with a similar situation in future I will stay cool and go to the talk page, or here if that doesn't work. By the way, I've asked WT:CRIC to review the article and if they want to revert it or make wholesale changes, I'll accept their consensus. They do know the subject and at least one of them will speak up if there is anything questionable. I hope that settles our differences too, Kevin, and we can move forward. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I haven't had time for Wikipedia much the past few days (and won't be able to for a few days more, as it happens), but I see that BlackJack has returned to editing the page in question, and been willing to engage in some negotiation and discussion. I thank BlackJack for this and think the situation is much improved. Judging from the consensus of discussion elsewhere, meanwhile, I plan to move the Project back into WikiProject space. Otherwise, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to close my own ANI thread... but if not, perhaps an uninvolved admin would be willing to do so. I think the discussion here is over. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Durneydiaz potentially removing PROD tags placed on his articles while logged out

A suspiciously large number of articles created by User Durneydiaz (for reference, see his talk page) have been marked for PROD, but never deleted. Upon some examination, I have discovered that many of the pages that User Durneydiaz created have been marked for PROD, but then the PROD tag was removed anonymously (many of them from the same IP). This seems fishy.

See:

• Gabriel Moyano - which I added the tag back
• Gonzalo Mottura - which I added back
• Iván Juárez
• Paul Dzeruvs
• Rodrigo Sevillano

Uberaccount (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious. Are the external links (the profiles) in these articles considered reliable? Aren't they used as sources? (I know nothing about this stuff.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Added bullets to your list. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• This makes it pretty obvious they are the same person. One week blocks issued for named account and IP, which is probably too generous looking at his block log. Feel free to revert those PROD removals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think it should be pointed out that unlike CSDs, editors are allowed to remove PRODs from articles they have created. The mystery here is why Durneydiaz felt it necessary to log out to remove them.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That raises an interesting question: is it a violation to do something that's not a violation in a manner that evidences you believe it's a violation and you are, therefore, attempting to avoid scruitny? (Obviously, the answer is 'it's socking' in this case, but still, my tired brain is curious.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • He probably thought it was a violation. He's been blocked in the past for "repeatedly removing deletion and maintenance tags". I haven't had time to check to see if those were also PROD removals but I did notice that he has no edits to any talk spaces aside from removing posts from his talk page. Whether he is not interested in discussing his edits or sees no point in it because everybody just slaps tags on his talk page I don't know. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • • If the cause of the block is only because he did took down the prods from his IP rather than his account, then he block is wrong because anyone, IPs included, can take down block. Shouldn't AGF prevail here that the use of the IP was not on purpose? Unless the IP is being used to sock, AGF should prevail....William 14:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I did a little further checking on one of this user's past blocks. It was done so because of his removal of reference tags plus prods. The Prods were however placed because the editor thought the articles are unreferenced. In fact the articles have EL to websites about these athletes. The articles were referenced, but only through a EL. Let me point out, baseball player articles on older players sometimes only have a link to baseball reference as the source for the article. BR is considered a RS. I don't know soccer well enough to say if the sources are RS but there's a very good case that part of why the first block was done was incorrect so I wouldn't think that makes it grounds for this block....William 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
        • To be clear, he was blocked and tagged for sockpuppetry, ie: using another account for the sole purpose of avoiding scrutiny. This isn't the first time he has been involved in this type of socking. [97] Additionally, removing a PROD because you disagree is one thing, removing large number of good faith PRODs en mass without any explanation is disruptive. Had this been the first time he has had issues, a warning might have been more appropriate, but that wasn't the case here. My block was the same duration as the last sock block, so again, I think I was pretty generous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
          • The block was for 'abusing multiple accounts'. I've made it clear, an IP or an article creator can take down any prod. Also these articled were wrongly prodded from the beginning. They are referenced. In fact another editor has come along and removed all the BLP prods for the very reasons I stated above. The EL are the articles references. So the violation of Prod "The {{prod blp/dated}} tag may not be removed until such a source is added, and if none is forthcoming within ten days the article may be deleted." Never happened because they were referenced from the start. As I said before, EL to RS sports reference websites have been considered acceptable references for BLP. Unless I'm wrong, it doesn't say the reference has to be in the body of the article or as an inline citation.

• • • • • • As for abusing multiple accounts, the abuse didn't happen and editing outside your user name isn't a blockable offense. AGF he could have been signed out by accident. AN IP this obviously linked to one user would be awfully dumb to do vandalism from....William 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this block. Maybe I have the sequence wrong, but here are four items, I believe in order:

• Last edit as 190.163.65.248 21:56, 15 March 2013
• Last edit as Durneydiaz 22:09, 15 March 2013
• Block of 190.163.65.248 13:33, 16 March 2013
• Block of Durneydiaz 13:39, 16 March 2013

If Durneydiaz had been blocked, and then used the IP to make an edit, then it would be socking, but the block reason was socking. This doesn't make sense to me.

I don't have a problem urging that Durneydiaz use the account, rather than the IP, but unless evidence is presented that Durneydiaz actually was using the two inappropriately, such as voting keep at an AfD with each, I'm not seeing the rationale for the block.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Expanding: Durneydiaz was blocked (twice) for vandalism in 2010, closing on three years ago. The first block was less that two months fater first edit, we ar well aware that some editors take some time to learn the ropes. Blocked again in 2011 for removing "deletion and maintenance tags". Should know better by then, but appears to be a good block, because they aren't supposed to remove those tags.

In contrast, the editor is allowed to remove PROD tags. While it may be that the editor did not know this, and did so as an IP to avoid detection, the simple removal of a PROD is not disallowed. I appreciate Dennis Brown's point that doing this repeatedly may be viewed as disruption , but that should start with a stern warning, not a block.

As a technical point, I still don't see how Durneydiaz was socking. I suggest an unblock, followed by a stern warning. Willing to write the stern warning, but unwilling to unblock without hearing more from Mr Brown.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

His reason for logging out was to prevent the removal of the PROD's from being connected to him. That's a textbook case of "avoiding scrutiny", and clearly justifies a block.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not "textbook case of "avoiding scrutiny" unless someone is completely ignorant of the ways around WP. A textbook case would be creating another account, not using an IP so obviously your own.

• If another admin wants to unblock, that is their discretion and I will not be offended in the least. I've always said anyone is free to revert any admin action I have made without permission. I've explained my reasons above and will leave it to the community to determine the wisdom of my actions, which I stand behind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would strongly object for you, then. It's clearly socking. The only question I had was why the soft-block was so short.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how it is clearly socking. I confess to spending very little time with sockpuppet's so may well be wrong, but I just reread Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and do not see how the edits violate the policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked. I am trouble by Durneydiaz's lack of use of talk page, so may regret this, but I'd like to start with a warning first.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking when you know that other's strongly object is a really, really, really bad idea. It's socking because the intent is to avoid scrutiny. He's logging out to perform an edit because he fears he would be criticized if people knew it was him making the edit. That's the definition of "avoiding scrutiny": taking actions that make it difficult to link the edits to the source.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick also approached me on my talk page before he took action. As the blocking admin, I told him just as I did here, no offense would be taken, although I still feel the block was the right solution. Blocks are cheap, if he thinks he can convince someone to comply with community standards, I'm ok with giving him the opportunity. I'm not convinced, by any means, but willing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see one admin Ron Ritzman making a statement that is in no way support for the block, much less strong support. Perhaps even a suggestion that it was too much.

Similarly, The Bushranger's question cannot be viewed as strong support for the block.

Brown blocked. Per usual convention, I discussed with Brown, who did not object to my plan to unblock, which I did before seeing your strong objection.

I accept that you strongly object, but your use of the plural "other's" (assuming you didn't literally mean the possessive) is false.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I object, Brown objects (though less strongly), and I read Bushman and Ritzman as supporting that the intention of the editor was to avoid scrutiny. Your unblock is based on your personal failure to understand the meaning of "avoiding scrutiny". In what way do you think the intention of this editor was not to avoid scrutiny?—Kww(talk) 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we speculate that the decision to remove the PROD was to mislead? Sure. If I were to place a bet, I know which side I'd bet one, but we don't block because we speculate someone had improper motives, especially when what they did was not against policy. The editor is abysmal at using the talk page, and I have made it clear that removing PROD as an IP will not be tolerated any more. PRODs can be removed, per policy, by anyone, but if the editor is blocked,a ad there are any outstanding prods, then we have effectively prevented the editor from contesting those with a one week block. The editor now know they are on a short leash.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ILLEGIT is all about motives, and we certainly do block on the basis of improper motives. Nearly all sockpuppeting blocks are based on a combination of the edits themselves and the imputed motivation behind those edits.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all other than not putting an edit summary of telling why he removed the PRODS, durneydiaz didn't do anything remotely wrong to earn this block. The PRODS were wrong and I said exactly why up above. If I'd discovered the PRODS, I would have taken them down. Another editor has already done so. The block was for abusing multiple accounts, but this isn't abuse and neither is editing while not signed in....William 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:ILLEGIT over again, specifically the sections labeled Avoiding scrutiny and editing while logged out to mislead. His edits were a clear violation of policy. It doesn't matter if the edits would have been permissible if he had done them under his account, only that he attempted to make it difficult to connect his edits to his account.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I read illegit where it says 'violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Is an IP an alternative account or just A quick look at the IP's contributions history would tell you or any other its the same editor.

Even the removal of the sticky prods without an edit summary isn't a violation of policy. It might be preferred, there is nothing that says it is required.

Funny thing is, unless I missed something above, nobody is disputing the prods were wrong to start with.(My explanation of how EL are used as references in sports articles is somewhere above) What we're really getting into a lather about is the prods being taken down in a way people don't like but there are lots of things an editor might not like around WP but policy is otherwise....William 20:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I will point you at the section labeled editing while logged out to mislead. An IP address is an account in the context of WP:ILLEGIT.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed all posts on editors talk page for the last twelve months, which took some time, because the editor clearly is not quite getting it and creates stubs that aren't quite good enough. However, I failed to see a single warning in the last twelve months letting the editor know that removal of prod warnings was wrong. Which isn't surprising as it isn't wrong, but no one explained that if one logs out and does it, that such an action is not allowed.

However, I then reviewed further back and do see some warnings about removal of templates, so I have a better appreciation of why some may feel that this editor deserves no further warning.

A year is a long time. I think I recently saw someone running for admin not much more than a year after a block for edit-warring. Not a warning, but an actual block. I see two possible scenarios:

1. The editor will finally accept some help and become a productive editor, or
2. The editor will remove another template, after being explicitly told not to, and will be blocked.

What is the downside to taking this path? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Kww, you seem to be arguing that the edits were wrong. I'm not disagreeing. However, it is my belief that editors should generally be warned before being blocked. While I have now found some ancient warnings which may cover this situation, they are more than a year old. Please explain what harm will accrue to the encyclopedia if this editor is allowed to make a bad edit today, instead of a week from today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to get WilliamJE to drop the false assertion that the edits were not against policy. While I disagree with the need for a warning prior to a block in this case, that's not a big issue with me, and I have no illusion that the block will be reinstated. WilliamJE's selective reading of WP:ILLEGIT to attempt to justify the edits as being within policy is what I'm arguing against.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've refuted ILLEGIT violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. He didn't create a alternate account, he's used the IP before, no violation of policy. You're exhibiting a strong case of WP:IDHT. Not responding to this thread again. I'm going out now in real life and have a busy morning planned for tomorrow....William 22:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No refutation to be found there. The policy violation is clear.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to assume WP:CLUE, but given the fact that all these prods were moved by an IP used by the editor who created the articles, the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn, at least by me, is that the editor presumed that a PROD tag operated under the same rules as a CSD tag (...and, really, why are they different anyway?) and he was, therefore, forbidden from removing them, so he decided to edit as an IP to remove them in the hopes that nobody would think to check the contribution history and connect the dots (or, alternatively, simply never thought of the contribution history as quacking). While the edits themselves don't violate policy, the method used to make them was clearly meant either to evade scruitiny, or is indistinguishable from an attempt to evade scrutiny and, therefore, has to be treated as such - as (as has been said) we can't presume to speak of the editor's actual intent, we can only judge by its effects, and the effect here, intentional or not, was 'logging out in an attempt to evade scrutiny'. That said, both the block and the unblock were, IMHO, good; while I personally would have put a 'by the way, did you know...' on the editor's talk page, there's no reason to take Dennis' actions as inappropriate, and SPhilbrick's unblock was also according to his interpretation of the prophecypolicy and with Dennis' blessing. And while it's obvious there's a disagreement as to the means and wherefores, it's likely we could all argue loud and long, each in our own opinions, exceeding stiff and strong, and not convince the others, so I believe the only thing to do here now is to agree to disagee and, if needed, discuss elsewhere if anything needs to be changed, perhaps regarding the wording on the PROD tag to make it clearer that the article creator is allowed to remove it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Strewth, is this discussion still going on?
Last time I checked on this, I was just going to apologize for referencing the articles following WP:BLP in a way that might be seen as undermining the valid points made when it was started, and suggesting that it might be closed. Lets move forward. First of all, lets identify what we all agree on:

• Wikipedia's policies about articles about living people requires that they must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.
• Removing BLPPROD tags while logged out is not a good idea and may result in blocks.

So far, so good. I have dropped a message on the user's talk page saying just that. There remain a number of unanswered questions:

• Are the external links in these articles considered reliable?
• Are "external links that verify content enough to make BLP prod inappropriate"?
• Is removing BLPPRODs while logged out socking?

I would argue that those aren't questions that are appropriate for WP:ANI to resolve.
In the meantime, I'm going back into WP:NPP mode and checking out Durneydiaz' recent contributions.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Just as a note, I'm pretty sure whether or not a 'source' is reliable is irrelevant for UBLP purposes; as for the second question, my personal opinion would be that a BLP without inline citations should be a UBLP regardless of what's bombarded at the bottom of the page. But you're right, these are likely best discussed elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Calvin 1998 Remove the picture and the neutral version

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.

---

Anti-Soviet demonstrations in the USSR Remove the picture and the neutral version. The articles should be neutral in accordance with rule WP:Neutrality -- CPI-RUS (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, one which you haven't tried to resolve on the article's talk page. You should discuss it there (with an actual argument, not simply an assertion that what you think is true is the very definition of neutrality); in the mean time you should not edit war on the article, as you have been doing. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 15:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Finlay is exactly correct. You need to take it to the article talk page. Admin are not here to determine the content of articles, editors are. No one has used that talk page since November of last year, now would be a good time to start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Blocked editor Paul Bedson using sock puppets to avoid block & offering to help other editors

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.

---

See User talk:Paul Bedson where Bedson, using an IP, offers to make edits on behalf of a use, saying "It is a shame the system around here is so corrupt, but has not stopped me editing in the slightest - I just use a wide range of IP addresses and various aliases to get around the ban." Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Now might be a good time to ask a Checkuser to take a peek (check for sleepers), as in a few days (literally), the log info will be too old to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, what's the fastest way to get this done given the backlog? Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked and added to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Paul Bedson. GiantSnowman 17:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, the IP in question is seemingly stable; Paul was using it back in November. Perhaps a check for other IPs in the range? Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• For fastest action, you can look at WP:Functionaries and try pinging someone with the CU flag. That includes all Arbs, for that matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

CU found. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Or rather 2, and 4 socks blocked as well as the IP range. Good result. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:69.225.133.168

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.

---

69.225.133.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This user continues to make personal attacks via edit summaries after being warned for both personal attacks as well as inappropriate edit summaries. Quite a few of the recent contributions are also nonconstructive. TempName1 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

I would like some administrators to look at a totally unjust block, and to remove the block

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.

---

I have been blocked by user Keanu. The reason for the block is totally unjust. Can some norwegian speaking Administrators please take a look at this discussion, and please remove the block.

The administrators in that discussion are accusing me for writing stuff that I did not do. Each time I ask the Admins to specify what specific information they are referring to, they start accusing me for other stuff I did not do, when that does not work they start talking about totally irrelevant information.

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brukerdiskusjon:ToreBKrudtaa

Tore B. Krudtaa (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The administrators on this encyclopedia have no connection, responsibility or authority over the Norwegian wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I see you got blocked over there for the exact same reason you got blocked for a time here. That's hardly encouraging, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Encouraging or not, I still would like an administrator to take a look at the discussion that lead to me beeing blocked, but when I click the link to Administrators, in the text that describe the block, and then select an admin, and then try to add a new record... then I'm not allowed to because I'm Blocked. So could someone here please tell me what URL I can go to then to ask for a review of the block (norwegian URL that is). Tore B. Krudtaa (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Since few of us speak Norwegian, you're much more likely to be able to help yourself then us. Try reading the policy on blocking which was helpfully provided to you. If there's nothing there, follow likely links or do a search. Being blocked may prevent you from editing, but it doesn't stop you from reading pages. It's fairly normal that blocked editors can only edit their own talk page. It may be that there's a template to appeal an unblock as there is here. If there isn't your best bet is to contact an admin as suggested in the blocking message. You obviously can't do that via an admin's talk page, but you should be able to do so with email if you have an email address registered with your account unless email access was removed. If you really can't find for yourself what to do, you can try following Wikipedia:Embassy to find a Norwegian speaking user who can hopefully assist. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Edits and discussions unproductive and disruptive editing User:Jfeise

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.

---

Resolved

Jfeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to block efforts to improve and add information to International Technological University. I am operating under undisclosed COI as a representative for the university in the entry. Regardless of how my approach is with Jfeise, he persists in keeping any additions from being made. It is an uphill battle for any additions, and he always labels everything I propose as advertising. Jfeise continues to rely on the fact that I am operating under undisclosed COI as his argument knowing that it is a gray area, however, I am doing my best to be be neutral, and receptive. His responses are never productive, and he always goes back to the same points of "sockpuppetry" (which I'm contacting the admin that passed judgement to explain the situation, and will be happy to address if necessary), or advertising. Most recently, ITU received accreditation, and therefore, we would like to add the fact and expand upon our wikipedia entry to reflect that information. In accordance to wikipedia best practices, I post the proposed content onto the talk page, however, Jfeise is always quick to tear it down rather than suggest improvements. He is quick to label it as advertising, revert the changes without discussion, and carry on in a non-productive manner. I try to have a reasonable discussion with him, but he adds nothing new and keeps going on about unrelated incidents: Removing content without warning; another example is he reverted a change after only 5 min. . For the second example, the content was posted taking into consideration Jfeise's concerns of the neutrality, but still he continued his comments about sockpuppetry and advertising with no positive contribution. I hope that some administrators can help take notice, and offer some assistance. Ituhubert (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Ituhubert misrepresents the issues. I am reverting his advertising on that page, but there are lots of constructive additions and changes that I have no problems with, so Ituhubert's assertion that I "persist in keeping any additions from being made" is simply untrue. Again, the reverts I have made on that article had to do with advertisements. jfeise (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the the user Ituhubert has previously operated a sock, which had harassed me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. Recently, the same style of harassment was posted on my talk page from an IP (Special:Contributions/207.204.229.209,) and the same IP also removed content from the article in question, which was reverted first by me, and then by another editor. Yet, Ituhubert only attacks me, which looks like yet another harassment in the previous style. jfeise (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you view the talkpage [98], you'll see that the dialogue almost always goes to Jfeise referring to my operating under undisclosed COI, or to the sockpuppetry investigation, he seems to completely ignore any assumptions of good faith, and constantly labels the content as advertising. It's like talking to a broken record pretty much, and makes progress a tiresome and frustrating experience. I understand that statements should be backed and referenced, but constantly having to respond to allegations without any forward movement seems pointless. Regarding the sockpuppetry, as I have mentioned, there was someone from the same university that was found committing the violations - this person was asked immediately to cease and desist. I cannot control the actions of those that are around me, and even less so online.

I have never harassed or attacked Jfeise, nor have I asked anyone else harass him in any way. The sockpuppetry investigation is inaccurate. Instead I've put all of my efforts into discussing things and working towards a mutual conclusion. Regarding his reverts, he does not discuss it on talkpage, and when he does it always goes back to the same two points: Undisclosed COI and Sockpuppetry. I could understand if the long discussions led to more progress, however, it's always the same song. Ituhubert (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was real. It was found by Wikipedia administrators to be sockpuppetry, and the sock accounts got blocked indef. You obviously did not consider the findings inaccurate at that time. And you need to learn that advertising has no place on Wikipedia. Please put your advertising elsewhere. And stop harassing people who clean up advertising. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, even Jimbo has said that those with COI should not be directly editing the articles that they have COI on - merely suggesting changes on the article talkpage to obtain consensus ... declaring COI does not absolve you from it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is of course what I have told Ituhubert several times, as the talk page shows. He just has chosen to ignore that, and instead accuses me of disruptive editing, when in reality it is he who does the disruptive edits. jfeise (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested changes on the article many times, however, the dialogue is always overshadowed with Jfeise's comments. I understand the gray area of COI, but Wikipedia policies do not specify that editors with a COI are not allowed, only advised not to: [99]. Now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am sure to post my content on the talk page before just blatantly making it public. However, every time I propose content, this is the type of responses that Jfeise offers:

“ I agree there's no need to bring up the sockpuppetry here, and the focus should be on content. I have updated the "Student Services" information to sound more neutral: The Student and Career Services Center supports students in identifying and planning for internships with local and national hi-tech companies. Such internships are an integral part of ITU’s educational program.[14] ITU’s Good Neighbor program is the university discount program for students and staff of the university. [15]. Jfeise, which parts do you think are inappropriate, and how can I improve it? Ituhubert (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please keep advertising off this page. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

”

If the purpose of having other editors comment on the talk page is to discuss improvements, then I don't see how this comment and other comments like...

“ I understand your concern, and I've done my best to explain to an admin regarding the accusation of sockpuppetry. I hope that rather than using the talkpage to dispute unrelated details to this article, that you may instead provide suggestions on how to improve the removed content. You may e-mail me from my user page if you would like to find out more regarding the sockpuppetry investigation. You can see from my past activity that I do openly operate under undisclosed coi, and hope that you also realize that in our interactions I have done my best to act in good faith with a neutral point of view. I appreciate any suggestions on improving or changes if anything I post seems biased. Ituhubert (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, your sockpuppet Orientalsoul, quite frankly, did not act in good faith, in particular concerning me. As for emailing you, I won't. If you have something to say regarding the sockpuppetry investigation, please do it in the open. As of now, I strongly suggest you hold off on any edits of this article. You are having a conflict of interest. jfeise (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

”

... are in any way progress towards building a consensus rather Jfeise's method of derailing the conversation, and going off-topic. Ituhubert (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you copy from a conversation from July 2012, which was around the time when your sockpuppet OrientalSoul attacked me. It is obviously you who is trying to derail the conversation and going off-topic. It is obviously you who is doing disruptive edits. I have told you lots of times to keep advertising and promotional material off the page. Yet you continue to post advertising and promotional material in blatant disregard of the COI policies. When that gets pointed out to you, you attack me, and post a bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, Jfeise, we're only replaying what is already on our talkpage here. I have never attacked you, nor have I asked anyone else to attack you. I had often hoped that rather than you telling me my content is advertising and promotional that you would offer a rewrite or suggest a rewrite of your own. Every time my expectations were shot as soon as the mention of "sock puppetry" came about in your reply. I do appreciate comments like:

“ The last half-sentence, starting with "making ITU the first WASC accredited" is, sorry to say, completely vacuous. In the text about CSU Fullerton that you quote, there is no reference to the accreditation agency at all. Accreditation by a recognized accreditation agency is what matters, not which one. Also, if you limit things arbitrarily, like region, accreditation agency, etc., you can always come up with "being the first." First on the block, first on the street, comes to mind. And finally, quoting from ITU's press release doesn't make things true to begin with. jfeise (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) ”

Though there is some good points, I took those, and responded.. then the next comment:

“ Since you quote the CalState Fullerton Wikipedia page, CSUF is also the only university in Fullerton that offers doctoral degrees. Yet, that is not listed on the Wikipedia page for CSUF. Similarly, this is not noteworthy for ITU. And I suggest you stop trying to bully me. Your sockpuppet OrientalSoul seems to have gone back to that as well, under an IP address. jfeise (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ”

We go back to the same cycle, plus your example was false after my own research, WASC accredited two other universities for their doctoral degrees. It just seems like you're reaching to make points on a whim and just to spite my suggested content. Ituhubert (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And then you posted your advertising without getting consensus. Again, against COI policies. And instead, you were posting this bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and selectively quoting from the talk page is counterproductive to begin with. I am sure the admins know how to get to the talk page, and they can read the whole context there. The bottom line is that your recent proposed change was not noteworthy, not sourced, and promotional material. That's why I opposed it. The modified change was only marginally better, but it still was promotional material. That's why I reverted it. You have since made some changes that were not promotional, and I am happy with that. You need to understand that promotional material does not belong on Wikipedia, and you need to understand that you can't threaten and harass people who revert promotional material. ANd this whole discussion doesn't belong on ANI, anyway. Discuss this on the article's talk page. jfeise (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved this entry back from the archive page in order to have more discussion hopefully from outside parties. Ituhubert (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at Orientalsoul’s contribs and saw 2 places where he posted to Jfeise's talk page. [100] & [101]. Just for clarity, are these the sock attacks you are referring to? Ditch ∝ 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to speak out of turn, but, yes, Orientalsoul is the user that I have been charged with as a sock puppet. Not to go into too much detail, but I think it's necessary - I would like to clarify that Orientalsoul, who also works for the university, was not authorized and acted on his own accord, and was requested by myself and others to stop his actions online. I have reached out to the admins involved with the investigation, but recently the admin that could have overturned the ruling User:Coren has seemingly stepped down from the sockpuppet investigations, and I've had no luck in communication with Coren. The last person to respond was User: Dennis Brown who suggested I forward it to Coren. Ituhubert (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I read that as: you admit it happened, you admit it was wrong, and one way or another (while not accepting direct responsibility), you are assuring us that it won't happen again. Great. I think this is the "elephant in the room" holding back some of the discussion, and maybe you guys can now put that incident behind you. Ituhbert, you need to understand that you (and your employers) are not doing yourself any favors by attempting to contribute to the article. Indeed you are inviting far more scrutiny of the article by doing so. Coming to ANI with this complaint only makes it worse. The only thing the admins (and for the record I am not an admin...I am just an outside party like you requested) can do in this case is to watch your conduct at this article even closer than before. Go back to the talk page and continue if you must, but perhaps you should consider that, though not strictly forbidding you from editing the article, this is exactly why the COI policy says you should not edit the article. (You also should probably have not re-opened this.) Ditch ∝ 19:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OrientalSoul also had filed a bogus complaint against me, See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_32#International_Technological_University The sock investigation is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive As for the COI, I have repeatedly informed ituhubert about the COI policies, he just has chosen to ignore that. And yes, I think ANI is the wrong place for this (as I have mentioned above.) jfeise (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditch, I sincerely appreciate your objective feedback, and offering your insight. Thank you for noticing that it is in fact holding back discussions. In the wikipolicies, it says that it's okay for an editor with a COI to "make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it))"[102]. This is what I would hope would be the case, however, the talk page just gets polluted with the back-and-forth between Jfeise and I, and rarely ending in consensus. I understand that my COI puts me under a huge microscope, but I wouldn't post anything in ANI unless I truly believed that I am respecting and operating under wikipolicies and etiquette[103], and that I have exhausted all possibilities in working things out with Jfeise as recommended. Ditch, I will definitely consider your suggestions, but what would you suggest if the banter continues? Ituhubert (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help that Jfeise is willing to edit war with other editors (e.g., me) despite being previously warned. Yes, the warning is about a year old but the point is that he or she knows (a) what edit warring is and (b) not to engage in it. ElKevbo (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A year is a long time in Wikipedia. I'd take that as a good thing that Ithubert hasn't engaged in edit warring for that length of time, especially considering the COI. Look, I don't like COI editing anymore than the next guy, but we have a (IMO flawed) COI policy, and I try to remember there is a lot of pressure on their side as well- namely to produce results for their employer. Ithubert could be editing as an IP or running a sock farm...but it seems, for now, he is not, and is at least trying to follow policy, so I can grant a little credit to the editor from that aspect.

Ithubert, what I would suggest is simply not engaging in the article if you have a COI, but if you have a job to do, and dis-engaging is not an option, I think you first need to avoid complaining about other editors and accept the fact that push-back against your suggested edits is just an unfortunate aspect of editing with a declared COI. I'd take time to read up on wp:rs, wp:primary vs. wp:secondary & wp:thirdparty, make sure you really understand how sources are supposed to work, then find good sources and bring them to the talk page, asking other editors how best to use the sources to improve the article in a NPOV fashion. There is also a way to request a second opinion from uninvolved editors, and maybe a helpful admin can link to that place for me. But if you go that route, make it about you, and not about others. As my Momma would say: "Keep Jfeise's name out of your mouth." Ditch ∝ 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

One second ... if he has "pressure to produce results for his employer" by editing a Wikipedia article, then he most definitely should not be editing said article - that goes beyond mere COI...and is also the sign of a very unethical employer! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that this does not happen all the time. Businesses, organizations, celebrities, etc...they could care less about WP/journalistic ethics. They care about their image, and WP articles are near the top of search term results. It's inevitable. But, for the record, I was generalizing when I made that statement, and that is just my presumption (and my choice of language) from reading the various conflicts on the article. Ithubert has not said this outright, though he has also not denied it, so I don't want to put words in his mouth. Maybe he could clarify? Ditch ∝ 23:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since my name was invoked earlier: When you use sources like this, it is no wonder that someone questions the validity and appropriateness of your edits. As far as the sock issue is concerned, there is no way to "overturn" it. We aren't a court of law, we are just problem solvers, and it looks like Coren solved a problem after I verified a likelihood that there was a connection. Whether you claim it was meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is moot at this point. As for the COI editing, it is allowed and I agree we should allow COI editing, but you are showing us the price we pay for this generosity. At the heart of this, we have a content dispute: you want to add material, someone else feels it is spam. ANI isn't the place for this since admin don't determine content, WP:DRN is, where it will be reviewed by editors of all kinds. As I don't see a legitimate cause for action here, I would strongly suggest Ituhubert withdraw, use the talk page then WP:DRN, and look around at similar but high quality articles to get a better understanding of what is and isn't "advertising", according to Wikipedia standards, rather than his own. Continuing down this ANI road is just going to drama and hurt feelings. Had I not been named here, I might have just closed it with a pointer to DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that Ituhubert is an SPA account, and that Ituhubert is employed by the organization that is the subject of the only Wikipedia article he edits, I indeed think that it goes beyond a mere COI. I still don't know why he (and his sock OrientalSoul) attacked only me and not the other editors who also reverted his advertising. Heck, it wasn't even me who reported the sock, I personally considered that a minor issue, I was more concerned about the harassment issues. jfeise (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A COI is a COI, as far as policy is concerned. There isn't really degrees of COI. As for the attacks, I've given him a alternative: discuss at that talk page, then DRN if that fails, instead of attacking and bringing empty claims to ANI. If he isn't wise enough to take the advice and continues being disruptive, he knows he will be blocked. He knows first hand that we are fairly adept at determining socks, particularly socks that edit one article only, which means there is no way he could come back under a different name without us catching it within minutes. Period. I'm one of the more liberal minded when it comes to COI editing, but less so when it is disruptive. I'm betting he isn't a fool, and is smart enough to not risk losing all ability to edit the article, when all he has to do is back off a bit, learn a bit more about content and sourcing, and be less aggressive. It isn't that hard. I think everyone should be open minded to his ideas, like you would mine or anyone else's, but it starts with him accepting Wikipedia norms, and complying with them first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Words worth taking on-board. Ditch ∝ 01:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've also left a more detailed message on their talk page. Hopefully we are done, but I can follow up if needed, as I'm somewhat familiar with the editor via the SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the comments. I didn't mean to stir the pot, and honestly appreciate the advice from all. I now know that there are better places for this type of discussion, and will be sure to exercise better due diligence for all future activities. Incident changed to resolved (Withdrawn). Ituhubert (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Persistent vandalism by multiple users at Josephine Butler College

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.

---

Both multiple IPs and multiple registered editors have been vandalizing this page, as will be seen by the edit history. Each seems to try it once or twice and then stop (or move on to another id or ip), so I am not reporting the individual editors. I suggest semi-protecting the page and removing autoconfirmed status from any recent editors who have vandalized it. Jeh (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

4 edits yesterday ... 6 today ... not necessarily unstoppable by proper watching, is it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that the standard? It has to be unstoppable by "proper watching?" It seems to me I've seen pages semi-protected on similar grounds before. Oh well... I have things I'd rather do with my wiki-time, so I won't be watching it any more. Jeh (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Er, did anybody notice just what Jeh was reverting back TO, and which is still in the article as of this report? [104] RNealK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And I have removed A LOT of garbage: [105]. RNealK (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeh may want to apologize to the IP editors he/she was warning for vandalism. RNealK (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, I see. Sorry. Let me get back to my real machine (multiple screens) and I'll review the diffs and apologize as needed. Jeh (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I can no longer review the actual edits to JBC so I can't tell which of the edits I was reverting were solely removing nonsense (I do know that one of them was both doing that and adding nonsense of its own), so I had to settle for a blanket "conditional apology." Clearly I'm not enough of a SME to edit that page again. (In fact I can't remember why it was on my watchlist in the first place!) Jeh (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Liqwid/JarlaxleArtemis

Resolved

 – Dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is obviously Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis whose been reverting me like crazy last few days. See Special:Contributions/Liqwid. Left a message for editor who usually deals with this sort of thing for me, but in case someone wants to deal with it right now in the wee hours. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 05:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits and discussions unproductive and disruptive editing User:Jfeise

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.

---

Resolved

Jfeise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to block efforts to improve and add information to International Technological University. I am operating under undisclosed COI as a representative for the university in the entry. Regardless of how my approach is with Jfeise, he persists in keeping any additions from being made. It is an uphill battle for any additions, and he always labels everything I propose as advertising. Jfeise continues to rely on the fact that I am operating under undisclosed COI as his argument knowing that it is a gray area, however, I am doing my best to be be neutral, and receptive. His responses are never productive, and he always goes back to the same points of "sockpuppetry" (which I'm contacting the admin that passed judgement to explain the situation, and will be happy to address if necessary), or advertising. Most recently, ITU received accreditation, and therefore, we would like to add the fact and expand upon our wikipedia entry to reflect that information. In accordance to wikipedia best practices, I post the proposed content onto the talk page, however, Jfeise is always quick to tear it down rather than suggest improvements. He is quick to label it as advertising, revert the changes without discussion, and carry on in a non-productive manner. I try to have a reasonable discussion with him, but he adds nothing new and keeps going on about unrelated incidents: Removing content without warning; another example is he reverted a change after only 5 min. . For the second example, the content was posted taking into consideration Jfeise's concerns of the neutrality, but still he continued his comments about sockpuppetry and advertising with no positive contribution. I hope that some administrators can help take notice, and offer some assistance. Ituhubert (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Ituhubert misrepresents the issues. I am reverting his advertising on that page, but there are lots of constructive additions and changes that I have no problems with, so Ituhubert's assertion that I "persist in keeping any additions from being made" is simply untrue. Again, the reverts I have made on that article had to do with advertisements. jfeise (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the the user Ituhubert has previously operated a sock, which had harassed me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive. Recently, the same style of harassment was posted on my talk page from an IP (Special:Contributions/207.204.229.209,) and the same IP also removed content from the article in question, which was reverted first by me, and then by another editor. Yet, Ituhubert only attacks me, which looks like yet another harassment in the previous style. jfeise (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you view the talkpage [106], you'll see that the dialogue almost always goes to Jfeise referring to my operating under undisclosed COI, or to the sockpuppetry investigation, he seems to completely ignore any assumptions of good faith, and constantly labels the content as advertising. It's like talking to a broken record pretty much, and makes progress a tiresome and frustrating experience. I understand that statements should be backed and referenced, but constantly having to respond to allegations without any forward movement seems pointless. Regarding the sockpuppetry, as I have mentioned, there was someone from the same university that was found committing the violations - this person was asked immediately to cease and desist. I cannot control the actions of those that are around me, and even less so online.

I have never harassed or attacked Jfeise, nor have I asked anyone else harass him in any way. The sockpuppetry investigation is inaccurate. Instead I've put all of my efforts into discussing things and working towards a mutual conclusion. Regarding his reverts, he does not discuss it on talkpage, and when he does it always goes back to the same two points: Undisclosed COI and Sockpuppetry. I could understand if the long discussions led to more progress, however, it's always the same song. Ituhubert (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry was real. It was found by Wikipedia administrators to be sockpuppetry, and the sock accounts got blocked indef. You obviously did not consider the findings inaccurate at that time. And you need to learn that advertising has no place on Wikipedia. Please put your advertising elsewhere. And stop harassing people who clean up advertising. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, even Jimbo has said that those with COI should not be directly editing the articles that they have COI on - merely suggesting changes on the article talkpage to obtain consensus ... declaring COI does not absolve you from it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is of course what I have told Ituhubert several times, as the talk page shows. He just has chosen to ignore that, and instead accuses me of disruptive editing, when in reality it is he who does the disruptive edits. jfeise (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested changes on the article many times, however, the dialogue is always overshadowed with Jfeise's comments. I understand the gray area of COI, but Wikipedia policies do not specify that editors with a COI are not allowed, only advised not to: [107]. Now that I am more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I am sure to post my content on the talk page before just blatantly making it public. However, every time I propose content, this is the type of responses that Jfeise offers:

“ I agree there's no need to bring up the sockpuppetry here, and the focus should be on content. I have updated the "Student Services" information to sound more neutral: The Student and Career Services Center supports students in identifying and planning for internships with local and national hi-tech companies. Such internships are an integral part of ITU’s educational program.[14] ITU’s Good Neighbor program is the university discount program for students and staff of the university. [15]. Jfeise, which parts do you think are inappropriate, and how can I improve it? Ituhubert (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please keep advertising off this page. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

”

If the purpose of having other editors comment on the talk page is to discuss improvements, then I don't see how this comment and other comments like...

“ I understand your concern, and I've done my best to explain to an admin regarding the accusation of sockpuppetry. I hope that rather than using the talkpage to dispute unrelated details to this article, that you may instead provide suggestions on how to improve the removed content. You may e-mail me from my user page if you would like to find out more regarding the sockpuppetry investigation. You can see from my past activity that I do openly operate under undisclosed coi, and hope that you also realize that in our interactions I have done my best to act in good faith with a neutral point of view. I appreciate any suggestions on improving or changes if anything I post seems biased. Ituhubert (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, your sockpuppet Orientalsoul, quite frankly, did not act in good faith, in particular concerning me. As for emailing you, I won't. If you have something to say regarding the sockpuppetry investigation, please do it in the open. As of now, I strongly suggest you hold off on any edits of this article. You are having a conflict of interest. jfeise (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

”

... are in any way progress towards building a consensus rather Jfeise's method of derailing the conversation, and going off-topic. Ituhubert (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you copy from a conversation from July 2012, which was around the time when your sockpuppet OrientalSoul attacked me. It is obviously you who is trying to derail the conversation and going off-topic. It is obviously you who is doing disruptive edits. I have told you lots of times to keep advertising and promotional material off the page. Yet you continue to post advertising and promotional material in blatant disregard of the COI policies. When that gets pointed out to you, you attack me, and post a bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, Jfeise, we're only replaying what is already on our talkpage here. I have never attacked you, nor have I asked anyone else to attack you. I had often hoped that rather than you telling me my content is advertising and promotional that you would offer a rewrite or suggest a rewrite of your own. Every time my expectations were shot as soon as the mention of "sock puppetry" came about in your reply. I do appreciate comments like:

“ The last half-sentence, starting with "making ITU the first WASC accredited" is, sorry to say, completely vacuous. In the text about CSU Fullerton that you quote, there is no reference to the accreditation agency at all. Accreditation by a recognized accreditation agency is what matters, not which one. Also, if you limit things arbitrarily, like region, accreditation agency, etc., you can always come up with "being the first." First on the block, first on the street, comes to mind. And finally, quoting from ITU's press release doesn't make things true to begin with. jfeise (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) ”

Though there is some good points, I took those, and responded.. then the next comment:

“ Since you quote the CalState Fullerton Wikipedia page, CSUF is also the only university in Fullerton that offers doctoral degrees. Yet, that is not listed on the Wikipedia page for CSUF. Similarly, this is not noteworthy for ITU. And I suggest you stop trying to bully me. Your sockpuppet OrientalSoul seems to have gone back to that as well, under an IP address. jfeise (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC) ”

We go back to the same cycle, plus your example was false after my own research, WASC accredited two other universities for their doctoral degrees. It just seems like you're reaching to make points on a whim and just to spite my suggested content. Ituhubert (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And then you posted your advertising without getting consensus. Again, against COI policies. And instead, you were posting this bogus ANI complaint. jfeise (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and selectively quoting from the talk page is counterproductive to begin with. I am sure the admins know how to get to the talk page, and they can read the whole context there. The bottom line is that your recent proposed change was not noteworthy, not sourced, and promotional material. That's why I opposed it. The modified change was only marginally better, but it still was promotional material. That's why I reverted it. You have since made some changes that were not promotional, and I am happy with that. You need to understand that promotional material does not belong on Wikipedia, and you need to understand that you can't threaten and harass people who revert promotional material. ANd this whole discussion doesn't belong on ANI, anyway. Discuss this on the article's talk page. jfeise (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved this entry back from the archive page in order to have more discussion hopefully from outside parties. Ituhubert (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at Orientalsoul’s contribs and saw 2 places where he posted to Jfeise's talk page. [108] & [109]. Just for clarity, are these the sock attacks you are referring to? Ditch ∝ 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to speak out of turn, but, yes, Orientalsoul is the user that I have been charged with as a sock puppet. Not to go into too much detail, but I think it's necessary - I would like to clarify that Orientalsoul, who also works for the university, was not authorized and acted on his own accord, and was requested by myself and others to stop his actions online. I have reached out to the admins involved with the investigation, but recently the admin that could have overturned the ruling User:Coren has seemingly stepped down from the sockpuppet investigations, and I've had no luck in communication with Coren. The last person to respond was User: Dennis Brown who suggested I forward it to Coren. Ituhubert (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I read that as: you admit it happened, you admit it was wrong, and one way or another (while not accepting direct responsibility), you are assuring us that it won't happen again. Great. I think this is the "elephant in the room" holding back some of the discussion, and maybe you guys can now put that incident behind you. Ituhbert, you need to understand that you (and your employers) are not doing yourself any favors by attempting to contribute to the article. Indeed you are inviting far more scrutiny of the article by doing so. Coming to ANI with this complaint only makes it worse. The only thing the admins (and for the record I am not an admin...I am just an outside party like you requested) can do in this case is to watch your conduct at this article even closer than before. Go back to the talk page and continue if you must, but perhaps you should consider that, though not strictly forbidding you from editing the article, this is exactly why the COI policy says you should not edit the article. (You also should probably have not re-opened this.) Ditch ∝ 19:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OrientalSoul also had filed a bogus complaint against me, See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_32#International_Technological_University The sock investigation is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert/Archive As for the COI, I have repeatedly informed ituhubert about the COI policies, he just has chosen to ignore that. And yes, I think ANI is the wrong place for this (as I have mentioned above.) jfeise (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditch, I sincerely appreciate your objective feedback, and offering your insight. Thank you for noticing that it is in fact holding back discussions. In the wikipolicies, it says that it's okay for an editor with a COI to "make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it))"[110]. This is what I would hope would be the case, however, the talk page just gets polluted with the back-and-forth between Jfeise and I, and rarely ending in consensus. I understand that my COI puts me under a huge microscope, but I wouldn't post anything in ANI unless I truly believed that I am respecting and operating under wikipolicies and etiquette[111], and that I have exhausted all possibilities in working things out with Jfeise as recommended. Ditch, I will definitely consider your suggestions, but what would you suggest if the banter continues? Ituhubert (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help that Jfeise is willing to edit war with other editors (e.g., me) despite being previously warned. Yes, the warning is about a year old but the point is that he or she knows (a) what edit warring is and (b) not to engage in it. ElKevbo (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A year is a long time in Wikipedia. I'd take that as a good thing that Ithubert hasn't engaged in edit warring for that length of time, especially considering the COI. Look, I don't like COI editing anymore than the next guy, but we have a (IMO flawed) COI policy, and I try to remember there is a lot of pressure on their side as well- namely to produce results for their employer. Ithubert could be editing as an IP or running a sock farm...but it seems, for now, he is not, and is at least trying to follow policy, so I can grant a little credit to the editor from that aspect.

Ithubert, what I would suggest is simply not engaging in the article if you have a COI, but if you have a job to do, and dis-engaging is not an option, I think you first need to avoid complaining about other editors and accept the fact that push-back against your suggested edits is just an unfortunate aspect of editing with a declared COI. I'd take time to read up on wp:rs, wp:primary vs. wp:secondary & wp:thirdparty, make sure you really understand how sources are supposed to work, then find good sources and bring them to the talk page, asking other editors how best to use the sources to improve the article in a NPOV fashion. There is also a way to request a second opinion from uninvolved editors, and maybe a helpful admin can link to that place for me. But if you go that route, make it about you, and not about others. As my Momma would say: "Keep Jfeise's name out of your mouth." Ditch ∝ 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

One second ... if he has "pressure to produce results for his employer" by editing a Wikipedia article, then he most definitely should not be editing said article - that goes beyond mere COI...and is also the sign of a very unethical employer! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that this does not happen all the time. Businesses, organizations, celebrities, etc...they could care less about WP/journalistic ethics. They care about their image, and WP articles are near the top of search term results. It's inevitable. But, for the record, I was generalizing when I made that statement, and that is just my presumption (and my choice of language) from reading the various conflicts on the article. Ithubert has not said this outright, though he has also not denied it, so I don't want to put words in his mouth. Maybe he could clarify? Ditch ∝ 23:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since my name was invoked earlier: When you use sources like this, it is no wonder that someone questions the validity and appropriateness of your edits. As far as the sock issue is concerned, there is no way to "overturn" it. We aren't a court of law, we are just problem solvers, and it looks like Coren solved a problem after I verified a likelihood that there was a connection. Whether you claim it was meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is moot at this point. As for the COI editing, it is allowed and I agree we should allow COI editing, but you are showing us the price we pay for this generosity. At the heart of this, we have a content dispute: you want to add material, someone else feels it is spam. ANI isn't the place for this since admin don't determine content, WP:DRN is, where it will be reviewed by editors of all kinds. As I don't see a legitimate cause for action here, I would strongly suggest Ituhubert withdraw, use the talk page then WP:DRN, and look around at similar but high quality articles to get a better understanding of what is and isn't "advertising", according to Wikipedia standards, rather than his own. Continuing down this ANI road is just going to drama and hurt feelings. Had I not been named here, I might have just closed it with a pointer to DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that Ituhubert is an SPA account, and that Ituhubert is employed by the organization that is the subject of the only Wikipedia article he edits, I indeed think that it goes beyond a mere COI. I still don't know why he (and his sock OrientalSoul) attacked only me and not the other editors who also reverted his advertising. Heck, it wasn't even me who reported the sock, I personally considered that a minor issue, I was more concerned about the harassment issues. jfeise (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A COI is a COI, as far as policy is concerned. There isn't really degrees of COI. As for the attacks, I've given him a alternative: discuss at that talk page, then DRN if that fails, instead of attacking and bringing empty claims to ANI. If he isn't wise enough to take the advice and continues being disruptive, he knows he will be blocked. He knows first hand that we are fairly adept at determining socks, particularly socks that edit one article only, which means there is no way he could come back under a different name without us catching it within minutes. Period. I'm one of the more liberal minded when it comes to COI editing, but less so when it is disruptive. I'm betting he isn't a fool, and is smart enough to not risk losing all ability to edit the article, when all he has to do is back off a bit, learn a bit more about content and sourcing, and be less aggressive. It isn't that hard. I think everyone should be open minded to his ideas, like you would mine or anyone else's, but it starts with him accepting Wikipedia norms, and complying with them first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Words worth taking on-board. Ditch ∝ 01:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've also left a more detailed message on their talk page. Hopefully we are done, but I can follow up if needed, as I'm somewhat familiar with the editor via the SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the comments. I didn't mean to stir the pot, and honestly appreciate the advice from all. I now know that there are better places for this type of discussion, and will be sure to exercise better due diligence for all future activities. Incident changed to resolved (Withdrawn). Ituhubert (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Persistent vandalism by multiple users at Josephine Butler College

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.

---

Both multiple IPs and multiple registered editors have been vandalizing this page, as will be seen by the edit history. Each seems to try it once or twice and then stop (or move on to another id or ip), so I am not reporting the individual editors. I suggest semi-protecting the page and removing autoconfirmed status from any recent editors who have vandalized it. Jeh (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

4 edits yesterday ... 6 today ... not necessarily unstoppable by proper watching, is it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that the standard? It has to be unstoppable by "proper watching?" It seems to me I've seen pages semi-protected on similar grounds before. Oh well... I have things I'd rather do with my wiki-time, so I won't be watching it any more. Jeh (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Er, did anybody notice just what Jeh was reverting back TO, and which is still in the article as of this report? [112] RNealK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And I have removed A LOT of garbage: [113]. RNealK (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeh may want to apologize to the IP editors he/she was warning for vandalism. RNealK (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, I see. Sorry. Let me get back to my real machine (multiple screens) and I'll review the diffs and apologize as needed. Jeh (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I can no longer review the actual edits to JBC so I can't tell which of the edits I was reverting were solely removing nonsense (I do know that one of them was both doing that and adding nonsense of its own), so I had to settle for a blanket "conditional apology." Clearly I'm not enough of a SME to edit that page again. (In fact I can't remember why it was on my watchlist in the first place!) Jeh (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request for User:Neo.

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.

---

User:Neo. who was recorded as a sock of User:Viran has requested to be unblocked. However, Neo is an older account. The sockpuppetry was pervasive and happened in late 2007. Is there support for an unblock of the user? I have notified them of this discussion. NativeForeigner ^Talk 02:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't. I'm seeing some really juvenile trolling and no significant positive contributions to offset that. Sizable sock drawer too. No thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would say yes. I don't see any socking attempts since 2009 (and that was only 1 suspected incidence, not confirmed). The only solid evidence suggests that he socked 5 years ago and it was a short burst of socking, not sustained. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Blocks are cheap as they say. 6 years is quite a while and provided no socking has been picked up in the interim, why not? Blackmane (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. The usual approach to juvenile behaviour is to wait for the perpetrator to mature a bit, and I'd say 6 years since the pervasive misbehaviour and 4 years since the last suspected sock is plenty long enough to see if that has happened. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock - people can change (and grow up) in that time. I say give him another chance. It's not like nobody will be keeping an eye on him. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock before he becomes senile (then reblock). Thincat (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Done TY to NativeForeigner. Starblind reservations are noted, hopefully there won't be a need for a "told ya" in the future. — Ched :  ?  12:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• I got in on this late, but agree that an unblock combined with a reasonably long piece of rope is appropriate. People can change and we should pride ourselves on being willing to give everyone a second chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Liqwid/JarlaxleArtemis

Resolved

 – Dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is obviously Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis whose been reverting me like crazy last few days. See Special:Contributions/Liqwid. Left a message for editor who usually deals with this sort of thing for me, but in case someone wants to deal with it right now in the wee hours. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 05:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

4chan vandalism at User talk:Elockid

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.

---

Thanks to a request by a user on 4chan, Elockid's talk page is currently undergoing repeated vandalism. Some sort of page protection right now would probably be appropriate. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this isn't the first time it's happened, and the previous semi-protection expired. Might be a good idea to put a longer one on this time. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This was handled by Rschen7754 with a 24 hour semi protect. Thanks! – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Malik Shabazz

WP:BOOMERANG. Troll, racist, he's the guy who's now blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. I am having issues with admin Malik Shabazz. I used a picture as my description for my user page. The post was flagged as vandalism and deleted by the admin. It is a picture of a conniving Jewish man rubbing his hands together. I am an openly antisemitic person and that sums up what the user markofthesun is all about. I tried to talk it over with the administrator but he was unwilling to work out the issue. This moderator is open about his social justice activism and carries that bias in his administrator duties. my speech is being limited because it does not fit his point of view. this is clearly an abuse of power and I would like to see this administrator banned, my post returned, and my vandalism warning reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markofthesun (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC) You have no free speech here - this is a private website, and you agreed to the rules. One of those rules relates to what you can and cannot do to your userpage, and WP:POLEMIC and racism are pretty much at the top of that list in spirit if not in actual order (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Considering that Markofthesun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is identifying himself here as "an openly antisemitic person", and that racial prejudice of any sort is incompatible with Wikipedia's mission to produce a neutral encyclopedia in a collaborative setting, and that his few contributions are not productive but rather the contrary ([114]), I am blocking the account indefinitely. That should resolve this thread.  Sandstein  09:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Agree with the indef; he is either a troll or a racist, and neither is welcome here (or anywhere). GiantSnowman 09:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC) The discussion above 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.

User:Xenophrenic on Ward Churchill

Although both User:Rmhermen and myself have objected to his edits, Xenophrenic has repeatedly revertedchanges to the overly emotional POV language in the Ward Churchill article. He has justified his actions with evasive edit summaries. I invite others to examine the two proposed versions of the article and decide which better suits WP:NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Plainly OTT, and edit warring over it is fundamentally a bad idea, but there's a discussion on that very issue over a year old that was inconclusive and yet hasn't been added to recently. That's where the discussion should take place, rather than at ANI. The same applies to your edit warring at David Stannard, where I note that you're defending a revision which describes an anthropologist of having fabricated evidence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Browder

Bill Browder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biographical article appears to be subject of heavy point of view pushing.[115] Could a few uninvolved editors please take a look. I am especially concerned about the allegation of plagiarism,[116] and the attempts to include primary sourced material from dodgy sources.[117] Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that this article was the subject of an ANI discussion last month, "Borderline legal threat". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a different issue, that was done pro-Browder and I reported it at this point we have the other side of the coin with BLP issues being perpetrated by USER:Plutonius1965. Relevant diffs [[118]], a revert with a warning [[119]] which he then basically put it all back in in a series of edits which I reverted [[120]] he reverted again [[121]]. I have placed a warning on his page regarding edit warring as this is an edit war that he is spreading out over time. He responded by telling me I was edit warring and placed a warning on my page (apparently English isn't his first language and he doesn't understand the sequence 1, 2, 3.) This has been an ongoing issue Jehochman, First Light and now myself have raised concerns with his edits which are being completely ignored. I am suggesting that we revert back to the version favored by First Light and protect the page fully or a block be issued to Plutonius who at this point seems to be the sole issue at the article. I am notifying Plutonius to this thread. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Plutonius1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Plutonius seems to be a single purpose account, very determined to present a certain point of view (anti-Browder, pro-Putin). The fervor of Plutonius' editing seems to reflect some sort of strong personal preference or perhaps a business connection to Browder's opponents. See also Magnitsky Affair. This is a hot geopolitical conflict between the US and Russia. Agents for either side showing up at Wikipedia to spin these articles would not be too surprising. Jehochman ^Talk 11:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jenochman, thank you for opening this thread. Let us keep this discussion constructive. Mutual credibility must be reinstated. There is indeed a small group of active editors involved in the update of the indicated article. All inputs are valuable. However, there is a number of outstanding issues which indeed require resolution for the article to be fair and balanced. We might have (and we do in fact) different opinions, but only this diversity can make the article genuinely accurate, irrespective of the opinions of specific editors that Wikipedia strongly discourages to express in the articles.

The issues are as follows:

1. Admissibility of certain sources. Specifically, Russian-speaking sources. I have put this issue on the talk page. Certain editors like Jenochman believe that ALL Russian media sources are government-controlled and are "dodgy"– standard weasel words to limit the availability of a balanced coverage. I disagreed on the following accounts:

• Independent Russian sources DO exist. Example is Russian daily Vedomosti which is a joint venture with Dow Jones and Financial Times.
• Primary sources (such as owned by the government) MAY be used according to Wikipedia policies. For the current case, the example is the BBC-like government-owned Russian media source called RT and the press-release of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, informing about the court case currently in Russia. While both a primary sources according to Wikipedia, they MAY be used with caution and with a proper reference. This is exactly what I did.

As the issue is still pending on the talk page, no further attempts to include links to Russian sources were made.

2. Inclusion of information from reliable sources of what has been asserted by the Russian sources and not supported by other editors. This amendment concerns reference to handicapped war veterans used by Browder and charges of his attempts to get hold of the financial information of Gazprom. Both pieces have been included with reference to Spiegel Online and Associated Press. Hell in a Bucket DELETED both links on neutrality grounds.

3. Plagiarism. There is one paragraph which is a COPY-PASTE from New York Times. Because it is a plagiarism, I included quotation marks on the parts which have been directly taken from the article to make it plagiarism-free and invited to paraphrase the paragraph. Hell in a Bucket reverted the changes. Specifically, he used non-neutral words like "stolen" which were not in the original article. Furthermore, the paragraphs mention the words of Firestone without quotation marks in Bucket's version.

On the behaviour of Jennochman and Hell in a Bucket:

• Hell in a Bucket reverted my updates THREE TIMES and posted an announcement that I was involved in an edit war which is unfortunately unsubstantiated. Please note that he did not discuss this on the talk page. Please also note that all my updates are original changes, with reverts only when it comes to deleting my contribution. Bucket's updates are reverts only.
• Jennochman continues his egregious personal attacks. In place of focusing on the substance of the discussion, he continues his unfounded subtle accusations that I am somehow related to the case (e.g. pro-Russian government, pro-Putin, "sub rose PR campaign", geopolitics (?) etc.). Not mentioning that he is a professional internet technology consultant [122] who might be paid for his work on Browder’s page. But because this is a mere assumption, I have the dignity not to push that point further unlike Jenochman's comments about my person.

My only interest in Browder’s article is that I speak more than one foreign language and I am particularly sensitive when there is a one-language bias. It is very sad that Jennochman, speaking only English, does not have the benefit of understanding cultural differences. As a gesture of courtesy, I was trying to evade this point but Jenochman seems to insist. I kindly invite Jenochman to adhere to the wikipedia netiquette.

To conclude, to resolve the present issue, we must agree on the three points above and develop a constructive and mutually respectful attitude towards each other.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I reverted [[123]] and also [[124]], the sequence is 1, 2 the number 3 proceeds that unless of course you are counting [[125]] this as a revert which this was actually me fixing my own error. Jehochman is a pretty level headed admin, i don't often agree with him but one thing I can say as can any number of other people I have not seen him lose his cool or violate WP:NPA. Your sandbox leaves telling info on the way you lean politically which is another reason we have concerns [[126]] about why you are here. Having a belief one way or another or a supporter of Putin is not important but the way you express that belief or write it here does. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are again beside the point. Sandbox is a private page for training. You again shift the discussion in the direction of personalities. Incidentally, I have the impression that you are not located in Colorado. The timing of your comments strongly suggests that you are not located where you claim to be... --Plutonius1965 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right I'm not in Colorado, I'm from Colorado as my page states. I don't actually have it listed where I live, as you've raised the point, I am happy to answer I am currently in Hong Kong. That's an interesting way to introduce a non-sequiter to the concerns made by your edits. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• minor Note: Plutonius1965 - the proper spelling for the user is: "Jehochman" (with an H), and not Jenochman (with an N). You can always copy and paste from a sig. if in doubt. — Ched :  ?  15:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman and Hell in a Bucket, that Plutonius1965 is a single purpose account with the sole agenda of putting the subject of the article in as bad a light as possible, and portraying the Russian charges against him as legitimate. For example, he edited the article to claim that Browder "fled" the country,[127] when reliable sources state that he "was expelled from Russia in 2005 and declared a threat to national security"[128] and "stripped of his Russian visa in 2005 on unspecified national-security grounds."[129] There is a drastic disconnect between how Russian sources describe the situation, and how reliable western sources describe it ("Macabre Show Trial"[130] is typical of the western sources). Because this is a Biography of a Living Person we must use only the highest quality reliable sources. Consensus has been against the Russian language sources that show undying loyalty to Putin and the government's case.

I'm not convinced that we're seeing state backed editing of Wikipedia by Plutonious1965, even though his accusation that Hell in a Bucket is not really in Colorado is rather strange. But clearly the Russian state is the main party interested in swaying public opinion about a trial that is trying two people in absentia— one because he is dead (murdered by prison authorities, according to many western sources vs. dying of natural causes in his cell, according to those Russian sources) and the other because they ordered him out of the country. This article would be greatly helped by a few more editors who understand WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand why he made that leap, English isn't his first language. Nothing wrong with writing in the English Pedia when it's not your first language but it is pretty apparent sometimes. I teach conversational English in HK so I've learned to see some of those clues. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ched for the remark on Jehochman.

I confirm that English is not my first language and I appreciate any comments on grammar and wording. I agree that the word "fled" was not entirely correct in that particular case[131]. However, the second part of the change concerns details of the investigation against Browder with reference to Russian sources. Because there is currently no agreement on the eligibility of the mentioned primary sources, the point was not pushed further for the moment.

Indeed, I have registered relatively recently. However, claiming that my account is a single-purpose one and that I have an association to any party in a conflict is unfortunately a wrong accusation. I confirm some of my modifications were not perfect. However, the most recent modifications that served as a ground for the current case [132], [133] and which Hell in a Bucket reverted [134], [135] are fair, properly sourced and provide additional details. Der Spiegel and Associated Press are respected secondary sources. Furthermore, Hell in a Bucket in his update [136] supported a COPY/PASTE from the New York Times: it is enough to check the original text. Hell in a Bucket, could you please clarify why you continued to insist on including this copyright-protected passage in place of paraphrasing it?

The Colorado remark came after Hell in a Bucket fiddled with my PRIVATE sandbox and felt confident to conclude on my political affiliation, although I have no connection to the Russian government AT ALL. Jehochman, Hell in a Bucket and First Light accuse me of promoting a particular view. However, what is seen is that by fighting for the status quo and not willing to consider constructively all possible reliable sources, they try to actively promote the pro-Browder side of the story which is not entirely correct.

I again kindly call the three mentioned editors to stop their accusations and work on the substance of the case. The involvement of other editors would be indeed very much appreciated.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're sandbox is not private, any editor can view it as well as any contribution you make on this site. I think this saga is now complete, I've been accused of being pro-russian and now pro-Browder. I asked the question on the talkpage the ramifications made when Jimbo Wales stated that Russian sources were not reliable. I think it raises a disturbing precedent however it is the consensus that because of the lack of freedom of press from the gov. in Russian we could not use those. Everyone, myself included has to bend over for consensus. I have reverted you because the version you are attempting to enforce is not neutral. Would you care to highlight the particular part that you claim was plagiarized? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to make it. The part put in quotation marks should be either paraphrased, kept as it is or the paragraph has to be deleted.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Jozef van Wissem

A large-scale edit warring for the last week, where a subject of the article tries to amend some info about himself and predictably gets repeatedly told that he is not a reliable source about himself. I tried to mediate as documented on the talk page (see also the links there) and failed miserably, since none of the parties was willing to compromize. (Not that mediation was my strong side though). I am not sure what to doi next, just leaving its here. This is essentially a content dispute, but they went into over 10 reverts, which is hardly acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit. I think it has evolved into a WP:MAJORDICK situation. This is a relatively minor figure in the music world that we're talking about, and from what I can see some of the information that people are doggedly determined to keep in the article is dated. I'm trying to work out a compromise now. I understand 100% the frustration of an article's subject who cannot get outdated statements corrected or at least removed because of what seems to me to be unwarranted faith in the reliability of old information; what other choice would he have? Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is my impression as well. The article subject is inexperienced in Wikipedia policies, and I tried to contact him at the talk page, but so far the other side was reverting everything just repeating "Myspace is not RS, we know better, shut up, period". I was even admonished for trying to discuss smth at his talk page, since all discussion should be kept in one place. How could it be kept at one place, when the guy clearly does not understand what is required, and seems to just get lost?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If the information is describing something from the past, then simply change the verb tenses in the article. It's vandalism for the subject of the article to consistently remove entire sourced sections just because the verb tense is wrong. That's not the solution. Qworty (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IP Address rash of vandalism

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.

---

User:209.222.33.202 has had a rash of vandalism since 2009, the IP address received a "last warning" from a bot very recently. I just reverted an edit where a wikilink to Homosexuality out of context was placed. Requesting a block. NickCochrane (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked, in future, report these to WP:AIV. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. Thanks. NickCochrane (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Bill Browder

Bill Browder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biographical article appears to be subject of heavy point of view pushing.[137] Could a few uninvolved editors please take a look. I am especially concerned about the allegation of plagiarism,[138] and the attempts to include primary sourced material from dodgy sources.[139] Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that this article was the subject of an ANI discussion last month, "Borderline legal threat". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a different issue, that was done pro-Browder and I reported it at this point we have the other side of the coin with BLP issues being perpetrated by USER:Plutonius1965. Relevant diffs [[140]], a revert with a warning [[141]] which he then basically put it all back in in a series of edits which I reverted [[142]] he reverted again [[143]]. I have placed a warning on his page regarding edit warring as this is an edit war that he is spreading out over time. He responded by telling me I was edit warring and placed a warning on my page (apparently English isn't his first language and he doesn't understand the sequence 1, 2, 3.) This has been an ongoing issue Jehochman, First Light and now myself have raised concerns with his edits which are being completely ignored. I am suggesting that we revert back to the version favored by First Light and protect the page fully or a block be issued to Plutonius who at this point seems to be the sole issue at the article. I am notifying Plutonius to this thread. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Plutonius1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Plutonius seems to be a single purpose account, very determined to present a certain point of view (anti-Browder, pro-Putin). The fervor of Plutonius' editing seems to reflect some sort of strong personal preference or perhaps a business connection to Browder's opponents. See also Magnitsky Affair. This is a hot geopolitical conflict between the US and Russia. Agents for either side showing up at Wikipedia to spin these articles would not be too surprising. Jehochman ^Talk 11:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Jenochman, thank you for opening this thread. Let us keep this discussion constructive. Mutual credibility must be reinstated. There is indeed a small group of active editors involved in the update of the indicated article. All inputs are valuable. However, there is a number of outstanding issues which indeed require resolution for the article to be fair and balanced. We might have (and we do in fact) different opinions, but only this diversity can make the article genuinely accurate, irrespective of the opinions of specific editors that Wikipedia strongly discourages to express in the articles.

The issues are as follows:

1. Admissibility of certain sources. Specifically, Russian-speaking sources. I have put this issue on the talk page. Certain editors like Jenochman believe that ALL Russian media sources are government-controlled and are "dodgy"– standard weasel words to limit the availability of a balanced coverage. I disagreed on the following accounts:

• Independent Russian sources DO exist. Example is Russian daily Vedomosti which is a joint venture with Dow Jones and Financial Times.
• Primary sources (such as owned by the government) MAY be used according to Wikipedia policies. For the current case, the example is the BBC-like government-owned Russian media source called RT and the press-release of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, informing about the court case currently in Russia. While both a primary sources according to Wikipedia, they MAY be used with caution and with a proper reference. This is exactly what I did.

As the issue is still pending on the talk page, no further attempts to include links to Russian sources were made.

2. Inclusion of information from reliable sources of what has been asserted by the Russian sources and not supported by other editors. This amendment concerns reference to handicapped war veterans used by Browder and charges of his attempts to get hold of the financial information of Gazprom. Both pieces have been included with reference to Spiegel Online and Associated Press. Hell in a Bucket DELETED both links on neutrality grounds.

3. Plagiarism. There is one paragraph which is a COPY-PASTE from New York Times. Because it is a plagiarism, I included quotation marks on the parts which have been directly taken from the article to make it plagiarism-free and invited to paraphrase the paragraph. Hell in a Bucket reverted the changes. Specifically, he used non-neutral words like "stolen" which were not in the original article. Furthermore, the paragraphs mention the words of Firestone without quotation marks in Bucket's version.

On the behaviour of Jennochman and Hell in a Bucket:

• Hell in a Bucket reverted my updates THREE TIMES and posted an announcement that I was involved in an edit war which is unfortunately unsubstantiated. Please note that he did not discuss this on the talk page. Please also note that all my updates are original changes, with reverts only when it comes to deleting my contribution. Bucket's updates are reverts only.
• Jennochman continues his egregious personal attacks. In place of focusing on the substance of the discussion, he continues his unfounded subtle accusations that I am somehow related to the case (e.g. pro-Russian government, pro-Putin, "sub rose PR campaign", geopolitics (?) etc.). Not mentioning that he is a professional internet technology consultant [144] who might be paid for his work on Browder’s page. But because this is a mere assumption, I have the dignity not to push that point further unlike Jenochman's comments about my person.

My only interest in Browder’s article is that I speak more than one foreign language and I am particularly sensitive when there is a one-language bias. It is very sad that Jennochman, speaking only English, does not have the benefit of understanding cultural differences. As a gesture of courtesy, I was trying to evade this point but Jenochman seems to insist. I kindly invite Jenochman to adhere to the wikipedia netiquette.

To conclude, to resolve the present issue, we must agree on the three points above and develop a constructive and mutually respectful attitude towards each other.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I reverted [[145]] and also [[146]], the sequence is 1, 2 the number 3 proceeds that unless of course you are counting [[147]] this as a revert which this was actually me fixing my own error. Jehochman is a pretty level headed admin, i don't often agree with him but one thing I can say as can any number of other people I have not seen him lose his cool or violate WP:NPA. Your sandbox leaves telling info on the way you lean politically which is another reason we have concerns [[148]] about why you are here. Having a belief one way or another or a supporter of Putin is not important but the way you express that belief or write it here does. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are again beside the point. Sandbox is a private page for training. You again shift the discussion in the direction of personalities. Incidentally, I have the impression that you are not located in Colorado. The timing of your comments strongly suggests that you are not located where you claim to be... --Plutonius1965 (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right I'm not in Colorado, I'm from Colorado as my page states. I don't actually have it listed where I live, as you've raised the point, I am happy to answer I am currently in Hong Kong. That's an interesting way to introduce a non-sequiter to the concerns made by your edits. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• minor Note: Plutonius1965 - the proper spelling for the user is: "Jehochman" (with an H), and not Jenochman (with an N). You can always copy and paste from a sig. if in doubt. — Ched :  ?  15:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman and Hell in a Bucket, that Plutonius1965 is a single purpose account with the sole agenda of putting the subject of the article in as bad a light as possible, and portraying the Russian charges against him as legitimate. For example, he edited the article to claim that Browder "fled" the country,[149] when reliable sources state that he "was expelled from Russia in 2005 and declared a threat to national security"[150] and "stripped of his Russian visa in 2005 on unspecified national-security grounds."[151] There is a drastic disconnect between how Russian sources describe the situation, and how reliable western sources describe it ("Macabre Show Trial"[152] is typical of the western sources). Because this is a Biography of a Living Person we must use only the highest quality reliable sources. Consensus has been against the Russian language sources that show undying loyalty to Putin and the government's case.

I'm not convinced that we're seeing state backed editing of Wikipedia by Plutonious1965, even though his accusation that Hell in a Bucket is not really in Colorado is rather strange. But clearly the Russian state is the main party interested in swaying public opinion about a trial that is trying two people in absentia— one because he is dead (murdered by prison authorities, according to many western sources vs. dying of natural causes in his cell, according to those Russian sources) and the other because they ordered him out of the country. This article would be greatly helped by a few more editors who understand WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand why he made that leap, English isn't his first language. Nothing wrong with writing in the English Pedia when it's not your first language but it is pretty apparent sometimes. I teach conversational English in HK so I've learned to see some of those clues. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ched for the remark on Jehochman.

I confirm that English is not my first language and I appreciate any comments on grammar and wording. I agree that the word "fled" was not entirely correct in that particular case[153]. However, the second part of the change concerns details of the investigation against Browder with reference to Russian sources. Because there is currently no agreement on the eligibility of the mentioned primary sources, the point was not pushed further for the moment.

Indeed, I have registered relatively recently. However, claiming that my account is a single-purpose one and that I have an association to any party in a conflict is unfortunately a wrong accusation. I confirm some of my modifications were not perfect. However, the most recent modifications that served as a ground for the current case [154], [155] and which Hell in a Bucket reverted [156], [157] are fair, properly sourced and provide additional details. Der Spiegel and Associated Press are respected secondary sources. Furthermore, Hell in a Bucket in his update [158] supported a COPY/PASTE from the New York Times: it is enough to check the original text. Hell in a Bucket, could you please clarify why you continued to insist on including this copyright-protected passage in place of paraphrasing it?

The Colorado remark came after Hell in a Bucket fiddled with my PRIVATE sandbox and felt confident to conclude on my political affiliation, although I have no connection to the Russian government AT ALL. Jehochman, Hell in a Bucket and First Light accuse me of promoting a particular view. However, what is seen is that by fighting for the status quo and not willing to consider constructively all possible reliable sources, they try to actively promote the pro-Browder side of the story which is not entirely correct.

I again kindly call the three mentioned editors to stop their accusations and work on the substance of the case. The involvement of other editors would be indeed very much appreciated.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You're sandbox is not private, any editor can view it as well as any contribution you make on this site. I think this saga is now complete, I've been accused of being pro-russian and now pro-Browder. I asked the question on the talkpage the ramifications made when Jimbo Wales stated that Russian sources were not reliable. I think it raises a disturbing precedent however it is the consensus that because of the lack of freedom of press from the gov. in Russian we could not use those. Everyone, myself included has to bend over for consensus. I have reverted you because the version you are attempting to enforce is not neutral. Would you care to highlight the particular part that you claim was plagiarized? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to make it. The part put in quotation marks should be either paraphrased, kept as it is or the paragraph has to be deleted.--Plutonius1965 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Jozef van Wissem

A large-scale edit warring for the last week, where a subject of the article tries to amend some info about himself and predictably gets repeatedly told that he is not a reliable source about himself. I tried to mediate as documented on the talk page (see also the links there) and failed miserably, since none of the parties was willing to compromize. (Not that mediation was my strong side though). I am not sure what to doi next, just leaving its here. This is essentially a content dispute, but they went into over 10 reverts, which is hardly acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit. I think it has evolved into a WP:MAJORDICK situation. This is a relatively minor figure in the music world that we're talking about, and from what I can see some of the information that people are doggedly determined to keep in the article is dated. I'm trying to work out a compromise now. I understand 100% the frustration of an article's subject who cannot get outdated statements corrected or at least removed because of what seems to me to be unwarranted faith in the reliability of old information; what other choice would he have? Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is my impression as well. The article subject is inexperienced in Wikipedia policies, and I tried to contact him at the talk page, but so far the other side was reverting everything just repeating "Myspace is not RS, we know better, shut up, period". I was even admonished for trying to discuss smth at his talk page, since all discussion should be kept in one place. How could it be kept at one place, when the guy clearly does not understand what is required, and seems to just get lost?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If the information is describing something from the past, then simply change the verb tenses in the article. It's vandalism for the subject of the article to consistently remove entire sourced sections just because the verb tense is wrong. That's not the solution. Qworty (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IP Address rash of vandalism

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.

---

User:209.222.33.202 has had a rash of vandalism since 2009, the IP address received a "last warning" from a bot very recently. I just reverted an edit where a wikilink to Homosexuality out of context was placed. Requesting a block. NickCochrane (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked, in future, report these to WP:AIV. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. Thanks. NickCochrane (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Requesting and IP user be blocked for abuse to Kevin Harvick article

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.

---

Hello, I hope I'm filling this out correct. Long time editor but first time doing this. An IP user, 72.211.185.40, has been edit warring in the last several hours with myself and two other veteran editors over subjective, unsourced additon to the Kevin Harvick article. IP has been warned multiple times and refuses to obey guidelines. I feel a block is now in order. Thanks for your assistance and apologies if I've fouled this up. Have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not the best place for this request, but I saw the report at WP:AIV (although WP:ANEW would have been more appropriate) and blocked the IP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Content dispute over POV edits by SPA

I would greatly appreciate other opinions on the editing by User:Veritas_Fans, an apparent single purpose account focused solely on Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society-related pages and posting edits critical of/embarrassing to the organization while removing well-sourced material critical of/embarrassing to their opponents. Upon reverting some of his edits, User:Veritas_Fans has re-reverted and labeled my reverts vandalism (see: diff). I have attempted to initiate a talk page discussion regarding one convoluted POV edit (diff) only to be told that the language used in multiple reliable references should not be used in the article because it is, in User:Veritas_Fans's opinion, misleading and the media are mistaken (see: Talk:Institute_of_Cetacean_Research). As I have no wish to enter into an ongoing personal dispute, I would very much appreciate other experienced editors'/admins' perspectives and input. Thanks. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 07:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen and Civility

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.

---

Widescreen (talk · contribs) has recently made some abrasive remarks over a dispute in psychoanalysis.

• (diff) Sorry Snowded, he got us! Theres a "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" edited by Dr William F. Williams as article in Wikipedia. Let's pack up and go home. This argumentation is so cleare I can't found any arguments anymore. Thats it! He pulped us.

When I asked for an apology he responded with another insult:

• (diff) It's your decision what you add here at wikipedia. You have to bear the response. Particularly when you are so undiscerning. (my emphasis)

Widescreen has also had a history of personal threats and other uncivil remarks:

• (diff) Sorry, I'm not interested in your faux-indignation. I called your arguments sophistry. Thats not a personal attack. I think such sophistry damage the contents of our articles. Calm down and try to answer my critic, or I will revert you.

• (diff) CartoonDiablo has been clearly violtaing WP:BEHONEST, WP:NOSOPHISTRY; WP:DON'TFABRICATEARGUMENTS; WP:KNOWWHENYOUAREWRONG; WP:NEVERTRYTOFOOLOTHERS and of course WP:NPOV. Diffs are known.

• (diff) You talking such a nonsense. That's not bearable.

• (diff) Sorry, but this dispute can't be resolved, because it isn't a dispute among different authors. It's a dispute among CartoonDiablo and reality.

He has been told by various editors to stop before (diff)(diff)(diff) and has not done so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm a bad user and CD is a commendable one. I have no intention whatsoever to follow this siding. --WSC ^® 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have had dealings with both of these editors at the Psychoanalysis article. I have to say that each of them has a long way to go before they could be called collegial, collaborative and co-operative. However neither has, in my opinion, yet done anything blockworthy and there is no admin action justified or necessary in this case at the moment. I hope it remains that way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• NB: I should point out I'm WP:INVOLVED at this article and won't be taking any admin action. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree things haven't been cooperative but this is beyond the pale, I asked in good faith as have other users to stop and he continues to so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed Widescreen's comment here, am I the only person that thinks that's kind of insulting especially right when its in here? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, these comments above are pretty far on the wrong side of the WP:CIVIL, and it's the WP:NPAborhood they're residing in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Intemperate, and in a domain that we've historically had major problems with primarily due to our reluctance to enforce the civility policy (pseudoscience), but not quite bright-line territory. It would be best if someone had a quiet word (as you've just suggested on your own talk). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim Dent Brown advised me to take this diskussion more seriously. I have to admit that I'm not in the mood to discuss anything with user CartoonDiablo. His last impact in article Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Family Therapy and Psychoanalysis, and some peculiar contributions of him, ends with a request for arbritration. If you want a insight in CartoonDiablos proceed, have a look at it: [159]. I think it's nearly impossible to co-oporate with him in those POV-cases. If you want a insight of his technical way of discussion, please have a look at this. I don't know, but I hope it makes it more comprehensible why I'm not delighted if the user have another issue to citicize any article.

I hope you will not allege me PAs when I say he trys to push POV in favour of his personal hero Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is one of the founder of cognitiv psychology. Futher I hope you will not allege me PA because of the use of irony. Futher I think I follow a scholarly way of discussion which includes to criticize the style and the kind of argumentation.

Futher I have to say that I think, CartoonDiablo has finally good intentions. But his expert knowledge and, abouve all, his way of discussing, is at the border. It makes it impossible to have a exchange of arguments. --WSC ^® 06:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just read through the talk pages at CBT and Psychoanalysis and I agree with CD that your tone, particularly toward him, but also toward others such as Misty Morn, is too often belligerant and belittling. If you know what I'm referring to, could you please cut it right out? It poisons the atmosphere. I'm also unimpressed by CD's behaviour on those pages, but his tendentiousness and warring seems to be being somewhat constrained by community processes, while your disrespectful engagement with others continues unabated.

The examples of your style of discourse cited above by CD, and many others I encountered today, do not represent good scholarly discussion. Insulting your opponent and ridiculing or mocking the quality of their rhetoric is not valid argument. Refuting their argument is all that is needed. Finally, completely avoid irony in internet arguments.. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your concerns. But I won't handle someone with kid gloves, who trys to fool me frequently. If someone on the street trys to fool you, you will get peeved also. Ain't it more abusive if someone trys to fool the other or trys to trick him? You said it's poison to the atmosphere if I finde distinct words on an topic. What about the atmosphere if someone trys to fool others? Or, thats the worst case, if someone trys to push POV in articles by using dreadful arguments? Or goes to the noticeboards to avoid a objectiv discussion?

I understand your concerns but that doesn't mean a atmosphere of constructive debate only means phrases of civility. It contains fairness, honesty, and in our case, fundamentals of scholarly working. If someone brakes this rules you can't cooperate. To allege me my incivility after other fundamental rules being broken by others, is unfair. The problem is, there is only a rule like CIVIL, not for HONEST or FAIR. --WSC ^® 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The best way to deal with somebody who you believe to be misrepresenting things deliberately is to politely express the facts in a manner that leaves them scratching their heads unsure how to counter you, not to spew bile at them. Civility is a two-way street; it doesn't matter if incivility was "provoked" because somebody else is violating policy, we don't make exceptions on a tit-for-tat basis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Widescreen is being uncivil in a discussion about his behavior. This has been a recurring problem with something like 5 editors telling him to stop up until yesterday. I suggest a short 24 hour ban, and I realize things are tense at the psychoanalysis page but to assuage fears of edit warring I'll promise not to do any bold edits for the duration of a ban. An administrator can hold me to that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(Involved editor comment.) You mean a WP:BLOCK, not a WP:BAN, I think CD. But blocks are preventive, not punitive. And WSC isn't actively editing at the moment so there is no activity which a 24-hour block would prevent. A block of the type you describe would be symbolic only, and we don't do that. But I'm glad you've specified an admin action you'd like to see - that is at least what this board is for. Of course it's not up to me, that's just my two pennies' worth. But uninvolved admins can make their own minds up and respond in their turn. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This uninvolved admin agrees with all of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

insults

I don't think I have to hear such insults [160] for moving the article Vercelli back to its correct name, after User:Gixz had moved it unilaterally to some obscure local dialect name. noclador (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone else beat me to warn them, but I added a stronger version below them. At this stage, I suggest waiting to see if they get the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would ask this, please go politely and explain a little bit about the naming conventions here, including a single link to the policy on it, so they will understand that you have a policy based reason. Maybe, just maybe, that will help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and I added the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template to their talk page. You need to remember to notify anyone when you bring them up here at ANI. The template and notice is at the top of this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis for your help and advice; and I am sorry I forgot to notify the user in question about this ANI post. I will remember this in the future. And I actually do not want to carry this discussion any further, therefore I hope the user will refrain from such language in the future. Furthermore I will also leave a link at the Vercelli talk page to the naming convention. Thank you and with best regards, noclador (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Noclador forgot to mention it, but he insulted me first. I don't see why I have to hear his such insults [161] for moving the article Varsei to its correct name in the first place. Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Gixz I agree that calling someone's good-faith efforts "total BS" is an insult. I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on that. Your response to this (giving an insult of your own) was the wrong one, certainly, but hopefully at this point the matter can be settled civilly without insults from either of you. -- Atama頭 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way Noclador, when you say "some obscure local dialect name", er ... it might be obscure for you, but it's not to the inhabitants of the city whose language it is. And did I really have to come to Wikipedia, of all places, to hear the native language of a city of 47000 people derided as "obscure"? Just who do you think you are? (Anyway it's *the* local dialect name, there's only one of them.) Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an insult in his edit summary. I do see you getting unnecessarily defensive. Maybe "obscure" wasn't the best choice of words, but keep in mind that English words have different meanings to different people, via WP:BIAS, so it is best to listen to what the merits of his argument are, try to give a little benefit of the doubt (ie: assume good faith) and calmly discuss the matter with him. It isn't always easy, but getting bent out of shape rarely brings you anything but pain at Wikipedia. You might also note that if you think someone is rude to you, that does not mean you can be rude back. Even if "obscure" offended you, that doesn't justify telling someone they are full of bullshit. That only turns the issue into a battlefield. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) We're not as concerned about what the inhabitants of a city call it -- or else our articles would be at "Moskva" and "Wien" instead of "Moscow" and "Vienna" -- as we are about whether the city has a common name in English. If "Vercelli" is the commonly used name of the city for English-language speakers, then that is what we use for our article. If there is no common English name, then I suppose the question would be up for grabs, but if the majority of Italian speakers call it "Vercelli" and only those of a specific local dialect use another name (even if it's the dialect spoken in the city itself), then we should probably go with the more widely used name. In case, these are questions for the article's talk page, not for AN/I, since admins have no special powers regarding content questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, BMK and DB are right - there are plenty of examples of Italian locations that have commonly accepted Italian or English names and additional local-dialect names too. I spend plenty of time working on 17th century Italian stuff and come across these all the time. Older sources often use local names as a hat-tip to locals and it's a pain trying to work out what they're talking about. But most contemporary sources consistently use common names. German language places have the same issues, especially those that changed hands several times a century. But most of that is beside the point - the naming conventions are fairly clear and Vercelli is obviously more commonly used than Versei. If I find a place that is commonly called one thing but referred to by locals/others are something else, I create a redirect. Redirects are cheap. That way you can type v.e.r.s.e.i. into the search bar to your heart's content and still end up at the same place. Stalwart111 05:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking, it seems that all the potential local dialect names are already redirects, so unless there's some compelling reason otherwise, I think that this report can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor nitpick but I think the allegation is the local dialect name is Varsei [162] although Gixz seems to be having problems with that themselves [163]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Beyond My Ken, but I do not have exact numbers as to who calls the city what, but if Vercelli seems to be what most people call it, then leave it as that. I mean, if somebody started calling San Juan St. John, then I would have an issue as well, and not just because it's not called that but because Im a fervent believer in Puerto Rican Independence. Besides that, I hope both of you take this experience and learn from it how not to talk on wikipedia. Antonio Scotland's Yard Martin (The lunatic's talk page) 06:20, 22 March, 2013 (UTC)

• I thought someone had protected the article but it seems not - the edit-warring continues. Would someone like to dispense appropriate warnings? The back-and-forth seems completely unproductive. An RFC might be in order here, to find consensus on the content itself. Stalwart111 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis, maybe I'm just looking at it wrong or something, but it looks like the edit by Gixz was made in response to this one by Noclador. I don't think "obscure" is what offended him; if someone said a move I made "is major BS" I'd be a little miffed about it too. Am I just reading it wrong or something? - SudoGhost 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've WP:BOLDly reverted to the WP:WRONGVERSION and full-protected the page for three days so this can be hashed out at the article talk page over a nice pot of vermicelli. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• And on that basis, I've summarised what I interpreted to be the main points of contention in an informal RFC in the hopes that editors can resolve each issue in turn within The Bushranger's 3-day timeframe. Stalwart111 08:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

De jure ban for Paul Bedson

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.

---

A while ago, I indefinitely blocked Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson, where I found that the RfC unanimously concluded that "Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so. The RfC also concludes that Paul Bedson is not capable or willing to collaborate constructively and collegially with others."

After a declined unblock request, another administrator removed Paul Bedson's talk page access because of continued disruption. In response, Paul Bedson engaged in a campaign of sockpuppetry, as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive, and several checkuser-detected socks were blocked accordingly. He has stated his intent to continue socking.

This kind of situation normally amounts to a de facto site ban. I suggest that we formalize it as a community-imposed site ban in order to facilitate reverting any edits made by socks. I've not notified Paul Bedson of this proposal because he is blocked without talk page access.  Sandstein  09:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - his uncivil, uncooperative and unrepentant attitude combined with his declaration to continue socking forever are something we do not need here, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - No point allowing this user to return, they're blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support When he was first blocked for socking in January 2012 he denied it and was unblocked in March after providing evidence that he wasn't a sock.[164]. What he didn't say is that on Feb 7th he created a sockpuppet Nasorean (talk · contribs). When he was finally blocked indefinitely (for misuse of sources among other things) he promised to return and continue editing, a promise he kept both with Nasorean and other socks. This week he posted to his talk page with an IP, saying "a number of disruptive, hate-mongering, christian-biasd, anti-Lebanese editors maintaining an antiquated, classical viewpoints conducted a WP:Witchunt and were able to vote me off Wikipedia for my progressive views. Also for writing history from genealogies instead of fairy-tales. The same thing has happened to Nicolaus Copernicus, Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei and others. It is a shame the system around here is so corrupt, but has not stopped me editing in the slightest - I just use a wide range of IP addresses and various aliases to get around the ban. It has made collaborations with previous friendly editors harder however, but if you need anything, just e-mail me..." We definitely do not need editors like Paul Bedson. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Disruptive sockpuppeteering. A ban will hopefully reduce the amount of work for users in the future who want to revert his edits (less checking up, they can just see that he's banned). James086^Talk 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - though I thought bans were supposed to be discussed at AN, not ANI? Regardless, his threats to sockpuupet (which he has followed through with) show he is not here to edit constructively. This ban should be considered a mere formality i.e. to make it easier for us to deal with him in future. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, wrong forum, I meant to post it at AN. Feel free to move.  Sandstein  14:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever I get depressed about the amount of time wasted on trouble cases on the drama boards I'm going to remember this one: an utterly unrepentant fringe warrior who still took months and months of patient work to deal with despite having no cheerleaders, off-site interference or other complications at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support and invite the next admin who sees this to close as an avalanche. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Interaction with Bedson has been one time- and soul-sucking drain on the project. The mission here that he's obviously on has to be stopped. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on him here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Deleted User Illia Connell - category G3 Blatant vandalism on my user page

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.

---

Hello,

User Illia Connell vandalized my user page (Deleted all content)

DIFF Deletion by Illia Connell

DIFF user page restored

I placed a warning on User Illia Connell' talk page, however how can a deleted user edit in the first place? This is very unusual.

On Illia Connell User Page, there is no diff or history feature, and it has these instructions If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

• 04:21, 24 August 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Illia Connell (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace (CSDH))

I contacted the Administrator who deleted this user, Malik Shabazz and left a note on his/her talk page, and categorized it per the instructions on said user page also.Patriot1010 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DIFF:Assistance request from Administrator Malik_Shabazz, the account that deleted this account.

If possible I would like some assistance in how to protect my user page, particularly from deleted users. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion. The userpage has been deleted not the user. None of the wikis have the option of deleting a user account. However, when you sign up for an account a userpage and a user talkpage are created for you. The material in the userpage can be deleted rendering it empty. If you were to post something into the userpage and submit it, it would recreate the page with that material. Blackmane (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blackmane! This is quite unusual! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user hasn't been "deleted", only their userpage has, they are still a valid member of the community. Also, userpages shouldn't be in that category, note the categories in there but no pages other than your userpage: Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. The category you really want is Category:WikiProject Conservatism members. This wasn't vandalism. Try assuming good faith next time. James086^Talk 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh I think I see whats going on now, thanks!Patriot1010 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It look to me like that user is perhaps new with WP:HOTCAT. To answer the "how", we don't delete "editors", although there are times, often on request, that a user "page" may be deleted. I've semi-protected your user page per your request, and am willing to full protect it if you wish - just be aware that if it is fully protected, then you won't be able to edit it either. Illia doesn't appear to have a block, or even a block log .. but I'll mention to her to be careful with category stuff. — Ched :  ?  15:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, what? Semiprotection wouldn't have helped here (Illia Connell's been editing for nearly a year), and the edit in question was plainly a mistake technically correct, per James086. That's not grounds for protection even on request. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering that also - thanks all for your help! We could probably close this onePatriot1010 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you think is best Thumperward. The guy asked for protection; if he feels better with protection, fine with me. — Ched :  ?  16:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Widescreen and Civility

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.

---

Widescreen (talk · contribs) has recently made some abrasive remarks over a dispute in psychoanalysis.

• (diff) Sorry Snowded, he got us! Theres a "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" edited by Dr William F. Williams as article in Wikipedia. Let's pack up and go home. This argumentation is so cleare I can't found any arguments anymore. Thats it! He pulped us.

When I asked for an apology he responded with another insult:

• (diff) It's your decision what you add here at wikipedia. You have to bear the response. Particularly when you are so undiscerning. (my emphasis)

Widescreen has also had a history of personal threats and other uncivil remarks:

• (diff) Sorry, I'm not interested in your faux-indignation. I called your arguments sophistry. Thats not a personal attack. I think such sophistry damage the contents of our articles. Calm down and try to answer my critic, or I will revert you.

• (diff) CartoonDiablo has been clearly violtaing WP:BEHONEST, WP:NOSOPHISTRY; WP:DON'TFABRICATEARGUMENTS; WP:KNOWWHENYOUAREWRONG; WP:NEVERTRYTOFOOLOTHERS and of course WP:NPOV. Diffs are known.

• (diff) You talking such a nonsense. That's not bearable.

• (diff) Sorry, but this dispute can't be resolved, because it isn't a dispute among different authors. It's a dispute among CartoonDiablo and reality.

He has been told by various editors to stop before (diff)(diff)(diff) and has not done so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm a bad user and CD is a commendable one. I have no intention whatsoever to follow this siding. --WSC ^® 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have had dealings with both of these editors at the Psychoanalysis article. I have to say that each of them has a long way to go before they could be called collegial, collaborative and co-operative. However neither has, in my opinion, yet done anything blockworthy and there is no admin action justified or necessary in this case at the moment. I hope it remains that way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• NB: I should point out I'm WP:INVOLVED at this article and won't be taking any admin action. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree things haven't been cooperative but this is beyond the pale, I asked in good faith as have other users to stop and he continues to so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed Widescreen's comment here, am I the only person that thinks that's kind of insulting especially right when its in here? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, these comments above are pretty far on the wrong side of the WP:CIVIL, and it's the WP:NPAborhood they're residing in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Intemperate, and in a domain that we've historically had major problems with primarily due to our reluctance to enforce the civility policy (pseudoscience), but not quite bright-line territory. It would be best if someone had a quiet word (as you've just suggested on your own talk). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim Dent Brown advised me to take this diskussion more seriously. I have to admit that I'm not in the mood to discuss anything with user CartoonDiablo. His last impact in article Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Family Therapy and Psychoanalysis, and some peculiar contributions of him, ends with a request for arbritration. If you want a insight in CartoonDiablos proceed, have a look at it: [165]. I think it's nearly impossible to co-oporate with him in those POV-cases. If you want a insight of his technical way of discussion, please have a look at this. I don't know, but I hope it makes it more comprehensible why I'm not delighted if the user have another issue to citicize any article.

I hope you will not allege me PAs when I say he trys to push POV in favour of his personal hero Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is one of the founder of cognitiv psychology. Futher I hope you will not allege me PA because of the use of irony. Futher I think I follow a scholarly way of discussion which includes to criticize the style and the kind of argumentation.

Futher I have to say that I think, CartoonDiablo has finally good intentions. But his expert knowledge and, abouve all, his way of discussing, is at the border. It makes it impossible to have a exchange of arguments. --WSC ^® 06:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just read through the talk pages at CBT and Psychoanalysis and I agree with CD that your tone, particularly toward him, but also toward others such as Misty Morn, is too often belligerant and belittling. If you know what I'm referring to, could you please cut it right out? It poisons the atmosphere. I'm also unimpressed by CD's behaviour on those pages, but his tendentiousness and warring seems to be being somewhat constrained by community processes, while your disrespectful engagement with others continues unabated.

The examples of your style of discourse cited above by CD, and many others I encountered today, do not represent good scholarly discussion. Insulting your opponent and ridiculing or mocking the quality of their rhetoric is not valid argument. Refuting their argument is all that is needed. Finally, completely avoid irony in internet arguments.. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your concerns. But I won't handle someone with kid gloves, who trys to fool me frequently. If someone on the street trys to fool you, you will get peeved also. Ain't it more abusive if someone trys to fool the other or trys to trick him? You said it's poison to the atmosphere if I finde distinct words on an topic. What about the atmosphere if someone trys to fool others? Or, thats the worst case, if someone trys to push POV in articles by using dreadful arguments? Or goes to the noticeboards to avoid a objectiv discussion?

I understand your concerns but that doesn't mean a atmosphere of constructive debate only means phrases of civility. It contains fairness, honesty, and in our case, fundamentals of scholarly working. If someone brakes this rules you can't cooperate. To allege me my incivility after other fundamental rules being broken by others, is unfair. The problem is, there is only a rule like CIVIL, not for HONEST or FAIR. --WSC ^® 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The best way to deal with somebody who you believe to be misrepresenting things deliberately is to politely express the facts in a manner that leaves them scratching their heads unsure how to counter you, not to spew bile at them. Civility is a two-way street; it doesn't matter if incivility was "provoked" because somebody else is violating policy, we don't make exceptions on a tit-for-tat basis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Widescreen is being uncivil in a discussion about his behavior. This has been a recurring problem with something like 5 editors telling him to stop up until yesterday. I suggest a short 24 hour ban, and I realize things are tense at the psychoanalysis page but to assuage fears of edit warring I'll promise not to do any bold edits for the duration of a ban. An administrator can hold me to that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(Involved editor comment.) You mean a WP:BLOCK, not a WP:BAN, I think CD. But blocks are preventive, not punitive. And WSC isn't actively editing at the moment so there is no activity which a 24-hour block would prevent. A block of the type you describe would be symbolic only, and we don't do that. But I'm glad you've specified an admin action you'd like to see - that is at least what this board is for. Of course it's not up to me, that's just my two pennies' worth. But uninvolved admins can make their own minds up and respond in their turn. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This uninvolved admin agrees with all of that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

insults

I don't think I have to hear such insults [166] for moving the article Vercelli back to its correct name, after User:Gixz had moved it unilaterally to some obscure local dialect name. noclador (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Someone else beat me to warn them, but I added a stronger version below them. At this stage, I suggest waiting to see if they get the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would ask this, please go politely and explain a little bit about the naming conventions here, including a single link to the policy on it, so they will understand that you have a policy based reason. Maybe, just maybe, that will help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and I added the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template to their talk page. You need to remember to notify anyone when you bring them up here at ANI. The template and notice is at the top of this page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis for your help and advice; and I am sorry I forgot to notify the user in question about this ANI post. I will remember this in the future. And I actually do not want to carry this discussion any further, therefore I hope the user will refrain from such language in the future. Furthermore I will also leave a link at the Vercelli talk page to the naming convention. Thank you and with best regards, noclador (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Noclador forgot to mention it, but he insulted me first. I don't see why I have to hear his such insults [167] for moving the article Varsei to its correct name in the first place. Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Gixz I agree that calling someone's good-faith efforts "total BS" is an insult. I'm surprised that nobody else has picked up on that. Your response to this (giving an insult of your own) was the wrong one, certainly, but hopefully at this point the matter can be settled civilly without insults from either of you. -- Atama頭 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way Noclador, when you say "some obscure local dialect name", er ... it might be obscure for you, but it's not to the inhabitants of the city whose language it is. And did I really have to come to Wikipedia, of all places, to hear the native language of a city of 47000 people derided as "obscure"? Just who do you think you are? (Anyway it's *the* local dialect name, there's only one of them.) Gixz (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an insult in his edit summary. I do see you getting unnecessarily defensive. Maybe "obscure" wasn't the best choice of words, but keep in mind that English words have different meanings to different people, via WP:BIAS, so it is best to listen to what the merits of his argument are, try to give a little benefit of the doubt (ie: assume good faith) and calmly discuss the matter with him. It isn't always easy, but getting bent out of shape rarely brings you anything but pain at Wikipedia. You might also note that if you think someone is rude to you, that does not mean you can be rude back. Even if "obscure" offended you, that doesn't justify telling someone they are full of bullshit. That only turns the issue into a battlefield. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) We're not as concerned about what the inhabitants of a city call it -- or else our articles would be at "Moskva" and "Wien" instead of "Moscow" and "Vienna" -- as we are about whether the city has a common name in English. If "Vercelli" is the commonly used name of the city for English-language speakers, then that is what we use for our article. If there is no common English name, then I suppose the question would be up for grabs, but if the majority of Italian speakers call it "Vercelli" and only those of a specific local dialect use another name (even if it's the dialect spoken in the city itself), then we should probably go with the more widely used name. In case, these are questions for the article's talk page, not for AN/I, since admins have no special powers regarding content questions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, BMK and DB are right - there are plenty of examples of Italian locations that have commonly accepted Italian or English names and additional local-dialect names too. I spend plenty of time working on 17th century Italian stuff and come across these all the time. Older sources often use local names as a hat-tip to locals and it's a pain trying to work out what they're talking about. But most contemporary sources consistently use common names. German language places have the same issues, especially those that changed hands several times a century. But most of that is beside the point - the naming conventions are fairly clear and Vercelli is obviously more commonly used than Versei. If I find a place that is commonly called one thing but referred to by locals/others are something else, I create a redirect. Redirects are cheap. That way you can type v.e.r.s.e.i. into the search bar to your heart's content and still end up at the same place. Stalwart111 05:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking, it seems that all the potential local dialect names are already redirects, so unless there's some compelling reason otherwise, I think that this report can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor nitpick but I think the allegation is the local dialect name is Varsei [168] although Gixz seems to be having problems with that themselves [169]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Beyond My Ken, but I do not have exact numbers as to who calls the city what, but if Vercelli seems to be what most people call it, then leave it as that. I mean, if somebody started calling San Juan St. John, then I would have an issue as well, and not just because it's not called that but because Im a fervent believer in Puerto Rican Independence. Besides that, I hope both of you take this experience and learn from it how not to talk on wikipedia. Antonio Scotland's Yard Martin (The lunatic's talk page) 06:20, 22 March, 2013 (UTC)

• I thought someone had protected the article but it seems not - the edit-warring continues. Would someone like to dispense appropriate warnings? The back-and-forth seems completely unproductive. An RFC might be in order here, to find consensus on the content itself. Stalwart111 00:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dennis, maybe I'm just looking at it wrong or something, but it looks like the edit by Gixz was made in response to this one by Noclador. I don't think "obscure" is what offended him; if someone said a move I made "is major BS" I'd be a little miffed about it too. Am I just reading it wrong or something? - SudoGhost 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've WP:BOLDly reverted to the WP:WRONGVERSION and full-protected the page for three days so this can be hashed out at the article talk page over a nice pot of vermicelli. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• And on that basis, I've summarised what I interpreted to be the main points of contention in an informal RFC in the hopes that editors can resolve each issue in turn within The Bushranger's 3-day timeframe. Stalwart111 08:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

De jure ban for Paul Bedson

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.

---

A while ago, I indefinitely blocked Paul Bedson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson, where I found that the RfC unanimously concluded that "Paul Bedson has over a long period of time, among other things, added original research, fringe theories, unverifiable or materially false content to articles, and actively continues to do so. The RfC also concludes that Paul Bedson is not capable or willing to collaborate constructively and collegially with others."

After a declined unblock request, another administrator removed Paul Bedson's talk page access because of continued disruption. In response, Paul Bedson engaged in a campaign of sockpuppetry, as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson/Archive, and several checkuser-detected socks were blocked accordingly. He has stated his intent to continue socking.

This kind of situation normally amounts to a de facto site ban. I suggest that we formalize it as a community-imposed site ban in order to facilitate reverting any edits made by socks. I've not notified Paul Bedson of this proposal because he is blocked without talk page access.  Sandstein  09:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - his uncivil, uncooperative and unrepentant attitude combined with his declaration to continue socking forever are something we do not need here, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - No point allowing this user to return, they're blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support When he was first blocked for socking in January 2012 he denied it and was unblocked in March after providing evidence that he wasn't a sock.[170]. What he didn't say is that on Feb 7th he created a sockpuppet Nasorean (talk · contribs). When he was finally blocked indefinitely (for misuse of sources among other things) he promised to return and continue editing, a promise he kept both with Nasorean and other socks. This week he posted to his talk page with an IP, saying "a number of disruptive, hate-mongering, christian-biasd, anti-Lebanese editors maintaining an antiquated, classical viewpoints conducted a WP:Witchunt and were able to vote me off Wikipedia for my progressive views. Also for writing history from genealogies instead of fairy-tales. The same thing has happened to Nicolaus Copernicus, Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei and others. It is a shame the system around here is so corrupt, but has not stopped me editing in the slightest - I just use a wide range of IP addresses and various aliases to get around the ban. It has made collaborations with previous friendly editors harder however, but if you need anything, just e-mail me..." We definitely do not need editors like Paul Bedson. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Disruptive sockpuppeteering. A ban will hopefully reduce the amount of work for users in the future who want to revert his edits (less checking up, they can just see that he's banned). James086^Talk 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - though I thought bans were supposed to be discussed at AN, not ANI? Regardless, his threats to sockpuupet (which he has followed through with) show he is not here to edit constructively. This ban should be considered a mere formality i.e. to make it easier for us to deal with him in future. GiantSnowman 12:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, wrong forum, I meant to post it at AN. Feel free to move.  Sandstein  14:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever I get depressed about the amount of time wasted on trouble cases on the drama boards I'm going to remember this one: an utterly unrepentant fringe warrior who still took months and months of patient work to deal with despite having no cheerleaders, off-site interference or other complications at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support and invite the next admin who sees this to close as an avalanche. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Interaction with Bedson has been one time- and soul-sucking drain on the project. The mission here that he's obviously on has to be stopped. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on him here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Deleted User Illia Connell - category G3 Blatant vandalism on my user page

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.

---

Hello,

User Illia Connell vandalized my user page (Deleted all content)

DIFF Deletion by Illia Connell

DIFF user page restored

I placed a warning on User Illia Connell' talk page, however how can a deleted user edit in the first place? This is very unusual.

On Illia Connell User Page, there is no diff or history feature, and it has these instructions If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

• 04:21, 24 August 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Illia Connell (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace (CSDH))

I contacted the Administrator who deleted this user, Malik Shabazz and left a note on his/her talk page, and categorized it per the instructions on said user page also.Patriot1010 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DIFF:Assistance request from Administrator Malik_Shabazz, the account that deleted this account.

If possible I would like some assistance in how to protect my user page, particularly from deleted users. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion. The userpage has been deleted not the user. None of the wikis have the option of deleting a user account. However, when you sign up for an account a userpage and a user talkpage are created for you. The material in the userpage can be deleted rendering it empty. If you were to post something into the userpage and submit it, it would recreate the page with that material. Blackmane (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blackmane! This is quite unusual! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The user hasn't been "deleted", only their userpage has, they are still a valid member of the community. Also, userpages shouldn't be in that category, note the categories in there but no pages other than your userpage: Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. The category you really want is Category:WikiProject Conservatism members. This wasn't vandalism. Try assuming good faith next time. James086^Talk 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh I think I see whats going on now, thanks!Patriot1010 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It look to me like that user is perhaps new with WP:HOTCAT. To answer the "how", we don't delete "editors", although there are times, often on request, that a user "page" may be deleted. I've semi-protected your user page per your request, and am willing to full protect it if you wish - just be aware that if it is fully protected, then you won't be able to edit it either. Illia doesn't appear to have a block, or even a block log .. but I'll mention to her to be careful with category stuff. — Ched :  ?  15:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, what? Semiprotection wouldn't have helped here (Illia Connell's been editing for nearly a year), and the edit in question was plainly a mistake technically correct, per James086. That's not grounds for protection even on request. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering that also - thanks all for your help! We could probably close this onePatriot1010 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever you think is best Thumperward. The guy asked for protection; if he feels better with protection, fine with me. — Ched :  ?  16:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Help with sockpuppet investigation

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.

---

There has been an ongoing sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hydao over the last few days, with a few additional names being added each day. I found another such account and already blocked it (the account was not only an effectively admitted sockpuppet, but also misused another person's real name and was being used to harass the same user that Hydao has been known to harass), but I wasn't sure how to add it to the investigation (see this edit) since I'm not actually asking for a checkuser. Please let me know the correct way this should be handled. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Seeing as you have already blocked the account as an obvious sock, there's no need to add it to the SPI. I'd imagine just adding a sock tag to the account and closing it up would have done the trick. Blackmane (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Vandalism from IPs

Hello,

I am a user and sysop on the french language wikipedia and I have discovered that someone is adding the name "Ellen Idinson" in many articles on many wikis (at least here and on the fr.wiki). As I am not a regular english language user, I would just like to report this action so someone else can take part in the surveillance on this side of the language fence. You can see here and here diffs that I reverted and here an example of a filter that was set up to flag future additions of the name on fr.wiki. You can also see examples of additions that were made on the french wiki in that request. I also have to point out that most of the edits are around Brazilian and sports subjects. Thanks for your help and attention and feel free to contact me for more information and to direct me to the right place if this isn't. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (Addendum) Also found this IP (197.247.108.216) that has tried in the past. Letartean (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The name appeared in Stock Car Brasil, inserted two days ago by the only edit (so far) of an IP address 41.214.236.27 [171]. It was reverted today as vandalism by another editor. Not sure if the reverting editor saw this notice or acted on their own. Either way, the troublesome edit was made two days ago, and is the first and only edit by the IP. So maybe wait and see if they do it again? Ditch ∝ 19:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted it, when I found it was vandalism, few days ago. Since the person has tried again in the past days to add the name on the french wikipedia and seems to be insistant(see activity on the newly created filter), I tought it would be wise to report it here to make sure surveillance and knowledge of the problem existed because it might happen again. I also thought it was important to report it because, unless someone is aware of the problem, it can easily go through RC's since it is only a change of name. Maybe a filter on this side of the language fence would be the best? I really don't know how to do it around here so I'm discussing it here so someone can take action. Hope this makes it clearer. Have a nice day. Letartean (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Doh! I should obviously pay more attention. Head slap! Ditch ∝ 19:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT by User:LePatro

Hello,

I would like to report a new user with non-constructive/disruptive behavior (mass adding (WP:SPA) of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE) on articles related to Hejaz, replacing "Hejaz" by "Tihamah" on more than 100 articles (!). Even if many users asked him to stop that, as it can be seen on his talk page, he refuses and persists on these edits (referencing them by a book written in 1228).

Since this user doesn't seem to be ready to accept what other users ask him (i.e:consensus) nor to respect Wikipedia policies, I ask the admins to do the necessary to prevent him from continuing in that way.

Thanks in advance
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not understand the reason behind this request. I was (removing wrong information, adding sourced information, and moving some parts of some articles to other articles that are related to the information). Omar-toons however was undoing all of my edits clearly without even reading some of them even though some of them were about other topics. The resources I have put are verifiable and genuine about this geographic matter and all of them cited and differentiated between the two neighboring regions of Hejaz and Tihamah. There is a huge misunderstanding in wikipedia that Mecca is part of Hejaz and that originated from Kingdom of Hejaz that became an independent state in 1916. Before that, all the sources regarded Mecca as being in the region of Tihamah whereas Medina is regarded to be in the region of Hejaz. Wikipedia is about sourced and true information and not misled information that originated from the name of this very modern state relative to the age of those cities. All Islamic and Arabic sources before that differentiated between the two regions. I am correcting this mistake in wikipedia citing these resources that are from multiple scholars in different centuries.

Omar-toons however does not like the sources so he deleted the information I added with the sources in a move that I think against wikipidea rules. I have been in discussion with other users and I have clarified the matter ti them and submitted the sources and all of them accepted that and accepted the sourced information. However, this user unfortunately insists on undoing my edits. I ask you please to review my edits closely. I have not removed sourced information from any articles, and I was not replacing Tihamah with Hejaz everywhere. I replaced it when appropriate and you can see that I left the mention of Hejaz in most of the articles I edited. Please see the article of Tihamah that I improved. In the article of Hejaz, there were some parts that talked about Tihamah and some of its cities so I moved those sections to the article of Tihamah and I left the parts talking about Hejaz in the article of Hejaz. Thank you for your cooperation.--LePatro (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• The edits that you were edit-warring in were totally unnecessary. I'm pretty sure we've all been through the sources as part of the numerous debates about these articles, and if the information was wrong, we'd have found it then. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately in aggressive editing, Omar-toons is continuing to delete the sources I put in the articles. He is continuing to delete the mention of the region of Tihamah from all articles. He wants to remove it from everywhere in Wikipedia just because he does not know about the region. All gepgraphic Arabic books cites the difference between the two regions of Tihamah and Hejaz. Even today, people still know the difference in Arabia. Mecca is geographically in Tihamah while Medina is in Hejaz. When someone talks about Mecca, the region associated with it in articles should be Tihamah not Hejaz. In fact, Tihamah is one of the names of Mecca. I find it very annoying to see the resources of the information I provide to wikipedia get deleted in the blink of an eye just because a user does not like what they say. --LePatro (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Help! Any admin to consider this request? Cuz' the user persists on editing that way--Omar-toons (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the other users discussed the issue but they did not delete the sources. Omar-toons is insisting on deleting the sources (and deleting the mention of Tihamah from all the articles). I have listed multiple sources from several centuries BUT he is trying to imply that it is one source only. He does not have sources that contradicts this geographic view with the same old background so he is trying to say that old is bad. He is just deleting the sources because they contradict his understanding about the issue. He even undid some of my edits that have nothing to do with this issue (He is really engaging in a very aggressive and annoying manner unfortunately). I also do not see his point about the sources being from multiple centuries ago, does not that prove the idea especially that there are no contradicting geographic sources ? To summarize the discussion to the admins: All he is saying is that he knows Hejaz and does not know Tihamah. He says that Hejaz is more known than Tihamah so let's keep saying that all the cities of Hejaz and Tihamah are in the Hejaz only and delete the mention of Tihamah. What I am saying is that geographically from centuries ago up until now, Arabia is divied from the east to west into: Najd, Hejaz, and Tihamah. Cities like Medina and Taif are in Hejaz wheras cities like Mecca and Jeddah are in the region of Tihamah. I have proved that with multiple books that talks about the georgaphy and history of Arabia from different centuries. The user then responded by deleting the sources, undoing every edit I made, starting edit war, and now implying that all I put was one source even though that is NOT true. I ask you please to review his edits deleting my sources even though I put pictures of some of the sources on his talk page so that he can read it. Thank you. --LePatro (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone please do something about this guy. He's running around the whole 'pedia pretty much changing almost every reference to Hejaz to Tihama despite being asked to stop by several users. It's going to be a real pain to sort the mess he's creating out. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply NOT true. I was not replacing all Hejaz mentions with Tihamah. I was replacing it whenever there was a mention about a city in Tihamah that is referred to be in Hejaz. I was also adding the region of Tihamah to some articles when there was only the mention Hejaz representing the whole western side of the Arabian peninsula. I added multiple sources from different time periods. Very recent western books are not familiar with the geography of the region as much as the Arabic scholars who talked about it and differentiated between Hejaz and Tihamah regions. Insisting on removing Tihamah from wikipedia because people know hejaz more is going to continue this geographic mistake. And I will provide some modern sources from geographic scholars in some of the Saudi universities that differentiated between the two regions and referred to Mecca as being within the Tihamah region geographically. --LePatro (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of Omar-toons deleting sourced statements because he does not like what the souces say. One of the sources he delete is a very notable work of Ibn Hisham !! --LePatro (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So what's happening with this? Is any sort of mediation taking place? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I provided multiple modern resources as Omar-toons requested in the article of Tihamah but he responded by deleting them all. I tried to be nice and avoid war editing with him and I did not undo most of his edits that lacked sources and removed the mention of Tihamah. I see no more motivation to edit in wikipedia when all of my edits and sources get deleted every time by another contributor who dislikes what the sources suggest. --LePatro (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As explained many many many times (to you) before, and as many other users tried to tell you, your edits are WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE since they are based on a geography book written in the 13th century (which isn't WP:RS) contradicted by all recent publications. Consensus is against you and you persist on your edits, that is WP:DISRUPT. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete/block

MfD/speedy

• File:Harbord.JPG
• User:Ian Harbord

Block

• User:Ian Harbord
• User:Dave malevolus

These are almost certainly related to a hoax TV show (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose To Fame) and abusive socks of User:Barbara Osgood if we are to believe Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Barbara Osgood. Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

I'll speedy but we don't block editors whose been so inactive like those two accounts who edited in 2006. Secret ^account 01:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me rephrase, they are socks of indef blocked User:Barbara Osgood, and hence potentially sleeper socks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

It's not necessary to block such old accounts - if they weren't blocked 7 years ago when the checkuser was done, why would be want to do it now? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you heard of "sleeper" socks. That we notice them now, might not mean we would notice them when activated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

More Echigo mole socks, now disrupting SPI report

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
• Aquisextian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fruit pastille (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Intestinal villus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Actiniform (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 46.65.53.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.183.125.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There have been a number of new socks of which Aquisextian is the latest obvious troll sock, taking the user name from the Latin name for Aix-en-Provence and in their second and third edits trolling in the SPI report about mathematics beyond their competence (a recent article Borel-de Siebenthal theory that I created on Lie groups and symmetric spaces ). All their edits are typical of the community banned user Echigo mole. Please could someone block these sockpuppets and semiprotect the SPI page to stop non-autoconfirmed accounts trolling there. The other accounts are described in on the SPI page listed above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked the first two accounts as obvious socks as I was making this report. Since Intestinal villus has edited the same articles as Fruit pastille (including the mathematics articles), please could that account be blocked too and the SPI page semiprotected? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected the SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Trolling collapsed. Mathsci (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know post-close comments are now out of fashion, but as someone who has regretted their rather boring username from the start, some of those sock names are just boss. I'm very tempted to ask how I can change mine to "Hydraulic hat" or "Keynesian beauty contest". Chortle - "Keynesian beauty contest" - I LOL'd.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC) WP:CHU if you really want to. Blackmane (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC) how about User:Keynes to the Kingdom? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC) User:The Emperor's new Keynes? Blackmane (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New socking by Echigo mole

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
• Reak spoughly (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Now with a spoonerized name, creepily editing articles linked by me to Hermitian symmetric space (an article I am expanding, rewriting and rstructuring), including Orthogonal symmetric Lie algebra and Triple system. Previously trolled at Talk:amenable group with naive statements about the discrete topology. Nobody had edited Triple system for years (except me). No normal mathematical editor would edit in this way, only the community banned Echigo mole, out to be creepy. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Block evasion

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.

---

Can somebody please block this asshole, who is obviously this asshole evading a block? Many thanks. </rage> -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

While I agree on the need to block, can I remind you of WP:CIVIL? If you want to block JoMontSW as a sock of JoMontNW, why don't use write that instead of writing "this asshole" twice in a post with only two sentences?Jeppiz (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I believed my closing "rage tag" indicated at least some level of sarcasm in my choice of words. That being said, I think being civil to editors who desire nothing more than to harm this fine project is an utter waste of time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate that editors cross the line, and it is tempting to conclude we don't owe them civility. However, using such language just provides them with evidence that the cabal is out to get them, or some such nonsense. Better not to provide them with a fig leaf.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Ad Hominem Attacks by Beyond My Ken

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.

---

I saw this on Beyond My Ken talk page, about an editing conflict with which I am not involved:

"What's Your Problem" You seem to be having a hard time. Take a deep breath Enthusiast (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the hell did you revert all my recent edis? You must be cracking up.Enthusiast (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god, you're right, the world is swirling around me -- Where Am I? Who Am I? OH MY GOD, I'M CRACKING UP!!! "Kiss"? What is "Kiss"?.

No actually, your edits were shit, kemosabe, utterly shit, and you will soon be blocked from editing (that's my prediction). Don't restore your edits, they'll just be deleted again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What's that? "Get a life" you said in your last revert of my edit. Why.... why... My god, I had never thought of that. "Get a life" indeed, what a simply fantastic idea that is -- I shall pursue that goal to the ends of the earth. Nothing shall keep me from my new ultimate goal, getting a life. In the meantime, however, I suggest that you stick your head inside your ass to visit with what's left of your brains, since that seems to be you're editing with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeoberry (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not involved and you're bringing up stuff that happened 13 days ago? Why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To me it looks like two people were insulting each other. Since WP:WQA is no longer available, the talk page of one of the people concerned is probably the least worst place for that to be restricted to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Yeoberry seems to be involved in some nasty forum shopping [172], [173], [174].Jeppiz (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Yeoberry and Beyond My Ken

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.

---

I'm not sure if this should be reopened or not, but there is a context to this. Looking at [175], it looks as though this Yeoberry's complaint above may be due to disputes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Riplinger, Talk:Gail Riplinger and more recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. It may be the Riplinger article that is most involved as Yeoberry submitted an AFC what was deleted as an attack page around the same time as the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith but I can't help but feel that this was posted here due to a grudge from some recent disagreements. It looks like Yeoberry was trying to shine light on Beyond My Ken to get him in trouble as retaliation. Not a good thing to do. -- Atama頭 19:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

BeyondMyKen has a long history of abusive comments directed at other users. He is in many respects just like Malleus F, only not as good of an editor with less general wisdom and a childish demeanor. 138.162.0.45 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of Beyond My Ken (and I admit there is some abrasive language on his own user talk page and in the Gail Riplinger AfD discussion) this move was counterproductive. -- Atama頭 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Black Eyed Peas

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.

---

Enough is enough. Every other day I see this article being vandalised by IPs. I'd like this article at least semi-protected.--Launchballer 22:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's only being vandalized every other day, it's unlikely for protection to happen. It's not a particularly obscure page, so it should get plenty of visibility. And if it really is being vandalized only by IPs, any protection beyond semi would be excessive, because semi-protection will completely prevent IPs (and new editors) from editing the page. Requests like this normally go to WP:RFPP, but again I'd think it unlikely to be protected. On the other hand, if you notice that it's the same or similar IPs doing the vandalism, you might consider reporting at WP:AIV which would put a stop to that behavior (at that page and elsewhere). -- Atama頭 22:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Paul Bedson demanding negotiation

The trolls. Don't feed them. Writ Keeper (t + c) 13:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've had an email from Paul Bedson who we have just banned indefinitely from Wikipedia after an indefinite block resulting from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson and his second round of sockpuppetry. I'm sure he has no expectation of privacy so I'm reproducing a short excerpt here. Besides his usual accusation of racism, he states that "I have given ... notice that Wikipedia will be indefinitely edited by myself until such negotiation is extended." This notice hasn't been received (he does name the editor but I don't see it as necessary to mention him) but in any case this is an obvious attempt at blackmail. I'm mentioning it here for information only (although obviously if anyone does spot a possible sock they should take action). Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Obviously, we'll line up the usual negotiating team of a few Wikimedia board members, half-a-dozen admins, and a posse of lawyers. Did he express any preference for whether the talks should take place in Geneva or The Hague? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I imagine that a discussion of such cessations on Wikipedia's part would take place in Munich.--WaltCip (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Should I contact my lawyer? diff — Ched :  ?  11:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC) The notice was posted here [176] and probably book-burnt before DeltaQuad could receive it. There is no blackmail, your rules simply don't work so I am giving you notice that Wikipedia will be indefinitely sockpuppetted by Paul Bedson along with instructions how to appeal the decision and politely negotiate any problems into a constructive win-win situation for the project. 31.91.72.19 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) IP blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Since it's a mobile range with not much chance for collateral damage, I blocked the range and unblocked the single IP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, well that's all very well done. Good job. But only when Wikipedia appoints enforcers to drag WP:Witchunted editors off to Wikipedia detention cells to rip their fingernails out will you stop me. But that won't happen because I am leading the sheep to knowledge of the archaeological Eden and the Rapture, no matter what you do. 31.93.13.11 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Yawnsville, Arizona, as they say. Deb (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Apply liberal doses of WP:RBI. His childishness has descended into trolling. Blackmane (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC) This could well be the most childish and pathetic editor that Wikipedia has seen for a while. I had a quick look at why he was blocked, and his actions since - this editor is a disgrace, the community ban is clearly valid, and their threats to "indefinitely sockpuppet" suggest they seriously need to sort their life out. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles

We have a now long-running battle going on over articles about Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and his theories and related organizations. The subject first came to my attention in a FT/N notice back on 10 January concerning Progressive utilization theory (also called PROUT), which appears to be Sarkar's central socio-economic theory. This quickly ballooned into concern over other pages, and I set up a page listing all articles relating to Sarkar simply to make it easier to keep track of things without having to re-search constantly.

My personal assessment of these articles is complex. Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga and a few related articles are plainly notable on their own due to involvement in Indian politics and a couple of incidents abroad; there is also an economist at SMU who published a bestselling and spectacularly wrong book. These articles suffer greatly from being written by Sarkar's followers from primary sources, and they tend to be promotional in large part. What has really kicked up the conflict, however, is the constellation of minor articles surrounding these. For instance, Sarkar wrote lots of books and pamphlets, many of which had articles and none of which has any significant footprint outside of the movements. These have been put up for deletion and all have either been deleted or redirected back to Sarkar's article. These deletions have been fought doggedly by a group of editors, all of whom apparently have some connection to Sarkar.

We very quickly fell into two camps. First, there was FT/N camp:

• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who started the FT/N thread
• Garamond Lethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Location (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and possibly others. These were opposed by the second camp:

• Abhidevananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cornelius383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Universal Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joining these, however, were a group of SPAs, all with almost no edits outside these articles and especially the AFDs for the various books. Not surprisingly this raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, and that led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda, which was preceded by an earlier check. Both of these were technically inconclusive, but that didn't stop a lot of people from raising meatpuppetry and canvassing accusations all around. My index of articles has been accused of being a hit list aimed at deleting all of these articles.

As I said above, I don't intend to have everything deleted, and I've largely stayed out of the AFDs to try to lessen the ganging up impression. For the same reason I haven't gone after the various articles with a machete as by rights I could have. But it seems clear to me that there's some sort of canvassing going on to get more votes on the deletion discussions, and the pro-Sarkar camp has buried us in walls of text and other "policy is not going to get in the way of delivering The Truth to the world" tactics. This needs to be brought to some sort of resolution that doesn't involve so much Wikidrama. A simple RFC isn't going to do it because the scope of the problem isn't one well-bounded issue. Eventually someone is going to have to go after all the extensive primary sourcing in the articles which we all agree ought to stay. And behind all of this is a huge navbox template which promises the creation of many more articles which are also likely to be considered for deletion or merger. We need to stop the madness. At a minimum the SPI needs to be closed and archived, but from my point of view the pro-Sarkar side needs to be made aware that the articles are going to have to be brought into line no matter how true his teachings may be. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like an obvious question, but what are they trying to accomplish by creating all these articles on WP, at best rewording all the info from their own publications and websites? Do they just like the wiki style of editing and presentation? If so, is it possible that is hasn't occurred to them that they could establish their own wiki installation? It's free and they would have complete control over its policies and presentation, versus trying constantly to work around and defeat WP's policies (which are necessary to keep it from becoming a pile of crap). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, how do we get to awareness "that the articles are going to have to be brought into line"? As I'm very sure you're aware, we're tripping over really basic levels of policy: what is and is not an independent, reliable, secondary source, the idea that articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources, that canvassing is bad and so is removing talk page comments written by others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is this the time and place to propose bans? Are you looking for 1RR on the remaining Sarkar-related articles? What, specifically, do we need to do to move forward? Garamond Lethet
c 17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment & complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I repeat here what I've repeatedly said even here. I created the two tables below (the 1st is on a collapse box) to show the "persecution" of one group of users against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. These users are user:Mangoe,user:bobrayner, user:Garamond Lethe, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:DGG and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints. As everyone can see from the summary table (the second below) they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic in about a month. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author on a sandbox of user:Mangoe. We have an evidence of the strong connection of these users' follow-up in the revision history of their "agenda" here and in some of their thalks.

1st Table: all the 21 AfDs on the same topic proposed by the same users. (Click on "Show" to display it)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Date bobrayner Garamond Lethe DGG Location Mangoe CorrectKnowledge Zananiri Dougweller North8000 Current edit counts 36575 4145 109627 11183 18657 5281 719 96754 29836 Neohumanism in a Nutshell‎ 6 January 2013 AfD proposal merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete or merge Delete or merge Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) 6 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete Delete Delete or merge Shabda Cayanika 10 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Delete or merge Delete Delete or merge Namah Shivaya Shantaya‎ 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Merge Delete Discourses on PROUT 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete Problems of the Day 21 January 2013 AfD proposal Strong delete Delete Delete Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy‎ 24 January 2013 Delete Strong delete AfD proposal Delete Microvitum in a Nutshell 25 January 2013 Delete Delete AfD proposal Delete or merge PROUT in a Nutshell 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism 29 January 2013 Delete Delete Delete or merge and redirect Delete Prabhat Samgiita 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Redirect Subhasita Samgraha 29 January 2013 Delete or redirect AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete or redirect - Idea and Ideology 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete - Ananda Vacanamrtam 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) 6 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete A Guide to Human Conduct) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete To the Patriots 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Yoga Psychology 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Namami Krsnasundaram 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete

2nd Summary table: Total number of AFDS and deletions proposed by these users on 21 articles

	bobrayner	Garamond Lethe	DGG	Location	Mangoe	CorrectKnowledge	Zananiri	Dougweller	North8000
AfD proposals (successful)	4 (4)	12 (9) (one undecided)	2 (2)	2 (2)	0	0	0	0	0
Delete/merge or redirect	17	5	8	11	8	11	7	5	4
Keep	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect". Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:

• Examples of disruptive deletions

1. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
2. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting

1. On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.

• Insertion of inaccurately sourced material on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's articles

1. User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks

1. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet.
2. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: ..on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"

I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop, Cornelius383. The walls of text are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Ditto for the misquotes and the distortion of other people's comments. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is the only interpreation any reasonable person would make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a "single-verse" user. I started editing on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact. Of course I understand and I agree that the text I had to produce in order to defend myself was much. Of course it was not my intention to create a "Text wall" but sometimes the tank is full and the water comes out! What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? And if a group of users (almost always the same) had always voted compactly "Delete" or "Redirect" in all the AfDs? And if those group even created a "Deleting Agenda" on a sandbox that they are strictly following to delete all? And what if some of those users have an improper behaviour as I said in the three points I have outlined above? Please try to understand!--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is an editing policy I follow regardless of personal POV. There's many editors here with personal positions I find distateful, perhaps even repulsive at times - but their opinions are theirs to hold freely, and as long as we all edit neutrally, we're one big, happy, dysfunctional Wikifamily. I honestly find it more than a bit dissapointing that you would decide that, based on my personal opinions, I would choose to suggest that articles be deleted regarding other practices. Policy is policy regardless of spiritual path. As for the dates, as clearly stated and disclosed, User:Aerobird is my legitimate alternate account. I established it in 2005, when I first joined Wikipedia; in 2007, being a bit burned out for personal reasons, I went on a lenghty Wikibreak. When I returned, I simply abandoned the old account, and created a new one, using the new identity I preferred using for things online, while clearly establishing and disclosing my previous Wikipediaing. When I became an admin (at which point the previous account was disclosed, as required), I re-adopted it as a legitimate alternate account as allowed under policy, as using my main account, which has the tools, on a public computer is potentially risky due to the possibility of password keylogging and such. That said, however, if you cannot trust my neutrality on this position, I can accept that, and will bow out of this debate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

C383, All of us have long and more or less uninvolved careers here. As far as I know, the only common link is through FT/N, except that DGG and I run across each other because we are both active in category maintenance and AFDs. All of us except GL have at least 10k edits. If there's any "conspiracy" between us, it's simply the common objective of preventing fringe crusaders from using Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their causes. Other than the list of articles, there has been no coordination with me and anyone else, and I haven't sought out other people who were not already participants in the issue. It's obvious that someone among Sarkar's supporters here has fetched up more participants: five new accounts are registered as the AFDs begin, and all of them quickly settle into voting on these AFDs, with two making such votes as their first edits. Given the course of these thus far, this tactic isn't working. But we are going to have to deal with the main articles themselves, and the policy-ignoring obstruction will be a much more severe problem there. Already Progressive utilization theory is full-protected because of this.

I want to repeat what I've said every time something like this has come up: I think that in-movement editors can be very helpful in this kind of article, because they potentially are more aware of secondary sources about their movement than us outsiders are. But the price they have to pay for participation is letting go of the crusade to bring their important knowledge to the world. We are not here to evangelize Anandamurti's teachings. To the degree that they are presented, that presentation must be neutral, and we certainly are required to present what the world thinks of those same teachings. If they are going to treat these requirements as persecution, it will go badly. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put a collapse box around the table. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think my view of this was best expressed in my question at the afd on Prabhat Samgiita. I will support reasonable articles for which there is good evidence, and even make allowances for the difficulty of finding conventional sources for esoteric material. But I do not support unreasonably detailed articles on multiple books of an individual thinker that in the whole serve the interest of promotion of their views, and I think the introduction of such articles even foolish viewed as promotion, for nobody not already in the group of supporters will read them. I've said this consistently for the 6 years I've been here.

I don't approve of promotional editing--I is the biggest threat to the encyclopedic for if it is full of advertising nobody will take us seriously. Paid editors we can cope with: since they work for money, if we reject their improper editing consistently they will decide it's not worth the money. Zealous promoters of a cause do not stop, because they have a message. The sensible ones stop after they've achieved a reasonable article, and will take advice on how to get it. If we can turn attempted promotion into encyclopedic articles on notable topics, I will work hard and long with an article or an editor to get there. If they are not sensible, they will not take advice, and they will continue defending their material until we force them to leave, and even then it has sometimes been a problem.

I have repeatedly urged Abhidevananda to let me help him condense this material; he has politely but consistently declined. If a person will not accept help, nobody can help him. It's hard to be patient with such an editor. Still, it is possible, and we can politely but firmly edit and delete the material without insulting him or his cause. On the whole, I think we have done that, though I would not have used the word "sarkarspam" however I may have thought it.

In short, I approve of what Mangoe has said and done. He has made every possible effort to help, and he has done this with great courtesy. Perhaps even with too great courtesy--I would have taken a much shorter route with some of the articles, and I would not oppose a neutral editor making careful use of speedy deletion. With the PROUT article, if we cannot get a shorter reasonable article when protection expires, we shall have to consider whether we can do a redirect, which would be a shame. I do not think we need take any admin action on the editors, provided they do not try to reintroduce the articles, but it always helps to clear away any sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not have made the page [User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles]; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please DGG read my answer to The Bushranger above (the one that starts with: "I'm not a single-verse user.."). This is my reply to you too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Definitive proof that Garamond Lethe and DGG aren't socks comes from one of the AfDs linked above: I don't think the DGG I know would have ever made this categorical statement. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • First of all, suggesting DGG is a sock (or a master) is beyond silly, so much so that I can't even come up with a witty simile. Second, the comment was "References (still) don't count towards notability." Perhaps this is shorthand for "these references (still) don't count towards notability", but having looked at the references I doubt that DGG, who knows academic publishing like few other people here, would have said that. So--have you taken back those suggestions yet? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better that you did it. Frankly you seem to be the most suitable person for such suggestions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Garamond Lethe asked above what I wanted moving forward, and looking at the direction the discussion is taking that is a question which really does need to be addressed. I suppose my first step is going to be to end my tolerance for the use of primary sources, so I expect to cut down most of the major articles drastically based on their reliance on Sarkar's own writings. I don't know that we've gotten to the point of 1RR-style protection, but it would be nice to get some assurance from uninvolved admins that they aren't going to protect this material from the deletion/redaction it most roundly deserves. I notice that Abhidevananda hasn't responded at all here, which is a problem. I personally am not so concerned about the puppetry/canvassing issues since in the end they don't seem to be having much of an effect on the outcome of the AFDs where they figured most strongly, but I would really like to see some responses from the pro-Sarkar side that show they understand the rules and are willing to play by them. Otherwise I don't see how we are going to avoid arbcom. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

On Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory I've made a few attempts at a modest proposal that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV in future, but the article's defenders have avoided the question completely. This is quite frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

From Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, this is my statement on moving forward:

Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR.

The weight of consensus favors one side, so I think 1RR-style protection would be very useful in moving forward. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So that's a request for 1RR at Progressive Utilization Theory, Ananda Marga, Neohumanism... anything else? Garamond Lethet
c 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
c 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
c 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been advised to ask for WP:ARBIND protection, which may take a day or so to make the request. Don't wait for me to do it if you have the time and patience to make the filing. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is the most ridiculous template I've seen (outside of J- and K-pop). Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda

I did notify Abhidevananda of this discussion, and as you can see he hasn't responded. Instead, over at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory he has simply been reduced to complaining about User:bobrayner's admittedly less-than-tactful edit summaries, as in these edits: [177] [178] [179]. This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: [180], a proposal which the pro-Sarkar side utterly ignored. Instead, Abhidevananda dropped a huge and essentially irrelevant 8kbyte wall of text (including a gratuitous image) on us: [181]. In the period leading up to the article being locked, he made almost no forward edits, instead repeatedly reverting bobrayner's attempts to cull the article of primary-sourced material (too many examples to list them all, but for example there's [182]). I can only conclude that he is intent on protecting an advocacy-laiden version of the article against any attempt to force it to conform to policy, and will bury us in walls of platitudinous text and nuisance quibbles about the behavior of now-frustrated editors in order to delay the inevitable. He is absolutely uncooperative and shows all the signs of being an irredeemable POV-warrior. I ask therefore that he be topic-banned from anything having to do with Sarkar including all articles about PROUT and Ananda Marga. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to concur with this. Although Abhidevananda has always been polite, he has never been willing to edit cooperatively, and has blocked essentially every attempt to compromise on a more reasonable article. Thinking correctly I would be sympathetic to anyone adding information about small religious or related groups, he asked for my assistance, but has not been willing to follow it--he has not yet seemed to realize I am sympathetic to reasonable articles about such groups, but only reasonable articles. Others here are also sympathetic, but not to the sort of redundant articles he insists on writing. I am always reluctant to remove the principal editor for a specialized topic, but in this case I think the rest of the editors involved can do it justice without him. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also concur. After 20 AfDs I don't have any reason to think that Abhidevananda understands the notability guidelines, and after weeks of page protection I don't have any confidence he understand that articles need to be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Sarkar-related articles might be improved despite him, but I think the question here is whether a topic ban will happen now or after another two months of obstruction. Garamond Lethet
c 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the above editors. Would the implementation of 1RR – rather than topic ban – bring this under control yet allow him to contribute to the subject matter? Location (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The PROUT article has already been protected twice due to editwarring (and there has also been a little light editwarring on related articles); I don't see how 1RR would stop it getting locked up a third time, other than taking a few steps out of the revert-war. 1RR is not the answer because editors on both sides are still determined to revert edits that are "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And then there is canvassing etc. to consider, 1RR would be very easy to game. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sarkar-promoters are outweighed by the neutral editors at this point. A revert-war would be very brief in that Sarkar-promoters will quickly find themselves blocked in violation of 1RR if the neutral editors collectively take steps to enforce the consensus that has formed. That's my take on what should specifically be done right now. Alternatively, shit or get off the pot... there is lot of bitching about the Sarkar-promoters' editing behaviors but no one wants to open a WP:RFC/U or take it to WP:ARB/R. I responded to your initial Rfc but I don't intent to muddle through this indefinitely. Location (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on numerical superiority of neutral editors. None of the SPIs about suspicious editing patterns have been conclusive, which means we can't rule out similar behaviour in the future. Besides, Abhidevananda's position regarding the use of primary sources hasn't changed much since last November. Note the similarities between this discussion with an editor who has a vast experience of cleaning up Indian related articles and the ongoing discussion at Progressive Utilization Theory. In all likelihood 1RR won't help, we can of course try it. Before deciding to file a WP:ARB/R, taking a look at WP:ARBIND might help. These issues are not new to India related articles and standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIND might be an effective tool to deal with them. I am not sure whether they would apply to all Sarkar related articles though. Only an Arb can answer that. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with WP:ARBIND, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Do we need to file at WP:ARCA to find out if it would apply? Location (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. An informal query on an Arbcom member's talk page would do. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note with User:Risker but I'm doubtful that WP:INDIA applies, since it was set up to deal with India/Pakistan conflicts. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBIND is no longer restricted to India/Pakistan conflicts. It was amended in July 2012 to include "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW: What part of WP:ARBIND is relevant to Abhidevananda's actions? I see that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 which appear to be similar to what we are dealing with here. Location (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the Sarkar problem is very similar to the Prem Rawat problem; but of course the outcomes of that arbcom case are specific to Prem Rawat and associated editors, they don't really apply here except as a sad lesson of what can happen. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe may have already seen this, but it appears that "conduct at Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the scope of discretionary sanctions" authorized by WP:ARBIND and that we "can reasonably bring an enforcement request against Abhidevananda". (See User talk:Risker#Need a quick Arb opinion.) Location (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the page protection on PROUT come off automatically today? Garamond Lethet
c 01:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I found the log and protection expires at 13:00-ish. 05:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Abhidevananda has indicated that he does not acknowledge the consensus that has formed and may revert to his previous version. diff He has been made aware of this discussion again and I have warned him that he may be subject to the measures outlined above (i.e. the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBIND). diff Location (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Add tag bombing to the list: [183], [184], [185], [186]. Location (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC) last edited 06:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

I recommend that a one-week block of Abhidevananda be considered, based on the disruptive behavior which is summarized in this ANI thread. I will notify him that he may be blocked if he makes any more edits to Sarkar-related articles without getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Per comments on User talk:Abhidevananda it now appears that the editor will step back from the issue at least for the moment. He states that he referred the matter to Arbcom, and that he has "no intention of making any further edits to the PROUT article before seeing where that goes". So far I don't see any public Arbcom filing, so conceivably he sent an email. I've left a warning at WP:AN3#User:Abhidevananda reported by Location (talk) (Result: Warned). Unless another admin wants to take further action, that may be enough to conclude this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to close this thread since it seems that we've achieved as much as it's practical to achieve for now. However, there has been on-off problematic editing for months, and there are still five socks ready and waiting to !vote "Keep" at whatever the next AfD is... I would like to hope that articles will steadily converge with policy in future but, pragmatically, it seems more likely that another thread will have to be opened here (or on some other dramaboard) in future... bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page interaction ban

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.

---

I would like to propose a 6 month interaction ban between myself and User:Adjwilley on article talk pages. Although our dialogues are not uncivil, there is currently a repetitive pattern where we repeat the same arguments over various talk pages on religion and its getting tiring. An interaction ban would be perfect. The first one was on Talk:God last year and the latest has been on Talk:Joseph (son of Jacob). Can i get a few supports to end this time-wasting please? Thank you. Pass a Method talk 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support To save everyones time as on Talk:Afterlife, Talk:David (disambiguation), etc.. Pass a Method talk 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment What duration are you proposing? Also, if your dialogues are civil, I'm not seeing the reason for this - if you don't like them, then go and edit some different articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• comment 6 months. Also i prefer incivility over time-consuming talk-page discussions. Editing different articles is difficult since we have similar interests. Since i met him i spend half of my time on wikipedia speaking to him on article talk pages, which i would prefer to spend on AfD's or logs or something. Pass a Method talk 13:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It is true that Pass a Method and I have had a fairly long disagreement, but in my opinion cutting off talk page communication is not going to help resolve it. If anything, better communication is needed, since we still seem to misunderstand one another. I would prefer time-consuming discussions to incivility, as long as the discussions stay focused on the problem at hand.

  Also, I don't really understand why this is coming now, since there is currently an RfC running at WT:WikiProject Religion that, if resolved, could solve our problem. (If anybody wants to comment, by the way, any and all views are welcome!) ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• reply Almost all discussions boil down to "those religions are not as notable as Christianity" from my viewpoint. I have even seen such comments indirectly made against Islam and Sikhism. Thats not a discussion but a WP:CHRISTIANPOV. Pass a Method talk 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Sometimes Christianity is more notable, sometimes it's not. It depends on the topic of the article. In the Joseph (son of Jacob) article you referenced above, it's Judaism that's most notable. In the God article, Christianity and Islam should receive equal weight (but still not very much IMO, and less than is currently in the article). Trust me, I'm all for eliminating Christian POV from articles, but going around linkspamming articles with links to Raelism, Eckankar, and Druidism isn't the way to do it. Anyway, this isn't the venue for discussions like this, so I suggest that we close this thread and focus future discussion at the RfC mentioned above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What you said in the above comment and what i see on actualy alk pages are two different things. Pass a Method talk 15:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Extremely strong oppose A ban on positive discussion that can help lead to consensus? No. Not today; not tomorrow; not someday next week. Maybe topic-ban the both of you so that you can only use the talkpages across a wide swath of articles, and ban you from each other's talkpages, but no way is there any need to ban you from article talkpages as of this point as it will achieve nothing (literally and figuratively) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles

We have a now long-running battle going on over articles about Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and his theories and related organizations. The subject first came to my attention in a FT/N notice back on 10 January concerning Progressive utilization theory (also called PROUT), which appears to be Sarkar's central socio-economic theory. This quickly ballooned into concern over other pages, and I set up a page listing all articles relating to Sarkar simply to make it easier to keep track of things without having to re-search constantly.

My personal assessment of these articles is complex. Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga and a few related articles are plainly notable on their own due to involvement in Indian politics and a couple of incidents abroad; there is also an economist at SMU who published a bestselling and spectacularly wrong book. These articles suffer greatly from being written by Sarkar's followers from primary sources, and they tend to be promotional in large part. What has really kicked up the conflict, however, is the constellation of minor articles surrounding these. For instance, Sarkar wrote lots of books and pamphlets, many of which had articles and none of which has any significant footprint outside of the movements. These have been put up for deletion and all have either been deleted or redirected back to Sarkar's article. These deletions have been fought doggedly by a group of editors, all of whom apparently have some connection to Sarkar.

We very quickly fell into two camps. First, there was FT/N camp:

• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who started the FT/N thread
• Garamond Lethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Location (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and possibly others. These were opposed by the second camp:

• Abhidevananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cornelius383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Universal Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joining these, however, were a group of SPAs, all with almost no edits outside these articles and especially the AFDs for the various books. Not surprisingly this raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, and that led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda, which was preceded by an earlier check. Both of these were technically inconclusive, but that didn't stop a lot of people from raising meatpuppetry and canvassing accusations all around. My index of articles has been accused of being a hit list aimed at deleting all of these articles.

As I said above, I don't intend to have everything deleted, and I've largely stayed out of the AFDs to try to lessen the ganging up impression. For the same reason I haven't gone after the various articles with a machete as by rights I could have. But it seems clear to me that there's some sort of canvassing going on to get more votes on the deletion discussions, and the pro-Sarkar camp has buried us in walls of text and other "policy is not going to get in the way of delivering The Truth to the world" tactics. This needs to be brought to some sort of resolution that doesn't involve so much Wikidrama. A simple RFC isn't going to do it because the scope of the problem isn't one well-bounded issue. Eventually someone is going to have to go after all the extensive primary sourcing in the articles which we all agree ought to stay. And behind all of this is a huge navbox template which promises the creation of many more articles which are also likely to be considered for deletion or merger. We need to stop the madness. At a minimum the SPI needs to be closed and archived, but from my point of view the pro-Sarkar side needs to be made aware that the articles are going to have to be brought into line no matter how true his teachings may be. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like an obvious question, but what are they trying to accomplish by creating all these articles on WP, at best rewording all the info from their own publications and websites? Do they just like the wiki style of editing and presentation? If so, is it possible that is hasn't occurred to them that they could establish their own wiki installation? It's free and they would have complete control over its policies and presentation, versus trying constantly to work around and defeat WP's policies (which are necessary to keep it from becoming a pile of crap). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, how do we get to awareness "that the articles are going to have to be brought into line"? As I'm very sure you're aware, we're tripping over really basic levels of policy: what is and is not an independent, reliable, secondary source, the idea that articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources, that canvassing is bad and so is removing talk page comments written by others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is this the time and place to propose bans? Are you looking for 1RR on the remaining Sarkar-related articles? What, specifically, do we need to do to move forward? Garamond Lethet
c 17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment & complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I repeat here what I've repeatedly said even here. I created the two tables below (the 1st is on a collapse box) to show the "persecution" of one group of users against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. These users are user:Mangoe,user:bobrayner, user:Garamond Lethe, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:DGG and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints. As everyone can see from the summary table (the second below) they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic in about a month. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author on a sandbox of user:Mangoe. We have an evidence of the strong connection of these users' follow-up in the revision history of their "agenda" here and in some of their thalks.

1st Table: all the 21 AfDs on the same topic proposed by the same users. (Click on "Show" to display it)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Date bobrayner Garamond Lethe DGG Location Mangoe CorrectKnowledge Zananiri Dougweller North8000 Current edit counts 36575 4145 109627 11183 18657 5281 719 96754 29836 Neohumanism in a Nutshell‎ 6 January 2013 AfD proposal merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete or merge Delete or merge Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) 6 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete Delete Delete or merge Shabda Cayanika 10 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Delete or merge Delete Delete or merge Namah Shivaya Shantaya‎ 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Merge Delete Discourses on PROUT 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete Problems of the Day 21 January 2013 AfD proposal Strong delete Delete Delete Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy‎ 24 January 2013 Delete Strong delete AfD proposal Delete Microvitum in a Nutshell 25 January 2013 Delete Delete AfD proposal Delete or merge PROUT in a Nutshell 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism 29 January 2013 Delete Delete Delete or merge and redirect Delete Prabhat Samgiita 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Redirect Subhasita Samgraha 29 January 2013 Delete or redirect AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete or redirect - Idea and Ideology 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete - Ananda Vacanamrtam 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) 6 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete A Guide to Human Conduct) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete To the Patriots 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Yoga Psychology 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Namami Krsnasundaram 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete

2nd Summary table: Total number of AFDS and deletions proposed by these users on 21 articles

	bobrayner	Garamond Lethe	DGG	Location	Mangoe	CorrectKnowledge	Zananiri	Dougweller	North8000
AfD proposals (successful)	4 (4)	12 (9) (one undecided)	2 (2)	2 (2)	0	0	0	0	0
Delete/merge or redirect	17	5	8	11	8	11	7	5	4
Keep	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect". Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:

• Examples of disruptive deletions

1. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
2. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting

1. On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.

• Insertion of inaccurately sourced material on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's articles

1. User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks

1. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet.
2. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: ..on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"

I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop, Cornelius383. The walls of text are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Ditto for the misquotes and the distortion of other people's comments. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is the only interpreation any reasonable person would make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a "single-verse" user. I started editing on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact. Of course I understand and I agree that the text I had to produce in order to defend myself was much. Of course it was not my intention to create a "Text wall" but sometimes the tank is full and the water comes out! What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? And if a group of users (almost always the same) had always voted compactly "Delete" or "Redirect" in all the AfDs? And if those group even created a "Deleting Agenda" on a sandbox that they are strictly following to delete all? And what if some of those users have an improper behaviour as I said in the three points I have outlined above? Please try to understand!--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is an editing policy I follow regardless of personal POV. There's many editors here with personal positions I find distateful, perhaps even repulsive at times - but their opinions are theirs to hold freely, and as long as we all edit neutrally, we're one big, happy, dysfunctional Wikifamily. I honestly find it more than a bit dissapointing that you would decide that, based on my personal opinions, I would choose to suggest that articles be deleted regarding other practices. Policy is policy regardless of spiritual path. As for the dates, as clearly stated and disclosed, User:Aerobird is my legitimate alternate account. I established it in 2005, when I first joined Wikipedia; in 2007, being a bit burned out for personal reasons, I went on a lenghty Wikibreak. When I returned, I simply abandoned the old account, and created a new one, using the new identity I preferred using for things online, while clearly establishing and disclosing my previous Wikipediaing. When I became an admin (at which point the previous account was disclosed, as required), I re-adopted it as a legitimate alternate account as allowed under policy, as using my main account, which has the tools, on a public computer is potentially risky due to the possibility of password keylogging and such. That said, however, if you cannot trust my neutrality on this position, I can accept that, and will bow out of this debate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

C383, All of us have long and more or less uninvolved careers here. As far as I know, the only common link is through FT/N, except that DGG and I run across each other because we are both active in category maintenance and AFDs. All of us except GL have at least 10k edits. If there's any "conspiracy" between us, it's simply the common objective of preventing fringe crusaders from using Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their causes. Other than the list of articles, there has been no coordination with me and anyone else, and I haven't sought out other people who were not already participants in the issue. It's obvious that someone among Sarkar's supporters here has fetched up more participants: five new accounts are registered as the AFDs begin, and all of them quickly settle into voting on these AFDs, with two making such votes as their first edits. Given the course of these thus far, this tactic isn't working. But we are going to have to deal with the main articles themselves, and the policy-ignoring obstruction will be a much more severe problem there. Already Progressive utilization theory is full-protected because of this.

I want to repeat what I've said every time something like this has come up: I think that in-movement editors can be very helpful in this kind of article, because they potentially are more aware of secondary sources about their movement than us outsiders are. But the price they have to pay for participation is letting go of the crusade to bring their important knowledge to the world. We are not here to evangelize Anandamurti's teachings. To the degree that they are presented, that presentation must be neutral, and we certainly are required to present what the world thinks of those same teachings. If they are going to treat these requirements as persecution, it will go badly. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put a collapse box around the table. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think my view of this was best expressed in my question at the afd on Prabhat Samgiita. I will support reasonable articles for which there is good evidence, and even make allowances for the difficulty of finding conventional sources for esoteric material. But I do not support unreasonably detailed articles on multiple books of an individual thinker that in the whole serve the interest of promotion of their views, and I think the introduction of such articles even foolish viewed as promotion, for nobody not already in the group of supporters will read them. I've said this consistently for the 6 years I've been here.

I don't approve of promotional editing--I is the biggest threat to the encyclopedic for if it is full of advertising nobody will take us seriously. Paid editors we can cope with: since they work for money, if we reject their improper editing consistently they will decide it's not worth the money. Zealous promoters of a cause do not stop, because they have a message. The sensible ones stop after they've achieved a reasonable article, and will take advice on how to get it. If we can turn attempted promotion into encyclopedic articles on notable topics, I will work hard and long with an article or an editor to get there. If they are not sensible, they will not take advice, and they will continue defending their material until we force them to leave, and even then it has sometimes been a problem.

I have repeatedly urged Abhidevananda to let me help him condense this material; he has politely but consistently declined. If a person will not accept help, nobody can help him. It's hard to be patient with such an editor. Still, it is possible, and we can politely but firmly edit and delete the material without insulting him or his cause. On the whole, I think we have done that, though I would not have used the word "sarkarspam" however I may have thought it.

In short, I approve of what Mangoe has said and done. He has made every possible effort to help, and he has done this with great courtesy. Perhaps even with too great courtesy--I would have taken a much shorter route with some of the articles, and I would not oppose a neutral editor making careful use of speedy deletion. With the PROUT article, if we cannot get a shorter reasonable article when protection expires, we shall have to consider whether we can do a redirect, which would be a shame. I do not think we need take any admin action on the editors, provided they do not try to reintroduce the articles, but it always helps to clear away any sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not have made the page [User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles]; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please DGG read my answer to The Bushranger above (the one that starts with: "I'm not a single-verse user.."). This is my reply to you too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Definitive proof that Garamond Lethe and DGG aren't socks comes from one of the AfDs linked above: I don't think the DGG I know would have ever made this categorical statement. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • First of all, suggesting DGG is a sock (or a master) is beyond silly, so much so that I can't even come up with a witty simile. Second, the comment was "References (still) don't count towards notability." Perhaps this is shorthand for "these references (still) don't count towards notability", but having looked at the references I doubt that DGG, who knows academic publishing like few other people here, would have said that. So--have you taken back those suggestions yet? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better that you did it. Frankly you seem to be the most suitable person for such suggestions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Garamond Lethe asked above what I wanted moving forward, and looking at the direction the discussion is taking that is a question which really does need to be addressed. I suppose my first step is going to be to end my tolerance for the use of primary sources, so I expect to cut down most of the major articles drastically based on their reliance on Sarkar's own writings. I don't know that we've gotten to the point of 1RR-style protection, but it would be nice to get some assurance from uninvolved admins that they aren't going to protect this material from the deletion/redaction it most roundly deserves. I notice that Abhidevananda hasn't responded at all here, which is a problem. I personally am not so concerned about the puppetry/canvassing issues since in the end they don't seem to be having much of an effect on the outcome of the AFDs where they figured most strongly, but I would really like to see some responses from the pro-Sarkar side that show they understand the rules and are willing to play by them. Otherwise I don't see how we are going to avoid arbcom. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

On Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory I've made a few attempts at a modest proposal that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV in future, but the article's defenders have avoided the question completely. This is quite frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

From Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, this is my statement on moving forward:

Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR.

The weight of consensus favors one side, so I think 1RR-style protection would be very useful in moving forward. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So that's a request for 1RR at Progressive Utilization Theory, Ananda Marga, Neohumanism... anything else? Garamond Lethet
c 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
c 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
c 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been advised to ask for WP:ARBIND protection, which may take a day or so to make the request. Don't wait for me to do it if you have the time and patience to make the filing. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is the most ridiculous template I've seen (outside of J- and K-pop). Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda

I did notify Abhidevananda of this discussion, and as you can see he hasn't responded. Instead, over at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory he has simply been reduced to complaining about User:bobrayner's admittedly less-than-tactful edit summaries, as in these edits: [187] [188] [189]. This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: [190], a proposal which the pro-Sarkar side utterly ignored. Instead, Abhidevananda dropped a huge and essentially irrelevant 8kbyte wall of text (including a gratuitous image) on us: [191]. In the period leading up to the article being locked, he made almost no forward edits, instead repeatedly reverting bobrayner's attempts to cull the article of primary-sourced material (too many examples to list them all, but for example there's [192]). I can only conclude that he is intent on protecting an advocacy-laiden version of the article against any attempt to force it to conform to policy, and will bury us in walls of platitudinous text and nuisance quibbles about the behavior of now-frustrated editors in order to delay the inevitable. He is absolutely uncooperative and shows all the signs of being an irredeemable POV-warrior. I ask therefore that he be topic-banned from anything having to do with Sarkar including all articles about PROUT and Ananda Marga. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to concur with this. Although Abhidevananda has always been polite, he has never been willing to edit cooperatively, and has blocked essentially every attempt to compromise on a more reasonable article. Thinking correctly I would be sympathetic to anyone adding information about small religious or related groups, he asked for my assistance, but has not been willing to follow it--he has not yet seemed to realize I am sympathetic to reasonable articles about such groups, but only reasonable articles. Others here are also sympathetic, but not to the sort of redundant articles he insists on writing. I am always reluctant to remove the principal editor for a specialized topic, but in this case I think the rest of the editors involved can do it justice without him. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also concur. After 20 AfDs I don't have any reason to think that Abhidevananda understands the notability guidelines, and after weeks of page protection I don't have any confidence he understand that articles need to be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Sarkar-related articles might be improved despite him, but I think the question here is whether a topic ban will happen now or after another two months of obstruction. Garamond Lethet
c 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the above editors. Would the implementation of 1RR – rather than topic ban – bring this under control yet allow him to contribute to the subject matter? Location (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The PROUT article has already been protected twice due to editwarring (and there has also been a little light editwarring on related articles); I don't see how 1RR would stop it getting locked up a third time, other than taking a few steps out of the revert-war. 1RR is not the answer because editors on both sides are still determined to revert edits that are "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And then there is canvassing etc. to consider, 1RR would be very easy to game. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sarkar-promoters are outweighed by the neutral editors at this point. A revert-war would be very brief in that Sarkar-promoters will quickly find themselves blocked in violation of 1RR if the neutral editors collectively take steps to enforce the consensus that has formed. That's my take on what should specifically be done right now. Alternatively, shit or get off the pot... there is lot of bitching about the Sarkar-promoters' editing behaviors but no one wants to open a WP:RFC/U or take it to WP:ARB/R. I responded to your initial Rfc but I don't intent to muddle through this indefinitely. Location (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on numerical superiority of neutral editors. None of the SPIs about suspicious editing patterns have been conclusive, which means we can't rule out similar behaviour in the future. Besides, Abhidevananda's position regarding the use of primary sources hasn't changed much since last November. Note the similarities between this discussion with an editor who has a vast experience of cleaning up Indian related articles and the ongoing discussion at Progressive Utilization Theory. In all likelihood 1RR won't help, we can of course try it. Before deciding to file a WP:ARB/R, taking a look at WP:ARBIND might help. These issues are not new to India related articles and standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIND might be an effective tool to deal with them. I am not sure whether they would apply to all Sarkar related articles though. Only an Arb can answer that. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with WP:ARBIND, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Do we need to file at WP:ARCA to find out if it would apply? Location (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. An informal query on an Arbcom member's talk page would do. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note with User:Risker but I'm doubtful that WP:INDIA applies, since it was set up to deal with India/Pakistan conflicts. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBIND is no longer restricted to India/Pakistan conflicts. It was amended in July 2012 to include "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW: What part of WP:ARBIND is relevant to Abhidevananda's actions? I see that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 which appear to be similar to what we are dealing with here. Location (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the Sarkar problem is very similar to the Prem Rawat problem; but of course the outcomes of that arbcom case are specific to Prem Rawat and associated editors, they don't really apply here except as a sad lesson of what can happen. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe may have already seen this, but it appears that "conduct at Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the scope of discretionary sanctions" authorized by WP:ARBIND and that we "can reasonably bring an enforcement request against Abhidevananda". (See User talk:Risker#Need a quick Arb opinion.) Location (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the page protection on PROUT come off automatically today? Garamond Lethet
c 01:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I found the log and protection expires at 13:00-ish. 05:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Abhidevananda has indicated that he does not acknowledge the consensus that has formed and may revert to his previous version. diff He has been made aware of this discussion again and I have warned him that he may be subject to the measures outlined above (i.e. the discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:ARBIND). diff Location (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Add tag bombing to the list: [193], [194], [195], [196]. Location (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC) last edited 06:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

I recommend that a one-week block of Abhidevananda be considered, based on the disruptive behavior which is summarized in this ANI thread. I will notify him that he may be blocked if he makes any more edits to Sarkar-related articles without getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Per comments on User talk:Abhidevananda it now appears that the editor will step back from the issue at least for the moment. He states that he referred the matter to Arbcom, and that he has "no intention of making any further edits to the PROUT article before seeing where that goes". So far I don't see any public Arbcom filing, so conceivably he sent an email. I've left a warning at WP:AN3#User:Abhidevananda reported by Location (talk) (Result: Warned). Unless another admin wants to take further action, that may be enough to conclude this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to close this thread since it seems that we've achieved as much as it's practical to achieve for now. However, there has been on-off problematic editing for months, and there are still five socks ready and waiting to !vote "Keep" at whatever the next AfD is... I would like to hope that articles will steadily converge with policy in future but, pragmatically, it seems more likely that another thread will have to be opened here (or on some other dramaboard) in future... bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)