→HIDECCHI001: Piped links are necessary |
ExtraInCase (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1,006: | Line 1,006: | ||
::::: First of all, Wikishagnik's edits was a totally [[WP:AGF|bad faith]] and I agree with Shirt58 and The Bushranger. That makes more notable. [[User:ApprenticeFan|<font color="indigo">'''ApprenticeFan'''</font>]] <sup>[[:Special:Contributions/ApprenticeFan|<font color="#919191">'''''work'''''</font>]]</sup> 07:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC) |
::::: First of all, Wikishagnik's edits was a totally [[WP:AGF|bad faith]] and I agree with Shirt58 and The Bushranger. That makes more notable. [[User:ApprenticeFan|<font color="indigo">'''ApprenticeFan'''</font>]] <sup>[[:Special:Contributions/ApprenticeFan|<font color="#919191">'''''work'''''</font>]]</sup> 07:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
{{archivebottom}} |
{{archivebottom}} |
||
== Ping Fu == |
|||
Hey, I'm a single purpose account for just this post, sorry, but I would like to point this out without getting my primary real life-traceable account involved: |
|||
[[Ping Fu]] has been attacked this week for her recent book ''Bend, Not Break'' which details her exile from China for her study of infantacide during the Cultural Revolution, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ping_Fu&diff=537170565&oldid=536707787 here], on [http://www.amazon.com/Bend-Not-Break-Life-Worlds/product-reviews/1591845521/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 Amazon] ([http://www.amazon.com/Bend-Not-Break-Life-Worlds/forum/Fx1M49LYP8YZYQ4/-/1 forum]), Twitter, and elsewhere. I suggest that this might need a few more eyes than a typical RPP, but her article would certainly qualify for semi-protection now as it stands. Among other things, the fact that she hired Mark Andressen at the lab where he developed Mosaic has been scrubbed. Thanks; over and out. [[User:ExtraInCase|ExtraInCase]] ([[User talk:ExtraInCase|talk]]) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:26, 8 February 2013
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
Paid editing at Michael Milken
Over at Michael Milken (one of the big-name financial crooks of the 1980s), we have some paid editing by LarryWeisenberg (talk · contribs). This editor writes "My name is Larry Weisenberg, and I am a representative for Michael Milken." His edits generally try to de-emphasize Mr. Milken's criminal record (he did Federal prison time, and now he's out). The current issue started when an anon put "ex-con" in the lede paragraph, and it was removed at "Revision as of 17:35, 23 December 2012 LarryWeisenberg (Removing derisive term that brings negative POV to the article.)" [1]. I suggested using "convicted criminal" instead. Weisenberg didn't like that. So that's out, but I put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox (which is just a bio infobox, not a criminal infobox). Weisenberg didn't like that either. The general trend of these edits seems to be to keep any mention of the criminal history out of the snippet Google displays on searches, and to add various minor items that make Milken look good.
WP:NOPAY would seem to apply. --John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Who is this guy to dictate how the article should look? Seems like owning to me by the way he disagrees with you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- You "put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox"? Why would you do that? That is not appropriate for a biography, even if a person were to be notable for being a criminal. I think there's more than one issue here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- His federal prison number isn't of any use outside the federal prison system. Britmax (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, removed federal prisoner number, put back "convicted criminal", which is what he's notable for. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many many people have been convicted of crimes at various times in their lives. If those convictions are relevant to that person's notability, we include them in their article. Milken's convictions clearly are relevant and are discussed in the body of the article. Putting things like Federal prisoner number or convictions in the infobox are inappropriate, violate our WP:NPOV policy, and suggest that you are editing with an agenda. Whatever crime a person has been convicted of, please try to remain neutral when editing their biography. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, removed federal prisoner number, put back "convicted criminal", which is what he's notable for. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- His federal prison number isn't of any use outside the federal prison system. Britmax (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- You "put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox"? Why would you do that? That is not appropriate for a biography, even if a person were to be notable for being a criminal. I think there's more than one issue here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems a little unfair to have "convicted criminal" be the very first way an article defines him. That doesn't actually tell us what he did for a living. Strangesad (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's ok, I've fixed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should move forward on that same vein and remove any indication of player/jersey numbers for hockey, soccer, football, baseball and all other sports? Wayne Gretszky look out. I don't see how a number he wore is a problem. Are negative items not allowed. There are some nice things about him in the article. If he is notable for more than his prison conviction, is there a COI in promoting the person's new interests? Makes me wonder if the article should just be removed as not notable. Do we mention every convict or would that be a violation of WP:BLP. Look at the follow up stalking in article Karla Homolka after she was released broadcasting her trail. Nobody is complaining there. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're trying to say. There is no prisoner number in the infobox of Karla Homolka, and if there was, I would remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should move forward on that same vein and remove any indication of player/jersey numbers for hockey, soccer, football, baseball and all other sports? Wayne Gretszky look out. I don't see how a number he wore is a problem. Are negative items not allowed. There are some nice things about him in the article. If he is notable for more than his prison conviction, is there a COI in promoting the person's new interests? Makes me wonder if the article should just be removed as not notable. Do we mention every convict or would that be a violation of WP:BLP. Look at the follow up stalking in article Karla Homolka after she was released broadcasting her trail. Nobody is complaining there. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Any user who admits to being a paid editor should have some setting changed on their account to prohibit editing articles from then on. We need to force these people to only use the talk pages. DreamGuy (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- That might make sense if there was a policy that said "paid editing is not allowed". There isn't. And there never will be, now that paid editors and PR professionals have established a firm foothold, thanks to the concerted efforts of some Wikipedians. And more and more people seem to be leveraging their status on Wikipedia into paid "consulting" work. The writing has been on the wall for years, but in the last 18 months things have taken a major turn for the worse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no way "convicted criminal" should appear in the infobox as what a person is known for, it's rude, skirts our BLP policy, and if the guy is best known for being a criminal, the article speaks for itself. Second, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the actions of admins who believe that paid editing should be banned, and act towards non-admins as if paid editing was banned. That is substituting personal judgment for the community's, as the community has not seen fit to ban paid or COI editing. That is a problem as an admin acts as part of the enforcement arm of the community, to the extent there is one.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- If they did see fit to do so we would have to ban a few of the Foundation employees as well as the Dear Leader himself.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, there is no way "convicted criminal" should appear in the infobox as what a person is known for, it's rude, skirts our BLP policy, and if the guy is best known for being a criminal, the article speaks for itself. Second, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the actions of admins who believe that paid editing should be banned, and act towards non-admins as if paid editing was banned. That is substituting personal judgment for the community's, as the community has not seen fit to ban paid or COI editing. That is a problem as an admin acts as part of the enforcement arm of the community, to the extent there is one.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think you should be more concerned about the type of editors who insist on tagging every living person ever convicted of a crime as an "ex-con" or "criminal" in the first sentence of their bio than someone making a dime off removing that kind of material.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- What Milken is notable for is his participation in the junk bonds scandal. He should be describe neutrally, and his conviction, sentencing and jail time should also be in the lead with equal dryness. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)- I have no great sympathy for Miliken, and cringe whenever he makes his annual trips to broadcast booths during baseball season to plug his foundation (which I see as primarily an attempt to rehabilitate his name), but he was notable before the junk bond scandal for basically having invented the junk bond market, and then for the conviction and incredibly large amount of money he had to pay in connection with it. All of that is proper to be in the lede, as long as it is, as lgr says above, neutrally described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I largely agree with BMK. Milken is a more complicated personality than merely a convicted criminal. However, all this is best discussed on the talk page of the article rather than here. My suggestion is that we let LarryWeisenberg know that, as someone with a clear conflict of interest, he should confine himself to making suggestions, as specific as he prefers, on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. That should take care of the COI. --regentspark (comment) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- However, very few people come here to edit by making suggestions on talk pages. While it isn't an unreasonable suggestion, it may not be reasonable to expect that someone will so confine himself. It's also not an offense against our "rules"; we cannot require him not to edit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- while I agree that very few people come here only to make suggestions on talk pages, paid editors do have a COI and our wp:coi guideline actively discourages direct editing by editors with a conflict of interest. A useful guideline IMO because it makes paid editing and COI editing less combative. --regentspark (comment) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Others have already pointed this out, but let's make sure there is no confusion about it. Milkin isn't notable for being a convicted criminal. He was very involved with junk bonds, but it is highly misleading to say he was part of the junk bonk scandal. The article should not avoid saying he was convicted, but it should be balanced, with discussion of his contributions as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, Miliken was very much involved in the junkl bond scandal, and did serve time and paid a humongous fine for it. It's hardly a trvial part of his biography and needs to be dealt with, but in a neutral manner. Leaving it out does not serve the interests of our readers and makes the encycylopedia that much less valuable. The question is not whether it should be in, but how much WP:WEIGHT it should be given. Labelling him a "convicted criminal" in the infobox is too much, but the lede should include it, as it was a significant event both in his life and in the history of stocks and bonds trading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's a "behaviorial guideline" that says paid editing is prohibited, WP:NOPAY. What is the status of WP:NOPAY from an enforcement point of view? Are editors blocked for that? I'd thought they were; we had a big flap over this a few months ago on another topic. --John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NOPAY does not say that paid editing is prohibited. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- However, very few people come here to edit by making suggestions on talk pages. While it isn't an unreasonable suggestion, it may not be reasonable to expect that someone will so confine himself. It's also not an offense against our "rules"; we cannot require him not to edit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I largely agree with BMK. Milken is a more complicated personality than merely a convicted criminal. However, all this is best discussed on the talk page of the article rather than here. My suggestion is that we let LarryWeisenberg know that, as someone with a clear conflict of interest, he should confine himself to making suggestions, as specific as he prefers, on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. That should take care of the COI. --regentspark (comment) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have no great sympathy for Miliken, and cringe whenever he makes his annual trips to broadcast booths during baseball season to plug his foundation (which I see as primarily an attempt to rehabilitate his name), but he was notable before the junk bond scandal for basically having invented the junk bond market, and then for the conviction and incredibly large amount of money he had to pay in connection with it. All of that is proper to be in the lede, as long as it is, as lgr says above, neutrally described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- What Milken is notable for is his participation in the junk bonds scandal. He should be describe neutrally, and his conviction, sentencing and jail time should also be in the lead with equal dryness. little green rosetta(talk)
The junk bonk scandal? That would be interesting...! Britmax (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to throw another voice of agreement in here - the criminal conviction is a secondary feature of the thing he was notable for, and defining him primarily as a criminal is definitely showing a slant! We have a lot of articles that tend to creep this way over time (see eg/ the discussion on Talk:Robert Tappan Morris); I wonder if there's any efficient way we could start digging out some of these long-running BLP issues? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, don't get me started. This was an outrageous edit for someone supposedly interested in compromise, and if it's indicative of John Nagle's typical attitude towards BLPs then he shouldn't be editing anywhere near them. Couple that with an apparently large misunderstanding of what precisely our rules on COI and paid editing are (I note a trouting from Dear Leader over this wholesale reverting of sourced content, for instance, because of the identity of the responsible editor) and we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is about self-promotion and whitewashing. We have here a convicted criminal, one responsible for "the biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry"[2] who pays someone to edit Wikipedia to make themselves look good. There's no question about this; the editor involved admits it. Does Wikipedia want to support such efforts? John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, this isn't an "either with us or against us" situation just because you say so. Over the years a huge amount of drama has been caused by people taking an ostensibly good idea (a particularly relevant example is pushing back against the promotion of pseudoscience) and going at it so single-mindedly that they cause more trouble than they prevent. Here, you're editing a BLP to skew it egregiously towards the opinion you want the reader to form of the subject (that he is a career criminal, above and beyond any other detail of his life) and that is most certainly something that bears further investigation regardless of any alleged problematic editing on behalf of the editor you initially reported. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- A few months back, Wikipedia seemed to be taken a much harder line on paid editing. Wikimedia UK chair Roger Bamkin lost his job for paid editing.[3] What changed? Is paid editing OK now? --John Nagle (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Roger Bamkin did not lose his "job", he resigned a volunteer position. In fact, he kept the job which had placed him in a conflict of interest as a trustee of Wikimedia UK. He continues to edit here, continues to participate in WMUK (although not as a trustee), and continues to run his business. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- A few months back, Wikipedia seemed to be taken a much harder line on paid editing. Wikimedia UK chair Roger Bamkin lost his job for paid editing.[3] What changed? Is paid editing OK now? --John Nagle (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, this isn't an "either with us or against us" situation just because you say so. Over the years a huge amount of drama has been caused by people taking an ostensibly good idea (a particularly relevant example is pushing back against the promotion of pseudoscience) and going at it so single-mindedly that they cause more trouble than they prevent. Here, you're editing a BLP to skew it egregiously towards the opinion you want the reader to form of the subject (that he is a career criminal, above and beyond any other detail of his life) and that is most certainly something that bears further investigation regardless of any alleged problematic editing on behalf of the editor you initially reported. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is about self-promotion and whitewashing. We have here a convicted criminal, one responsible for "the biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry"[2] who pays someone to edit Wikipedia to make themselves look good. There's no question about this; the editor involved admits it. Does Wikipedia want to support such efforts? John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest someone close this, as this article now has more eyes and it appears no acmin action will ooccur as a result of this report. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree, Lgr. By the way, I have added the Wikiproject Criminal Biography template to the article's talk page so that that WikiProject may be included in this discussion. I also submit that we take a look at Nagle's question, which I find of great merit. For the record, I have grave doubts that paid editing is good for this project in any way. Jusdafax 07:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- And what about countering paid editing by mass-reverting any edits assumed to be from paid accounts, even where those edits are to remove egregious BLP violations? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I go away for a few days, and the Michael Milken article has gone through a whitewash, rinse, and dry cycle.[4] The "infobox criminal" has disappeared. Details of the criminal activity have been removed to de-emphasize his crimes. Paid editing works! John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I made a couple of changes and brought the criminal stuff back in. I agree that the article shouldn't downplay what he is probably best known for (would most of us have heard of Milken if he were merely the inventor of high-yield bonds?) but that needs to be balanced against the other stuff that he is now known for. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. I go away for a few days, and the Michael Milken article has gone through a whitewash, rinse, and dry cycle.[4] The "infobox criminal" has disappeared. Details of the criminal activity have been removed to de-emphasize his crimes. Paid editing works! John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- And what about countering paid editing by mass-reverting any edits assumed to be from paid accounts, even where those edits are to remove egregious BLP violations? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying of this discussion. You all know my bias - I am a representative of Mike Milken. Up until December, the lead paragraphs of Milken's biography displayed what most would consider a fairly balanced approach to his career. Here was the lead: "Michael Robert Milken (born July 4, 1946) is an American business magnate, financier, and philanthropist noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds (also called "junk bonds") during the 1970s and 1980s, for his 1990 guilty plea to felony charges for violating US securities laws, and for his funding of medical research." Pretty straight forward - the good, the bad and the ugly. The lead was followed by an entire paragraph factually delving into the specifics of Milken's legal problems. It then provided two different arguments about Milken's financial influence, followed by a paragraph citing Milken's philanthropical impact.
- Over the past two months, the editing of this article seems to have spun out of control and quickly devolved to include a strong negative POV and inaccuracies. Statements such as "Since his release from prison, Milken has funded medical research" are simply false. Accurately, Milken began funding medical research in the 1970s and co-founded the Milken Family Foundation to fund education and medical research in 1982 - years before his legal troubles. Secondly, as it now reads, the lead paragraph could have been written in 1992 - it completely ignores everything Milken has done over the past 20 years. Regardless of your OPINION, this profile should reflect Milken's entire career and be balanced and accurate. Some people may not like it, but Milken has made substantial contributions to society over the last 40 years, much of it documented. He has had an outsized impact on speeding medical research, honoring outstanding public school teachers, and promoting expanded access to capital through the Milken Institute. You can't just ignore these accomplishments. All Wikipedia can do is provide a balanced account - it's all part of the whole profile of Mike Milken.
- There can be no doubt - Milken is a controversial figure. But some editors have aggressively sought to bend the focus of this profile with their own negative POV. He has tried to shut down debate and stop my ability to edit this article, even when I have complied with Wiki guidelines. Everyone can read his comments - his "unstated" agenda cannot be more clear. I have been totally upfront, and am not out to whitewash anything. However, when I see insulting, inaccurate, biased or incomplete additions, I have no alternative but to point them out and make changes. As noted above, there was a time in the not-so-distant past when this profile was pretty darn accurate. But as it reads now, it is not accurate, it is not neutral, and doesn't seem worthy of an encyclopedic entry.
- Finally, I'd like to propose a solution. If you examine the revision dated 21:36, 3 December 2012, I believe you will find an edition that is fairly accurate, neutral and unbiased (trust me, there are many points I could argue, and I'm not in love with listing his prisoner status from 20 years ago). But it was a revision that was created by consensus, and one in which the basic format of the first several paragraphs had stood the test of some period of time. I suggest we revert to that entry.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- One correction: Above I refer to an editor but did not specify who he was, and I suppose I probably should have. I was referring to John Nagle (talk · contribs). It should have stated that "one editor" and identified Mr. Nagle. Thank you. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Progressive utilization theory
User:Abhidevananda has written a lengthy section in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#RFCs or just another attack suggesting that my opening of an Rfc on that talk page was done in bad faith. My preference is to have an administrator close that thread (as it is not entirely relevant to the article) and suggest a more appropriate forum to Abhidevananda in which his or her grievances toward me can be addressed. (I guess a review with brief comment on whether or not things seem to be in order with the Rfc would be welcome, too.) Thanks! Location (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) edited 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Mediation. Anyway, the issue here in brief: for last 2 months so we are trying to solve content dispute. Few users think the article is full of primary sources and is more a manifesto than an encyclopedic entry, other group of editors think these sources are required in this article.
The article has been fully protected twice, first time for 1 week, second time for 1 month. We are trying to reach a consensus before 18 February (that day 1 month full protection will end). Changing header to just "Progressive utilization theory --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)- Titodutta, I opened this thread in regards to Abhidevananda's allegations of bad faith editing and canvassing on my part. The content dispute is a separate issue that can be addressed there or in a different forum or ANI thread. Location (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Civil pov-pushing, editwarring, misuse of sources, and lengthy talkpage diatribes should be called out for what they are. I would invite uninvolved editors to look at the recent history of the article and decide for themselves whether it's better to have Abhidevananda's version, or the version supported by a bunch of uninvolved editors who commented following the last NPOV noticeboard thread... since the wrong version is protected this time, nothing need change at the end of protection until some other editor is bold enough to try removing unsourced or fringey content, which will be immediately followed by a revert. bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Titodutta, I opened this thread in regards to Abhidevananda's allegations of bad faith editing and canvassing on my part. The content dispute is a separate issue that can be addressed there or in a different forum or ANI thread. Location (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that Abhidevananda and their 2 allies at the article are acting in good faith, do not understand how Wikipedia works, and sincerely feel persecuted. They are also defending a version which (unbeknownst to them) in violation of a range of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and a 100 miles away from being an encyclopedic article. They have also managed to stop efforts to fix the article. What is needed is for a few more people to tell Abhidevananda this, and then to unlock the article while a few more persons familiar with wikipedia guidelines and policies and enclyclopedic articles visit there for a few weeks and help fix it. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are two WP:FT/N discussions on PROUT and its creator here and here. Almost every article related to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar is stuffed full of primary-sourced material, with notability problems left and right; and this template evinces an intent to create two or three times more articles than already exist. At the moment the major evidence for Sarkar's notability is the Ananda Marga organization, which has had some political involvement, and a PROUT economist at SMU who made a prediction which got him on the NYT bestseller list and the earned him an Ignobel. Bringing this balloon back to earth is heavily inhibited by a group of crusading SPAs who don't really seem to have a grip on what this project is about. It would be useful to have one of these people working from secondary sources (because the proliferation of Sarkar works tends to mask everything else) but if they can't learn to play by the rules, we are going to have to cut drastically. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I made an attempt to talk to User:Cornelius383 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananda Vacanamrtam after about a dozen similar AfD's were tagged with the same comment from him and User:Abhidevananda. The comments were very critical of the community, censorship & conspiracy directed, and not relating to the actual AfD, the article, or the problems other editors have cited over policy concerns. Incivility has been noted by a few editors such as User:Garamond Lethe at User:Abhidevananda#Time to turn it down a notch. I have to agree with User:North8000's comment about them likely feeling extremely persecuted and not being aware of the consequences of their actions and how wiki-policy works. On the other hand, there are AfD's from last week where editors tried to explain to them the process and I've seen no sign or attempt from either editor to show a willingness to look at the policies. As noted at the SPI, I find the possibility of WP:MEATPUPPETRY worrying. Mentorship and talking has already been offered. Unless this is some sort of new tactic I don't foresee having a time-effective third offer to explain things be a meaningful option that will likely net any result. Mkdwtalk 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have just made another try at explaining to Abhidevananda what might be more efficient methods of making defendable articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) .
- I am beginning to believe that some sort of action needs to be taken. For example, anyone attempting to resolve the dispute in PROUT is met with wall-of-text replies claiming bad faith in any number of ways (e.g. [5]). What are our options? Location (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The most effective action will be to find consensus on the minor articles. Once they are dealt of, the RfC on the remaining major ones can reach conclusion. I would urge those who think the whole overall subject nonsense to not try to eliminate everything, or almost everything. AfD can, after all, carry out an enforceable redirect or merge, but this requires there remaining some sort of main article. This has not yet spread into other subjects, as some causes have, so the disruption is limited. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are, unfortunately, several more book articles that I expect to nominate for deletion (although I'm going to turn down the rate so as to give the folks at AfD a bit of a rest). Once those are nominated I'll be looking at the rest of the peripheral articles. However, I would be opposed to trying to delete the Sarkar bio article, PROUT or Ananda Marga. All three of those articles have massive issues, but they're all notable and fixable. GaramondLethe 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The most effective action will be to find consensus on the minor articles. Once they are dealt of, the RfC on the remaining major ones can reach conclusion. I would urge those who think the whole overall subject nonsense to not try to eliminate everything, or almost everything. AfD can, after all, carry out an enforceable redirect or merge, but this requires there remaining some sort of main article. This has not yet spread into other subjects, as some causes have, so the disruption is limited. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am beginning to believe that some sort of action needs to be taken. For example, anyone attempting to resolve the dispute in PROUT is met with wall-of-text replies claiming bad faith in any number of ways (e.g. [5]). What are our options? Location (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have just made another try at explaining to Abhidevananda what might be more efficient methods of making defendable articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) .
The advocates there are very hard to talk to. Efforts to make the article Wikipedian are taken as attacks against "the cause". North8000 (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- One of the criteria for speedy deletion, G11, is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Though there is no point in doing it at CSD, because there would be opposition, it is a reasonable basis for AfD also: to delete an unfixable article and start over. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The question at AfD would be whether to replace the problematic article with a different version, right? We have one ready to go on the talk page at PROUT. I'll try to hurry along my evaluation of the rest of the minor articles, but I could see the AfD process on those stretching out for weeks. There's no hurry, of course, but others might not want to wait for that process to finish. GaramondLethe 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
A refusal to get WP:REDLINK
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RichardMills65 (talk · contribs) has been active recently in a particular pattern, removing redlinks from articles, and adding references. The references are somewhat problematic in themselves, and have been reverted by a few users. But it's the redlink removal that's the issue. Several users have posted on his page on this issue, including myself, and yet the pattern continues. Skipping from article to article, without apparent pattern, the user removes redlinks, sometimes purging an article outright, sometimes only removing a few. There's no apparent method to his approach, and people have been reverting him (and hence posting notifications on his page) for removing valid links. An excerpt from a post to his page with some examples of my concerns are here:
A look at his contributions will show the issue some more. Sometimes he takes out the one or the few redlinks in an article, in others he takes out a single one, leaving others that if the one redlinked article he removed was non-notable, surely the others should go too. There seems to be no reasoned approach to gauging the viability of these links and making a decision as to whether they should be retained or removed, and the number of times I've caught him on articles where I know there is notability for the subject in question, just that no article is written, leads me to think he's not paying attention to this. I've notified about ship articles, and one of his next edits was to remove one from an article. He no longer engages on his talk page, I'd like further input, as now a number of editors are having to revert and notify him, for no change in his behaviour. Benea (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Here you deleted a ship link. These are valid links, given that naval ships are continued article worthy, an article will one day be written. And again here. As a Member of Parliament the subject will one day have an article, one just hasn't been written yet. Here you deleted another one, which left a mangled mess of wiki formatting, and here is another example of this. Here you delete a perfectly valid blue link for some reason. And here you actually add a couple of links that are textbook cases of WP:OVERLINKING.
- I looked at all the diffs you supplied on the user's talk page, and I agree with your analysis. This has been pointed out to RichardMills often enough and it should stop. As far as I'm concerned, this is disruptive enough to warrant rollback and a block if it continues. It's a bit odd--RichardMills responded positively to earlier messages, but there's nothing in response to the many messages about redlinks. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- He's back at it, again the same slapdash approach, removing in this case a red link from an article, but not the infobox. I had hoped his response to previous posts would mean he might modify his behaviour, but he seems to be going it alone now despite the warnings. Benea (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I endorse Benea's analysis. The user appears to be actively deleting perfectly valid redlinks (i.e., those whose subjects are clearly notable) at this very moment, despite the numerous messages left on his talk page explaining why this is inappropriate and asking him to stop, and despite notification about this ANI thread. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have now blocked him for a day for this edit. He went on removing a redlink after Chris had warned him about a possible block. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
His other edits seem problematic as well—for example, he's adding citations to sources which don't actually support the claim in question. I just raised this issue with him though it would be great if others could help review (and revert if necessary) his recent reference-related edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've noticed this as well. His edit here to add a reference to British band Redwood (band) was actually the website http://www.theredwood.com/ which is for a Canadian women's shelter. His edits need careful scrutiny as this is more disruptive than it first appeared. Benea (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, that's bad. Is he perhaps Googling the topics and mindlessly adding references to the first page which comes up? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- See also this edit where he added a reference to Google Books, citing this book while there's a big disclaimer that it is primarily made up of Wikipedia content. So apparently he doesn't even check his sources. Has this behaviour come up only recently or is it a long-term pattern? If it was rather new I'd actually consider a compromised account. De728631 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that way. Mindless would be the way to describe his current editing pattern. He's doing two things and he's doing them badly, to the extent that it's a net loss to the project in having to clear up after him. If when he comes back from the block he actually takes time to engage, I hope he will put more thought into his edits. At the moment he's making them very quickly, and without reference to other users' input. Benea (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, that's bad. Is he perhaps Googling the topics and mindlessly adding references to the first page which comes up? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have shown up now and will have a look.
- Based on edit summary use, it looks to be the same person, but the lack of response to talk page messages is uncharacteristic. Also the low quality references looks uncharacteristic. Perhaps it is someone pretending to be a teacher. Earlier there were summaries like "deleted wiki link" but now is not bothering to say what is happening. But I think a block will attract attention, but I would encourage a meaningful discussion on the user talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let's wait and see if yesterday's one-day block shows any effect of getting Richard back into communication. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It has in fact worked. On his user talk page, Richard has now apologised for the inconvenience he caused and has promised to edit more carefully in the future. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good, the account is not compromised and the block has expired, so I suppose this can be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Original title of this thread: Further WikiProject banner-related disruption of Talk:History of Vojvodina from WP:SPAs evading semi-protection & suspected creation of new WikiProject as part of the disruption
G'day all, back in December there was significant disruption to a number of article talk pages relating to Vojvodina by a new user User:Oldhouse2012. This resulted in a report here [6] specifically about the editors behaviour at Talk:History of Vojvodina, and an ARBMAC warning was issued to User:Oldhouse2012 by User:EdJohnston here [7]. User:Oldhouse2012 then fell off the face of the earth. The disruption to the article (this time by two IPs) re-commenced in mid-January [8], [9] and [10] and User:EdJohnston protected the page on 23 January here [11]. User:Brianyoumans was subjected to some personal attacks and abuse by these IPs here [12]
On 31 January a new user User:Baća bez gaća registered, joined a number of WikiProjects that had previously been subject to the banner disruption on Talk:History of Vojvodina (a total of ten edits), waited four days then began the same disruption of the talkpage as User:Oldhouse2012. During early discussion with this new editor by User:Brianyoumans (who was involved in dealing with the disruption earlier) another new account User:Foodsupply appeared to support User:Baća bez gaća. A quick look shows that User:Foodsupply was created on 29 January and did ten edits that day. When four days had expired this new editor's first edit was to support User:Baća bez gaća at Talk:History of Vojvodina here [13].
The two new accounts appear to be either new WP:SPAs created by the disruptive IPs to continue that activity or socks/meat of User:Oldhouse2012. In particular, User:Baća bez gaća's behaviour and comments are highly reminiscent of Oldhouse2012.
Could I please get some admin attention on this? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, what he said!Brianyoumans (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think I hear ducks quacking. Two new registered accounts miraculously sprang up when semi was imposed, and are now making the same silly reverts. They are removing certain WikiProject banners from the talk page, apparently as a sort of nationalist turf-marking behavior. Unclear whether an SPI would have much to go on. We might have to go ahead and block new registered accounts on behavior. One option might be to open an WP:RFC on the talk page about the WikiProject banners and then block anyone who reverted before the RfC reached a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea Ed. Could we block these characters while I get the RFC up and running? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- RFC done [14]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea Ed. Could we block these characters while I get the RFC up and running? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think I hear ducks quacking. Two new registered accounts miraculously sprang up when semi was imposed, and are now making the same silly reverts. They are removing certain WikiProject banners from the talk page, apparently as a sort of nationalist turf-marking behavior. Unclear whether an SPI would have much to go on. We might have to go ahead and block new registered accounts on behavior. One option might be to open an WP:RFC on the talk page about the WikiProject banners and then block anyone who reverted before the RfC reached a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have another potential sock to add to the pile: User:AnyWay5000. Created on January 30th, the very first edit on the account was to create a WP:Kingdom of Hungary.Brianyoumans (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree Brian. I thought it was highly convenient that WikiProject was created just as this was happening. I'm just offended that these people think we're THAT dumb. :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should add the creation of WP:Kingdom of Hungary by User:AnyWay5000 to the report (per Brianyoumans). This really needs some attention. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
I just would like to add that this distruption may be much deeper than it first looks. For the record, it was me who first added the project banners at first to articles like history of ... , battle of ... and so (territories that were ruled by Hungary or battles it participated in, etc.) a long time ago. For a good long period it was okay, however, when I started to add to articles that are some way related to Serbia, Oldhouse2012 (talk · contribs) popped up from nowhere and began its action. At first removed the banners, then, after realized that it won't work, started to overtag the articles. S/he was not shy to stalk me and come after me even into the category space (how else could you answer this). Recently, IPs started to remove the overtags paying special attention to inculde WP:HU into these removal actions (in the category space or in the article space).
Not much later, I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs) - most of them looked to have created to prove his/her point. (interestingly s/he came up from nowhere, and as a brand new account started quite "mature" actions like creating categories, despite s/he was supposed to be a complete newcomer - sockpuppet?).
As immediately pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a bit rushed and eventually it ended up in a mass category deletion as these new categories were found improper. I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013 (being the lone one to do so), which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.
Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles in the list, however, just after a short while these were also arbitrarily removed (most of them by an IP (79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). I brought the issue to ANI that time, even went to the DRN, however, Account2013 and the IPs who countinued his/her action after s/he stepped down, remained silent and even the DRN was dropped because of the lack of interest. While I cannot force the other side to participate in a discussion (actually probably could do if I would re-add those, though it would generate an edit war or whatever, which i don't want), it is kind of suspicious that I have a "fan" who tries to prevent everything I do. I don't know how much possible it is, but would like to draw someone's attention on these, if I did not manage to do earlier, and get a solution on these (renaming the category/adding it to articles/re-add the list article to the related settlement articles) and ask some experienced users to have an eye on these as it's likely that further actions will be necessary.
Thanks for your time and just drop a line for further details if needed — Thehoboclown (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to Thehoboclown for the new data. It looks to me that this will be a long-running issue and a filing at WP:Sockpuppet investigations may be best. For convenience I would suggest Oldhouse2012 as the master. I hope that one of the parties will have the patience to create an SPI report. If blocks turn out to be needed, a link to the SPI will provide a guide for further review. For the overall pattern of ethnic warring, a report at WP:Long term abuse is another option. Though it would be hard to show if all these guys are socks or meats, they do have a well-defined common interest -- erasing the significance of the current or historical non-Serbian minorities in Vojvodina. I shortened the header of this thread to simplify future reference to it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Funny. There is just one question: if I have so many sockpuppets (and listed accounts are not blocked) then why I had to wait 4 days to edit semi-locked page with this user name? Why I simply haven't used one of mine supposed sockpuppets? There are 6 million people in Serbia and you suggest that one person operates all Serbian accounts in Wikipedia. Besides this, both Peacemaker67 and Thehoboclown are nationalist POV pushers themselves. I suggest that their behavior is examined too. Baća bez gaća (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Ed. Thanks again for the advice. I'll handle the actions you've suggested. And @Thehoboclown, thanks very much for the info. I completely understand your frustration, I'll be in touch if I need any more data. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great advice Ed. SPI checks out per [15]. I have already WP:MFD'd WP:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary. I suppose we can resume normal operations, sans our new friends. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your great efforts, Peacemaker! Too bad it took one minute (!) to remove the info you reinserted. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I blocked all the CU-confirmed socks who had accounts per the SPI case. But due to the section below about Srbobran, there may be more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your great efforts, Peacemaker! Too bad it took one minute (!) to remove the info you reinserted. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- yes, EdJohnston, there is something more you can do. you can examine pattern of behaviour of editors like Thehoboclown or Peacemaker67 and you will see that they are agressive POV-pushers too and they waste large amount of their time in Wikipedia in POV revert wars. they try not to make any page better or neutral but they revert war because they want that they POV prevail over POV of others. if sanctions arent imposed on them too, I affraid, this war in Wikipedia will never stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.127.0.177 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Could I ask an admin to consider closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary early? It is directly related to this report and the related SPI. Thanks very much! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Disruption and threats on Srbobran
This might or might not be the same clique, but the topic is the same: 113.193.187.226 (talk · contribs) first tried to erase official Hungarian name of Vojvodinian town of Srbobran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and when I reverted and warned him under WP:ARBMAC, I got this nice tirade [16]. Google translate with my fixes:
- What the fuck? Srbobran is the Serbian city. Why are you supporting the Hungarian fascists who killed Serbs and threw them under the ice. This here is a real Hungarian fascist whose account is blocked on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srbobran&diff=535767619&oldid=532170630 Why are you doing this? And besides, do you think you'll be able to keep this article to the end of life there ? You're pushing the stone up the hill, but will certainly fall down. Understand that you can not do anything, they can block this IP or temporarily lock the article, but it does not help. You have no idea who I am and who I work for, and so I say it's better that you do not interfere in such a way. 113.193.187.226 ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess a permanent semi-protection and a heavy block is in order. No such user (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is very similar to the language used on my talk page by an IP, except that they used English. See User_talk:Brianyoumans#Notification (Serbia). (I added (Serbia) to make it unique.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can we please get some admin help here? This is the same bunch of loonies all over the place. I feel like I'm playing Whac-A-Mole at the moment... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Happy days, SPI checked out. Not sure about your IP though, Nsu. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Now Nado158 (talk · contribs) has stepped into the revert game [17]. Sorry, but I don't think that this is a mere content dispute: it is pure nationalist POV-pushing. Can an admin hand out a WP:ARBMAC warning, I don't want to play a defender. I might be close to 3RR. No such user (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Happy days, SPI checked out. Not sure about your IP though, Nsu. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can we please get some admin help here? This is the same bunch of loonies all over the place. I feel like I'm playing Whac-A-Mole at the moment... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- No such user: I have proposed a compromise at Talk:Srbobran. I'm not sure the Hungarian name needs to be in the infobox, or even should be, but it deserves to be prominent. You are definitely in an editing war and have probably violated 3RR yourself; maybe you should have called for help sooner? Brianyoumans (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a small addition, Nado158 was active in this "removing-game" in the Subotica article (check the article history focusing on early December), however, that time it was solved quickly thanks to Iadrian yu (talk · contribs), who was there to patrol the article, re-add the name which was countinously removed, and even gave an explanation for the inclusion. That time it looked that Nado158 understood it and after a few tries he dropped the action.
- The next time his/her name appeared on my watchlist came when s/he, hand in hand with one of the above mentioned IP started to remove the links to the communitly list article. ([18], [19], [20]). This was the time when I went on to submit an ANI report, pointing out that his/her actions might fall under WP:ARBEE (so his latest action was not his first when s/he went probably too far). However, I got only a dismissive answer, subsequently Nado158 did not even bother to participate in a discussion. As mentioned above, after received no admin reaction, I went to DRN as well to bring them out, however they played it out by simply ignoring it. Seems like s/he did not want to participate and understand the things and don't even mind to learn from his past actions. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Battleground tactics and gaming by User:Guerrilla of the Renmin
Seven months ago, Guerrilla of the Renmin (talk · contribs) (GotR on talkpages) changed a header in Scarborough Shoal from "Claims by China and Taiwan" to "Chinese claims". I reverted this. GotR then posted in talk and made the edit again, which myself and another editor responded to, and I reverted back to "Claims by China and Taiwan" again. GotR never responded to either post, or otherwise used the talkpage after this.
On 20 January GotR made an edit to the article, with the edit summary "RV edits that could give the impression of being the same government". This "RV" included changing the header to the one they wanted. After an IP changed the header to something else, I reverted back to the stable version on 28 January. After this, GotR made another edit, with the non-descriptive edit summary "Reverted to revision 535088632 by Tarheel95. (TW)", which included the header change. On 4 February I made an edit, restoring the original header (along with the noting in the infobox of China's control of the shoal, which is a separate bit of content arose after another editor noted this control on the talkpage in a post that hasn't been contended). GotR follows this with an edit made with no edit summary, marked as a minor edit, in which they again put in their desired header. When I reverted this 'minor edit', GotR reverted this with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Chipmunkdavis (talk): CMD, your behaviour is outright WP:OWNERSHIP, as I've already made enough concessions, almost enough to seem like a wuss. (TW)". In my response, I said "If you think I own the page take it elsewhere. You're trying to force in your pet title (including with a claim of reversion, after months) while claiming you're making concessions (which is at any rate irrelevant) and accusing others of ownership." Their response was to say "I shouldn't have to point the paragraph beginning with "in 1935" is more concise in my revision, yet you dastardly RV away because it is not how *you* have always liked it". (During the writing of this report, I accidentally clicked the rollback button on their last edit in the article history, which I then rolled back, which is why there are two rollbacks at the top of the article history. Apologies.)
Their last edit completely ignores the header change and accuses me of reverting away because it's not how I have always liked it, which is despite the fact that I explained my position on both the talkpage and in edit summaries, and seems rather WP:POT from someone complaining about how they've had to make concessions. In the meantime they've tried to game the system, using misleading claims of reversions and other unhelpful edit summaries to put in their preferred changes, marked edits as minor when they're clearly not (and this is in no way a new user who doesn't know our guidelines), and responded the reversion of these by accusing me of ownership. This is actually a rather mild incident in the history of a user who has previously directly called another editor "vermin" and has used their userpage to launch their own (quite long) personal attack against me. It is however a good indication that this user is still greatly emotionally invested in the kind of issues which compelled them to launch such blatant personal attacks at earlier points (which I let slide at the time, and I believe others did too, and I'm not aware of any prior reports on this user). That they say they feel like they are going to be seen "like a wuss" in this latest exchange highlights this continued emotional investment, and that they discuss giving concessions shows a rather battleground-minded mentality rather than a consensus-minded one. I'm not allowed to discuss this with the user on their talkpage, as I'm on a list of banned users (despite not having ever actually posted on their talkpage before). GotR has been entangled in this China/Taiwan from almost the beginning of their editing history (their first post on the topic included an allegation of "possibly wilfully deceitful", and as shown above it only went downhill from there), and clearly needs to be separated from it. However, they do a lot of work elsewhere, and I reckon they can be productive away from this area, which seems to push too many of their buttons. CMD (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Ah, the turncoat", is it (quoting Adm. Gerard DuGalle)? Shall I display the definition of 'concession' or will you tacitly admit forthright that I have made far more of them then you ever were capable of making? Shall I point out that I have deferred to Readin's judgment on naming issues frequently? Need I mention the change of my AWB settings after complaints (not unmerited) by these two? Ought it to go without saying that I removed my tirade against CMD just hours after it was posted and that you have my word that I shall never go to such lengths on my user page again? The list goes on, but now is the work-week, not Friday night when I may have more time to produce evidence. Also, every piece of evidence CMD provides that is not related to the Scarlborough Shoal is old. Seriously old. If there are significantly more editors with this "if it rains today, it most certainly will tomorrow" mindset on this site, I fear for the future of the Project.
- Focusing on Scarlborough Shoal, "my last edit" moved away from using 'Chinese claims' in the header and shifted to a metonymic style which is very commonplace in press reports? The "wuss" remark was made because if I had made amends without any second thoughts whatsoever, I would be totally discarding my principles. I am willing to shift attention away from that page provided no reverts are made to the text below the section headers.
- Turning matters away from myself, I begin with CMD's sloppy reverts, which have no regard for anything other than the header, are self-evident in their demonstration of article ownership. Then, of course, there's his total refusal, outside of matters dating to or before the KMT retreat to Taipei and China's seat at the UN, to back any naming configuration other than what has been demonstrated to be the highly politically charged "Taiwan is definitely not a part of China". GotR Talk 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi CMD. I don't know anything about the incident you mention, but I'd like to say that GotR is an extremely valuable wikipedia contributor (just check out his contributions!), and that I have collaborated with him successfully many times and it's always been an enjoyable experience to work with him. I hope the 2 of you can work this out. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Before anyone attempts to assail Azylber as being "ignorant", I should emphasise again that I am willing to make amends to those who do not simply perform wholesale, not justified-item-by-item, reverts. GotR Talk 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not really worried if anyone thinks I'm ignorant on this issue, and in fact I started by stating my own ignorance. The only thing that I am worried about, is when I see a valuable contributor like you, being accused of pretty serious stuff. Hence my intervention. Azylber (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Before anyone attempts to assail Azylber as being "ignorant", I should emphasise again that I am willing to make amends to those who do not simply perform wholesale, not justified-item-by-item, reverts. GotR Talk 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- @GotR: I'm capable of engaging in discussion, and I also don't think it'll help you here to open with yet another personal attack (and again I note consensus isn't about a balance of concessions). You can mention what you want, but unless you explain how it's relevant, which you haven't, it doesn't mean much, especially as it doesn't address many of the issues I posted above (and yes your last edit didn't put back Chinese claims in, but it was still a totally new header which you again didn't discuss on talk despite opposition. In addition, arguing it should be used based on commonness of press reports is quite poor considering that China and Taiwan are far more common). You removed your tirade because after making it you went and pointed it out to me on another talkpage, after which I noted it was simply a personal attack. That you removed it with "point made" after this doesn't sell good intentions. It has been explained to you, many times, that in the vast majority of the English speaking world speaking of Taiwan as separate from China is simply common practice, and isn't remotely political. It's impressive that after all this time you still don't seem to understand that.
- @Azylber: They may well be valuable, as noted I'm not familiar with many of their edits. However, it seems that in this topic area in particular there's a lot of disruptive behaviour, well illustrated in that at the very beginning of their reply above they decide to engage in another attack, alleging that I can't make concessions. CMD (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- That you fail to acknowledge my numerous other retreats from pure ideology is in itself a statement, even understatement, of your Texas sharpshooter/cherry-picking approach to discussion. That you continue to deny (without diffs) the extent of your obstructionism is troubling. It has been explained to you, CMD, many times, that a one-size-fits-all approach to naming, or anything for that matter, is self-destructive, and that whatever the hell the main articles on the two states officially known as the PRC and the ROC are titled is no licence (in particular I quote Nil Einne) to wage unrelenting name-changing campaigns, even blissfully neglecting any subtleties or details in the process, is far more disruptive than anything I have done. In case anyone has not noticed, I almost solely use common names in text (infoboxes do not count), so the claim I somehow ignore common names all the time is false. GotR Talk 05:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- N.B. Just to note I'm aware I was mentioned here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't mentioned any retreats from ideology either way. As for any denial I have to make over supposed obstructionism, I haven't seen any diffs showing any obstructive behaviour, and I'm unsure of what exactly I'm obstructing. If I have been on a unrelenting name-changing campaign, I've done a pretty poor job of it (one would suspect if I was on such a campaign, I'd at least try to rename prominent articles like Economy of the People's Republic of China, especially in light that its counterpart is Economy of Taiwan, but I haven't). As for your claim to "almost solely use common names in text", you've been on a streak of article creation, where you use "People's Republic of China" in the article text. Are you going to address the issues I mentioned in my opening post, or just continue to write about me? CMD (talk)
- I've already addressed the opening post pretty thoroughly, and I only use "People's Republic of China" for locations in municipal districts and a few subdistricts, so yet again you misrepresent my work and my words. If you don't believe this, I suggest you go through all 100+ of my creations in the last 6 weeks; we will see who that you are totally ignorant of common sense notions such as the Law of large numbers. I won't provide diffs unless someone else asks for them, but we can begin with that CFD renaming of Category:Islands of Fujian, Republic of China along with other move de-Sinification move requests you have participated in; the list goes on. GotR Talk 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's been no address of the misuse of the minor edit option, the putting of changes back in months later under the summary of a revert, and the doing all of this despite two users arguing against on the talkpage. As for misrepresentation of work and words, I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made. You shouldn't expect others to go through 100+ independent articles. I see you've made yet another attack on me, again unhelpful. CMD (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- 1) I am fairly whimsical on whether to check the minor edit option, and it is up to reviewing users to examine the diffs in the first place. This is a non-issue. 2) Because it still quirks me to prefer a header with questionable NPOV over one with unquestionable NPOV and greater brevity. As to the "two user arguing against on the talkpage", perhaps I have not made myself clear that I will defer only to the judgment of Readin, Shrigley, Jiang, and other users with similar centrist views.
- "I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made"—just as ridiculous as sampling five Americans and claiming they are representative the US. GotR Talk 02:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's a page outlining the use of minor edits, ignoring it is not a non-issue. As for only ignoring the talkpage posts outside of a few select users, that's bad practice, and completely against standard WP:dispute resolution procedures. The difference between the five americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample, I took the most recent edits, made during this discussion. If you're not willing to provide diffs, that's no-one else's problem. CMD (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's been no address of the misuse of the minor edit option, the putting of changes back in months later under the summary of a revert, and the doing all of this despite two users arguing against on the talkpage. As for misrepresentation of work and words, I simply looked at the most recent contributions you made. You shouldn't expect others to go through 100+ independent articles. I see you've made yet another attack on me, again unhelpful. CMD (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've already addressed the opening post pretty thoroughly, and I only use "People's Republic of China" for locations in municipal districts and a few subdistricts, so yet again you misrepresent my work and my words. If you don't believe this, I suggest you go through all 100+ of my creations in the last 6 weeks; we will see who that you are totally ignorant of common sense notions such as the Law of large numbers. I won't provide diffs unless someone else asks for them, but we can begin with that CFD renaming of Category:Islands of Fujian, Republic of China along with other move de-Sinification move requests you have participated in; the list goes on. GotR Talk 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- That you fail to acknowledge my numerous other retreats from pure ideology is in itself a statement, even understatement, of your Texas sharpshooter/cherry-picking approach to discussion. That you continue to deny (without diffs) the extent of your obstructionism is troubling. It has been explained to you, CMD, many times, that a one-size-fits-all approach to naming, or anything for that matter, is self-destructive, and that whatever the hell the main articles on the two states officially known as the PRC and the ROC are titled is no licence (in particular I quote Nil Einne) to wage unrelenting name-changing campaigns, even blissfully neglecting any subtleties or details in the process, is far more disruptive than anything I have done. In case anyone has not noticed, I almost solely use common names in text (infoboxes do not count), so the claim I somehow ignore common names all the time is false. GotR Talk 05:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
"The difference between the Five Americans and this situation is I didn't take a random sample"—No, there is no real difference between the Five Americans as the sample size is similarly small and, besides, you just undertook convenience sampling; I've hardly met anyone who has come up with excuses for their irrationality as stupid as yours. And looking at the last 35 of my creations, only 7 (Xieji, Henan, Huilong, Dazu District, Huilong, Liangping County, Huilong, Nanchong, Huilong, Suining, Huilong, Zigong and Huilong Township, Ziyang) do not use the common name at all. One-fifth is quite underwhelming. GotR Talk 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Another attack? Looking at the most recent contributions isn't taking a sample, it's making observations on the most recent contributions. That's all I did, and all I claimed to do. Anyway, if you feel that this equates to "almost solely", that's up to you. Thanks for the figures and links though, very helpful. CMD (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Have you two noticed that other then some brief comments from Azylber early on and a quick note from me, there have been no other contributions to this thread? Usually that's a sign the discussion doesn't belong at ANI since no administrative action is likely to be forthcoming so it's best to either drop it or take it somewhere else. And I say this barely having read the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Chuckles). That was obvious from the very start. Especially when we all know that sometimes this forum is used to lynch-mob certain editors; even though I harbour acrimonious sentiment towards some, taking them to AN/I is far below me and, moreover, not productive. Only when the majority of a user's recent editing energies is spent on disruption (wilful or no), and applies to neither me nor CMD, is utilising this forum worth the potential subsequent drama. GotR Talk 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, I would appreciate it if you would advise me where to take this if AN/I is not the right location. As it stands, GotR has edit warred in a new edit to an article, and in this AN/I has basically said that they don't really care for the correct use of minor, hasn't acknowledged the poor use of edit summaries, has stated that they're only going to listen to a few select users and ignore all others (including in the instance mentioned an editor who I don't recall seeing at any of the naming discussions), a position which includes ignoring the talkpage if these select users haven't posted on it, and has made a couple more personal attacks. CMD (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Have you two noticed that other then some brief comments from Azylber early on and a quick note from me, there have been no other contributions to this thread? Usually that's a sign the discussion doesn't belong at ANI since no administrative action is likely to be forthcoming so it's best to either drop it or take it somewhere else. And I say this barely having read the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Accusations of extremism
I would like to report acts of incivility which are not bordering on an incident. After reviewing the various methods of dispute resolution and arbitration, I have come to the conclusion that this specific conflict does not fall into any other category. I don't think I can take this to RfC because it isn't solely about user conduct, but rather both conduct and content. I already tried to get a third opinion with the helpful user GorgeCustersSabre and his attempts at mediation have been ignored. I don't think it belongs at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee] because that page insinuates that it is only for conflicts which the community has previously been unable to solve, and this situation hasn't escalated to that level yet. The dispute resolution noticeboard appears to be for disputes which are purely content related. The Mediation Committee also appears to be for disputes which are purely content related, and as a last resort, but this isn't a last resort as I feel this problem can be solved without oversight.
For the past six years or so, the page on Barelvi, which is a religious movement in South Asia, has been a battleground both between detractors who wish to defame this group (mostly through petty vandalism) and supporters who wish to remove any sources which indicate controversy or criticism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an editor who is a follower of a religious movement editing that movement's page, so long as they edit objectively. This has not been the case with all editors, something which I and others have tried to rectify - for six years. I have recently been subjected to a number of personal attacks due to my edits on this article, and the users who have attacked me personally:
- 1. Have continued attacking me on other pages, and
- 2. All have a history of being blocked for either vandalism or uncivil behavior
The content dispute itself isn't that major and wouldn't warrant being brought here on its own, but the antagonistic nature of some comments directed at me has caused me to feel uncomfortable continuing discussion with these editors directly. I would like to notify the administrators of this and request some form of outside intervention, either through warning the editors involved (even myself, if I am found to have conducted myself inappropriately) or another effective means of solving this issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Msoamu's explanation
That Barelvi Article was having a consensus version for more than a year see [[21]] and there were minor edits.Neutral editors were keeping and maintaining the Article Objective see the history and version. So I request neutral editors to maintain consensus version.
- 1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi.
- 2.The case of mezzo mezzo is that he stopped Non Wahabi or general Muslim wikipedians to add the heading, Wahabi Terrorism relations in Wahabi Page where as he is recently involved in an attempt to insert the Just opposite matter in Barelvi Page.It may be noted that Al Qaeda Osama bin Laden including Lashkar and Taliban all have same ideology i.e Wahabism or so called Salafism.A pervert ideology which is responsible to kill lacs of innocents in the world.
So my indirect attribution on a Wahabi as Jehadi are not baseless.
- 3.The Barelvi Ahle Sunnah ideology is only power which is countering openly and organizing protest against the Terrorism in South Asia and in other parts of the world which is disliked to these People.In the Whole world Sufism or Barelvi are the main victims of these terrorist.Here it is very important to bar Wahabi or Wahabi sympathizer to edit the pages against which their ideals are waging a so called Jehad.
- 4.The Wahabi authors have always tried their level best to insert their personal opinions and to reduce the importance of all Non Wahabi Pages on wikipedia,in this connection mezzomezo has done his level best in the past to suggest many pages from Barelvi page for Deletion.
- 5.He has history of engaging in
(a)Bitter debates and in (b)Edit wars with Non Wahabi editors
- 6.Ultimate agenda of these editors is to save pages of Terrorist ideology and defame his opponents. Msoamu (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo's explanation
Barelvi article
- On January 27th at Talk:Barelvi, I expressed my view that User:Baboon43's affiliation with the Barelvi movement was compromising his objectivity; I based this view on dealing with the article for six years and seeing this before, and my familiarity with English-language discussion boards for this movement on the Internet. My comments seem to have upset him, as he reacted here by accusing me of being a member of a rival religious movement in the region and described my assumptions as ridiculous. I assured Baboon43 that I am not a member of any religious or political movement - though even if I was, that doesn't restrict me from editing the article in and of itself, nor does Baboon43's membership in the Barelvi movement restrict him from editing in and of itself. I also reiterated my view regarding the content dispute; mainly, that Baboon43 is painting all rival religious movements in the region (Deobandi, Ahl al-Hadith and Salafi) as being the same, and calling them Wahhabis, a term for Muslim extremists. This conflicts with established consensuses on all these articles; they are separate movements, even if they (and the Barelvis) agree on some points due to them all being Muslim movements. Baboon43 expressed his feelings that my accusations of POV signaled my own POV, that I was trying to assert ownership of the article and that I was accusing him of "hating" other religious groups. I was upset as I felt he was changing the focus of the discussion, and was claiming (what I still uphold are conspiracy theories) that all Muslims who are not Barelvi are united in trying to harm the Barelvi movement, causing me to answer that he can't simply reject established scholarly consensus across several articles in favor of conspiracy theories about entire countries trying to sabatoge his movement. He once again accused me of belonging to some rival group, of hating Barelvis and of edit warring, which was not my intent. GorgeCustersSabre made a sincere attempt to mediate the situation after I requested him informally to arbitrate, as he had earlier expressed legitimate concern about edits, including my own.
- On January 28th, I attempted to pull the discussion on Talk:Barelvi back to the content instead of the conduct and requested a review of my own disputed edits. Later, there was a rush of IP addressed vandalizing the article in ways which were insulting to the Barelvi movement, followed by a series of deletions and rewrites by another IP address from the exact opposite perspective. On February 2nd, I requested that the page be protected due to the spat of edits, but I failed to go to a proper board for such a request; a mistake on my part, in retrospect.
- On February 4th, User:Msoamu - with whom I had fallen into conflict years ago - entered the discussion, calling me a Wahhabi (technically a slur, as it means a Muslim extremist rather than a self-identifying group) and accusing me of:
- Engaging in a history of edit wars on the page,
- Trying "hundreds of times to vandalize this page,"
- Trying "to show this Moderate movement in Bad light from various angles,"
- That I "must has received many warnings in the past" (I haven't received any),
- I edited the article according to some hidden agenda,
- I consider Barelvis to be heretics, and
- Called me a Jehadist, an accusation which could have serious implications for my personal and professional life. This accusation in particular could hurt my own self and my family, as my IP address could be associated with violent fundamentalism, and I have no connections to that whatsoever.
- Msoamu reverted edits GorgeCustersSabre, about which GorgeCustersSabre inquired on the talk page. Msoamu's answer was to again simply accuse me of vandalism, edit warring and breaking some imaginary consensus. He never actually gave any reasons why my edits or the sources I added were inappripriate.
- Msoamu accused me of having a history of vandalism, edit warring and insinuated that I should not be allowed to edit the Barelvi page because I am not a follower of the movement.
- Finally, I just expressed my desire for arbitration, for which Baboon43 seemed to mock me.
- It is worth noting that User:Saqibsandhu, whom I don't know and have never had contact with, did defend my disputed edits as sound and well referenced and called for an end to the personal attacks.
Wahhabi article
- Concerned about Baboon43's intentions and his history of being blocked for disruption, I went to the Wahhabi article as he had been challenging the scholarly consensus on that group over on Talk:Barelvi. As I expected, I found him there expressing more opinions which I disagreed with from an editorial standpoint. On February 2nd, Baboon43 posted a comment which seemed to insinuate that all prominent persons from Saudi Arabia must be members of the Wahhabi movement. On February 4th, I again expressed my belief that Baboon43 was promoting conspiracy theories, and that I found (and still do find) his comments to border on racism; how can we say that all famous people from a country of 25+ million are members of an extremist religious movement? It's like saying that all famous Cubans are communists, it's not an appropriate statement to make. Baboon43's reaction was to accuse me of being a Wahhabi and of not having knowledge on the subject. Again, even if I were a Wahhabi - and I told him before this that I am NOT a part of any movement, but even if I were - I would still be allowed to edit articles. Likewise, even if I have no knowledge of the issue, I can contribute to articles. The constant accusations of being a religious extremist, however, are very problematic. I informed Baboon43 that I wanted arbitration, and he responded by more or less mocking me for it.
Further discussions
The accusations of being a Jihadist can potentially threaten the safety of my family and the stability of of personal and professional life. It sullies my image as a Wikipedia contributor and will really endanger my family if my IP address or details of my identity are ever known. Above all thing, I would like this issue addressed; not only do I feel the slander should be removed, but I would also like to know if that edit can even be removed from the article's history.
In addition to User:GorgeCustersSabre, I would also like to call User:MatthewVanitas as a witness to this, as he helped working out some of the POV issues on the Barelvi article six years ago, and thus knows how far back these issues go. In the name of fairness, User:Shabiha has also monitored this page for years; as a Barelvi editor who has also criticized my edits in the past, perhaps he can provide another point of view on this dispute. Lastly, this User:Saqibsandhu person seems concerned and perhaps can provide some insight. I will inform Baboon43 and Msoamu about this incident report. I look forward to a resolution to all this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having looked at just the evidence of racial speculation, that is totally unacceptable and there should be sanctions for that alone - I cannot see where they directly called you a Jihadist, but then I don't know enough about the Islamic religion/culture to determine which of these other speculations is essentially calling you a Jihadist. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Accusing somebody of being an "online Salafi Jihadist" is very uncivilised.I would like to request User:Msoamu to stop personal attacks and calling others extremists and please bring solid and neutral references like User:MezzoMezzo did if you want to contribute on page.Revert war and personal attack is not a good policy if you have any objection on edits by Mezzo Mezzo bring it on talk page and discuss it with fellow editors. Recently when User:GorgeCustersSabre and User:MatthewVanitas challenged my edit about Shrine worshipping we solved the matter on talk page( even though still I can provide lots of 3rd party references to prove my self right but they kept my edit also and added a neutral statement that "opponents call it shrine worshipng". we have to make this article more balanced not a battle ground to push your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Lukeno94: Msoamu called me a Jihadist here when he said: "I appeal and invite neutral authors to come forward and Save this Page from Online Salafi Jehadist like mezzo mezzo." It's the last paragraph of his edit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear friends, MezzoMezzo is right that he has been subjected to severe and unfair personal attack. I have not always agreed with MezzoMezzo's edits, including a few reversions of my own edits, but he tries hard to be objective and he always explains why he is making the edits. That's the right way of going about things on Wikipedia. I commend him. Differences can be sorted collegially on talk pages. Accusations of extremism against him are unwarranted and ruin the good will we are all trying to create.Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The SaquibSandhu is not neutral and is supporter of Wahabism. His edits reflects his dis likeness to Barelvi movement.As mezzo mezzo has alleged that Article was having any POV,let it should be examined by User:GorgeCustersSabre or by any other neutral editor.This false and baseless allegation does not give right to him to insert his own POV.Msoamu (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Protip: Don't insult the person who AN/Ied you at AN/I, or make allegations about their beliefs. Perfect way to lose your case immediately. Also, can you provide evidence in your defence about him pushing his POV? Also, please tell me what "SaquibSandhu" means? Is this an insult or derogatory name, or what exactly, as I see no user listed here with that name? Lukeno94 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like it might be a name. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- mezzo how can you complain about personal attacks when you are behind it..not only do you personally attack others but you turn the discussion personal when you disagree with editors..you have gone out of your way to confront me in multiple pages..you even said you would add relevant articles on your watch list…wahabi is not a term for muslim extremists if you go to the Wahhabi article its simply a movement..i never claimed all muslims who are not barelvi are united in harming barelvi movement…i never said all famous ppl are wahabi stop making things up..mezzo called me a racist for stating the fact that saudi arabias royal family are wahabis as clearly written in historical references see Emirate of Diriyah..mezzo disagreed with my comments on Talk:Barelvi so he quickly entered into discussion by lookng at my contributions at Talk:Wahhabi his excuse was that i have a history of 2 blocks last year therefore he has the right to hound me..he then began personal insults calling me racist [22]..admins need to sanction mezzo for his hounding and personal attacks on myself Baboon43 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Baboon43: Wahhabi is a Muslim extremist movement; you calling me that is an insult and is clearly meant as one. I will not discuss that topic further than that; attempts to deny it are silly enough to warrant being ignored. As for Al-Waleed bin Talal, then this is a content issue but it's still racist. You're saying all members of the House of Saud are also members of an extremist religious movement? Again, can I now say that anyone from the family of Hugo Chavez believes in authoritarianism? This is also different from your previous statement where you seem to implicate any Saudi involvement in projects equals Wahhabi involvement. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came off.
- Anyway, I'm still more concerned about your conduct than the content. The content issue could be sorted out if it weren't for your conduct which makes me uncomfortable in dealing with you outside of a controlled environment like this. As for my own conduct then let's allow outside mediators to look at it and comment here. I called your comment bordering on racism. I didn't say it's full on 100% racism, and I didn't say anything about your personally. The link in the previous sentence to my edit is proof of that. And as for following you then of course I watched those pages. You have a history of vandalism proven by your block log and your standoffish nature was a cause for concern. If you or anyone else can show me explicitly in Wikipedia guidelines that my behavior was incorrect then of course I will stop, but to my knowledge I haven't broken any rules; you've broken a number already. That's ok as all editors make mistakes but the big problem is that you seem completely unwilling to engage with me personally in a civil manner, hence my seeking of outside intervention. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Msoamu: Which allegations are false? You called me a jihadist here. I work for a reputable institution and if such allegations were ever to be tied to my identity, it could have ramifications at work; nobody wants to be associated with that, nor do governments in the civilized world tolerate such people. Thus, your comment runs the risk of putting both me and my family in danger. And without reason! I disagreed with your editing as I found it disruptive; where do you get off accusing me of religious fundamentalism? The content about which we were disputing wasn't even related to politics! Now you sit here insulting another editor who didn't even get involved other than to comment in opposition to your behavior, calling him a Wahhabi supporter too. How you do even know that? The person whose name you mentioned hasn't given his own opinions in any discussion or even engaed in comprehensive edits, he just disagreed with you. The whole world is full of Wahhabis now unless they all bend to your viewpoint?
- And how can you claim that you want neutral editors like GorgeCustersSabre to monitor the article when every single edit he's made to the article has been reverted by yourself without discussion or explanation? It almost seems like you're just trolling now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- wahabi saudi clerics have denounced terrorism so no your wrong..wahabism is a movement out of saudi arabia and is not synonym to extremism..why don't you look at your own personal attacks calling me barelvi? its time you take your own advice by halting uncivil behaviour..then maybe after that you can direct other editors about civility. Baboon43 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Msaamu: How do you know that I am Wahabbi ?? this is again a personal attack from you. You were removing a referenced material and I was asking you to discuss it on talk page is that make me Wahabi ?? There are lots of people every where in world who disagree with barelvi movement means they all are Wahabi? And about my neutrality you can see on talk page the stuff I provided there was from a third party not from Pro Barelvi or wahabi site and even after that when GorgeCustersSabre tried to make the wording neutral did I stopped ?? see the talk page. Please do some "Real contribution" instead of personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqibsandhu (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You seem ready to discuss content in a civil manner, Baboon43. Will we be able to do this without name calling?
- Calling someone a Barelvi, by the way, is not a personal attack. There is a tremendous difference between ascribing someone to that movement and calling them a Wahhabi. I think everyone else here will agree. Are we ready to move on? (For admins viewing this, I still don't consider the issue with Msoamu finished at all - I would still like my personal concerns addressed, as well as his further personal attacks on others right here on this noticeboard, if possible.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The SaquibSandhu is not neutral and is supporter of Wahabism. His edits reflects his dis likeness to Barelvi movement.As mezzo mezzo has alleged that Article was having any POV,let it should be examined by User:GorgeCustersSabre or by any other neutral editor.This false and baseless allegation does not give right to him to insert his own POV.Msoamu (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unless any of you have publicly stated what your religious views are, I don't think it's appropriate to claim anyone is part of ANY religious movement, regardless of what type. Obviously, naming someone an extremist (via associating them with an extremist group) is worse, but avoiding that kind of conversation entirely would be the most sensible policy. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I attributed a terminology Online Jehadist to Wahabi Supporters who don't want others to know the real face of their movements.The Wahabi Terrorism relationship is regularly removed by MR.MEZZO MEZZO on the pretext of one and another.See [[23]]
Must See that how Saqibsandhu has just removed [[24]] a Terror word from the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan a Banned terrorist organization of Pakistan.What more evidence one needs ? If not original terrorist, their supporters are here to defend them any how.This is what i tried to show to all neutral editors.
- wahabi is a belief its not about being extreme or not..all wahabis are not extremists..wahabis are anti innovation in religion, hostile to sufi groups, some also protect saudi government from criticism..& they follow abdulwahab and mostly ibn taymiyah..there is wahabi sufis...groups like the muslim brotherhood have a mixture of sufi wahabi beliefs as well...saudi arabia was founded on the tenets of wahabism..usually western media mentions wahabis in bad llight but its not always the case..ISNA Americas largest islamic association is influenced by wahabism so how can they be extremist?…every movement has good and bad its not black and white..as far as the name calling question the ball is in your court. Baboon43 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry at Japanese articles
Following the indefinite blocking of JoshuSasori for threats and disruption, a number of articles they frequented on Japanese subjects have been targeted by anonymous edits. This has been especially disruptive at Tales of Moonlight and Rain where various anon accounts have proceeded to edit war.[25][26][27][28][29] A fuller list of socks and articles affected is at the SPI. For the time being, I request semi-protection for Tales of Moonlight and Rain and duck-blocks for the IPs, as well as further investigation as to the extent of the problem.--Cúchullain t/c 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The most recent sock is 124.85.41.57 (talk · contribs · count).--Cúchullain t/c 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, the IPs are really serious problems and they appear to be from Tokyo, Japan. I think JoshuSasori is using IPs to deliberately avoid scrutiny. Also, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has semi-protected Tales of Moonlight and Rain. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Anon has presented some interesting evidence that he/she is not JoshuSasori here. Apparently the number of articles the user edited before JS was blocked comes to four, although one of them (the only one he/she mentioned until now, even when prompted) was an instance in which JS weirdly voted against his usual tendency to use English.[30] Additionally, one of the other three has the anon coming to the article 12 hours before JS was blocked (and sometime after he was told he was being blocked).[31][32][33] (Full disclosure, though, I also came to that article not long before JS's block, as did a few others, as the subject had passed on a few days earlier.) Additionally, I don't think JS lives in Japan: I had several heated debates with him during a timeframe we were both actively editing, at a time when I should have been asleep. I did this because he trolled me into it, but I can't imagine he chose to hold shouting matches with me at 3 a.m. Lastly, the Anon has requested a CheckUser to prove his/her innocence.[34] Therefore, I am beginning to waver on this Anon being a sock of the blocked JoshuSasori; rather, I think he/she is just a particularly disruptive Anon user. We'll see if he/she follows me to other articles now that Tales of Moonlight and Rain has been protected... elvenscout742 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear from the behavioral evidence that this is Joshu trying to evade his block. He's doing the same things in the same way, and Joshu has hopped around to several IPs. That doesn't mean he's the only one ever to have used that particular IP.--Cúchullain t/c 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I followed Cuchullain's lead and collapsed the Anon's votes (in some cases probably double votes) to five more RMs he/she had followed me to. (Whether or not this is the same person as JoshuSasori, he/she is clearly harassing me in the same way as the latter was.) I was reverted all five times based on the assertion that "I'm not JoshuSasori's sockpuppet" with no further evidence provided.[35][36][37][38][39] It's worth noting that the Anon knew what I was doing and immediately reverted me, but did not revert Cuchullain for doing the exact same thing, which indicates that this is something personal against me. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, this latest IP followed me to the article Outrage Beyond and referred to the way I formatted a citation as an "error", behaviour not untypical of pre-block JoshuSasori.[40][41] elvenscout742 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Himesh84 and myself have been involved in a number of disputes over the last 8 months the most recent of which was over my placement of a number tags on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The dispute has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. Three DRN threads were also opened (October 2012, January 2013, January 2013) but all were closed early. About three weeks ago an admin, Qwyrxian, joined in the discussion and offered his opinion and advice on how to resolve the dispute. In Qwyrxian's opinion the factual accuracy and lack of references were justified and self-evident. Qwyrxian asked me to justify the neutrality tag. The other tags were unnecessary. Qwyrxian then reverted WelupillaisOb's (a sockpuppet of Himesh84) removal of the tag.
Himesh84 ignored this and reverted Qwyrxian's edit, removing all the tags. A few days ago I a started a separate section on the talk page to justify the neutrality tag and re-inserted the neutrality and the factual accuracy tag. Himesh84 once again removed the tags stating was needed to add tags (this is a deliberate misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works).
In his relatively short time on Wikipedia Himesh84 has been involved in a number of disputes. The main reason for this is his unwillingness to abide by the core policies on content (neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research). He has also shown an inability accept he is wrong, choosing instead to prolong the dispute in the hope that other editors will give up or lose interest - see protracted discussions here, here and here. In November 2012 he refused to accept the outcome of a DRN mediation, created two POV forks which were speedily deleted (here and here) and ended up being blocked. He has also shown that he is prepared to use underhand tactics such as using sockpuppets and lying to admins in order to get his own way.
I am aware that I should probably take this to DRN but given how the three DRNs on the latest dispute ended and how Himesh84 reacts to DRN's I ask for admin intervention.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is something non-ideal with Himesh84's edits, but I don't know that we're at a point requiring administrative intervention (i.e., a block). Himesh84 seems to always want to jump to dispute resolution--as in, one person reverts him, and he thinks it's time to go to DRN. But I kind of understand that attitude, because he was previously scolded for edit warring without using dispute resolution. Having said all that, I haven't looked into the sockpuppetry and other problems that Obi2canibe raises. It would be great if someone could look into the details; I'm off for the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Disappointing on case you bring the issue here. At least read what is in the talk page before disturbing to Administrators.
- If DRN was closed too early it is not my fault. You either needed to participated on time ( on 2 occasions) like other people did or report 2 users who closed the 2 DRNs too early clarifying your busy lifestyles. But not me. Anyway you could open new DRN when you visited Wikipedia rather finding reasons to skip DRNs and justifying the skip.
- You didn't justified neutrality tag. You explain your stand on neutrality tag and inserted two tags (both neutrality and factual errors (why?)). factual errors (if any) are not self evident. They needed to be shown. But two major concerns(start point of the conflict,no mentioned about Tamil presence on the island prior to the 13th century) you stated without any references are referred in the article.
- see the reference number 1 for start point of the conflict.
- Tamil present before 13th century - Tamils came during kingdom of Rajarata era had mixed with the Sinhalese community. Era of Kingdom of rajarata is 537BC to 1215
- You have not been able to justify rest of the incidents you mentioned has any effect to Tamils to resorting to militancy. You have mentioned Ceylon Citizenship Act; Colonization; Standardization . But I am 100% sure you didn't know anything about these things. CC act only affected to Indian Tamils ( 4th largest ethnic group in SL) not to Sri Lankan Tamils. If it is not affected on SLT how it is a reason for them to resorting to militancy? You needed to explain this since I feel it crazy and silly reason. Also I have proved how Tamils get advantages from standardization using 2011 official cutoff marks. Colonisation - This is some selfish mentality from SL Tamils. They can live anywhere in Sri Lanka ( 30% of urban Colombo population are SLTamils came from Jaffna) but object same right for other ethnic groups and saying a reason to wear arms. Anyway I added those information to the article since many Tamils (including you) saying it is an reason - find it in Traditional homelands claim by Tamils section.
- WelupillaisOb is not a sockpuppet. It is an alternative account ( I am not the only one who using different account on public networks).
- Earlier I was blocked for sock-puppet case. Not for forking or anything else. It is over but still I refuse the sock puppet charges. WP admin did early conclusions and went on with it after the heated discussions. Also about lying it was angry respond to my block reason specified by admin. I just gave an example to show that the admin was wrong. That's all. Everyone except Obi2canibe understood that.
- Still I think I am correct on past disputes. You trying to use Wikipedia to promote propaganda. You not allow to include criticism against what favor on you (UNSG) and include any criticism on what not favor to you (LLRC). I have state my opinion in | here. Still no one clarified what are the specific policies for two structures for competitive reports. Himesh84 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
About edit waring, here are best examples about my friend's behavior.
- He removed citation required tags without providing facts | 1. |2. References for native, relationship between Tamils lived in Rajarata with present ethnic group called as 'Sri Lankan Tamils' was raised in |talk page.
- This is the only relative answer by him but it doesn't answer the raised concerns.
- > This is a good article. It has 168 in line citations. And yet you place these tags?
- In all other answers he has questioned the users behavior rather answering to the questions but continuing with reverting the article.
- > This and your other behviour over the last week has shown your true character - childish and unimaginative. Please grow up
- > You still haven't learned Himesh84. Wikipedia has no place for your games. Please edit using your registered account rather than dynamic IP addresses.
- Still do administrators things above answers by obi2canibet could make consensus for his changes and above answers can save him not involved in edit waring without making constructive comments for repetitive reverts he made ?
- Here is confession of another edit waring. He had been edit waring for very long about tags ( most of the his reasons for tags are intangible ( as reasons he using self evident and doesn't needed to pin pointed). But when he confessed he was not knowing factual errors, but edit repeatedly edit waring. He said he can't provide reasons now. Will provide later. Himesh84 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- obi2canibe, You was asked and you promised to justify factual errors tag but you claiming something else (neutrality) and start reverting and reporting. This is what administrator recommended.
- > Neutrality - Administrator recommend you to start by section wise.
- This is your answer.
- < This leaves three tags:"Lack of references", "Neutrality" and "Factual errors". You have asked me to explain the last in detail and I will do this, though it may not happen immediately.
- I couldn't participate to DRN because I was blocked at that time. Why did you skip following latest DRN 1 ? Himesh84 (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have added the tags which were removed by Himesh84 on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.
- The lead para states on the artcile as follow;
- "The ethnic conflict of Sri Lanka is a conflict mainly between Sinhalese and Tamils and conflict between Tamils and Muslims. The conflict started to appear when Kalinga Magha, a Tamil invader claiming Kalinga (Orissa) lineage invaded Kingdom of Rajarata in 1215.[1][2]"
- But when I went through the first citation, I found on the Page 24 the following;
- "Yet, racial and religious motives are attributed to the Dutugamunu-Elara conflict, and some Sinhalese scholars even regards the defeat of Elara by Dutugemmunu as the beginning of Sinhala nationalism."
- "Thus, although Dutugemmunu may have been viewed as the savior of the Sinhalese race, his victory over Elara did not put an end to Tamil Sinhalese conflict nor did it deter Sinhalese rulers from having contact with South Indian rulers."
- So according to the Citation provided by Himesh84 himself states the Ethnic Conflict started with Dutugamunu-Elara conflict which happened in the Pre-Christian era.
- And my question to Himesh84 is what made him to assume, "The conflict started to appear when Kalinga Magha, a Tamil invader claiming Kalinga (Orissa) lineage invaded Kingdom of Rajarata in 1215."???
- And to the Administrators who are perplexed of the conflict; please note the conflict in Sri Lanka is thousands of years old and developed among many tribes in the island and South India. But over the years these tribes assimilated into the ethnic identification of Tamils and Sinhalese.
- Why I have re-added the tag is, if the first para itself very shallow in describing the thousands of years old conflict, how the entire article will be neutral. The entire article is Himesh84's POV and should be re-written jointly by editors who take interest of this conflict.
- Hope some Europeans and American and other neutral editors will get involved on this project; some of the lost civilizations and kingdoms in South and Southeast Asia were re-discovered by European amatuer historians.Hillcountries (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- About start point of the conflict - see the following section in page 25.
- Reference in the Rajavaliya to the plundering of buddhist shryne, forced conversion of buddhist to hindusm, burning of rajarata the king's country by invading army from south India have had great impact on Sinhalese national consciousness.
- Rajaravilya ( Sinhalese) is the primary source and the book is the secondary source state what is the time Sinhalese consider it as the starting point of the conflict. That is the possible earliest point of the conflict between Sinhalese and ethnic group called as Sri Lankan Tamil who are descendants of the Jaffna kindom which established by Magha and his army invaded Sri Lanka in 1215. I can't find where you find your quote. But first please verify relationship between Tamils in your sentence and present ethnic group called as SLT. Because identification for SLT today is they are descendants of Magha's army. Also article has verified sentence which verified Tamils( in your claim) mixed with Sinhalese. If you said conflict between Sinhalese and SLT are earlier than SLT came to Sri Lanka you specially needs to show us how a conflict can start when Sinhalese(present) in Sri Lanka and SLT are in South India in a era with no Internet facilities and satellite phones
- Are you saying that Europian found lost civilization other than Anuradhapura,Pollonnaruwa bellow to Jaffna peninsular ? Can you please share findings with us because I feel it is very very interesting. Himesh84 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Himesh, since you have started something attacking South Indian pillage, I am starting with the following;(please refer page 24[42])
- "...Elara, the Chola general from South India who ruled Anuradhapura for forty-four years, and for thereby rescuing Buddhism. It is surprising to note, however, that Elara is portrayed in the Pali Chronicles as a benevolent king who extended patronage to Buddhism. There were also other Tamil rulers who assumed the traditional role of protecting and fostering the state religion while "Sinhalese kings sometimes pillaged temples and monasteries of their wealth."
- So, Himesh, you should understand the fact that South Indians are always not destructive. And Sinhalese kings involved in geo-political-military war fare in the medieval time supporting Pandian Empire of South India in their Wars against Cholas; so Cholas also retaliated Sinhalese kings and invaded into their kingdoms time to time.
- I disagree with your point, "earliest point of the conflict between Sinhalese and ethnic group called as Sri Lankan Tamil who are descendants of the Jaffna kindom which established by Magha and his army invaded Sri Lanka in 1215."
- How sure there were no Tamils(who were there for Centuries) in the Northern Sri Lanka when Magha invaded. The Tamils who came with Magha might have been mixed with those Tamils who were already there. Otherwise what happened to those Tamils who were there in the Northern Sri Lanka. How it could be possible those who were there in the North being Sinhalese while the Tamil coast in South India is only 30 KM away from the Northern Sri Lanka.
- What you refer as Sri Lankan Tamils today are a Mixture of Tamils who migrated towards Sri Lanka in different waves since several thousands of years.
- What I mentioned about the European re-discovery is about Srivijaya - "After Srivijaya fell, it was largely forgotten and historians had not even considered that a large united kingdom could have been present in Southeast Asia. The existence of Srivijaya was only formally suspected in 1918, when French historian George Coedès of the École française d'Extrême-Orient postulated its existence.[3] The aerial photograph taken in 1984 revealed the remnants of man-made ancient canals, moats, ponds, and artificial islands in Karanganyar site in Palembang suggested the location as Srivijaya urban center."
- Hope you will understand above facts.Hillcountries (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- you saying 'The Tamils who came with Magha might have been mixed with those Tamils who were already there.'.On the other hand there are several Shiva temples within castle of Pollonnaruwa. Also cow had been removed from [[43]] due to Tamil concerns. Cow is a deity in Hindusm. Also adopted son of king parakramabahu VI who invaded Jaffna kingdom was a Tamil (During kotte era). So it is evident that Tamils came before Magha had good relationship with Sinhalese. Sinhalese names like Kulasekara,kulasekara, .. are derived from Tamils. The distance between Anuradhapura and Jaffna peninsula is only 80 miles away. Ruhuna which was about 160 milles away from Anuradhapura was a part of the Anuradhapura. It is hard to believe Tamils lived separate from Sinhalese as a separate kingdom. Without having kingdom Tamils can't resists to power of Anuradhapura. Having a conflict with Anuradhapura it is impossible to survive. Also there is no sign ( see ruins of Anuradhapura, pollonnaruwa) of any civilization except Jaffna kingdom. Unfortunately Sri Lanka don't have find anything like Srivijaya. Northern province is not a big area if some thing is there to find it must be already found by both LTTE and SL army because they know any place in the region. After king Parakramabahu I (1180 ? ) , the king unified Ruhuna, Rajarata, Mayarata for last time by serious of wars there can be new Tamil settlements. But it wasn't come as big army which threaten to power of Rajarata. Himesh84 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- There were Tamils mixed with those Tamils who came with Magha and the same time there were Tamils who mixed with Sinhalese.
- If you could see the current ethnic conflict which is actually nothing to do with any of those Conflicts of Tamils and Sinhalese in the different time periods of the history of Sri Lanka. Because the Tamils in the Pre-Christian era and the Sinhalese in the Pre-Christian era are nothing to do with the ethnic identities of the modern Tamils and the modern Sinhalese. Because there were a lot of admixtures happened in between these ethnic groups over the centuries. That is why User:Blackknight12, a Sinhalese Wikipedian himself wanted to delete the article[44].
- What I tried to say by my initial,"Hope some Europeans and American and other neutral editors will get involved on this project; some of the lost civilizations and kingdoms in South and Southeast Asia were re-discovered by European amatuer historians.", is, there could be some neutral editors will find a lasting solution for this issue on Ethnic Conflict article on Wikipedia like the interest shown by some European historians in the lost Southeast Asian kingdom like Srivijaya.Hillcountries (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would be great if independent editors contributed to the article but for the moment I would like to focus on Himesh84's behaviour rather than the specific content that is the subject of the dispute. During the November dispute Himesh84 steadfastly refused to accept the core policies on content - neutrality, verifiability and no original research - despite a number of editors pointing them out (as exemplified by this discussion). The current dispute shows that Himesh84 still doesn't accept the core policies. Numerous editors (User:Richwales, User:So God created Manchester, User:Mike Rosoft, User:Qworty, Qwyrxian and myself) have spent a lot of time trying to educate Himesh84 but he is unable, or more probably unwilling, to change. Himesh84's attitude is that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Even when Himesh84 is forced to back down he won't accept that he is wrong: I will wait until non participants realizing the mistake; I am correct on past disputes; I refuse the sock puppet charges.
- I don't believe Himesh84 is afraid of edit warring if he believes he can get his own way. In a recent dispute on Sri Lanka Himesh84's preference was opposed by everyone else but this didn't prevent him from reverting once, twice, thrice, four times. Indeed, Himesh84 has used strawman socks to create the appearance of an edit war. It was spotted in November that Himesh84 was using dynamic IP accounts in the 61.245.xxx.xx range. Here are some of the many edits by Himesh84 using the 61.245.xxx.xx range: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Recently a number of 61.245.xxx.xx accounts have engaged in "edit wars" with Himesh84: 61.245.165.24 v Himesh84 v 61.245.163.56 v Himesh84. This was in fact a lousy attempt at framing me.
- I'm afraid Himesh84's excuse that WelupillaisOb is a public network account is lame. On 15 January WelupillaisOb was editing between 4.53 and 5.34 whilst Himesh84 was editing between 6.32 and 7.37. On 25 January Himesh84 was editing between 16.40 and 16.43 whilst WelupillaisOb was editing at 17.21. A check user will show that both accounts use the same computer. And if it's a public network account why try to hide it twice: 1 and 2? (BTW, the name WelupillaisOb is an insinuation that I'm a supporter of Velupillai Prabhakaran).
- I'm not concerned about what sanction is taken against Himesh84 (blocked, topic ban etc). I just want some action taken that will make Himesh84 realise that his behaviour is unacceptable.--obi2canibetalk contr 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest someone to take action against Obi2canibe. He was supposed to justify neutrality tag. Not to do some joke comments under topic 'neutrality tag' in talk page and re insert neutrality tags. No consensus made Obi2canibe next explanation (even he said neutrality tag must restored since he is supporter of prabakaran) eligible to restore neutrality tag.
- He was joking in here. He saying SLT resorting to militancy due to their sympathy on Indian Tamils and Sinhalese by some government cruel action against Indian Tamils and Sinhalese ( Indian Tamils - CC Act, Sinhalese - standardization). Anyone can understand this is an joke even I am out numbered with votes.
- He has to show Tamil heritage out side of Sinhalese kingdom(With SLT). I have given lot of references to Tamil heritage within Sinhalese (ruins of Shiva temples,Sandakadapahana,..) and I can't believe his opinion unless it is come with verified sources. First these Tamils needs come to Sri Lanka from Canada and find long lost their heritages outside Sinhalese kingdoms. If someone can show that I can accept.
- Also colonization (based on 'Traditional home land claim') is one of the major fact they say as key reason to the last civil war. It is already is in the Obi2canibe's comment which he used to insert neutrality tags . This Land conflict is there since Sinhalese expelled in 1215. The war was for fertilized land in Rajarata. Now it is same story and come it as Traditional home lands. Still Tamils resists Sinhalese settlements in North and East (even after the war). I will withdraw the conflict has relationship to 1215 when Obi2canibe showed me Tamils and Obi2canibe withdrawn traditional home land issue with Sinhalese. Even Obi2canibe saying traditional home land issue has major reason how I can withdraw first incident about Lands.
- 61.245.xxx.xx belonged to Mobitel. One of the Largest mobile provider in SL. Tamils also logged from them. If I did I say it was me. Please see my confession in my home page.
- I haven't misused WelupillaisOb account. Verify I have misused the account after I recovered himesh account.
- Letting you to do your changes as you mentioned in [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASri_Lanka&diff=535499563&oldid=535352496 I will wait until non participants realizing the mistake] is one thing , but accepting it is another thing. I again say it in here. I don't accept what you did was correct. It is my opinion. If you need to change my personal opinion you must show why ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka article not fit in to Sri Lanka page rather voting counts. You start this because your previous attempt to introduce 'orphan' tag to 'ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka' page in here. The sentence could be rewritten in many different ways which could keep both ECSL and intuitive.
- Until richwales bought the issue to talk page in here no one participate in the talk page to include changes. Why only me wrong ? All were wrong.
- >> I would like to focus on Himesh84's behaviour rather than the specific content that is the subject of the dispute
- I think you need to clarify content rather my previous behaviors as reasons to insert tags. Otherwise please withdraw your tags that currently in the page. Most of the time you question my behavior as a reason to revert my edits specially in Here. If some one allowed to questioned behaviors rather content to include changes there is no point been in WP. Himesh84 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest someone to take action against Obi2canibe. He was supposed to justify neutrality tag. Not to do some joke comments under topic 'neutrality tag' in talk page and re insert neutrality tags. No consensus made Obi2canibe next explanation (even he said neutrality tag must restored since he is supporter of prabakaran) eligible to restore neutrality tag.
- I'm not concerned about what sanction is taken against Himesh84 (blocked, topic ban etc). I just want some action taken that will make Himesh84 realise that his behaviour is unacceptable.--obi2canibetalk contr 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
User:Nickst
User:Nickst has been edit warring over a CSD template on "his" page, for which an ANEW thread has already been started. Having been unsuccessful at an AfD of an article he created after it was deleted in a deletion discussion, he seems to have started a WP:POINTY rival AfD, apparently connecting my comments at the AfD with the fact I edited the Czech Footballer of the Year article yesterday in order to select this particular article. He has used this "rival AfD" to use arguments against "his" IFFHS article, against this other one. He has subsequently targeted the three users !voting keep at the Czech Footballer of the Year AfD [45] [46] [47] and WP:Canvassing them to try to support his position in the original AfD. I feel the behaviour of this user is very disruptive and he is trying to game the system, subsequently wasting the time of other Wikipedians. C679 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Cloudz679 try to speedy delete article with 11 interwikies and many reliable secondary sources. Hidden vandalism because it is WP:PERSONAL. My is meaning that I am the main contributor. I invite all for discussion of these aricles from Category:Association football trophies and awards and template {{National Footballer of the Year}}. We need to keep them all or delete all. No logic to delete only one which was updated and sourced by me. NickSt (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nick, as you have been told multiple times, you need to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your "all-or-nothing" mentality shows that you comprehensively fail to understand how notability works. GiantSnowman 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Giant, give me the reason why IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper is not notable award, but Czech Footballer of the Year is notable. NickSt (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- It has been explained multiple times across both AfDs - I genuinely despair. I am about to lose my rag so pretty much logging off for the night. Please, drop the stick and move on to something more productive. GiantSnowman 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid argument in this case. I suggest the Giant Snowman actually read and comprehend the essay rather than assuming its contents. Sepsis II (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- It has been explained multiple times across both AfDs - I genuinely despair. I am about to lose my rag so pretty much logging off for the night. Please, drop the stick and move on to something more productive. GiantSnowman 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Giant, give me the reason why IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper is not notable award, but Czech Footballer of the Year is notable. NickSt (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nick, as you have been told multiple times, you need to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your "all-or-nothing" mentality shows that you comprehensively fail to understand how notability works. GiantSnowman 21:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:Cloudz679 try to speedy delete article with 11 interwikies and many reliable secondary sources. Hidden vandalism because it is WP:PERSONAL. My is meaning that I am the main contributor. I invite all for discussion of these aricles from Category:Association football trophies and awards and template {{National Footballer of the Year}}. We need to keep them all or delete all. No logic to delete only one which was updated and sourced by me. NickSt (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Note - I am INVOLVED as I !voted 'delete' at this AfD on an article Nick created and have been engaging with him all day on the matter - however I still want to state that I believe his editing is concerning, he seems to harrass anyone who dares suggest an article he created (or as he describes it, "my article", violating OWNership) is non-notable, and I agree that this AfD is POINTy. GiantSnowman 21:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also involved (as one of those canvassed), but endorse what has been stated by GiantSnowman and Cloudz679. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose I'm involved too as I'm one of those who was "canvassed". For my part though I was asked by NickSt (an editor with whom I have hitherto had no dealings) to give my opinion on the AfD for IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper with NickSt not pushing me specifically to vote in any particular way. I ignored the request as I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the matter and nothing more was said. As far as I'm concerned my involvement was something and nothing and NickSt's comment on my talk page didn't bother me in the slightest. I have no involvement in any other part of this and so can't comment on other issues surrounding this incident. Cheers. Keresaspa (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also involved (as one of those canvassed), but endorse what has been stated by GiantSnowman and Cloudz679. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have closed the Czech Footballer of the Year AfD as "keep per WP:POINT". If I see one more disruptive edit from Nickst, I will happily block for that disruption / the edit-warring / removing CSD tags on an article Nickst had created. I suggest Nickst reads up on what vandalism and personal attacks actually are, since nominating an article at AfD is neither. I note that Nickst ignored the consensus at the DRV that " once you have something worthwhile you can bring the draft back to DRV for review." BencherliteTalk 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Disruptive edit? Block? Czech Footballer of the Year is notable award but IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper is no? Ok! I don't understand WP:GNG in such case. I am leaving the project due to deletion of the IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper, article with 11 interwikies and many reliable secondary sources. Good luck to write about sports awards without me. NickSt (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- You can have a thousand secondary sources and still not have any notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Déjà vu. C679 21:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Leighperson and "punctuation errors"
Leighperson (talk · contribs) has, for his/her fairly short editing history, been "fixing" what Leighperson describes as "punctuation errors", despite them not actually being errors. In particular, Leighperson appears to remove all m-dashes and n-dashes from articles as "punctuation errors" (e.g. [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]), despite being requested not to do so.[56] As Leighperson does not appear to be responding to his Talk: page, and continues to edit in this way, I've brought the issue here for discussion. Jayjg (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not that they are errors as such but the dashes are ugly and what purpose do they serve? The sentence I looked at is the same without them. Britmax (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Dashes are ugly" is way into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory and not any good reason to replace correct punctuation with something erroneous. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Use of commas and dashes is often a stylistic preference, but they do allow writers to indicate different levels of parenthesis and separation of list clauses; as does the much-neglected semi-colon - even if some think anything more than a comma is ugly. Unless there is a MOS requirement, we should not change styles to suit our personal preferences - and we should definitely not label such changes "punctuation errors". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- They are all pretty much interchangeable, but help to introduce subtle differences when used consistently throughout a written work. In the spirit of WP:RETAIN, grammatically correct punctuation shouldn't be altered for the sole purpose of changing the punctuation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many editors overuse dashes, and quite a few of Leighperson's edits are real improvements. But I see him/her also removing quite a lot of dashes in quotations, and also removing carefully inserted ellipses in quotations, in Ian Fleming (a featured article), presumably not understanding their function. Those edits are seriously erroneous. It's worrying that they don't respond on their talk. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
- SchroCat, Boing! said Zebedee, Betty Logan, and Bishonen have all made good points. So, what to do? Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The editor has continued to edit in the same vein (with only one edit) since this thread was opened. I've put a more clear comment on their talk page, urging them to come here before they edit again. - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- In the event that the last message doesn't sink in, a final warning should be issued, as at that point the introduction of errors can be assumed to be deliberate. If the disruptive edits continue after the warning, then a competence block is in order. Beware of bricks, though. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The editor has continued to edit in the same vein (with only one edit) since this thread was opened. I've put a more clear comment on their talk page, urging them to come here before they edit again. - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- SchroCat, Boing! said Zebedee, Betty Logan, and Bishonen have all made good points. So, what to do? Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Many editors overuse dashes, and quite a few of Leighperson's edits are real improvements. But I see him/her also removing quite a lot of dashes in quotations, and also removing carefully inserted ellipses in quotations, in Ian Fleming (a featured article), presumably not understanding their function. Those edits are seriously erroneous. It's worrying that they don't respond on their talk. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
- They are all pretty much interchangeable, but help to introduce subtle differences when used consistently throughout a written work. In the spirit of WP:RETAIN, grammatically correct punctuation shouldn't be altered for the sole purpose of changing the punctuation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Use of commas and dashes is often a stylistic preference, but they do allow writers to indicate different levels of parenthesis and separation of list clauses; as does the much-neglected semi-colon - even if some think anything more than a comma is ugly. Unless there is a MOS requirement, we should not change styles to suit our personal preferences - and we should definitely not label such changes "punctuation errors". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Dashes are ugly" is way into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory and not any good reason to replace correct punctuation with something erroneous. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Real Housewives of something or other
24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The editor Jac16888 Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. is on a rampage destroying years-worth of work that has been done on ALL of The Real Housewives Pages. I could use a little HELP please. I nicely begged that the matter go to talk and consensus, but I was met with an edit-war deletion of my undoing work and the comment, "rubbish". HELP PLEASE. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- You should start a new section when creating a topic here. I've taken the liberty of doing this for you so this topic is not confused with the above conversation. This whole debacle doesn't belong on AN/I. It is a run-of-the-mill content dispute and a basic slow moving edit war. You communicated with the user you're in a dispute with once. No attempts at a discussion were made on any of the article talk pages or anywhere else as far as I can tell. "Begging" or asking someone nicely via an edit summary is not an attempt at dispute resolution. If you can navigate to AN/I and plead for help, you can certainly open up a discussion on the relevant talk page yourself. If and when that doesn't work, take the next step and ask for a third party opinion. If and when that doesn't work, go through the next step. Administrators step in when there are behavioral issues, not a petty fight over some unsourced quotes. Incidentally, the quotes probably should be removed because they are unsourced and every one of those articles looks like a fan's webpage. Random, out of context quotes don't add anything substantial to those articles. It may be years worth of work but it's unencyclopaedic and likely remained around for years because most editors don't want to get involved with those kinds of pages for this very reason. Pinkadelica♣ 07:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you and sorry if I put this in the wrong place. Yes-I would like a third-party discussion. I do not know exactly where to find it. Finding the appropriate page to talk about this matter is confusing as well because it involves a few editors and several different topics, The Real Housewives of New York, "..."New Jersey, Atlanta...24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Also-yes, they appear to be random quotes, but they are not that they are more like title-cards or slogans. The term "quote" is being used somewhat incorrectly here. The,(what appears to be random unsourced quotes) have been removed, and disputed previously and after a consensus was reached and an understanding about the value of the material was hashed-out, they were allowed to stay. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Without going into what I think is material of debatable encyclopedic value, you can ask for help from a third opinion or take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've weighed in on the content dispute—the IP here is 100% correct, and those quotations need to be removed per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I've opened a section on the talk page, so that hopefully we can make the other editors see the problem before I revert and re-remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank-you for attention to the problem. Of course I disagree that they are quotations. Before I try to explain this any further I'm going to try and locate the discussion. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
THANK-YOU-but what I really think we need is the DRN24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC) But in the meantime the TALK page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey#Signature.2FTitle-Card_Quotations24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, Qwyrxian the IP is the one restoring the quotes. Secondly anybody who legimitately believes these quotes belong on Wikipedia does not belong here themselves--Jac16888 Talk 17:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? What I'm warring-over id wholesale deletion of encyclopaedic information by editors who act more like bots than English-speaking humans.24.0.133.234 (talk) May I point-out that since this topic has been moved to the talk page that the other editor User:Jac16888 has DELETED it TWICE already!(on the talk page)---no need for that at all and it of course makes the discussion harder to maintain.24.0.133.234 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Copy and pasting several blocks of discussion in their entirety, not including any formatting except your own is not helpful - a link is more than sufficient, and you have yet to give any legimimate explanation as to why exactly this content is remotely encyclopedic--Jac16888 Talk 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm now involved in the content dispute, but if 24.0.133.234 is edit warring across multiple pages, in both cases to include material that is clearly not encyclopedic, another admin may want to consider a block. In particular, I recommend perusal of the IP's talk page, as he seems to be calling editors who remove information from Wikipedia as "bot-like" and calling this a "war", without realizing that, in fact, simply because something is true does not mean it belongs in an encyclopdia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please note pages involved also include:The Real Housewives of New York City, The Real Housewives of Orange County, The Real Housewives of Miami, The Real Housewives of D.C. and The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.--Jac16888 Talk 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm now involved in the content dispute, but if 24.0.133.234 is edit warring across multiple pages, in both cases to include material that is clearly not encyclopedic, another admin may want to consider a block. In particular, I recommend perusal of the IP's talk page, as he seems to be calling editors who remove information from Wikipedia as "bot-like" and calling this a "war", without realizing that, in fact, simply because something is true does not mean it belongs in an encyclopdia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that you are referring to me since I have made those statements. Thank-you for giving this matter your attention, but your reasoning as to why I think the deleted material should be on Wikipedia is incorrect. I was not the first person to call this a war. I have posted the reasons why the info. belongs on Wikipedia repeatedly. One-it has been deleted and restored by admim. before. Two-Wikipedia is the ONLY place where a researcher could obtain easy-access to the signature quotes. And media, journalists, blogs...HAVE used Wikipedia to obtain the info. for years. Just because there is a comprehension problem does not mean that more Wiki-obsessed editors can rule the day does it?24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Two points really, what is the encyclopedic significance of these quotes and more importantly, where are they sourced from. Lack of encyclopedic significance and sourcing can only lead to the removal of this material. The quotes are unencyclopedic rubbish from a crappy reality tv show. Whether other people come to get information from Wikipedia is not justification to include unencyclopedic rubbish. Oh, and I've split the section below, less confusing that way. Blackmane (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Blackmane for the split, really confusing trying to work out what was going on, with this IP editor's walls of (often incoherent) text, edited together with sigs in the middle, hard to follow really. Oh and I totally support your stance and reasoning on the above. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring on Foulksrath Castle
(edit conflict)***Oh dear, this really does require ADMIN attention, due to WP:OWN, IDHT, BATTLEGROUND, SOCK oh and EDITWAR behaviour. Please deal with this person before it gets (more) out of hand.
Paul hopkins777 (talk · contribs)
24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · count)
Basically the user identifies as the owner of Foulksrath Castle which thus allows them to write about it in whatever way they see fit and remove other editors stuff if they disagree with it,[58] all the while totally ignoring WP policy and other editors' attempts to reason with them.
So they have now stopped logging in, apparently, and continue to make the same mass insertion of non-encyclopaedic gibberish into their article, Foulksrath Castle revision history, which, at the last count stands at seven reinsertions of said material since it was originally published on the 2nd February (3 in the last 12 hours).
Depsite other editors courteous requests to respect Wiki policy [59], the person in question seems to have a short fuse and a bit of a temper.[60]
And this does not even scratch the surface of what's going on at the "Real Housewives of whatever" articles, pure chaos and confusion from what I can make out.
Please do something before the editor/IP in question starts badghering me on my TP as I was the last one to revert this nonsense at the castle article. Notified here and here. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify my previous post, it's looking more like a meatpuppet, the IP posting to Ariconte's TP (who xe takes to be Paul Hopkins) traces back to Ireland,[61], whereas the IP 24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs · count) traces to New Jersey. I just don't buy the "I was traipsing around and saw the dispute argument" [62] and comments like "in other words-I myself did not read every single word of an almost epic poem/just skimmed it to get the gist" seem very fishy to me. If the IP didn't read it how does one know its' almost epic?? For info. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- The 24 IP seems to edit articles on tv series, so I've no idea how he got to Foulksrath castle, but I think once he got there, he decided to have a little edit war. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I concur (after a good night's sleep), it just seemed strange that the 24 Ip just appeared, as if by magic, and insisted on reinstating the massive swathes of totally unencyclopaedic text to the castle article, just after Paul hopkins777 desisted. Obviously they feel very strongly about combatting the "imbecilic power-mad, control-freaks" with their deletionist agendas, intent on ruining Wikipedia ;-) CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The 24 IP seems to edit articles on tv series, so I've no idea how he got to Foulksrath castle, but I think once he got there, he decided to have a little edit war. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a starter for ten, I've fully protected Foulksraith Castle for a week. If the owner wants text adding, he will need to discuss it on the article talk page and reach a consensus with the various editors reverting him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Good job, Elen. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear! I know you are but what am I? I am merely outing some of the people here and they are the ones doing the accusing. And threatening to silence me. Nice try. Re-directing the topic to this castle business? really? FYI I have already explained my involvement in that topic and i have no agenda except to preserve rampant deletion of valuable information and the ruination of Wikipedia by deleting encyclopaedic-worthy info. by bots and people who apparently have no concern for content whatsoever .24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The housewives topic has been moved to dispute.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) And NO I am not identified as the owner of that castle ha ha I wish although it apparently does not have any bathrooms upstairs but who else would know that since the info. was removed? I saw that the owner had posted quite a bit of GOOD info. and it was destroyed. The owner plainly stated that they were the owner and that they intended on helping Wikipedia by adding more info. I attempted to add some references and sources so that the info. could stay24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Guess some people here are looking pretty foolish? Since the wrongness is evident to anyone who is a master of the English language, I guess its about time for someone to come-along and hide THIS discussion ay? Or would anyone care to just admit they are wrong, wrong, and completely wrong? OH-and yes, lets try to intimidate, bully and threaten the editor who is only trying to uphold some content standards on Wikipedia and keep it from being destroyed from within by imbecilic power-mad, control-freaks who obviously do have the agenda of using Wikipedia for their own agendas whatever that may be and I suspect it has something to do with practicing the English language by mascarade-ing as someone who understands English. Am I close? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- 24.0.133.234, you may have thought you were "trying to uphold some content standards on Wikipedia", but your blind edit-warring restored a huge chunk of copyvio to the article three times. See Talk:Foulksrath Castle#Copyright issue. - Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
User:KissCam and pointless redirects
I'm looking through the contributions of relatively-new user KissCam (talk · contribs) and I see that a majority of them are what appear to be pointless redirects to and/or unlikely search terms/typos for Christen Press. I was actually about to log off, but perhaps someone can figure out what's going on, as well as determine if this user's edits to that and related articles such as this are truly constructive. --Kinu t/c 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I Nuked a bunch of bizarre ones, leaving one possible one. I'll further engage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Wonchop
Earlier this evening I opened up a thread at WP:DRN concerning the behavior of Wonchop (talk · contribs) (see WP:DRN#User talk:Wonchop until it inevitably is archived) in regards to how he has ignored any attempt at communication over the past several years (he has only ever made five edits to the user talk space, three of which were arguing with me). I have been attempting to talk to him over edits on pages we both regularly edit concerning reliable sources, using Wikipedia's internal styles and translations, and discussing his unexplained reverts of some of my edits on another page. Other than the one time he responded to me on his talk page, this has been the only response.
I'm honestly not sure how to proceed anymore. He's ignored all attempts at communication until I brought it to a project page where he saw fit to rattle off things he was pissed off about, which I've attempted to explain, but his response at DRN shows he's not going to give a shit. Apparently this is not a DRN issue (I didn't realize "dispute" was limited to content and not interpersonal), and I don't want to go through RFC/U to lead to an eventual RFAR or ban because his contributions are fine save for the refusal to go by the internal styles despite (my) requests that he do so.
What should be done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just not that talkative, okay? To me, the talk section is more or less just a bit where I get told stuff like 'oh your link was to a disambiguation page' or 'orphaned images' or some other stuff about edits I apparently shouldn't have made, where I'm more or less 'k then' and go about my business. Just accept that and move on. You're starting to come across like an obsessive stalker.Wonchop (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- We typically encourage editors to avoid those with whom they can't see eye to eye most of the time. You'd probably be best simply breaking off direct communication and taking any future concerns directly to the talk pages of affected articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a two part issue. I've interacted with Wonchop in the past, and while I do wish he would communicate more, he typically drops it if you push the issue much, so it's never been much of an issue. Conversely, I've seen Ryulong come down really hard on various users on "not-so-serious" issues, so it's no wonder a relatively quiet user like Wonchop would rather not engage him as well.
I don't think either side is bad enough to warrant any sort of action or anything. Wonchop, if you're going to push against Ryulong on certain things, you really need to be prepared to discuss things with him. Ryulong, you could really help the process by being a little more approachable. If Wonchop isn't pushing that hard against Ryulong (Like with how Wonchop interacts with me) then no action is necessary. If you guys can't handle this, then it'd probably be best to follow Thumperward's advice above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- This doesn't do much when Wonchop and I are the only editors on a page. I've asked such minor things of him to do in his future edits, but he constantly ignores the request and continues to edit in the way I asked him not to. For example, in December, I posted this message in regards to the edits seen in this diff. A week later, he performs a similar edit and I admittedly get exasperated and leave him another message kindly requesting he take note of the translations in use on Wikipedia. I don't know why he ignored me the first time around, and the fact that he's been ignoring this simple request since at then December is the root of my problem. Wonchop is a great editor but I should not have to clean up after him so pages match house style just because he disagrees with the existing translations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Shouting at someone for making a good-faith mistake is bad form. I can't see anything particularly bad in either diff - yes, they don't use the best grammar in the world, and yes, they may be incorrect in a couple of places, but fix them and don't make this much fuss over them. Typing an all-caps or mostly-caps edit summary won't help anyone, and you've done it time and time again.[63][64] Make the changes, notify him of his mistakes politely, then move on. If you work together, even without talking to each other directly, you will both be much happier. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those impolite actions you refer to have only happened after months of polite requests to make the changes. Every message on his talk page is more civil than I am in the edit summaries, but he simply will not comply over this issue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration, but there's no excuse for using shouty, quasi-aggressive edit summaries. Certainly not to an individual whom I'm pretty sure is acting in good faith. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Lukeno94's very sensible comments. Ryulong: what administrator action are you seeking? While it may appear that a small minority of Wonchop's edits may possibly be construed as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, I cannot see any reasons for administrator action here.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's where I'm at too. Nothing has escalated far enough to warrant any Admin action, which is why all I really could say was my "Wonchop, you need to discuss when you outright challenge Ryulong's edits, and Ryulong, you need to be more approachable, regardless of how upsetting you find other's actions" type comment. I can't really see anything coming from this discussion other than if, in the future, things escalate to breaking WP:3RR or Incivility/WP:NPA rules, then I guess this discussion could show that both editors were in fact previously aware and warned about their behavior... Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Lukeno94's very sensible comments. Ryulong: what administrator action are you seeking? While it may appear that a small minority of Wonchop's edits may possibly be construed as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, I cannot see any reasons for administrator action here.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those impolite actions you refer to have only happened after months of polite requests to make the changes. Every message on his talk page is more civil than I am in the edit summaries, but he simply will not comply over this issue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Shouting at someone for making a good-faith mistake is bad form. I can't see anything particularly bad in either diff - yes, they don't use the best grammar in the world, and yes, they may be incorrect in a couple of places, but fix them and don't make this much fuss over them. Typing an all-caps or mostly-caps edit summary won't help anyone, and you've done it time and time again.[63][64] Make the changes, notify him of his mistakes politely, then move on. If you work together, even without talking to each other directly, you will both be much happier. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Qaher-313
I don't know if this is the right forum to address this, apologies if it isn't, but Qaher-313 has become the target of some seriously anti-semitic and homophobic vandalism from 2 different IP editors over the past few hours. [65], [66], [67], [68]. I don't know if page protection is warranted, but because of the content of these edits, I thought it was worth at least having some admins take a look. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I semi-protected it for a couple of days. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Both those IPs are static according to the "Geolocate" links and I don't personally see why either of them should get to edit Wikipedia at all. 99.190.148.190 has been given a 31-hour block (not enough, IMO), and I have now given 109.165.175.64 a one-more-and-you're-out warning. I'll try to keep an eye on both. Thank you, Dawn. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC).
- Also revdel'd the edits in question as they are severe BLP violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Airlineroute.net
There has recently been an ongoing discussion on whether or not http://www.airlineroute.net should be used as a reliable source for listing new destinations/services for an airline. We are trying to reach to a consensus on whether or not we should use that as a source and the discussion has gone stale or lot of editors are having different opinions about. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it or we should continue discussing? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's difficult to offer any guidance, as you haven't actually provided a link to the discussion in question, but WP:RSN is probably the correct venue for this. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the link to the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airlineroute.net.2FRoutesonline.com. Sorry! However, I have already posted this at WP:RSN in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_107#airlineroute.net) but didn't get a clear response. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure this isn't an incident needing administrative attention, at the very most, maybe it's an RfC? Village Pump is probably best though. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Continuation War
Talk:Continuation War has turned into a total chaos with copyedits moving text from one place to another, text being deleted by people who didn't originally write it, doubtful attributions to bits of text, massive loads of text, much of which has nothing to do with the discussion, and so on. Leading me to believe that someone is deliberately trying to sabotage the consensus discussion regarding what the infobox should say about the outcome of the war. The most active participants in the discussion are Paavo273 who has provided the most useful and serious contributions to the discussion, and YMB29 who apparently is willing to do anything to get his way in the discussion, and also has a long history of edit warring on pages relating to the Soviet Union. To such an extent that he has previously had editing restrictions on all pages even broadly relating to the Soviet Union levied against him. So could an administrator who hasn't been involved in the discussion, and hasn't previously tried to mediate between YMB29 and others, please take a look at it? Thomas.W (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Additional comment: Based on his/her behaviour not only on Continuation War and its talkpage but also on other pages where he/she is active I would go as far as labelling User:YMB29's behaviour as WP:NOTHERE, because he/she clearly shows that he/she is not interested in cooperating with other editors or achieving consensus, only in pushing his/her often non-NPOV views. Thomas.W (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well if anyone looks at the article's talk page or the evidence below, it will be obvious who is really guilty of WP:NOTHERE. -YMB29 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Paavo273 is actually the one posting long text from other talk pages.[69]
- Look at how much edits he has made to the talk page in the last few hours.[70]
- I guess this is done to confuse others. A similar method was used by a sock master in the past, who was pushing the same POV (see here[71] for example).
- All of this started after I posted sources, which Paavo273 and Thomas.W did not like.[72]
- Paavo273 referred to the sources as "Soviet Stalinist revisionist history of the war."[73]
- Thomas.W also did not like what the sources stated and said that my research to find reliable sources for the result of the war was "a total waste of time."[74] -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
All the problems began when Paavo273 and Thomas.W started edit warring,[75][76][77][78][79] reverting a result that had consensus and was in the article for over three years. Other users who have edited the article for a long time can confirm this (see [80]).
I limited myself to two reverts and then asked an admin to take a look,[81] after which he protected the article.[82]
Thomas.W in particular has been very rude. He has called my request to not revert the result until there is a new consensus "BS" ("And "establish a new consensus" is just BS since there is no consensus..."[83]) and insulted me by saying: "you're either simply a bit below par from the neck up or just following the instructions given to you by your handlers..."[84]. -YMB29 (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
But based on his article edits and his writing in the actual article, YMB29 operates at a very high level when he wants to. For example, when I contributed a carefully researched and edited piece to the article the other day, he found a couple minor mechanical errors, which I thanked him for. (And I'm a former college-preparatory writing and research instructor.) Paavo273 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to discuss the matter with you here, or anywhere else, because it is a total waste of time and effort. But for the benefit of whichever administrator might get involved in this I want to point out that the alleged consensus you're constantly referring to apparently doesn't exist, since you, in spite of being asked to do so multiple times, haven't been able to tell anyone where it is. Thomas.W (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- A) None of the links you provided had anything to do with the discussion that is going on. B) The diff you provided has nothing to do with it either. So why don't you relax, lean back and wait for an administrator to take a look at it? Thomas.W (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I think it will be clear to any admin who is really causing trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I sure hope it will be clear. I don't even know what a lot of these allegations mean. What is clear from the last week's talk is that YMB29 makes a lot of accusations--e.g., OR, synthesis, existing consensus--without any particularity or specificity--and then moves on to another accusation when the last accusation doesn't stick. I've also made several suggestions how to find a solution, but each one is shot down. Paavo273 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I think it will be clear to any admin who is really causing trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- A) None of the links you provided had anything to do with the discussion that is going on. B) The diff you provided has nothing to do with it either. So why don't you relax, lean back and wait for an administrator to take a look at it? Thomas.W (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Here Paavo273 is doing the same thing he did on the article's talk page, trying to make this section unreadable.
He duplicated a block of text, see the same text below.
Paavo273 is now accusing me of writing a Soviet version of history and he is claiming that Wikipedia "has been *Sovietized* to the extent that WP becomes a major vehicle of Soviet Communist propaganda..."[87]. This is becoming comical...
He is following a similar pattern as a banned sock Boris Novikov - constantly creating new sections on the talk page with long headings and complaining about the false Soviet version of history.[88][89] -YMB29 (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Notice how Paavo273 copy-pasted this piece again, see the same piece of text above.
-
- I sure hope it will be clear. I don't even know what a lot of these allegations mean. What is clear from the last week's talk is that YMB29 makes a lot of accusations--e.g., OR, synthesis, existing consensus--without any particularity or specificity--and then moves on to another accusation when the last accusation doesn't stick. I've also made several suggestions how to find a solution, but each one is shot down. Paavo273 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Paavo273 is now accusing me of writing a Soviet version of history and he is claiming that Wikipedia "has been *Sovietized* to the extent that WP becomes a major vehicle of Soviet Communist propaganda..."[90]. This is becoming comical...
He is following a similar pattern as a banned sock Boris Novikov - constantly creating new sections on the talk page with long headings and complaining about the false Soviet version of history.[91][92] -YMB29 (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- * The nonsensical OR tag to which I referred was placed on a direct quote from the source I cited. (On the talk page, YMB29 also called my direct quote WP:synthesis.) YMB29 decided he liked some other quote from the source I cited and decided to pretend the quote I used did not exist. In fact, I think he placed the OR tag without even looking at the page I cited. Because my quote is there in black and white.
-
- * One thing I hope the admin. who looks at this can clear up: Is the infobox supposed to be a separate research area? I've been saying on the talk page and getting no response that I think the infobox result should summarize what the article says. Instead YMB29 on his own initiative came up with a whole bunch of new sources, unilaterally decided he had a "consensus of sources," and reverted on that basis. Thanks for your trouble. Paavo273 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I provided sources to prove my point and you call them bizarre or communist propaganda (none of the sources are Soviet or Russian). Clearly, you don't understand WP:IJDLI.
- All you are doing is making disruptive edits to the talk page, ignoring reliable sources, giving your personal opinion without any sources, and making funny accusation (like "Sovietization of Wikipedia"). Boris Novikov was doing the same thing... -YMB29 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- There you go again, insinuating that Paavo273 is somebody's sockpuppet, just like you have done many times before (even insinuating that Paavo273 and myself are one and the same, even though were half a world apart). If you have any reliable evidence for sock puppetry then report it at WP:SPI, otherwise just stop it. Because all you manage to do is make yourself look ridiculous. Thomas.W (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have not said that you two are one... Why are you making untrue statements?
- I only pointed out that Paavo273 is behaving in a similar way as Boris Novikov did. -YMB29 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, Paavo273 is now canvassing other users[93][94], to take action against the "Sovietization of WP"... -YMB29 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is IMHO not canvassing as described at WP:CAN. He's just asking for advice on how to solve the current stalemate in the discussion. And keep your fingers off my posts. I added a bullet at the start of my previous post in order to make it noticeable among the masses of unstructured text that you're adding here, and you have no right to remove it. Thomas.W (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Yes. He's entitled to fight whatever he wants on WP as long as he abides by the rules. All of them. And I haven't seen him breaking a single one on Talk:Continuation War. Thomas.W (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- 'Didn't use the word *fighting*. I said *lament* which means mourn or grieve. I *asked* only for help how to proceed, not even for input in the discussion. (In the interest of full disclosure, I *did* ask Wanderer602 for his opinion about a week ago, but I don't think WP:CAN would apply to that because he is an active participant. Also, you and he were having a parallel discussion over in your Rfc, which YMB29 accused me of causing by bringing the whole subject up.) Paavo273 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- All I can find in Archive 11, YMB29's link #82, is the same sort of badgering of whoever would dare challenge the Kremlin crowd, in this case poor Wanderer602, YMB29's current and former counterpart in mediation. If there's any agreement of any kind, not to mention consensus, other than among the Kremlin/Soviet group themselves, could YMB29 please point it out to me. Paavo273 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about?
- If you were just asking for advice, you would not have mentioned the "Sovietization of WP"... -YMB29 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since when is it up to you to decide what he can and cannot mention in posts on the talkpages of other users? You're at least as ideology driven as he is, and since you're allowed to be here, and promote your agenda, why shouldn't he be? The difference between you and him, apart from being found at different ends of the Cold War ideological scale, is that he is honest about it, while you're not. Thomas.W (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it is good that he honestly is pushing his POV... However, there are rules against this here that you and he should know.
- He can post whatever he wants, but don't pretend like he was just asking for advice... -YMB29 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The pot calling the kettle black. Unlike you Paavo273 has not been pushing his agenda, instead being very neutral and balanced. And abiding by WP:NPOV. So stop accusing everyone else of breaking the rules, because your totally baseless accusations don't fool anyone, they just make you look desperate. Thomas.W (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- So now you say that Paavo273 has not been pushing his agenda? You just complemented him for being honest about it...
- All I can find in Archive 11, YMB29's link #82, is the same sort of badgering of whoever would dare challenge the Kremlin crowd, in this case poor Wanderer602, YMB29's current and former counterpart in mediation. If there's any agreement of any kind, not to mention consensus, other than among the Kremlin/Soviet group themselves, could YMB29 please point it out to me. Paavo273 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I found this thread by accident. Paavo273 reverted my edit [95], and he seems to refuse to self-revert despite my exhaustive explanations on the article's talk page, and despite my repeated requests there. A brief look at the article's history demonstrates that he did the same revert at least 5 times [96] (altered the stable version), [97], [98], [99], [100] during last two weeks. The last revert was made with a totally misleading edit summary: I do not have to achieve consensus when I restore a stable version. In contrast, the burden is on Paavo273.
In addition, I agree that addressing to a user, who is known to be interested in the Baltic related issues and who seems to share, at least partially, Paavo273's views, can be considered as soft version of canvassing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The article is protected now again, but I don't see how that will solve the problem; it did not resolve it the last time...
Paavo273 and Thomas.W have to learn to not edit war to insert the result they want. They can't disrespect the previous consensus and ignore what reliable sources say. -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Block Carpetmuncherrug
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please indefinitely block Carpetmuncherrug (talk · contribs). The name is a euphemism for a sex act (username block), and he has vandalized. I would do it myself, but I found out about it through something staff-related. Superm401 - Talk 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support block. This is a no-brainer. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
User:AuggiePaoli
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- AuggiePaoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Legal and IRL threats at User:Malik Shabazz's page due to the repeated speedy of an article the editor in question tried and failed to get past AFC. See [101] and [102] §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- RockFanUK (talk · contribs) looks like an obvious sockpuppet to me, and should probably be blocked or at least investigated. As for Auggie, if he's acquitted of socking, he should be blocked for legal threats. —Rutebega (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
HIDECCHI001
HIDECCHI001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked several times on his talk page, over several months, to use edit summaries and to refrain from editing wikilinks just to avoid a redirect (per WP:NOTBROKEN). As far as I can see from his talk page, he has never responded to these requests and he still never uses edit summaries and makes large numbers of edits that do nothing but link around redirects, e.g. [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] in the last two days alone. There has also been at least one removal of a legitimate-looking redlink [110].
Note that there are also constructive edits (e.g., [111] [112]) so I'm satisfied that the editor is acting in good faith but the persistent failure to respond or modify behaviour is a concern. Dricherby (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have also encountered this persons edits many many times (about icons and linking you tube). For the most part they are positive in nature based on redirects and typos. However and a big howsoever the user does not respond in any manner whats so ever be it by talking or changing edit habits to concerns raised (however Idont see you tube spammed anymore - so some sort of acknowledgment there I guess). No need for a block - just some sort of acknowledgment of concerns raised and what they plan to do next about those concerns . We have to be fair here - look at his talk page - Not much of a welcome did he receive - I would also be inclined to ignore all after all the bites (I am guilty of bites here as-well).Moxy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- In my view, a concerted effort should be made to communicate with the user before any action is taken (not that nobody's tried before). The fact that they've made all of two edits each to User talk and Wikipedia talk each, this is almost certainly a communication issue. It is possible that the user does not understand English, based on their userpage, so if anyone has decent Japanese.... If they fail to respond, then a short WP:COMPETENCE block is probably necessary. —Rutebega (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Two thoughts: (1) There is no actual requirement to use edit summaries, so if an editor doesn't use them that's up to them. (2) WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and is not policy, and an editor cannot be forced to follow it. (In fact, judging by the number of times I see people editing a Wikilink to bypass a redirect, I'd say that part of it is controversial). So, as there are no policy breaches reported here, I see no need for admin action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- PS: Looking at the editor's talk page, I see a mass of bitey warnings, and I'm not at all surprised that you're not getting the responses you want - I don't see a single one of you extending a friendly and helpful hand to a new editor here! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had actually notified him (in the section Bypassing redirects) but I should probably have done so in a separate section, as you did. Dricherby (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Its clear that the editor has no plans on talking to anyone - Perhaps Rutebega was right in that a WP:COMPETENCE block is probably necessary. What are we to do if editros refuse to engage with others.Moxy (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- What, a block for not having done anything wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- One of the pillars is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner". This user is failing to interact and is being disrespectful and incivil by not discussing the concerns that other users have repeatedly raised on his talk page. He is also making edits that are at least slightly controversial (several editors have explicitly disagreed with them) and ignoring all attempts to discuss them. There are many of guidelines and essays and, I think, even policies that advocate not doing what this user is doing. WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:CIVIL and WP:COMPETENCE have already been mentioned. WP:CONSENSUS says that "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page." WP:EP says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary"; WP:FIES says "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit" (boldface, in the original, even). WP:ETIQ says that, "If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." WP:NOTHERE includes "Extreme lack of interest in working... in a cooperative manner" and "extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns" as signs of a user who is not here to build the encyclopaedia. So I wouldn't say that he's done nothing wrong. Dricherby (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- What, a block for not having done anything wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's a fair point that edit summaries and WP:NOTBROKEN are just guidelines and I'll try to be less bitey next time. However, while nobody extended a welcoming hand to the new editor, he's now been around for 18 months and has made over two thousand edits in the last three months alone. I would contend that he probably does understand English to a reasonable degree. First, I can't see any motivation for putting in so much time to an encyclopaedia in a langauge one doesn't speak. Second, this edit [113] requires an understanding that, in that particular context, the phrase "Republic of China" refers to a period in the government of mainland China, rather than the territory now normally called Taiwan: that suggests a decent level of comprehension, to me. Dricherby (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- (third notice) - I have left the editor a last note to join us - Lets hope.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure I understand this - if the editor hasn't done anything wrong, what are people demanding an answer for? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Its pretty simple and clear cut - people are trying to talk to him to no avail. Ignoring others is a problem - we have basic conduct expectations here. We have this basic expectation even from young children let alone adult editors here.Moxy (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why should he be obliged to respond to you when he hasn't done anything wrong? He doesn't have to join in chat if he doesn't want to, and he's perfectly entitled to completely ignore inappropriate warnings (for example, warnings relating to edit summaries). While he isn't doing anything wrong, can't you just leave the poor guy alone instead of hounding him like this? If you can show some repeated genuine policy breaches by this editor and a refusal to stop, then there might be some admin action applicable here - but at the moment I don't see where anyone has shown that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)WP:NOTBROKEN is not a policy, but when users go around piping huge numbers of links just to avoid redirects it is a little disruptive. I've seen RMs where a rationale for not moving the page over its own redirect was a relative lack of incoming links that used that redirect, but on further investing most of the direct links were actually piped. That's just one reason why it's disruptive to have users who go around piping links in their free time. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- So if piped links are such a problem, why do we have them? Surely they're either good and we can use them, or they're bad and we can't? I don't see why they're especially bad when this particular editor uses them and when it's done "in their free time" - don't we all work here in our free time? As for incoming links, that RM rationale is not relevant here - RM reviewers should be more careful. Also, I can see two sides of the "incoming links" issue, and it's not unambiguously obvious whether it's better to have the links appearing incoming at the redirect or appearing incoming at the target. But all this is moot anyway - there is no prohibition on piping links to bypass redirects, and until there is, or until someone identifies some actual policy breaches, there is no admin action needed to stop it. If you want to make it a policy to ban piped links, you need to take it elsewhere. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Without piped links, it would be impossible to wikilink the words "the president" in an article about the USA, since there is no such article and a redirect to President of the United States would be inappropriate. Dricherby (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- So if piped links are such a problem, why do we have them? Surely they're either good and we can use them, or they're bad and we can't? I don't see why they're especially bad when this particular editor uses them and when it's done "in their free time" - don't we all work here in our free time? As for incoming links, that RM rationale is not relevant here - RM reviewers should be more careful. Also, I can see two sides of the "incoming links" issue, and it's not unambiguously obvious whether it's better to have the links appearing incoming at the redirect or appearing incoming at the target. But all this is moot anyway - there is no prohibition on piping links to bypass redirects, and until there is, or until someone identifies some actual policy breaches, there is no admin action needed to stop it. If you want to make it a policy to ban piped links, you need to take it elsewhere. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)WP:NOTBROKEN is not a policy, but when users go around piping huge numbers of links just to avoid redirects it is a little disruptive. I've seen RMs where a rationale for not moving the page over its own redirect was a relative lack of incoming links that used that redirect, but on further investing most of the direct links were actually piped. That's just one reason why it's disruptive to have users who go around piping links in their free time. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why should he be obliged to respond to you when he hasn't done anything wrong? He doesn't have to join in chat if he doesn't want to, and he's perfectly entitled to completely ignore inappropriate warnings (for example, warnings relating to edit summaries). While he isn't doing anything wrong, can't you just leave the poor guy alone instead of hounding him like this? If you can show some repeated genuine policy breaches by this editor and a refusal to stop, then there might be some admin action applicable here - but at the moment I don't see where anyone has shown that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Its pretty simple and clear cut - people are trying to talk to him to no avail. Ignoring others is a problem - we have basic conduct expectations here. We have this basic expectation even from young children let alone adult editors here.Moxy (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure I understand this - if the editor hasn't done anything wrong, what are people demanding an answer for? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- (third notice) - I have left the editor a last note to join us - Lets hope.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Requesting aid from an Administrator to keep an eye in a RfC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an open RfC for Juan Manuel de Rosas (see here). I'd like to make the following requests:
- That an administrator keep an eye on the discussion as to prevent abusive behavior from any user.
- That an administrator should warn User:MarshalN20 that he is not allowed to remove nor to change someone else's comment.[114][115]
I'd be very glad if someone would be willing to help. --Lecen (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Lecen is associating my username with a personal userpage that has nothing to do with me.
- More directly, Lecen is trying ot associate me with the user page of Cambalachero ([116]), but the page's history demonsrates I have not edited it once ([117]).
- Lecen's actions constitute an abuse of my username, clearly breaking Wikiquette, and I request that administrators please uphold my position and warn Lecen from inappropriately using the name's of other users in pages that have nothing to do with them.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- MarshalN20 sided with Cambalachero in the article's talk page, in the third opinion discussion, in the dispute resolution noticeboard, in the mediation process and now in the RfC. He is directly involved as part of the "other side" in the dispute. For obvious reasons, that's why I placed his name there. --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- He didn't necessarily have to refactor the comment, but attributing him to an argument against his will constitutes a straw man argument, and trying to keep him from removing his name is not helping the encyclopedia. I recommend you let it go. —Rutebega (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- As you can see in here he is still taking an active part in the dispute. I could remove his name if he dropped out of the discussion. But he hasn't. --Lecen (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're not getting the point. As Rutebega mentions, you are "attributing [me] to an argument against [my] will". Cambalachero is a human being separate from me, with separate personal opinions. You cannot hold me liable for his statements. I have my own personal opinions, distinct from Cambalachero's POV. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- As you can see in here he is still taking an active part in the dispute. I could remove his name if he dropped out of the discussion. But he hasn't. --Lecen (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- He didn't necessarily have to refactor the comment, but attributing him to an argument against his will constitutes a straw man argument, and trying to keep him from removing his name is not helping the encyclopedia. I recommend you let it go. —Rutebega (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- MarshalN20 sided with Cambalachero in the article's talk page, in the third opinion discussion, in the dispute resolution noticeboard, in the mediation process and now in the RfC. He is directly involved as part of the "other side" in the dispute. For obvious reasons, that's why I placed his name there. --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Marshall, if you don't like the characterization, you should post a comment yourself rather than editing others' comments. Please stop.
Lecen, this seems to be equally problematic, please stop. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Editing others' comments is only allowed in extreme cases. I agree with Toddst that the best thing to do would be to leave a comment under his explaining why you object to his characterization. See WP:TPO for the relevant guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Toddst1. Another editor warned me (see here) that we are not allowed to remove or change others' comments even if we have strong reasons (I wasn't aware until then). To avoid further conflicts, that's why I came here. --Lecen (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Johnjjjames
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Johnjjjames (talk · contribs)
Blocked user making legal threats at own talk page. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Appears to have been rectified [118]. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
24 hours??? Where did he retract and disavow the legal threat? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unmarked as resolved. There's an outstanding legal threat that has not been retracted. That deserves an indef block until such action is deemed to have been retracted. gwickwiretalkedits 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's indef now, and I've removed the confusing "temporary" notices and just left the indef one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
RidjalA
Ever since I stepped into the article La Luz del Mundo[119][120] editor RidjalA has not ceased to make personal attacks against me.[121] The user initiated a sockpuppet investigation against me and 2 other editors (without notifying us),[122] and despite the fact that there was no evidence RidjalA continued to make the same accusations to discredit both editors. Yet till this day, the user continues to accuse Fordx12 and me of working for the religious organization without any proof whatsoever.[123] He accuses both editors of wanting to turn the article into a "promotional page",[124] despite the fact that I have expanded the Controversy section. The user has also tried to suppress my opinion on the talk page.[125] The editor has also tried to eliminate an article I created (El Occidental) in order to validate claims against the religious institution.[126] The user has frequently tried to impose his own particular point of view on the article.[127] The user has deliberately included copyrighted material and has refused to rephrase it or allow it to be removed.[128] The user has also deliberately made false attributions to sources in order to keep church leadership "on check".[129]
The article talk page is filled with attacks from RidjalA to both Fordx12 and me. One notable example is the user's accusations that both "editors are being compensated somehow (spiritually and/or financially) by higher-ranking associates" of the church.[130] In this occasion several editors intervened and warned RidjalA of his behavior, but the user continues to make the exact same accusations.[131][132] -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, this is becoming ridiculous. Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have for the past year tried to silence my POV for refusing to follow through with their Ministry of Truth ploy of deleting the controversy section. Fordx12 is admittedly a member of the church (although Ajaxfiore to date refuses to answer whether he is associated with the church), and both these volunteers are very tag-teamish in their opinions against anyone whose POV differs from theirs. When they become frustrated, they begin to launch attacks at me to try and get me blocked (this is the 4th noticeboard I've been dragged into because of these guys).
- Ajaxfiore, please be more honest. Since you've stepped into the picture you've been attempting to delete the entire controversy section. When you realized that that didn't work out, you began to "expand" by introducing data that dismissed the claims of abused victims like including minute details that one of the victims' stab wounds were not life-threatening; or that the victim orchestrated an attack on himself to validate his claims; or going as far to try and discredit the author on numerous occasions; you've also made repeated blatant attempts to remove perfectly sourced data that is backed up by the L.A. Times.
- There is an ongoing dispute resolution here where there are more details and diffs. Best, RidjalA (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- After well over a half hour of looking into this one, my initial impression is that this may be a case for WP:BOOMERANG. I will note that I had never heard of this church, or any of these editors previously and am utterly uninvolved - I have rarely edited on religious topics. That said, the attempt to make what looks like an effort to "scrub" the article strikes me as highly suspicious, and the attendant material regarding what appear to be strained attempts to discredit a book and author used as a source also look agenda-driven. The forum shopping (the case is currently still open at the Dispute resolution noticeboard) also does not sit well with me. Ajaxfiore's recent block for edit warring on the article (really, was it THAT urgent to revert?) also gives me pause, per his Talk page. I'd say warnings and/or sanctions, if any, may well go the other way. I look forward to seeing what other members of the editing community make of this ANI case being brought here at this time. Jusdafax 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am well aware of my actions, and that in several cases I have acted incorrectly. I have been blocked for violating 3RR (RidjalA frequently does this).[133] In my defense, I had misunderstood Wiki policies and confused vandalism and disruptive editing, not to mention the user WikiNuevo made personal attacks against me (which bothered me). I have never attempted to remove the controversy section and I have not removed data from the Los Angeles Times (in fact I rewrote that section to conform to the Los Angeles Times). Regarding the "forum shopping", I inquired about opening a case here from the DRN volunteer and was told that there could be "two separate discussions at DRN and ANI at the same time of both comply with [Wiki policies]" (I did not open the case at DRN).[134] I have also never "dragged" RidjalA to any noticeboard, except for this time. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The reason I have brought Jorge Erdely's credibility into question is because RidjalA includes chunks of text from the author without paraphrasing (copyvio) and makes outright false attributions to the source. Furthermore, long ago (before I edited the article) it was concluded that Jorge Erdely's website was "as credible as a blog" because it seemed to be put up to "debunk various religions".[135] RidjalA does not mention that I have also replaced other sources from the article, including a PhD dissertation RidjalA complained so much about.[136] RidjalA complained the theses was being used to "downplay" Jorge Erdely.[137] In this case RidjalA was reprimanded for not being "forthcoming and transparent",[138][139] he then removed the post from the noticeboard.[140] He was then warned by an editor of his actions.[141] --- Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I did not add the part about Padilla orchestrating the attack on himself (which provides the POV of the church). As for the other matter, here is what I wrote: "According to Mexican newspaper El Norte, the shallow wounds did not put his life in danger, although he could have died from blood loss." Compare that to RidjalA's contributions.[142] --- Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I was notified via my talkpage about this. The content dispute is dealing with content, I am more than happy with how WP:DRN responded in the past, and have read up on other disputes there. I have full confidence in their ability to decide on those matters. A past DRN discussion is what lead to the current version of the article. Vast swaths of content were deleted, then a DRN discussion started and opinions were exchanged, and things calmed down. You may read such an event here [143] (Last Diff of that is here [144]). The DRN was opened up by RidjalA. Was there a rule violation here?
Since someone mentioned "scrubing" I really fail to see how multiple outside opinions that resulted from that DRN would have missed such an act. Furthermore I find it worrisome that an RfC can be considered breaking the rules, especially when all the editors minus RidjalA on that RfC seem to agree that the author and the unpublished book in question are unreliable and shouldn't be used(Last diff here [145]). I would like clarification, is that a violation of some wiki policy? Am I not to improve articles by scrutinizing sources, finding new ones, removing unreliable ones, and editing content to reflect that and to insure WP:NPOV? If I am mistaken here, please explain it to me.
The removal of the controversy section was suggested by Noleander which then opened up an RfC [146] and then mentioned why he/she didn't want a controversy section [147]. All but two editors, RidjalA and another, agreed that the Controversy section should be merged or otherwise changed into something other than a controversy section(Last Diff here [148]). Was Noleander "scrubbing"?
The issue here isn't content, it's Personal attacks by RidjalA. Another editor told RidjalA to stop his attacks or he'd be reported to ANI, that editor was Maunus and his diff is here [149] a few other editors sided with his assessment, their last Diff (Not including Ajaxfiore's and my own responses) can be found here [150] last diff on the the thread is here [151]. Since then, RidjalA has continued to do the same. See the following diffs [152][153]. These aren't the first times either, These accusations existed before. Audacity recomended that such accusations were to stop [154] and after RidjalA ignored that, he mentioned it again here [155]. That second warning was a result of a complaint from me which is located here with proper diffs of their own [156]. I have told RidjalA over the past months to stop lumping me with Ajaxfiore, to stop accusing me of being part of some Mexican government conspiracy with the church in question. None of that worked.
What am I to do to get him to stop it?
I personally decided to concentrate on content, thus my opening of a discussion in WP:DRN so that we could avoid an edit war. But if that was wrong of me to do, I am more than willing to request it to be closed and continue editing. I cannot control nor predict Ajaxfiore's actions, I am sorry, I just can't. I did not expect this discussion to exist, all I want and wanted is to move forward. I'd be happy just working at WP:DRN on the matter for now. Should these other editors be notified? Fordx12 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- In response to Jusdafax, the only evidence of "scrubbing" is the case of RobertRosen, who is currently blocked and removed large amounts of sourced information (including information from the controversy section) from the article.[157] In this case, RidjalA not only endorsed RobertRosen's actions,[158][159] but lied saying that RobertRosen was a "stellar admin" and threatened to ban any editor who added "useless information" to the page.[160] As for the removed information from the controversy sections, he was making "concessions".[161] Ajaxfiore (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Personal Attack by User:STSC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:STSC made a personal attack "As you may notice, the same old bully boys and hooligans are still active there!"[162] (emphasis added) Also please notice this user's tendentious edit to an article under discretionary sanctions.[163]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since these edits were made on my talk page, i would like to say a few things. I believe the remark should be taken in the spirit and the context it was given. I was congratulating STSC on being directly quoted by Foreign Policy magazine in one of their articles. That quote was made in 2010, and is irrelevant now. I think it was a huge deal to be quoted in such a prestigious magazine, and in no way felt like STSC was attacking anyone. I have been at the receiving end of a lot of personal attacks, so i have some experience on how that feels like. This is an example.
- Also, i have had no contact with STSC or Phoenix7777 before this. It seems to me, i may be wrong, that the latter went through the contributions of the former, looking for literally anything that might be objectionable, (which i am pretty sure is not the proper way to behave) and in this case, completely ignored the context of the conversation. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- User:STSC edited quite recently to Senkaku Islands articles, and the user's all of the edits to the articles were reverted. "the same old bully boys and hooligans are still active there!" shows current personal attack to the relevant users.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Personal Attack by User:Peacemaker67
Here is what he was say to me: "fuck off you pissant little cretin". And he threat that he will revert all my changes as sort of personal vendetta: "I will track down every edit you do and revert them. That's just the kind of guy I am". 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- lol. From the self-confessed sockmaster User:Oldhouse2012... Good luck sunshine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- So? You still have no right to insult me like this. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couldn't help but notice, in the diffs the ip editor provided, they addressed Peacemaker67 by saying You are totally pathetic, you pity little man. and then came here to report a personal attack. Nice :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. Can hand it out, but can't take it. Sensitive soul. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couldn't help but notice, in the diffs the ip editor provided, they addressed Peacemaker67 by saying You are totally pathetic, you pity little man. and then came here to report a personal attack. Nice :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is not point. My personal attack was in limits of civil behavior. He used words "fuck" and "cretin". That is big personal attack. You can punish us both for insults, no? 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- "My personal attack": this says it all. You do not have to use obscenities or expletives for it not to be personal. The rule is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS regardless. Both of you are outside the limits of civil behaviour here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is not point. My personal attack was in limits of civil behavior. He used words "fuck" and "cretin". That is big personal attack. You can punish us both for insults, no? 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- First, we do not punish; that's not the purpose of blocks. I'm almost prepared to ignore the NPA by Peacemaker: the IP is a blocked editor who is evading a valid block, and is therefore trolling Wikipedia. They themselves appear to have initiated the NPA-fest. Since they should not be editing Wikipedia whatsoever, their edits could be considered to not exist. That said, someone else's incivility may explain your incivility, but it can never excuse them. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you at lest warn Peacemaker67 or block him for one day or something? That is just symbolic punishment, but suitable for what he was saying. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then I offer no excuse, tender Oldhouse2012's NPA (and significant disruption to WP over the last few months) as my explanation, and apologise for my ill-considered retort. I will strike out the NPA on my talk page. I would apologise on Oldhouse2012's talk page, but it changes every few minutes, so I wouldn't know where to put it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I still think that you should be blocked for a day, just to be sure that you will not repeat this ever again. Today you insult me, tomorrow you will insult others and then you will go to street to beat innocent people. You will never learn without symbolic punishment. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given the loudly quacking block evasion and the equally obvious trolling above, the IP has been blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Peacemaker67, you have lived up to your moniker by apologizing and striking, here. Very well done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I still think that you should be blocked for a day, just to be sure that you will not repeat this ever again. Today you insult me, tomorrow you will insult others and then you will go to street to beat innocent people. You will never learn without symbolic punishment. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then I offer no excuse, tender Oldhouse2012's NPA (and significant disruption to WP over the last few months) as my explanation, and apologise for my ill-considered retort. I will strike out the NPA on my talk page. I would apologise on Oldhouse2012's talk page, but it changes every few minutes, so I wouldn't know where to put it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you at lest warn Peacemaker67 or block him for one day or something? That is just symbolic punishment, but suitable for what he was saying. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Site ban proposal for User:Oldhouse2012
Oldhouse2012 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked for WP:SOCK as per this SPI report. It's obvious, as per the above, that Oldhouse2012 fails to understand that they may not edit Wikipedia, and that they are evading a valid block due to their further edits post-block. Indeed, it's clear that their intent is to "stir up shit" by re-immersing themself back into the same issues/problems that they have always been involved in. The kerfluffle above shows another editor being provoked into NPA's - actions that would not have occurred if Oldhouse's socks were merely reverted on-sight.
Accoordingly, I propose an indef site-ban from the English Wikipedia for User:Oldhouse2012, with no chance of review for a minimum of 6 months. This de facto ban will hopefully reduce friction on the project, and is therefore preventative in nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support: the above pushing to punish another editor, despite the comment "First, we do not punish", show that this editor does not actually listen to what is being told to them in the plainest terms possible. A site ban may be the only way of actually getting the message through, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support, especially considering (what with the, "I still think you should block him," comments) that this looks remarkably like an attempt at retaliation against Peacemaker67 for his work on the SPI case. Since Oldhouse2012 has expressed a clear intent to continue evading the block, a site ban seems like an appropriate step, if only to make stamping out his future incarnations a quicker process. Yunshui 雲水 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support based on his clear intent to continue to sock, as demonstrated by his words and deeds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - has threatened to evade blocks, so a ban will make it easier to deal with them in future. GiantSnowman 14:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - obviously, yes, for the socky trolly stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Per Dennis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Somebody set him up the bomb Blackmane (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Sockpuppetry makes this an easy call. This pattern of disruption cannot be tolerated and he has exhausted the community's patience. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Per Dennis. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
User targetting my edits
User: Ysfan has been blindly reverting all my edits. This is apparent not just from the fact that all of Ysfan's recent edits are unexplained reverts of my edits (see contributions log), but that most of the edits he's reverted are uncontroversial edits such as code fixes, grammatical corrections, and filling out of bare link refs. On Script (comics) I placed a merger discussion tag, then removed it once the discussion was closed. Ysfan reverted both the removal of the tag and its original placement. I couldn't guess what this behavior is all about, but I'm confident that any attempt I make to communicate with Ysfan would only make things worse, as would simply reverting all these reverts. Please help.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, let me show you what this appears to be all about: you were bold and made an edit to the article Ys (series) right here (I haven't checked if you ever edited it before). User:Ysfan - who clearly has a fixation on Ys-related articles, seeing as from May 2012 until January 2013 they only edited those articles - obviously took offense to your change. He then reverted (without explanation ... but still within WP:BRD), and went on a childish rampage against you on Feb 5. He then went back to normal editing on Feb 6. If you had approached them I bet they'd tell you that they were pissed off at your edit. This doesn't excuse their behaviour, nor does it excuse your failure to approach them directly, but now you probably have the story. So, what's your plan next? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I should just avoid editing the Ys-related articles from now on. If he indeed "took offense" at an edit which fixed some atrocious grammar and removed obviously inappropriate phrasing, that suggests to me that Ysfan is at least somewhat unreasonable, and editors far more experienced with Wikipedia than I have warned me that attempting to open discussion with such editors will always, always make things worse: the editor will either step up his personal attacks, assume the debating techniques of a brick wall, or perhaps the worst scenario, not respond at all, and after weeks of waiting in vain for a reply, attempting to reinstate your edits will be considered by moderators to be edit warring. It stinks, but it is consistent with what I've observed on WP myself. Anyways, thanks for illuminating the situation for me.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody suggests that you stop editing that article...I do see that you had made the almost-identical change in January, and it was effectively reverted. You should not have made the same edit without getting new consensus on the article talkpage, even though your edit does look "correct" in face. If that consensus discussion proved to be fruitless, then dispute resolution processes can kick in in lieu of edit-warring. Nothing on Wikipedia is time-sensitive, so delays happen. However, if you attempt communication/consensus and the other party acts like a jerk, then you've taken the high road and will always have the stronger leg to stand on. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Mr. NukeofEarl is a WikiVandal that was well aware of why this occurred having wanted to start an editing war with me. Him feigning ignorance and claiming he couldn't guess what this was all about is completely dishonest, but that is what you get from a lying hack! The paragraph in question in the Ys article was original and entirely written by me (yes, without explanation) before it caught his attention, before he decided to monitor it like a hawk ever since and keep swooping down to excise and edit it... At least 3 times he excised several sentences from it and his "atrocious" grammar/spelling fix was to lowercase a job title and selectively declare comments "inappropriate" and self-references along with excising relevant links. Even his description in his edits were subtle insults. He waited a few weeks this time before reimposing his 3rd edit, hoping to sneak it by me would be the only explanation. Not exactly somebody that wanted to communicate with me to resolve it civilly. Since he was mostly excising the aspect of what fan translators have felt in terms of legality and what it means that a corporation actually purchased fan translated scripts, that was relevant/interesting information and history he kept trying to excise, not edit for improvement, so I don't see how I could've "worked" with him on that particular issue. Declaring yourself by implication to having superior writing/grammar skills doesn't exactly help either.
- Mr. NukeofEarl, poor fella, claims pessimism in that if he had communicated with me, that it would've never led to a resolution. If the only resolution was him imposing his edits and mostly excises on my paragraph, and ignoring all other problems with the article, showing particular bias and animus against me and what I said in particular, yeah, I'm probably not going to be willing to let him have his way. But, having said that, how does insulting me here (declaring me unreasonable, a brick wall, even before ever speaking to me, and that I'd be the one to make personal attacks when he already made them here before I even got here!) and getting an admin to insult me as well, how was that ever going to "solve" the issue which he instigated to begin with? It's laughable. He only used this opportunity to report the incident and add further insults in addition to the subtle ones he made with his first edit.
- You say that I would "step up" the personal insults, when you've making them from the very beginning! That's cute cause I have never spoken to you before, this is the 1st time I've returned your insults, so that's a rather convenient prediction, that I'd insult you back... You go on to thank an admin for "illuminating" the situation which is also insulting! Please, you knew full well you started this, NukeofEarl, ~3 times you swooped down on *just* that paragraph to impose your excises/edits to it. You've been monitoring just my paragraph like a hawk ever since you saw it and I guess you don't like a taste of your own medicine, so you ran running to an admin to waste more of my time on something that was rather minor frankly to begin with (not to someone with a grudge of course, as in your case)! Anyway, you might fool somebody else with the innocent routine, but you don't fool me for a second... Ysfan (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly, perhaps NukeofEarl should have attempted to talk to you about the changes after you kept reverting it. Vandalism, no. Not even close. Just because someone makes an edit that you don't agree with (which was made in good faith and done boldly), that doesn't make it vandalism. However, when you also could have taken the chance to attempt to talk to him about it when he hadn't, you instead blindly reverted all of his following edits to other articles for no reason, which you have avoid addressing or acknowledging it as you shove the entire blame on NukeofEarl. Also, it takes at least two to editwar. SassyLilNugget (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Ysfan, please calm down. The situation was improving until you came around, with your personal attacks (calling NukeOfEarl a vandal, a "lying hack", etc.), WP: CANVASSing (here), WP: OR ("The paragraph in question in the Ys article was original and entirely written by me") and WP: SPADE. I suggest that you strike those offensive comments before the admins start handing out blocks. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Certainly, perhaps NukeofEarl should have attempted to talk to you about the changes after you kept reverting it. Vandalism, no. Not even close. Just because someone makes an edit that you don't agree with (which was made in good faith and done boldly), that doesn't make it vandalism. However, when you also could have taken the chance to attempt to talk to him about it when he hadn't, you instead blindly reverted all of his following edits to other articles for no reason, which you have avoid addressing or acknowledging it as you shove the entire blame on NukeofEarl. Also, it takes at least two to editwar. SassyLilNugget (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Bwilkins - Nobody suggests it, but it's the sensible thing to do. It's true that if I did waste hours of my life trying to get Ysfan to engage in reasonable discussion I would "always have the stronger leg to stand on", but my time, my peace of mind, and my freedom to continue making improvements to other Wikipedia articles are far more important to me than my pride. If my walking away makes everyone think I'm the smaller man, they're all welcome to that belief.
I'm sure everyone's asking "If you're walking away, then why are you still posting here?" Well, I had no intention of doing so, but Ysfan just dropped a novel's worth of flame-baiting on my talk page. I've clearly stated my intention to ignore the Ys-related articles from now on, nor have I sent any private communications to Ysfan, so my guess is that someone in this topic is provoking him. Would it be too much to ask that he or she stop? I'm just trying to resume my regular WP editing, and if Ysfan decides to go back to random reverting that's going to really slow me down.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Actually, that message YSfan posted on your page is the exact same one he posted here on AN/I (an obvious case of WP: CANVASS. Regardless of what conflict Nuke and YS got into, WP: HOUNDING Nuke is unacceptable and has to stop. Not only is the user WP: HARASSing Nuke, but also WP: FILIBUSTERs and makes accusations of personal attacks (of which, Nuke made none). This user should seriously think about their edits before they become blocked. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I concur and would hope that an admin gives Ysfan a politely worded talking too. I also see Nukes edit as an improvement and intend to restore it. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I concur and would hope that an admin gives Ysfan a politely worded talking too. I also see Nukes edit as an improvement and intend to restore it. little green rosetta(talk)
I'm not sure what the insinuation of Alles Klar is; the comment I pasted in Nuke's talk page was the same one as here. How that is being declared harassment I find bizarre. Whether here or there, made no difference to me. He called me into this discussion by dropping the tag in my account and had insults waiting for me here, so I don't think you get to cry fowl at that - I simply made sure he saw my response (and he gets to excise it out, so!). NukeofEarl, I don't care that you will cease to edit/excise that particular article (you've been mostly excising it it seems), I only cared about the particular paragraph I wrote that you kept trying to edit/excise down. Anyhow, I don't want my time wasted any longer with this either, so I have nothing further to say if you're making your intentions known to leave my original content alone. Ysfan (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)Ysfan's above accusation of vandalism on NukeofEarl's part is ridiculous. Ysfan's contributions, as far as I can see, have thus far consisted of adding links to fansites, adding poorly-referenced, unencyclopedic prose, deleting perfectly valid "citation needed" tags with no explanation, and basically reverting anything that interferes with what he/she has written. NukeofEarl was not "bold" in editing the Ys article; he was restoring a small portion of the article to some semblance of good encyclopedia content. Ysfan seems to have serious WP:OWN issues with the article Ys (series), and is now harassing another user who tried to edit that article in good faith. His/her entire edit history consists of around 40 edits, of which half are either harassment or unexplained reversions. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)Elvenscout742 tries to entirely negatively generalize my account over the issue claiming all I do is revert anything that interferes with what I wrote among other things. That happens to be the case with NukeofEarl and the paragraph in question that he targeted, but that would be the only case. Claiming that half of all my edits have been harassment is nothing short of slander. I was able to recall/find ONE citation needed tag, that's hardly plural ("tags") so again, an attempted generalization on his part (The purchases of fan translated scripts are verifiable on the company's website that bought them on that issue). I reject his claim that Nuke saught to edit the article in "good faith" given his approach as already mentioned above. He has mostly been excising from what I can tell, not adding new or informative content as far as just that article is concerned. I have not been in any further communication with NukeofEarl, neither has he, and claiming that I am *now* harassing him indicates you're rather late to the party. Finally, I don't claim I "OWN" the article nor is that somehow implied just because I reject Nuke's 3 attempts to excise some sentences that I wrote. Ysfan (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- How do you explain this, then? NukeofEarl's "excising" was, as far as I can see, fixing the tone of the article and removing questionable material that was unreferenced. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Ysfan is starting to dig deeper, now accusing me of meatpuppetry for restoring Nukes (IMO) improved edit. There are some serious ownership issues here. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, Little_green_rosetta just made good on his/her editing war harassment threat on behalf of NukeOfEarl's excises/edits and has twice so far tried to reimpose Nuke's revision - Just in the last minute. It would appear Nuke succeeded since he gained a previously uninterested party's interest in my paragraph who is now monitoring it like a hawk on his behalf. Dear rosetta, YOU don't own the article and just because you want Nuke's revision to stand to harass me given this context, doesn't mean I nor anybody else can't edit it back. FYI! Your ownership argument goes both ways. Ysfan (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I had a dispute that was very similar to this one a few months back. Another user suggested we both take a TBAN and IBAN voluntarily, to prove we were both good faith editors working in the best interests of the Project. That solution worked out fantastically. How about both user take a voluntary TBAN on the Ys video games, and agree not to interact with each other at all? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment I opened an RfC since I get the feeling that Ysfan has the bit between his teeth on this issue. Let others chime in in this important issue. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems Ysfan has removed my RfC. I've restored it. If he removes it again, can someone please block him and then restore the RfC? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems Ysfan has removed my RfC. I've restored it. If he removes it again, can someone please block him and then restore the RfC? little green rosetta(talk)
LittleGreenRosetta, emphasis on the little, has continued his/her harassment campaign with multiple posts on my own account's Talk page (I responded a few times back on his/hers as a result) and apparently demands a ban for removal of a RFC that was opened for no other reason than to heckle/harass me on NukeOfEarl's behalf with regards to his revised version of my original paragraph. I thought everyone was free to edit at any time? LittleGreenRosetta demands his/her posts be free from editing or removal evidently and that anyone that would dare to do so should be banned. Interesting... Well, I made it very clear to LittleGreenRosetta that any further posts on my account's Talk page I consider harassment and that I find this individual rather disturbed. If he/she posts on my account yet again, can I report this somewhere? Can somebody be banned for this form of continued harassment ? Also, is there a simple ignore or block feature against a troublesome user like LittleGreenRosetta in the meantime? Ysfan (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted Ysfan's removal of the RfC and given a clear warning that any further ownership attitude, removal of other people's comments, or attacks will result in a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Joefaust violating topic ban
Back at the end of 2011 User:Joefaust was given a topic ban against editing anything about hang gliding (see here). User:Ironholds gave him a one month block in August last year for violations (see talk page notice). In passing I checked his contributions today, and found a edit made last month to The Lawrence Welk Show, which, as you might guess, introduced handgliding-related material in this edit. While the level of activity is low, it's also obvious he isn't going to learn, and some of the damage he did back in August has yet to be cleaned up. Mangoe (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually his ban was "Joefaust is indefinitely topic banned from paragliding and hang gliding-related pages. " Lawrence Welk isn't a paragliding or hang gliding related page." His contribution is neutral, but it sure looks he's gaming that restriction. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if he sticks hang gliding info into it, it thus becomes a hang gliding-related page. Anyway, some of the material he inserted in August has some of the same problems as brought all this on, e.g. he's claiming that Louis Pierre Mouillard did some successful hang gliding, when other sources besides the one he chose say that his success was quite limited. I'm not going to press this to the bitter end, but it seems to me that if his editing is going to consist of putting references to hang gliding in otherwise uninvolved articles, he's going to have to be monitored. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would have been much easier if the original topic ban was phrased "is banned from making any edits relating to the topic of...", but I agree that this is most definitely a violation of the spirit of the topic ban and, so, I am inclined to impose a longish block, but would rather see if any other admin disagrees. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The addition is not "neutral"--"where the editor wrote without any apology..." is not neutral, though how it's a promotion of hang gliding is debatable. The mention is trivial anyway and was rightly removed. Now, I don't believe that one single mention turns the page into a "hang gliding-related page"--Green children of Woolpit is not a UFO-related page, or a royalty-related page (it mentions a king). Moreover, "gaming the system" sounds great, but it's not the same thing as "testing the limits", which is what we probably have here. If this continues, that's a different matter. Note that I was one of the early supporters of the topic ban, having duked it out on Paragliding before, though less with Joefaust than with others. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was also involved in the original topic ban, and am surprised that we didn't phrase it per the standard "broadly construed" meaning. Perhaps we should change that now. It's not really a "topic ban" if it's linked to a set of pages rather than a, well, topic. I would say it should read something like "JoeFaust is indefinitely banned from all edits related to hangliding or parasailing, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I generally support blocks for actions violating the spirit (if not the letter) of a topic ban as the editor in question always knows exactly what they're doing. At very least I think we should re-phrase the topic ban as outlined above. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
tariqabjotu
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Credible case of admin abuse in respect of consensus required for posting at ITN/C [164]. User has failed to explain or justify actions despite being challenged almost immediately and by multiple users as to the legitimacy of the decision. ﬥ (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC).
- What does a decision at ITN have to do with admin powers? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Template:In the news is fully protected. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that strength of arguments factors into consensus. It's not just a vote. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a "regular" of ITN/C I'd like to strongly defend tariqabjotu. The timely nature of ITN means that we don't have the time to form the level of consensus that you see elsewhere on Wikipedia (a consensus that is often formed more by attrition than agreement). Admins on ITN often have to make judgement calls, and I think this one, where there was a fairly even split in terms of numbers of posters, falls into the degree of latitude that should be afforded to admins on ITN.
- It has previously been commented that the posting rate of ITN has been too slow, and that there has been times when ready items have taken too long to be posted to the Main Page. Bringing proceedings against an admin for posting this item, which ultimately just means that the main page no longer mentions a news story from 31 January, seems counterproductive. --LukeSurl t c 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- As another "regular" at ITN, I would also like to strongly defend tariqabjotu, for all the reasons stated by LukeSurl above. In a cluocracy I don't see any abuse of power in making a decision on a 50/50 !vote. I've certainly been on the oppose side of such 50/50 splits in the past, but can't imagine how that could possibly warrant an AN/I. Personally I would like to thank Tariq for consistently participating and supporting the ITN process, which at times can become quite nasty. --IP98 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Also note that there's a big different between "admin abuse" and an admin making a questionable reading of consensus. Let's dial down the rhetoric a bit. Besides, he hasn't edited since posting it, so it would be best to wait until he returns and discuss the matter with him then if you have an issue with it. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I must agree that while the decisions at issue here might be questionable, calling it "abuse" is inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - I'm another ITN regular. Tariqabjotu is excellent at making these tricky edge calls. I opposed the posting in question, but I have no criticism of Tariq's decision-making in deciding to post it. It was a reasonable case, well-made and credibly supported. To describe this as 'abuse' is wild hyperbole. I have no idea who ﬥ is, but I'd advise them to gain more experience, moderate their language, and choose a signature which has Latin characters in it. I also think that Kiril Simeonovski was way off-base in questioning whether Tariq should have admin rights. Nothing in any of the approval calls Tariq has made recently provides a reasonable basis for this. I remain baffled and mildly horrified at the vehemence with which people demand that ITN posts be pulled, or that the admins making them be stripped of their rights. No-one dies because of this stuff. We could all put the internet down and walk away, and it would be fine. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Get over it by no means an abuse of any admin capability. Arguably a strange way to assess consensus but absolutely nothing to do with AN/I. ITN tends to polarise, and has done so quite a bit lately, even to the extent of a lot of heat over Monopoly tokens. This decision, while not necessarily palatable to a few, is just another blip at ITN, it's not earth-shattering. Let's move on folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- User has failed to explain or justify actions despite being challenged almost immediately and by multiple users as to the legitimacy of the decision. Yes, because I was asleep. And I think it's incredibly easy to infer my time zone from my user page (despite not having updated my time zone in the clock on the top-right corner that most people don't even notice). -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Long term POV problem and user in breach of topic ban agreement
User:HighKing was the subject of a topic ban concerning the removal of the term British Isles. Here are the details: [165]. He was un-banned after agreeing to certain conditions but is now apparently in breach of them again. This problem seems to go back five years, during which time the user has made repeated attempts to remove the term from articles right across the piece. Here is the latest batch, all from this year: [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]. The clear intention of each of these edits is to remove the term, but this is not stated in the edit summary. This one from this year: [172] is a repeat attmept from way back in 2008, shown here [173]. This is obviously a very long term problem where a user simply won't be told. There is much other material in connection with these removals. I just present a sample here, and urge action to be taken to deal with this matter once and for all. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indef blocking, anyone? Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hold the fort just a second. Is he in breach of his current restrictions? RashersTierney (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
BlackPrinceDave, what were you doing between these 2 diffs in your contribution history, did you use a different account ?
- 2013-01-08T23:43:29 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles (→Suggestion v5)
- 2012-07-13T11:48:44 Orange Order (Rv. Discuss this major change first)
How did you come across the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles page ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing. Just lost interest. What's your point, and what's the relevance of your questions? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
When an editor resumes edits that resulted in a topic ban, that editor is subject to sanctions ranging from topic ban to site ban regardless of whether or not the topic ban is still in place. Since this case is unambiguous (removing the term "British Isles" from articles), I'm not in the least bit hesitant to ban the user and be done with it. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The whole point of lifting the ban is that he was no longer restricted from removing the term "British Isles" from the articles, as long as he did so within reason and policy, as he promised. Frankly, the diffs listed above don't show that he's disrupting Wikipedia, they just show that he's removing "British Isles" from articles, which is not enough for a site ban and certainly not enough for "Indef blocking, anyone?". The only diff that I would view as nonconstructive is this one, since Great Britain refers to only one island, not including the many others. Pretty much all the other articles were improved by his edits, and if you have a problem with that then AN/I can't help you. —Rutebega (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Trolling, Edit Warring, Vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:72.215.153.100 has been vandalizing (they are a school IP), has been warned many times recently, and has been edit warring at By the Grace of God to read edits they call "constructive". Then, they trolled saying it was constructive and they would report a user who warned them here. Vacation9 19:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Intimidatory and threatening behaviour?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently started to develop the content of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) article, and created a new article about the similar organisation WELMEC.
Within a few minutes of my first edits to the OIML article, an editor arrived and started fixing my mistakes. There is no problem with that. However, a few hours later, the same editor came along and replaced almost the entire article, en-masse, with a massive re-write.
That might not have been a problem either, if the replacement had been good quality prose, but it wasn't, it was largely the addition of unstructured content consisting mainly of long bulleted and numbered lists of unexplained factoids, veiled in impenetrable language, and mostly gleaned from the organization's own website.
I therefore restored the original content, and started a discussion on the development of the article on the article's talkpage Talk:International Organization of Legal Metrology. Within another few hours, that editor had again replaced the article with the unstructured and undiscussed content, and added this statement to the discussion page:I again restored the previous content, with an explanation on the article's talkpage and an invitation to discuss further before making such major changes again. Again, and within minutes, the editor had replaced that content, and again made an arrogant talkpage statement:"I have reinstated the text. I am happy to rework this article, but first lets find alternative or additional citations - since you brought the subject up, will you please find some alternative citations and we can work from there. Until and unless you can do so, the current text should stay."
However, and the reason for my complaint here, he also added, what I believe to be an intimidatory and threatening accusation of vandalism on my part, to my personal talkpage. This is what he wrote'I do not need to discuss the so called "huge changes". If you can find citations that will be appropriate, I will discuss, but until you can find suitable material, discussion is senseless.'
"You have twice reverted text that I added to the article International Organization of Legal Metrology. May I draw your attention to the following on the page Wikipedia:Vandalism:... I regard your explanations for removal of a significant part of the test as being frivilous, as will I suspect any administrator. If you revert again, I will lodge a formal complaint for vandalism."
Are such intimidation and threats acceptable on Wikipedia? I don't think so.
Bill le Conquérant (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neither of you has been vandalising the article; however, you're both involved in an edit war over a content dispute, which is just as much not-ok as vandalism. Allow me to point out for both your benefit that no one "owns" the article and has the right to unilaterally declare what its content should be. This matter would be much better dealt with at the dispute resolution noticeboard, where volunteers can help the two of you hash out the content issues. I suggest you both head over there and start discussing the actual content matters. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can I ignore the threat then, and restore the article to its pre-big-modification condition, pending the outcome or any discussion? Bill le Conquérant (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, because as I just pointed out, you're both involved in an edit war, which is against our rules. What you can do is begin a discussion on DRN and not pursue the edit war while the volunteers at DRN help both of you figure out what the article should look like. If either of you continues reverting each other, instead of or during that thread, you'll be continuing the edit war and continuing to break our rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can I ignore the threat then, and restore the article to its pre-big-modification condition, pending the outcome or any discussion? Bill le Conquérant (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be fairer then for someone else (you?) to put the article back to how it was before the disputed addition was made then? I thought the idea was to reach agreement for the addition, not reach agreement to remove disputed additions. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- If one were to revert the page to that version, one would be at risk that it might end up being The wrong version which has dire consequences for everyone involved (I advice reading that link). While the page may be describing the issue in a humorous tone the gist is the same - you will end up reverting each other over and over for some temporal "this is the correct page" goal that will have no means or purpose since neither of you will be working towards solving the actual issue. Instead of restoring a specific version just discuss with the other editor or find assistance such as Fluffernutter suggested above. Rome wasn't build in a single day either so having a few bricks out of place for a couple of days isn't going to cause any harm. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Actually, administrators will not return an article to any state when acting in an administrative capacity, per This page. If it comes down to using our administrator tools to, say, protect an article, we leave it in whatever state it is in. Also, you aren't going to get any broad endorsement of your particular version of the article here at the admin boards, because when an administrator comments in this venue, their usually wearing their "administrator hat" and they will not step into the middle of a dispute to take sides, even if they really know that one side has a clearly better version of the article. That is something that's very ingrained in the role of an administrator: Admins don't make content decisions (as administrators, when wearing their admin hats), they use their tools to stop behavioral disruption. Now, if you raise this issue in another venue, people (some of whom may be admins, but will not be acting in an admin capacity) will clearly give their opinion on which version of the article they prefer. Once you have established a clear consensus to proceed with your version, by receiving lots of outside endorsement, you can go forward from there. But you're not going to get that endorsement here. I'm pretty sure you'll get much more satisfactory results if you invite outside comment via a WP:DR process, perhaps WP:RFC. --Jayron32 20:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I though that leaving the disputed new version in place was condoning and even rewarding the unnecessarily intimidatory behaviour of he who put it there. Anyway, I've now raised it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thanks for the advice. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Uncontroversial delete/move
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparently, there has been some miscommunication by editors.
Ke$ha came out with an EP titled "Deconstructed". Someone made a page for it and called it Deconstructed (EP), but as you can see, it was coded to redirect to Warrior and some section that does not exist. What makes this furthermore confusing is the fact that there is another page titled Deconstructed (Kesha EP) which is the actual EP's page.
I need help to do this task, but can we:
- Delete Deconstructed (EP) and
- Move Deconstructed (Kesha EP) → Deconstructed (EP) please? Srsrox (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. In the future this can probably be handled by tagging the redirect with {{db-g6}} and leaving an edit summary that explains what move you wish to make. If that doesn't work, then the WP:AN is probably a more appropriate noticeboard; AN is usually better suited for routine requests and uncontroversial stuff. --Jayron32 00:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
User Norden1990
User:Norden1990 made several personal attacks against me, here are some examples: "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak"[174], "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration. The modern Sibiu was never called under its present name until 1918. The Wikipedia is not should be the scene of the falsification of history..."[175] - this post is absurd false personal attack so I wrote here [176]. Some anti-Slovak POVs: "Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family. Slovaks had not yet existed."[177], this is interesting edit [178] and facts: 1437 Trnawsky (adjective), 1451 Trnawie, 1483 w Trnawie, 1512 Trnawie, 1512 miesta Trnawy etc., Bernolak codified the Slovak language standard etc. and now important thing - I used English term Magyar (see Hungarian people: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars"), but User:Norden1990 used Hungarian term Tóts, which has a pejorative meaning. User:Norden1990 mentioned my name also in his comment in Hungarian language [179] and his translation [180]. I wrote on his Talk page the Warning [181] according to his battleground behavior and this was his strange response [182]. Unfortunately he broke again 3RR in this article [183]. And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." [184] and here deleted name Oradea [185]. So what is the definition of "quality" for him? --Omen1229 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Omen, when you run out of arguments, you always report me. So, let's see. 1, Your source is invalid because it does not contain primary sources, and contains Slovak POV. You know, one of the main pillars of the Wikipedia is the NPOV.
2, Omen, you said about yourself in your user page that you are nationalist. Don't blame me for that, true, since this information is already deleted by you. Sibiu was called "Szeben" or "Hermannstadt" until the end of WW1. It is a historical fact.
3, Slovakia really did not exist until 1993. Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family which provided famous members to the Hungarian nation. For example, Géza Jeszenszky, foreign minister of Hungary between 1990 and 1994. What is the problem?
4, I did not call you as "tót". Magyar is a pejorative meaning in Slovakia.
5, My edits show that I write articles in the spirit of neutrality. I give the city and municipality names in many languages when warranted. Giglovce was part of Hungary from the 10th century to 1920, so your edit deleted an important information.
6, You can calmly reported, my conscience is clear. You are an extremist editor who are incapable of the slightest consensus. Your talk page proves I'm not the person with whom have occured problems. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- 7, Yes, I deleted "Oradea", because that disrupted the integrity of article (anyway this edit was done by a sockpuppet). Since then the modern names were add to the other towns (Kassa, Kolozsvár etc.), so there is no problem. You also broke the 3RR rule in the article of Giglovce. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Norden - I don't understand your argument. Are you aware that Wikipedia prefers third party sources over primary sources for controversial topics?--v/r - TP 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that statement has only 1 (one) GB hits here. None of Hungarian, Slovak or English publications mentione John Zapolya as "Slovak king". The source says "contemporaries" called him "Slovak king", but does not mention anyone by name. There are no footnotes. I would not call it a good source (see also: Talk:John Zápolya). --Norden1990 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that even en.wp uses the "pejorative" term "Magyar" that is invoked by Norden1990: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars" (Hungarian people) 202.29.238.193 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but that statement has only 1 (one) GB hits here. None of Hungarian, Slovak or English publications mentione John Zapolya as "Slovak king". The source says "contemporaries" called him "Slovak king", but does not mention anyone by name. There are no footnotes. I would not call it a good source (see also: Talk:John Zápolya). --Norden1990 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Norden - I don't understand your argument. Are you aware that Wikipedia prefers third party sources over primary sources for controversial topics?--v/r - TP 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
AE
I checked the archives and it seems there is not the first dispute between these 2 editors. Admin User:Sandstein talked a month ago about the necessity of WP:ARBEE sanctions against User:Norden1990. Link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#AE.3F. Maybe an initial step can be to place User:Norden1990 on notice. In this moment Omen1229's name appears at Wikipedia:ARBEE#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice, but Norden1990 is missing 202.29.238.193 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorry for not having a more descriptive title, but here goes:
Quite a ways back, Demiurge began edit warring (proof here: http://puu.sh/1YYh6 ) on a talkpage removing a comment by John F. Lewis regarding adoption. This was a perfectly valid comment by John that had already been discussed with other users first. Demiurge feels the need to unilaterally, without discussion, revert his comment citing "childprotect" because the users mother was 'involved'. The users mother was involved in this issue, but has no control over John F. Lewis. Also, since the post didn't involve any private (or remotely private) information, CHILDPROTECT doesn't apply to the edit at all. Demiurge thereafter proceeded to get an AN/I thread off track to the point of it being closed as 'ArbCom involved' when ArbCom was not remotely involved in John F. Lewis' adoption program or the adoption of this specific user at all. John and I let it go.
Earlier today, Demiurge made a pretty large refraction (diff) on a comment by John F. Lewis at a RfA. This completely changed the meaning of the message John was trying to send. I asked Demiurge about it over IRC, was told "it's an RfA" and then when I pushed for an explanation of the refactoring got no response, as is shown here: http://puu.sh/1Z1Gx . Then, me and John, along with User:addshore proceeded to ask Demiurge about it on their talkpage, after which Demiurge proceeded to call us "jokers" and remove it multiple times without rectifying the issue.
Demiurge should be made to explain their refactoring and removal of comments, and should be warned that continuing to not collaborate and explain when asked will result in further issues. Everyone makes mistakes, but repeated violations of WP:REFACTOR and not explaining when asked is unacceptable in my mind. All users will be notified shortly after this post. gwickwiretalkedits 23:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- For goodness' sake, all of you, please just drop it. This is getting ridiculous. I am willing to start handing out blocks if this continues. --Rschen7754 23:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds sensible to me. However, are you OK with me replying to this fine fellow's account of my actions here, just this once? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify this statement, the underlying issue has long been resolved; I see no reason why all of you keep revert warring to get in your final say about it or remove someone else's final say. This is starting to become disruptive, and needs to stop. Demiurge1000, this includes you. --Rschen7754 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Noted, and thank you for your patient involvement. However, I have not been disruptive, and I reserve the right to remove nonsense from my talkpage, except as required by policy. And yes, I think we're done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reply: Tell me how asking for an explanation of why you broke the rules is nonsense? gwickwiretalkedits 23:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- The underlying issue has not been resolved. The underlying issue is that Demiurge has on (by my count) at least 2-3 occasions failed to explain themselves when asked, even after given multiple chances. This is a collaborative project. If Demiurge won't explain themselves, and continues reverting, it's disruptive. Also, this has just come to my attention, but Demiurge also failed to discuss (at first, not sure how it played out now) at Suicide of Amanda Todd, removing a valid category before discussion was finished. gwickwiretalkedits 23:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
IP Stalker and Vandal
I have had an IP Stalker and Vandal attack my user pageUser:I am One of Many and talk page User talk:I am One of Many for the last several days using different IPs. Bencherlite has been semi-protcting my pages for the last few days, but now he is under attack and the IP stalker claims to be running an automated script and will never stop and perhaps expand his attacks against Wikipedia (see Protection).--I am One of Many (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Trolls say lots of things. I wouldn't worry about it too much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not going to worry about it. He must have a sad life to spend it trolling.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikishagnik (talk · contribs) put a proposed deletion tag in America's Next Top Model: All-Stars article and you can see the tagged proposed deletion link: [186] that shouldn't take goal on discouraging edits. But for now, I don't trust anything on this internationally notable series and encouraging on prose for saving this article. ApprenticeFan work 06:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, what do you need admins to do? --Jayron32 07:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron, this editor has sabotaging the article and it is really a notable show. Google search stats over 25 million results: [187], that makes notable enough. This editor has had enough on need to say being the notability of the show. ApprenticeFan work 07:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Near as I can tell, he's edited the article once, and started a discussion on the article talk page. I'd hardly call that disruptive. He added a PROD, it was removed, he started a discussion to explain his position. So far everything is working as it is supposed to. Have I missed any actions he has taken in regards to that article? --Jayron32 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- ApprenticeFan, if Wikishagnik really thinks the article should be deleted, their next step is to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. That would be ill-advised. The article has very little chance at all of being deleted. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- ApprenticeFan, even if the PROD was misguided, your combative stance both here and on the article's talk page isn't the way to go about things. I don't see any administrative action required here. Also, you are required to notify people who you mention at AN/I, which you have failed to do. I have done it for you, please remember that in the future. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, Wikishagnik's edits was a totally bad faith and I agree with Shirt58 and The Bushranger. That makes more notable. ApprenticeFan work 07:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Near as I can tell, he's edited the article once, and started a discussion on the article talk page. I'd hardly call that disruptive. He added a PROD, it was removed, he started a discussion to explain his position. So far everything is working as it is supposed to. Have I missed any actions he has taken in regards to that article? --Jayron32 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jayron, this editor has sabotaging the article and it is really a notable show. Google search stats over 25 million results: [187], that makes notable enough. This editor has had enough on need to say being the notability of the show. ApprenticeFan work 07:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Ping Fu
Hey, I'm a single purpose account for just this post, sorry, but I would like to point this out without getting my primary real life-traceable account involved:
Ping Fu has been attacked this week for her recent book Bend, Not Break which details her exile from China for her study of infantacide during the Cultural Revolution, here, on Amazon (forum), Twitter, and elsewhere. I suggest that this might need a few more eyes than a typical RPP, but her article would certainly qualify for semi-protection now as it stands. Among other things, the fact that she hired Mark Andressen at the lab where he developed Mosaic has been scrubbed. Thanks; over and out. ExtraInCase (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- ^ [http://books.google.lk/books?id=4IdR9N9R7T4C&pg=PA25&dq=burning+of+rajarata&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kMsPUc3ROob3rQfn0oCYCw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka By Chelvadurai Manogaran]page25
- ^ Chattopadhyaya, Haraprasad. Ethnic unrest in modern Sri Lanka: an account of Tamil-Sinhalese race relations. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved 24 February 2012.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
MUNOZ 117
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).