Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765

User:Dickmojo

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

---

At User talk:Dickmojo, I declined an unblock request and revoked talk page access - the reasons are on the talk page. Dickmojo is now claiming (by email) that I acted improperly as I had acted in a previous dispute about acupuncture - the details of that case are all still there on the talk page. At the time of my current action, I had forgotten about the acupuncture issue and was not aware that this is the same person. But as Dickmojo is alleging bad faith on my part, I thought I'd better ask for a review - if anyone thinks I did act improperly, or even disagrees with me for any reason, please feel free to revert or amend my actions as you see fit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The revocation of talk page privileges was warranted based on pugnacious BLP violations. Dickmojo clearly wouldn't accept that he can't repeat allegations of criminal activity as fact, and wanted to continue repeating them in his discussion of an unblock. It's really no different from an editor who is blocked for attacking another editor and then repeats the attack in an appeal discussion. Good call.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reviewed Talk:Julia Gillard some more now too, and have redacted and rev-deleted more edits that I think were BLP violations - edits that represented the various allegations as "undisputed fact". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good block. Should email access be removed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Has 4 unanswered UTRS tickets re: the block currently. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed he's gotten away with that username for a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re email access - he hasn't emailed me again, so unless he misuses it in some other way, I don't think there's a pressing need to disable it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Same-sex marriage talk page/Witherspoon Institute

Forum:

I'm sorry for bringing this trivial matter here, but I don't know of any more appropriate forum. If you can suggest a better one, I would be glad to close this report and move the issue elsewhere.

Background:

Discussion on Talk:Witherspoon Institute hit a brick wall because there's just me and User:Belchfire, and we are unable to come to agreement regarding some material that he kept removing from the article.[1][2] (As this was a violation of WP:BRD, I left a notice on his talk page[3] which he removed without comment.[4])

The material removed from the article concerns Witherspoon's opposition to same-sex marriage, so I decided to invite more editors who have some interest in the subject by leaving a short, neutral note on Talk:Same-sex marriage, carefully designed to comply with WP:CANVAS.[5]

Issue:

Belchfire responded by hatting the note so that it would not be seen, while accusing me of votestacking.[6] To the best of my understanding, this is a direct violation of WP:TPG. I reverted the hatting exactly once and notified him of the violation.[7] He responded by removing the notification without comment[8] and edit-warring to restore the hatting[9].

Complications:

What's funny is that this is apparently a trap for me to fall into, as his comment is "Report if you like, watch out for the boomerang". As a result, I fully expect him to be ready to put as negative a spin on my behavior as possible, bringing in out-of-context diffs that are unrelated to this issue. In the text of the hat, he also acknowledges that he is familiar with WP:TPG. Presumably, he is suggesting that he can defend his actions through some interpretation of that policy. I guess I'm just calling his bluff and trusting any admins who respond to have good sense.

Goal:

I would like him to agree to remove the hatting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Update:

An uninvolved editor, perhaps in response to the report, removed the hatting.[10] If Belchfire doesn't edit-war to restore it, then this report should be closed. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While Belchfire probably should not have hatted StillStanding's comment, StillStanding certainly could have picked a better venue for asking for another opinion then posting to an article's talk page. WP:THIRD comes to mind, since only two editors were involved. However this new ANI incident is another example of WP:DE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LAWYER issues related to StillStanding.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Er... 2 days ago you and Belchfire launched a federal case against StillStanding for refactoring other peoples' talkpage comments. Remember? Now you're teaming up to refactor his comments and complaining about his response. I'm not sure which party in this thread is most hypocritical, but at bottom I see a small group of partisan editors treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. This doesn't reflect well on any of you, and it's not going to end well. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I am in no way condoning Belchfires hat, as I indicated above. I fail to see how you can draw such a conclusion. Furthermore, in the previous ANI that I raised on my own, without any coordination from any other editors, was for the sole purpose of having someone that Still believed to be "neutral" inform him that his refactoring was unacceptable. In that thread I also displayed my displeasure of the piling on when other editors started to engage.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer  18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You're leveraging this incident to build a case for some sort of substantial sanction against StillStanding. And he may well deserve such a sanction, but the level of hypocrisy and gamesmanship on display here is really disappointing. If StillStanding hats someone's comment, he's at fault. And if someone hats StillStanding's comment, he's also at fault? MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • He is certainly at fault for bringing this up here. It was unnecessary and to be frank, a bit pointy. He could have addressed this at many other venues but chose the drama option. But hey, let's AGF and chalk it up to the fact he didn't know this was an improper venue and next time he will know better. I'm out of this one.  little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer  19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Huh. And yet here was the perfect place for you and Belchfire to launnch you particular veendetta agaainst him. Really really not buying your conveniently shifting standards of what is or is not appropriate. --Calton | Talk 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Problem: This obnoxious and disruptive behavior by StillStanding(247) is not a first-time occurrence. In fact, it's becoming a habit:

1. Here, he is seeking help at Homosexuality to back him up at Focus on the Family [11]
2. Here, he is seeking help at Sexual abuse to back him up at Boy Scouts of America [12]
3. Here, he is seeking help at spanking to back him up at James Dobson [13]
4. Here, he is seeking help at Same sex marriage to back him up at Witherspoon Institute [14]

Still-24 has an array of tools available when new eyes are needed in a discussion, including RfC, DRN, Third Opinion, and noticeboards dedicated to NPOV, OR, BLP, and other matters. Why doesn't he use them??? The answer should be obvious: he's not looking for neutral editors. He's looking for editors to help him obtain his preferred outcome in content disputes. This motivation is clearly illustrated here [15] in Still-24's own words. (Q:"Are you here to build an encyclopedia?" A:"I'm here to fix some articles.")

These are disruptive attempts to create false consensus [16] by cross-posting inappropriate notifications [17], seeking to attract partisan editors in violation of our policy on consensus-building [18]:

"Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable."

Still-24 has already had the problem with this behavior explained to him by an admin, [19] but he simply doesn't listen to anything that he doesn't want to hear. Hatting his off-topic posts on Talk pages is done per policy [20]:

"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal."

That is all. Belchfire-TALK 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So hatting inappropriate posts is OK? That's funny, because when StillStanding hatted your inappropriate commentary, you ran to AN/I to try to get him sanctioned. That was two days ago. And now you're hatting his comments ("per policy") and demanding we sanction him. I'm sure there's an explanation for this besides simple hypocrisy and gamesmanship, but I'm struggling to find it. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that an editor has a poor grasp of policy is not uncivil. And by the way, there is an essay that should be governing your behavior right now. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, without even commenting on anything else, it is grossly innapropriate to tell an admin on ANI to mind his or her own business. This is ANI. Admins will comment on the threads here, that is part of how Wikipedia works. Your response to MastCell, a highly regarded administrator, is unacceptable behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fine; I've said what I have to say here anyway, and I'll leave this for other admins to sort out. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the prejudicial "highly regarded" descriptor, if MastCell was here to act in his capacity as an admin, I'm pretty sure he would have said so by now. Instead, it seems to me he is here in some other capacity. As are you, KC. Both of you: if you're here to admin, then do it. If not, then what's really going on here? Are either of you involved in the incidents? If not, then what's really going on here? WP:MYOB seems to fit the bill. If you're not here to clarify and/or enforce policy, then why are you sticking up for one party in a dispute where you emphatically say that all sides are guilty? I smell something, and it ain't flowers. Belchfire-TALK 19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He is "being adminny" by responding here, as am I. If you peruse the extensive archives of this page, you will find most of it is simply discussing the issues brought here. I'm not sure who you are addressing the rest of your comments to, but so far as I can tell, Mastcell did not "stick up" for anyone, he commented, as is appropriate, on the incongruence of your reporting Still for hatting and asking for sanctions a couple of days ago, and then turning around and hatting his comments. Your approach here is combative and insulting to the very admins who are trying to help with problems. Not a recommended approach. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Belchfire, I'm not sure where you got the idea that an admin has to actively put on their admin hat to be acting as an admin. At AN/I, it's more often the opposite. (not-an-admin) - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My $.02: if you all don't find a way to work out these issues without going to AN/I every two days you're all gonna end up before Arbcom. If that happens, no one is going to be happy with the result (which will likely be a combo of blocks and topic bans for all involved and discretionary sanctions on these articles). Sædon^talk 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this thought occurred to me. I posted this anyhow, because I didn't see any other way to get Belchfire to stop edit-warring in violation of WP:TPG. If you have advice on a better way, I am entirely open to it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I'm inclined to take it to arbcom now. It seems as though every time I expand looking at articles on these topics, I find another fight involving most of the same people. I've given up either editing the articles or discussing them in talk. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We could do that, but it's going to be as much about Belchfire and the WikiProject Conservatism group as it is about me. I've been working on my personal skills and done a much better job as of late on getting along with others. But it doesn't seem to apply to this particular group; their behavior has been hostile from the start and has remained so. They're free to disagree with me, but edit-warring to violate WP:TPG is too much. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be an RfC on WikiProject Conservatism, but you're not helping things by distracting us from that goal. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Right now, though, I'd really like to be able to post an invitation without having it hatted over and over again. So, yes, it's a separate issue, but it's a pressing one for me. If there were a better venue, I'd use it.

While I'm on the topic, I should probably comment that I've read WP:CANVAS and it appears to be entirely acceptable to write a neutral invitation addressed at all editors on an article. My choice of articles has always been dictated by the nature of the disagreement. In this case, we have a dispute about same-sex marriage so I posted to Same-sex marriage. The same is true for the other examples that Belchfire gathered; they're all no-brainers based on the topic. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything left for me to comment on, and since Belchfire has not restored the hatting, this report looks like it's concluded. There are some still-open issues that were some raised here, and they'll be followed up on, but in a more appropriate forum. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Belchfire, you would do good to tone it down. This is "Administrators' Noticeboard/ Incidents" (note the apostrophe after Administrators). The primary function of this board is for admins to offer guidance, although anyone is welcome to participate. Telling an admin to mind his own business, when this board is designed for precisely what MastCell is doing, is clearly out of line here. Try going to WP:AE and telling one of the Arbs to piss off and see how far that gets you. Stillstanding brought the issue here and presented it in a neutral fashion, something I would want to encourage since the events between you two have been less so, previously. MastCell's comments are instructive and appropriate here and he was acting as an admin. Your comments are not appropriate. The majority of the function of being an admin doesn't require the tools, only common sense and objectivity. I suggest you read up a bit on admins so you can understand that in the future, and don't make the mistake of telling anyone participating in a discussion at AN/I to "mind their own business". And since you haven't read up yet, please note that I'm acting as an admin here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesluxley

Jamesluxley (talk · contribs) has been creating some highly confused OR screeds at Oikema and elsewhere (see AfD) and has disclosed a link to his private homepage ([21], [22]) which explains the agenda behind it – an agenda that, frankly, can only be described as lunatic. Given the degree of obvious delusion displayed in these ravings [23][24], can we cut the story short and apply the inevitable indef-block right away rather than wait until it all moves even further down the inexorable road of wiki-madness? (I guess I count as "involved" now, having brought the page to AfD.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh dear, " I believe Wikipedia is a front operation also. They delete almost everything I add or write". It's blatantly clear from this person's weird ideas that we do not have someone here who would be a useful contributor to the project, for obvious reasons. I've imposed an indef block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also reverted this change, as it was sourced only by a translation of "πορνείο = brothel", and there's no way we can trust any of this guy's unsourced factual claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Just FYI, πορνείο actually is Greek for brothel, so at least he got that right.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, the translation was right ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, πορνείο is Modern Greek (whereas the article he was editing deals with ancient Greece). The Attic Greek word was πορνεῖον. Deor (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• I was torn for a while as to what tool to use. I've decided to use the edit tool to supply a rationale, that you can all refer to with "per Uncle G", to the AFD discussion. ☺ That was a bit of a lurch, changing tracks from a week of Cyrillic to NT Greek. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm glad some sanity has been restored. What we should all learn from this experience is: never "put" your womenfolk "in a house", because it means something nasty, and it doesn't end well [25]. ("Or so they say, but I don't believe it.") – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • "This is linguistics and that is a science", you know. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My brain is hurting. His webpage reads like the initial napkin scribblings of a Dan Brown novel, written by an advocate of those Super Sekret Biblical Dokuments that used to be sold in the back of tabloids. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know if this is of any interest, but shortly after I reverted the very first edits that Jamesluxley made I got this friendly warning from an IP:
  • "Hi. I can see that you have reverted a contribution made by user:Jamesluxley on the article Frederik's Church. I just want to warn you that this user may be an old "villain" Haabet from the Danish wikipedia, a user who is known as being false positive while inserting nonsense. Please keep an eye on him! -93.160.114.90 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"
• Even though I edit on the Danish Wikipedia, this one seems to have been banned before my time, so I can't say if there are any similarities, but I notice that Jamesluxley does apparently claim to know some Danish and Swedish (as well as his first edit on English Wikipedia was to a Danish related article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And if you read his web site, there's some Danish stuff there - Carlsberg is a Buddhist Viking United Nations conspiracy, or something like that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That's from Jamesluxley (talk · contribs), which the Danish Wikipedia deals with by simply reverting and blanking. Haabet (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Haabet (talk · contribs) the English Wikipedia has already blocked and there's no reason to suspect that they're the same person. In any case, Haabet signed xyrself with xyr actual name over on the Danish Wikipedia, and that was (and is) someone else. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Just in case anyone is still interested, he's been further updating his site with his account of his experience at Wikipedia - here. (But don't blame me if your brain melts and starts dripping out your ears before you get to the end). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh my god, my brain, look, it's dripping all over my keyboard nmnm,kjekjdfm,nm,n,nm,nm and it's only your faullkllllmmnmnbnnmnmn,lklkljmn,m ..... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, folks. Ridiculing people isn't going to get them to go away any faster: conspiracy theorists thrive on ridicule. We've established that this content isn't appropriate in the slightest, so let's quietly keep it that way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Plateau99 and Zoophilia

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

---

Plateau99 (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia for some time and has been solely focused on Zoophilia and its sub-articles for the past couple years. He has been blocked for edit warring three times in the past nine months on Zoophilia. A couple days ago, two experienced editors, Someone963852 (talk · contribs) & Bali ultimate (talk · contribs), began to rewrite the page, having found major issues with sourcing and neutrality. Plateau99 has since accused them of "anti-zoophile bias"; he initially tried to revert them but then opened a Dispute resolution noticeboard thread on which he stated that they should be reverted because "[their] version of the article is too anti-zoosexual". Plateau99 said of his version that "There were some citation problems, but the solution is not to erase all of the information at once. The solution is to find sources that match the sentences." This makes me think that he is here to advance an agenda, rather than what reliable sources say. Guerillero (talk · contribs) weighed in at DRN, and said The only thing I can think will help here is a topic ban or an indef block and the DRN can't help there. I agree with him, so I'm bringing this here to suggest a topic ban or a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The diffs are at DRN if you would like to see them. I can move them over here if anyone requests them. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not trying to advance an "agenda", I am only trying to ensure that the article in question (and others like it) are not censored. One of the things that makes Wikipedia good is its ban on censorship, and the recent edits at the article in question seem to counteract this rule. I also agree that the zoophilia and the law article had POV/neutrality issues -- however I think the recent edits made to the article may have gone too far.

I also want to point out that other editors such as Someone963852 have also been blocked from editing for edit warring. The reason I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:DRN was to resolve this dispute without another edit war. Plateau99 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the recent changes that got Plateau99 and me blocked for a month. I included an explanation for each revert, which he failed to do. [26] I reworded this for a neutral tone, but Plateau99 reverted without an explanation (like he did to all my other changes he deemed as not "pro-zoophilia" enough). [27] There are several problems with this. Both the article he used are opinion pieces, and the sentence should not be stated as though it were a definite fact. The “opposed to forcing sex upon animals” is not anywhere in the “browpalm” source listed. Plus, nowhere does it make a statement that “most zoophiles are not cruel to animals” in the second reference used to cite that portion. The “scientam” ref says “In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said.” Those are opinions. From zoophiles. This is a section titled “against”. It is not a place for him to refute it with false content or biased opinions. It is against the neutral POV policy. [28] Plateau99 is adding false, pro-zoophilia content by using random sources (which do not back up those claims) to cover them up and make it seem legitimate. The link he used to source that added info does not exist News24.com Bestiality new Aids myth – SPCA], but the actual article is here - which is from the same site and matches the article name he was trying to add. What Plateau99 tried to add: "In Africa, a myth developed in which bestiality was believed to spread AIDS, and people avoided the meat or milk of such animals.” From the ‘’’actual’’’ source: "The National Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) says it is horrified at claims that having sex with an animal prevents people from getting Aids. The organisation says bestiality neither prevents Aids nor is it a cure for the deadly disease."

Those are just some few examples, there are more examples on the Zoophilia talk page and the history pages. Someone963852 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Plateau's edits look a lot like advocacy. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] --Guerillero | My Talk 03:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Plateau You are correct that Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think that that is the issue here. I'm not trying to insult you by saying you're advancing an agenda, but it seems like you want your view of the subject to dominate the article. On Wikipedia, we try (or are supposed to try, at least) to keep a neutral tone (WP:NPOV) by following what reliable sources say about the subject (WP:RS). Your statements at DRN suggested to me that you sought to write down your views, and then find sources to support them if possible--which is a problem in general, whether we're talking about Zoophilia or politics/religion/etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to point out that source about the AIDS myth was not originally posted by me; yes, I did re-add it, but was not aware of the fact that it was a bad link. Once it was proven to be a bad link, I did not re-add it. In addition, while my edits may appear to be "pro-zoophilia", keep in mind that I was attempting to keep a neutral tone (WP:NPOV) in the sense that I was trying to balance the article with views favorable to the subject, since there were already views condemning it.

I also believe that in an article about zoophiles, the opinions of zoophiles (the source of what the article is about) should at least partially be represented by a reputable source -- in this case, the Broward Palm Beach Times. The fact that the information in the Broward Times came from zoophiles does not make it invalid. In addition, sentences on Wikipedia do not have to exactly match what is said in the sources (which, without quotes, would be plagiarism), which is why sentences were added which did not exactly match what was in the source.

As I stated at the DRN, the sentence I said was taken out of context (and made to appear, in bad faith, that I had an "agenda") -- the sentence meant this: any sentence, made by me or any other person, should not be immediately deleted only because it lacks a source, and should be considered for inclusion if a source can be found. (And if a source cannot be found, then it should be deleted). Plateau99 (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You can not add a bunch of unsourced, non-neutral POV original research to an article, expect it to stay on, and have other editors find sources for it. And I doubt there even are sources to support those unencyclopedic content. Someone963852 (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Being neutral is not "anti-zoophilia." Someone963852 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case "anti-zoophilia" is referring to a POV in the opposite direction. In other words, when information which appeared to be "pro-zoophilia" was removed, those edits inadvertently caused the article to become potentially "POV'ed" in the other direction. I only bring up "anti-zoophilia" as the opposite of the term people keep using in bad faith ("pro-zoophilia"). In reality, there is no such thing as "pro-zoophilia" or "anti-zoophilia"; or at least, that's the way it's supposed to be on Wikipedia. Plateau99 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, and there is no requirement for anything "pro-zoophilia" to be in such an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The same can be said for those who oppose zoophilia and view it as abuse (they also "advocate", just against it). Since those views were already represented in the article, it made sense to balance it with an opposing view. WP:NPOV is based on the idea that an article should not lean too much to one side, and that is what I was trying to do. Plateau99 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Point out specific parts in the two articles where you think is "anti-zoophilia." Someone963852 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. NPOV does not mean equal space for all ideas; it means that non-mainstream ideas are included but not given undue weight --Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The good versions of the zoophilia Wikipedia article (i.e. the ones made by pro-zoophilia editor Plateau99) will always be there; but if the anti-zoo troll "someone963852" gets his way, the only way people will be able to see the good versions of the article will be to go to the top of the article and click "view history", and then click on one of Plateau99's revisions. Unfortunately, I believe that most people are probably not going to do that, and will only be exposed to the bigoted version made by Someone963852. From the "Beast Forum." [35]. Always remember kids, assume good faith - and happy editing!.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The main reason why I attempted to add information from sources which appeared to view zoophilia favorably was because the article was already suffering from WP:UNDUE, just in the other direction. It should also be noted that a number of concepts coming from those who oppose zoophilia could be considered "fringe"; in other words, those in favor of zoophilia have stated that those who oppose them are "fringe", and those against zoophilia have said that those in favor of it are "fringe" -- it depends on whose perspective one is looking from.

Also, the quote that User:Bali ultimate just cited was from a non-reputable site (a forum site). I cannot control what people think about what happens on Wikipedia, all I can do is say that such comments are not relevant. Also, Bali ultimate's use of sarcasm (maybe?) could be seen as borderline WP:PA. Plateau99 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not going to find any usable sources that advocate screwing animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, there have been some reliable sources which have favorable views towards zoophilia (not "screwing animals"). Plateau99 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoophilia is a clinical-sounding euphemism for screwing animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, zoophilia encompasses a range of different subjects, which may or may not include having sex with them (animals). For example, some zoophiles don't have sex with animals at all. Plateau99 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which category do you fall into? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which parts of the two articles do you see as too anti-zoophilia? Point it out. Someone963852 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the zoophilia and the law article (as it is now) is very different from the way it was, it is difficult to say exactly what was/is "anti-zoophilia" in terms of content. But as the zoophilia and the law article stands right now, there is a section ("Common reasons for given laws") stating why zoophilia is banned, but nothing to counteract such claims. There used to be a section highlighting the impact that such laws had on zoophiles. But with that removed, only the opinions of those who oppose zoophilia are represented. Plateau99 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because those reasons are what put those laws in in the first place. It is not anti nor pro anything. This has gone on far too long, and I'm sick of replying to you when you should be blocked from Wikipedia for repeatedly adding non-neutral POV, original research, false citations to make claims seem legitimate, and other contents that are against Wikipedia's policies. I wonder why you're still here and I hope an admin does something about it soon. Someone963852 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again with the personal attacks. That alone should reason enough for you to be blocked, not me. I'm not sure what you mean by "false citations", but I can assure you that the citations I added were not "false". And as I stated before, I was trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines -- adding information to balance the zoophilia and the law article and satisfy WP:NPOV, trying to protect content from being erased (to satisfy Wikipedia's anti-censor policies), and prevent the blanking of large portions of information without a legitimate reason. I can see getting rid of a few sentences here and there which may not conform to NPOV standards, but the blanking of information (including cited information) is against Wikipedia's guidelines -- which is why I brought up the issue in DRN in the first place. Plateau99 (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to find a valid source which endorses sex with animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not true; there are in fact sources which view zoophilia favorably (they don't "endorse" sex with animals). Some of these sources include: Broward Palm Beach Times, Peter Singer (Princeton professor), Hani Militski, the Scientific American, etc. I also want to point out that my opinion of zoophilia has no relevance to the edits I make; they may appear "pro-zoophilia", but in reality what I'm trying to do is create a fair, neutral article (in good faith) which represents multiple viewpoints. Plateau99 (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Trolling. Duh. Say "Buh-Bye" to it. Doc talk 05:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked, indef. Clear case of disruptive agenda editing in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision there, good work. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources could be found that support a pro-pedophila point of view aas well, but don't think for one hot minute that sort of thing would ever be allowed to slant the Wikipedia's pedophile topic articles to make that activity come across as more favorable. Sex with animals is not a right, people are not being discriminated against because they are prevented from practicing it. WP:NPOV means to treat all significant points of view fairly; the view that zoophilia is normal or acceptable in society is so far down the scale of deviancy that it does not even register on the scale. It does not deserve and should not be given equal footing in any Wikipedia article alongside the overwhelming sources that are critical of and condemning of the practice. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FP, I definitely don't object to the block, but your block notice says that the editor is blocked "temporarily" which might be confusing to anyone reviewing the history of this matter in the future. -- Atama頭 05:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed that now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Michigan External Link Spammer - repeat block evasion

97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs)

BLOCK EVASION

This IP address is the primary for this longterm Michigan external link spammer. An analysis of their IP ranges is here.

This particular address is for a Michigan library. Last May a 3-month block was set for abusive editing (presumably by a third party), and that block expired a few days ago.

Since their primary IP was blocked, the original ext link spammer (editor I am now complaining about) used several other IPs, as detailed here.

Earlier this month, the primary range of alternative IPs for the ext link spammer was blocked for 30 days as a result of my prior ANI against this editor. That block is still in effect.

However, the editor has been busy with the same old behaviors, and has received many short term blocks as detailed here

As I post this, 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs) is engaged in block evasion yet again.

ACTION SOUGHT: Please block 97.87.29.188 for another 3 months, and please re-start the 30-day clock that is now running (but is being circumvented) as a result of my prior ANI (link above). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PS As I explained in the prior ANI this is chronic low level disruption of the climate pages. No single edit is really hugely terrible but the repeated posting of ext links with a demonstrated intent to not bother trying to actually improve anything is a large chronic disruption to that subject area. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Please do not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. The quoted policy says the act of evasion is what restarts the clock. We still need someone to push those buttons NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil comments in Michael Servetus article

• User: Anatoly Ilych Belousov

• Article: Michael Servetus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Anatoly Ilych Belousov, who seems to be a SPA that is devoted to the promotion of the work of one particular scholar, has been repeatedly making uncivil and derogatory comments about me in his editions related to the Michael Servetus article, just because I questioned that undue relevance was given to what should be considered as fringe research. He first started throwing at me a COI accusation without even trying to make any previous approach, thus violating WP:AGF. The situation became so difficult for further editing the article that I opened a Dispute Resolution request. I edited the article according to the terms of the Dispute Resolution, limiting references to fringe research to one section and paragraph in the article, but this started a flame war of this user against me, including personal attacks and derogatory comments, both in edit summaries (see here and here) and also in the article's Talk page (see here and here) including violations of privacy, using this Talk page for outing private activities of editors rather than focusing on the contents of the article. I would expect that this uncivil behaviour be stopped. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This case was previously discussed at DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 42#Michael Servetus Especially note the closing comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO the only valid accusation (of those claimed above) is the violation of WP:PRIVACY in this edit summary (and I would say it is severe one). Other alleged violations of WP:PRIVACY include disclosing the information that was previously revealed by Jdemarcos, while I see no personal attacks or derogatory comments in the links to evidence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that claiming that I say "bullshit", or "You have no idea what you talk of... read a litle", or that my editing is "obnoxious" qualify as derogatory comments. While educated disagreement is acceptable, disqualification of other editors' intelligence or good faith is not. --Jdemarcos (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are lying, and the administrators can check it. It is not true you were not listened, I already explained that. you were listened for more than two monthes. You disclosed information for everyone to know who u are. And U are closely connected to the people you refer to, Alcala and HIllar, even in the same picture. While a disclosure of private information could be indeed unpropper, the administrators could check you are seriously involved in the MSI, in referring your friends, and of course in editing everything that has to do with the Crown of Aragon. You are simply blocking anything that has to do with Gonzalez. far beyond the dispute. That is why your comment says " the document of naturalization is not a discovery , this proves it was known for 50 years". You keep with the same thing. That document was recovered by Gonzalez, and I explained in the edition summaries why. You know it, and after the dispute you main objetive is to try to attack Gonzalez. So, your intention is clear, change whole biography, and you tried to change the Zaporta references, but you cannot, because there is no previous document that says " Michael is converso cause of his relation to the Zaporta" before 1999. You tried to change it and write statements such as " it was known". False. Again, that discovery is by gonzalez, and you tried to diminish it. You started your edition saying he was just a pediatrician,.. and in your reasonins you start to talk of Alcala and HIllar, which you refer a lot, even you made those sections for them in freedom of consciousness, and so. And now when confronted with evidence you are so involved in an institution that expelled gonzalez in 2005, you say it is not my fault most of worldwide agree with you. No, they can agree with the old version of Servetus, but they do nto agree with you persuing anything related to Gonzalez. Such, as Zaporta, Naturalization( already explained in edition summaries), etc. ( besides the works). The disclosure of privacy , which is a pic,.., was for me a try to show to the administrators what was going on. Actually I understand it annoys De Marcos a lot, cause it shows what goes on. He persues gonzalez, according to the policy of the Michael Servetus Institute. And yes, that is obnoxious. And yes, you have no idea of what you talk of, as I noted, you added teh comment " by whom" in the manuscript of paris, and that same information was in many sources you were referring before. So I keep saying that. Read your own sources, which are in the pic with you. And, do not call the director of the MSI ( bachesopi user, also in the pic with you), the next day after you complain, in order to edit wikipedia. For me a COI. You are very involved, but none reacts to the information. But you lie. It was me who edited most of the dispute resolution, and it was just when you kept in your tries of editing things related to gonzalez, when I reacted, cause of your obsessions, which have nothing to do with disputes, but Gonzalez himself, as the policy of the MSI dictates you, and as the director tried to edit as well.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LIARLIAR - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Educated disagreement is OK, personal attacks are not, unauthorized disclosure of private information to support your accusations definitely is not. As for the template, it is customary to include it when a reference to authorship is lacking and therefore a claim is unsupported. It does not imply ignorance from the person who added it. Sometimes it is even used as a marker in order to come back when a valid reference is found, or other editors may find it first. That is common practice in Wikipedia that you may not be familiar with. --Jdemarcos (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Telecineguy and spam promotion of book

Can someone tell User talk:Telecineguy to stop spamming multiple article pages and their talk pages with promotional content for a newly released book complete with the price and "ref" links directly to Amazon? thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Side note: small correction - not that new George Obama; Damien Lewis (2010). Homeland: An Extraordinary Story of Hope and Survival. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-7617-7..... Moxy (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

oops - I think that there are also issues with English not being the primary language of the user. Piecing things all together, the book was apparently "published" a number of years ago but was not "distributed" at that time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor also does not understand that there is more than one Damian Lewis in the world. He keep trying to add it to the page for the actor. I don;t think we have an article for the author. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Moore & Co.

I only have access via cell phone while I travel, so would appreciate someone looking at this while I'm away. At Benjamin Moore & Co. I had removed added content as the formatting of the addition made it appear to be copy/paste from another source. The removal was questioned, then restored by a third party without addressing the concerns in the content removal. I hope that it's not a copyvio; but that needs to be clarified. --- Barek (talk) - 01:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like copyvio or close paraphrase too close to pass muster. The use of the trademark symbol makes it look very much like copyvio. I've reverted the editor who replaced it and asked if he'd checked it and told him about this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some of the content removed was in violation, but some of it was not, such as the awards section. I have made changes to the page to avoid issues of copyright violation that provide some coverage of the company by reliable, third party sources. I also have to say while this does seem to be an issue of obvious copyright infringement, only the content that was obvious should have been removed (i.e. sections with trademark symbols) per Wikipedia:COPYVIO#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. That I am supposed to prove that it's not copyright infringement absolves the accuser the responsibility of actually demonstrating that it is once the claim has been questioned. This doesn't seem to be the right way to go about the process of disputing copyright infringement claims. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!)

I don't have time to do anything at the moment, but I've added the article to my watchlist because the recent additions are promotional fluffery and need to be replaced with neutral text, regardless of any copyright issues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

They have been. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Acrow prop rename issue

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

---

I call attention to an editor who has consistently rv'ed my edits to the article currently named acrow prop. In spite of a lengthy re-write and wikification, along with a lengthy justification left on the talk page about both the edit and the name change, user User:Andy_Dingley has continued in these actions with the original comment an accusation that I am acting in bad faith due to a former issue over the spelling of the term "tachymetric" (a thread you can see here). Comments since then have been dismissive.

The background starts some time ago with some edits to the Timeline of steam power and related articles. These edits concerned the historical importance of Ivan Polzunov in the overall history of steam engine design, and I was not the only editor involved (see "Polzunov" in this archive and Talk:History_of_the_steam_engine mostly here). After these edits, Andy immediately accused me of bad faith editing ("pushing your same old prejudged POV") and various comments about my worthiness as an editor (a record which speaks for itself, IMHO) and "serious concerns over your technical competence". This followed by his wikistalking me to the bombsight article and the spelling issue, which he used as further evidence of my technical incompetence (in spite of being wrong). This finally culminates on the continued RVing of the Acrow prop article.

Normally I would simply 3RR this, but in this case as I am an involved editor, I'm not sure what the proper course of action is. I wield the admin bit rarely and with extreme trepidation, so if someone more used to this sort of thing can suggest a course of action, or simply do it, please save me the trouble!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this content issue at AN?

As to Acrow prop, then it's an entirely proper and sourced article on this common piece of construction equipment, and a specific brandname that has become generic in the UK for such props. If Maury wants to write a different article on jack posts, then feel free, but it's a POV CFORK to try and hijack this pre-existing article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For bombsights, then the spelling issue is "tachymetric" (as it appears in the Norden manual) vs. "tachometric". Tachymetric is an important term here, crucial to the function of such bombsights - they move the crosshairs of an optical sight so as to track the bomber's relative movement over the ground. This "speed tracking" function is described as being tachymetric. As tachometric is such a common term, and with a meaning so closely associated with rotation (which has no relevance to the bombsight), it is highly misleading for Maury to use it in this way, even if he manages to dredge up some ancient etymological nit-pick to support him. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As to Polzunov, then see

• Talk:History_of_the_steam_engine#Should_Polzunov_have_a_section.3F
• Talk:History_of_the_steam_engine#Polzunov_section_removed
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2011_September#History_of_the_steam_engine_edit

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Nicki Minaj

User 1flyguyrob has created a section called "Female empowerment" on the Nicki Minaj article, and has added various unreliable sources that argue as if the BLP has widely supported the portrayal and interests of women. The user initially claimed that the BLP was a feminist, but has since removed this claim after I prompted him/her to do so. The section features various quotes put together to create almost an argument - that the BLP empowers and supports females. Although the BLP has commented on how females should be portrayed, the editor has chosen to represent this strongly and created a section based on original research. As to avoid WP:3RR, could an administrator look into this? I have spoke to the user on their talk page and on the article talk page (Talk:Nicki Minaj#feminist section) Jennie | ☎ 21:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin)1flyguyrob is a new user with only 548 edits who is still learning the ropes. This kind of content dispute belongs on the BLP noticeboard, although it appears the dispute has died down for now. You may also want to consider requesting semi-protection. Two concerns: the user is a SPA dedicated to Nicki Minaj-related articles, and they rarely use the talk page. A nice note on their talk page should help. It may also be instructive for a related WikiProject to get involved. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Assam violence

It looks like there's an ethnic edit war breaking out at 2012 Assam violence. I warned two edit warriors and blocked one for 48 hours when they continued, but I don't have the time or brainpower at the moment to look deeper into this -- any further action I might take would have to be blunt force. If anyone else can apply some admin expertise to it, that would be great. (It's already been semi-protected, but might need more than that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

the User:Sirahman was deleting references and making unsourced edits. I have reverted the article to last known good state and re-added all deleted references. WBRSin (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the user I blocked for continuing the edit war. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this here to this database. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll crack out the discretionary sanctions there and see how that works... (my reverts to the article were of copyvios). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios by E_salehat

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

---

E_salehat (talk · contribs) has been adding WP:COPYVIOs to Burma. The text is directly copied from [36] starting on page 5. I've reverted and left an explanation on the user's talk page, but have not got a response and the text keeps being re-added. Could some admin take care of this? TDL (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked until we get a response of some sort indicating this user has read our copyright policy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by two users

• user Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• user Wolbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• article José Benítez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• article Mario Rincón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page José Benítez was recently moved from its diacriticless version with a 6-1 majority. In the RM, it was also requested that the addition to the lede "known professionally as Jose Benitez" be removed. 5 of the 6 editors in the majority supported this (the sixth did not address the point).

After the move, I removed the clause. Fyunck(click) the added it back (diff), mentioning that this type of addition is currently being discussed in an rfc. However, the rfc is discussing whether the additions should be allowed, not whether they are mandatory. Thus, the rfc discussion does not override what has been decided on the article talkpage, which is why I then reverted back. Wolbo then reverted back (diff), edit summary: "That was an RM and unrelated to this edit", apparently without checking the discussion on the article talkpage. The page has now been protected, so the change that has been decided cannot be implemented.

The RM included 3 other articles, one of which (Mario Rincón) had the same type of addition to the lede, thus the decision applied to it too. I removed the clause there too, and Wolbo added it back (diff) with the same erroneous edit summary. This page is not protected, but I will not engage in an edit war.

I request that these users are warned, and that the protected page is unprotected, so that the change that was decided on the talkpage can be implemented.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of users: Fyunck(click), Wolbo.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are misguided, HandsomeFella. Our current WP:AT policy is very clear about it. It states in "Treatment of alternative names": "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph."

What is it we don't understand about the word "should" ?

Adding "significant" alternative renderings is mandatory. Removing them goes against current policy.

In the case of tennis players, they always compete under a name without diacritics per ITF agreement. When a person conducts most or all of their notable activities under a name that differs from their official name, then it's hard to make the case that it is not a significant alternative rendering.

5 editors voting in a RM somewhere, that doesn't change our written policy. They should be warned for disruptive editing. WP is not about outnumbering others, it is about trying to apply current consensus (as expressed in our policies). Cheers. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping the diacritic/s does not amount to "significant other name" or "significant other spelling". After all, this is not about Colonel Khadafi/Gaddaffi/Ghadafi. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does when most all the English press uses that alternate spelling. When the ITF, ATP, WTA, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Olympics, etc...use that alternate spelling. When players register with the governing bodies of tennis use that alternate spelling. Heck some have the own personal websites and are shown with signatures that have that alternate spelling. It is very significant and why wikipedia looks at all English sources to resolve these things. We certainly don't just chop it out of every article as though it doesn't exist. That's a disservice to our readers and not what we stand for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

HandsomeFella is right. Just dropping diacritics doesn't necessarily make for a "significant" alternative.

It is "usage" that makes an alternative significant or not. If an alternative rendering is used by the subject himself in connection with his own activities AND used by most of the sources about the topic, then how it is not significant? Why keep away that information from our readers? Don't we try to offer "complete" information? That's why our policies state that we should include them. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Significant other spelling" has nothing to do with usage. It has to do with how much the spelling differs. If the difference is only minute, and anyone reading the article is able to read the name anyway, then not only is it pointless to add that clause, it's also an insult to the reader's intelligence.

The fact that ATF requires players to register without diacritics – here we can really talk about "forcing", an expression frequently used by diacritic-haters – does not require the encyclopedia that wikipedia has the ambitions of being to adopt the same principles, as it by definition will introduce incorrect spellings.

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your fabrication. Fact is that our current AT policy does not make any such reservations or conditions on how much a rendering needs to "differ" before we can consider it "significant" . It simply states that we should include them.

It would be ridiculous to warn editors for doing what our current policies ask us to do.

It is more and more looking as if a certain group of editors is working from an Anglophobic POV, rather than from a NPOV. First they move articles to diacritics title, and then they go on to remove all traces of anglicized spelling in the article (even when that rendering is found in almost all sources used for the article). I wonder why this is allowed to continue. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• This has been discussed over and over and over again; it's frustrating that MakeSense64 and Fyunck(click) continue to act as though this RfC never happened. bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That RfC clearly didn't ask or address any question about what renderings should be mentioned in the lede or not. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The RfC asked "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names"; that, and more specifically the WP:STAGENAME line of argument, was comprehensively rejected. If you haven't yet been able to read the RfC on your own essay, I could provide diffs. It has also been rejected at various subsequent RMs wherever Fyunck(click) has turned up; I'd be amazed if you hadn't seen any of those, but again more diffs from RM closures &c could be provided if necessary. But that's the point? More diffs, and more consensuses, won't stop the same old claims being brought up at the next RM. There is one cause for confidence, though; we've mostly got over the problem of undiscussed moves (sometimes editing the redirect to make a move back nontrivial). It still happens occasionally but nowadays RMs are used a lot more, and that's a Good Thing. bobrayner (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An rfc on a single personal tennis essay is hardly groundbreaking. And the question of "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names" was ridiculous as that's not what the essay says at all. I do not support the requirement of banning of diacritics. I support using as many English sources available to determine common usage in English. Wherever you or IIO show up you quote that essay so that's why it often shows up when I'm in a conversation. I can't help what you write. As far as undiscussed moves, yes luckily the anti-anglo gang has stopped that stuff, after some warnings, at least in tennis circles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• The division of labour here over the last four months has been that the leader and author of WP:TENNISNAMES User:MakeSense64 edits MOS and Talk pages, while the 2 followers Fyunck(click) and Wolbo make the actual edits to article space.
  

The charge of MakeSense64 that dozens of editors who rejected WP:TENNISNAMES RfC, or as shown in overwhelming support in a series RMs since, are "anglophobic" is not born out in the 1,000s of new article creations during the London 2012 Olympics, where 100s of "anglophobic" London 2012 editors worked together to create correctly spelled new BLPs for French, Spanish and East European athletes. If every London 2012 editor on en.wp is also "anglophobic" then for better or worse MakeSense64, Fyunck(click) and Wolbo need to adjust to live in the London 2012 world where foreigners have foreign names. A partial list of articles affected is below:

Note that the 100x articles affected don't include any big-ticket or visible BLPs like Björn Borg, nor does it include native-English speakers with non-ITF registration compliant names like Renée Richards. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply - The facts remain that WP:AT policy states that we should include all significant alternative renderings (as well as give them a redirect). And WP:LEDE repeats the same principle. And our policies do not state any conditions on how "different" a rendering needs to be to be considered "significant". Votes in a RfC on an essay held in my userspace do not change or replace our written policy.

Hence it makes no sense to ask that editors who apply our clearly written AT policy, should be warned for doing so. The editors who go on taking turns to remove well sourced alternative renderings, they should be warned for going against our current AT policy.

That's what we are looking at here. If you have anything relevant to say about it, then you are welcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

more reply - And we have ringleader In ictu oculi whispering as a puppetmaster into the ears of editors like HandsomeFella. He tells him what articles to put up for rm so he can stay cleaner. My bottom line is always what is the prevailing swing of things in all the English sources I can find. I just don't pull these things out of a hat. IIO and his band of brothers simply take turns removing sourced info. They should be warned for doing this and going against current wiki policy. Remember we aren't talking about removing diacritics here...not at all. We are talking about banning from wikipedia any mention of the fact that tennis players have names commonly spelled without diacritics in almost all English and tennis sources. In ictu oculi wants to ban all mention of any common English spelling of a player's name.... anywhere in an article. No matter how many English sources spell it the same way, no matter if the player, while in English speaking countries, spells or signs their own name without diacritics, In ictu oculi wants that information excised from an article. I don't feel that's right so I stand up for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64, looking through the box above "The editors who go on taking turns to remove well sourced alternative renderings, they should be warned for going against our current AT policy." will require notification of 20 editors who have attempted to revert these ledes (in each case Fyunck and Wolbo's ledes remain on top) that they are being "warned" by you at ANI. Do you wish to notify them all of them with ANI notices? If so the notifications should probably extend outside the 20 editors to include editors who reverted these ledes when applied outside tennis. I have already left a heads up on Joy(Shallot)'s Talk page, as I expected this is where you would go. Do you intend to notify the other 19? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ha, speak of the devil. Hello Joy! In ictu oculi (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

• Sigh. It seems that an uninvolved admin will need to finally block or topic-ban Fyunck(click) to prevent their advocacy against diacritics, which is as unrelenting as it is bizarre. The violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTBATTLE, WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, ... is quite clear by now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Joy, if you're proposing a specific edit-ban on Fyunck for "Björn Borg, known in Tennis as Bjorn Borg" type ledes. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) changed wording from "topic block" to "specific edit-ban" to reflect Koertefa's comment below. Also added section divider In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – and that goes for Wolbo and MakeSense64 too. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated below. IIO is canvassing again. LittleBen (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An opening should not be cluttered by trivial name variations. But this proposal would ban involvement in titling, which is surely a more significant matter. The titles for sports related articles should follow the conventions of sports reference works, which are not necessarily the same as those of the subject's native language. Kauffner (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"An opening should not be cluttered by trivial name variations" is a support. What Joy proposed was open-ended and probably would affect titles, but what myself and Handsome fella support is that "An opening should not be cluttered by trivial name variations" i.e. "Björn Borg, known in Tennis as Bjorn Borg" type ledes. The question is whether admins support these ledes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Comment - Just to show how ridiculous this is becoming. Last year in a broad RfC Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, people like @bobrayner and @Handsomefella were among the editors who voted in Support of a proposal that contained this wording: "Common renderings without diacritics (where used in English-language sources) may also appear in the body of the article if that rendering can be cited to reliable sources. Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited." . Now they are here to argue the case that some editors should be warned or banned for doing so. Enough said. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And in turn you ironically fail to see the difference between people engaging in an exchange of ideas and arguments at an RfC, and incessant disruptive editing to have their way, with little regard for anything else, for months or even years. Frankly, the latter is why the more recent RfC was so slanted towards more support for diacritics - because some of the people who so vehemently oppose them appear to be jerks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the "incessant disruptive editing" you are talking about? It's nice to see that you would put my essay on a par with a major guideline page, but you make it look as if the RfC on my essay was a "more recent" RfC on diacritics. That's quite a stretch. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense, what is your definition of "significant other spelling"? I mean, if there are significant other spellings, there must be insignificant ones – right? I'm not referring to spelling mistakes, to be clear. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to move in circles, I already addressed that point in my earlier response to you. And you recently voted in "Support" of a proposal that made it depend on usage in our sources. So I just happen to agree with your definition of "significant" when it comes to alternative renderings. Also remember that wp does not avoid "wrong spellings" as long as they are common. It may even be used as the title if the "wrong" spelling is most common. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I also find it ridiculous to mention/emphasize the diacritics-stripped versions of names, in cases when it is obvious to everybody how to remove the diacritics (as it was mentioned by HandsomeFella in the cases of "José Benítez" / "Jose Benitez" and "Mario Rincón" / "Mario Rincon"). On the other hand, it might be too harsh to topic-ban the two users just for that (unless they violate other guidelines). A clear-cut Wikipedia policy/guideline would be the long-term solution to this kind of problems. Of course, I also understand that it is very hard to reach a consensus in this question. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@Koertafa, Hi. I took Joy's comment (Joy, correct me) to mean that the minimum would be a specific-edit-ban on Fyunck's 100x "Björn Borg, known in Tennis as Bjorn Borg" ledes that have been edit-warred onto the top of 100x BLPs, immediately reverting 20 other editors (yes including myself several times, and yourself once). Would you support a targeted and specific edit-ban limited purely to edit-warring these 100x edits back on top? We need to focus as this is already getting WP:TLDR, and if this closes it may well be taken as a green light from ANI to do this to up to 1,000x non-anglo tennis BLPs. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply - The point is not to show how to remove diacritics. The point has always been to mention it when the person in question conducted most (if not all) his activities under an alternative rendering of his name, and is usually found as such in sources. That is not stupid information.

Oh, please, spare us the argument how it's all just a simple content dispute. If it was, then it would be legitimate to edit-war about putting five different renderings of Dr. Dre in that article's lead section. It's not legitimate, it's disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you know nothing about tennis, then how are you so sure that Mario Rincón and Mario Rincon are the same person? Yes, it is likely, but it is not guaranteed. We have a clear-cut policy that we should mention significant alternative names. This and other arguments have been brought up many times, but the group of editors who is here to vote that some people should be banned, do never address such points, they don't answer questions. Even when you bring up a workable phrasing from a RfC where they voted Support, they have no comments. These editors should be warned for stonewalling, it is their behavior that should be looked into.

Some editors have objected on the basis of WP:OPENPARA. But our WP:AT policy does not say that alternatives should be included in the opening paragraph, it says they should be in the WP:LEDE , so it can also be at the bottom of the lede. Maybe that would be a workable compromise. Here is an example where alternative renderings are mentioned at the end of lede, on the basis of what appears in the credits for the articles, and even includes some common "incorrect" spellings: Tesshō Genda. That's how it should be if different renderings are common in English-language sources. We try to inform our readers, don't we? And including all relevant information, inevitable means that some of the information will be obvious or appear unnecessary for some informed readers. That doesn't need to insult their intelligence. Do you always feel insulted when you read something that is obvious to you? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice to any admin who cares to look: once again two editors are cutting up the discussion by inserting their comments in the middle or above other people's replies, making it more difficult to read. Why is that allowed to continue despite multiple warnings? This kind of disruptions goes on and on, always pushing the envelope. What does it take to enter this "anything goes club"? Does starting a certain number of articles put editors in a different league? Or what is going on? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: while I was writing this, @IIO was busy urging others to "To put new text under old text" in this diff [37] and then quickly removed it [38]. That's all "part of how it goes" with IIO, and that's the man who is arguing that others should be banned or blocked here. Will there ever come an end to all such hypocrisy? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64. The proposal above is a specific edit-limit on Fyunck making ""Björn Borg, professionally known as Bjorn Borg" type ledes in foreign living person's biographies. There is no proposal to ban or block anyone from making sensible edits. You are free to register oppose if you support such edits to foreign living person's biographies. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense, because an RfC on what to do with the mention of alternative renderings in the lede is still ongoing. We cannot change policy by voting here on ANI. All we have is this: two articles were brought on the table, in which two editors made edits and a few other editors reverted these edits. 3RR was not violated. We should look into both groups and ask ourselves who was backed by policy or not. I have answered that question already and I have not seen anybody deny or refute it so far. Our current WP:AT and WP:LEDE mandate the inclusion of significant alternative renderings in the lede. Whether we like it or not.

We should also ask the opposite question: do we have any current policy that mandates the removal of such information in the lede, if it is properly sourced by the cites used for the article? If not, then things do not look good for the complaining editors here.

Changing our policies with regards to alternative renderings in the lede, that has to be done through consensus-building on the appropriate pages. I just made yet another proposal earlier today, which I believe to be most reasonable for everyone involved: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Another_attempt_to_find_a_working_compromise. As always people are welcome to weigh in. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The core question of the dispute is: when does a common misspelling turn into a significant alternative name. Agathoclea (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@Agathoclea, absolutely correct. However for better or worse now we are here, and there is a proposal for a specific remedy on the reported "incident", slow-burn edit warring by 1 editor against 20 editors to have his lede always on top of 100x BLPs. The fact that the always-on-top-edit is also "ridiculous" (to quote User:Resolute) is secondary here to the edit always being on top of 100x BLPs. Normal editing dialogue has evidently failed over 100x BLPs and it could conceivably spread to 1000x BLPs if it receives ANI blessing, even if it is blessing by WP:TLDR. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but such questions are not decided on ANI. ANI looks into the reported "incident" if there is one. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense, it would be good if you could declare in your own words what your opinion of a "significant other spelling" is. Without a definition, a "significant other spelling" would be the same as "any other spelling" (except for clear spelling mistakes), would it not? Try not to avoid the issue. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Handsome old chap, does it matter? Even if 1 editor was adding sensible stuff and 20 editors were adding nutty stuff and 1 editor was always edit-warring his sensible edit on top in 100x BLPs it would still be a slow-burn edit war against consensus. We don't need to relive WP:TENNISNAMES RfC yet again we just need to shut up and maybe a passing admin will look at the green box. (meanwhile I'm off to make a WP:POINTY vandalism of "Chloë Grace Moretz, known in USA Today as Chloe Grace Moretz..." ;) ) In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• HandsomeFella, why don't you declare in your own words what your opinion of what is NOT a "significant other spelling"? It is surely better to provide a little more than enough information than not enough, isn't it? Don't you guys have anything better to do than edit war over what is a relatively trivial issue? "They are too kind to Wikipedia users" is not a reason for asking that editors be blocked. IIO: adding diacritics to titles wherever possible, even if you are well aware that diacritics are not English and not common usage (it's surely fair to say that a majority of English Wikipedia users cannot read, write, pronounce, or remember complex diacritics, so it's obvious that you are making Wikipedia less user friendly and less accessible), refusing to stop edit warring over this, and gathering mobs of cronies to pick off one-by-one people who dislike gratuitous over-use of diacritics, is surely a much stronger reason for having an editor blocked. Enough, already.
• The article gets only about 30 pageviews a day—it's very much a minor article, and virtually all searches are for the name without diacritics. Did you bother to research how major, authoritative English sources like Time, UCSB, and Aspen spell the name, and how people spell their own names in English on Facebook and LinkedIn? Do you really think this issue is worth a fight to the death? Wikipedia should be a place that tolerates a little diversity, not a place where mobs rule (and completely disregard usability and other Wikipedia guidelines). LittleBen (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW, this is ANI, not WP:TENNISNAMES REDUX. There is a specific proposal to restrict Fyunck from specific edits to 100x specific living person's biographies (compare Zoë Baird). If you agree with Fyunck's ledes then oppose the restriction. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• IIO, you specifically cited Zoë Baird with diacritics as being the correct name. I have presented several authoritative sources above that suggest that the name with diacritics is most likely wrong. Do you have any reputable sources that show that the name with diacritics is both correct (suitable for an article title), more common, and more recognizable than the name without diacritics? If not, then how about apologizing? Otherwise it will appear that you are so fixated on adding diacritics to peoples' names that you don't bother to do adequate research and so are willfully adding false information to Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Havebased123

User:Havebased123 is disrupting Wikipedia through a number of IP addresses. Earlier evidence that the addresses are his can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Havebased123/Archive (which was closed without any action, because no blockable offenses had happened at the time and because IP adresses and acounts are not linked through checkuser anyway).

Now, User:77.255.102.142 has been blocked for repeatedly removing an AfD template from an article created by Havebased123, and for leaving a fake "you are blocked" message at another user's talk page ([39]) and otherwise vandalizing pages ([40]). The same behaviour was shown by User:77.254.128.139 and User:77.254.148.187 (e.g. this).

Page protection can help a bit here, but considering that this has now spread to different user talk pages as well, some stronger action may be needed. I am involved here (as the AfD nominator), but if other people feel that WP:DUCK indeed applies here, then they can decide what action may be the most effective and warranted here. Fram (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

and now add 178.37.91.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

178.37.68.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has reported for duty. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• When filing the SPI listed above, I learned there are two IP ranges, both of which resolve to Poland. There is persistent abuse of multiple accounts for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia, in particular the following articles: Curiosity rover, Mars Science Laboratory, the currently listed for AfD article, Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission, as well as the previously listed article(s), MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 1 - 6 August 2012 (this was only the first of multiple pages created). The editor has been approached, then warned [41] with the only result being talk page blanking and static. Then several editors reversed tactics and tried rewards, barnstarring for good behavior, and compromise [42]. Although we did manage to achieve a few edit summaries, the prevention of further disruption to the same articles was not accomplished. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

user Havebased123, a WP:Single-purpose account, not just ignores feedback, but deletes article maintenance tags as well as warning tags. He even blanked his talk page 9 times: [43]. Even while assuming good faith, after witnessing his complete refusal to communicate, his persistent unexplained blankings, reverts --and lately vandalism as explained above-- user Havebased123 has more than demonstrated his incompetency to grasp Wikipedia's essence: a collaborative endeavour. I doubt that his problemm is limited to a simple WP:ownership, as he defies all involved editors or their entries, regardless of the quality of their contribution. I sadly doubt a 48h block to his ISP addresses will enlighten him. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'Wikipedians who fulfill the COI+ agreements' category

There is no existing category named:

Wikipedians who fulfill the COI+ agreements

However, there are users who are members of that category. This does not make sense to me. What is/ are the "Conflict of Interest PLUS" agreement(s)? Is there a category for Wikipedians who do NOT fulfill conflict of interest requirements? That is not stated with facetious or rhetorical intent. Is there a specific Conflict of Interest agreement? Perhaps there is. Are there also secondary agreements, designated as Conflict of Interest PLUS agreements, or rather, "COI+ agreements"?

I don't have any personal interest in the resolution of this matter, nor does it effect anyone near or dear to me. I am just pointing it out, so someone can look into it, and remedy the situation as most appropriate, and in the most expeditious manner. --FeralOink (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COI+, anyhow. If you're concerned, create the category, and link the essay. WilyD 10:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have BOLDly created a page for the category. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced comments on Tannenbaum

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

---

Recently, someone come to me on IRC, claiming that a comment had been added the the above page as an attack. After investigating, I found 160.39.206.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had posted this. Can I request that the IP be blocked - the person seemed quite upset at the comment. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything in that edit that resembles an attack or vandalism. What exactly is the problem? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see an attack, but I do see vandalism - that addition is a redlink, presumably concerning a non-notable living person, which may or may not be accurate and seems to me to fit the juvenile pattern of "adding something silly about someone I know." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't even see the "silly" or "vandalism". Yes, someone added a redlink of what's probably the name of someone they know. But stating that someone is an expert in blah medical specialty is, if anything, peacocking, not "something silly" (which would, in my mind, be something like "So-and-so, U.S. expert on eating potato chips"). Unless there's something going on here that I'm completely missing (in which case, I wish Mdann could explain why this content is offensive), someone in good faith added a redlink saying a (probably non-notable) person was a medical expert and...was reverted as a vandal and warned? That edit was not vandalism and should not have been treated as such. Calling someone who means well a vandal like this is perhaps why we have a reputation as such a newbie-hating website. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was advised by another user to bring it up here to see what people thought. Feel free to close if you think no action is needed. Mdann52 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also, he was only issued a level 1 warning. A block in this scenario should be after multiple warnings. Electric Catfish 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• What Electriccatfish and the others say. Repeated warnings, then (probably) a quick trip to WP:AIV. Will close this. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Unrequited vandalism

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

---

76.174.149.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly making disruptive edits on Once Upon a Time (season 2) after numerous warnings. Purposed block. LiamNolan24 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hallmark disruptive editing: against consensus, no talk page discussion, unproductive. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

IjonTichyIjonTichy - The Zeitgeist Movement

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

---

Can an uninvolved admin look at the situation at Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement?

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy appears to be disruptive at The Zeitgeist Movement by edit warring and reverting the contributions of other editors, very often with reasons not based on policy, guidelines and also reasons which aren't always articulated or are vague. The editor also appears to frequently avoid addressing specific questions and issues and goes instead on side tangents in relation to the topic and makes comments that can only be described as bizarre and irrelevant. For example [44]:

"And, of course, another, and important, reason to include the link is that it discusses ideas from a female and a feminist perspective. Given that almost all of the authors of our secondary and primary resources on TZM, as well as the majority of WP editors (including, it seems, the majority, if not all, of the currently-active editors on the TZM article) may be males. Given that many WP readers are females, it would be probably refreshing for them to browse our article on Brown and perhaps even read her article ('Does work really work'). [BTW my wife liked Brown's work. Admittedly not a very scientific experiment since it is based on a single data point...] Regards"

Which is followed by a long tangent about statistics about the number of male editors. As another example, here is a relevant exchange:

• Wall of text [45]
• direct question from Darkness shines [46]
• Wall of text [47]
• Succinct points by Darkness and Bbb23 [48]
• Wall of text [49]

In the rather length pastes of text I don't see any reliable sources to back up the position of IjonTichyIjonTichy. He now appears to be engaging in ad hominem personal attacks against editors on their talk pages: [50] (bizarrely it appears he expects the editor read "tens of hours of TZM documentary films, tens of hours of TZM-produced lectures"), also see [51]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will comment more fully later if required (I have to go out), but can I add that this is yet another example of a long-standing issue regarding IjonTichyIjonTichy's disrupltive behaviour. He seems incapable of comprehending wikipedia policies - or alternatively, comprehends them, but chooses to ignore them in pursuit of his endless promotion of the movement he is involved with. Either way, he has done far too much damage for far too long, and in my opinion needs to be blocked indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have suggested a topic ban but it seems this is the only topic area he edits in. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest an indefinite block because, though warned over and over, no change in behavior has followed. He is like an A.I. machine that takes in information and then uses that negatively in a black comedy of wiki-lawyering. Sorry, but that is the pattern. Though he seems 'friendly' at times, he is actually deadly with his single minded promotion advocacy of Venus Project/Zeitgeist. That is maybe understandable because he advocates for them, but he is not a neutral editor, he is using Wikipedia like a blog for his thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Having been in a similar situation while writing about a fringe movement, the editors working on this article have my sympathy. That being said, ITIT's writings are actually pretty entertaining, to me at least. Anyway, I think a topic ban might be an Ok solution. If this is the only topic he cares about, it would more or less have the same result as a block, and be easier to get support for. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I never really got involved in the TZM article, but over at Technological unemployment ITIT seemed to want it to have lengthy essays in support of TZM. There were copyvio problems at one point in the past, but I think ITIT has already learned that lesson. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is that he as a member of the movement has a wp:coi. I've hoped that his membership of the movement could benefit of the article, under the assumption that IjonTichyIjonTichy will actually know more about the movement and its positions and be able to point us to reliable sources. However, this hasn't happened. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that making it out to be a COI issue might be stretching things a little. He is a supporter of a political movement, but so are a large number of Wikipedia contributors. Do we describe a supported of the Democratic Party editing an article on Romney, or a Republican making edits regarding Obama as having a COI? Not as far as I'm aware - and the fact that IjonTichyIjonTichy is a supporter of a smaller, fringe movement shouldn't alter the principle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it's rather an issue of a bias which he is unable to overcome and hence rather a question of wp:competence that cp:coi. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by uninvolved Jorgath

I propose that IjonTichyIjonTichy be placed under an indefinite topic ban from mainspace edits regarding the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed. ITIT is free to edit talk pages in that area, provided he follows all other policies of course. I'm basing this off of the model we use for notable people who wish to contribute to their own article - they generally can request edits on the talk page, but not edit it themselves. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. The only way this is worse than a topic ban is if sock/meat puppetry becomes involved. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If he is going to fill talk pages with interminable sermons, rants and this-because-of-that-because-of-the-other synthesis and OR, that would achieve nothing beyond pissing off other contributors even more. If TZM want to find someone to represent their interests regarding our article on them (an idea that many other TZM supporters seem not to have grasped), they should be able to find someone less clueless and verbose. If they can't, it is their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he does, that's where other policies and guidelines come in. Like WP:TPG, for instance. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

...Which are the very policies his latest interminable screeds are in violation of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...How about this addition: "ITIT is also placed under heightened scrutiny in regards to talk-page edits in this topic area, and faces escalating blocks for any disruption or disregard of policy in such edits." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rants and screeds cannot help but foul up the talk pages he trolls. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Binksternet; if you're gong to topic ban him, include discussing the topic, on article and user talk pages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal by IRWolfie-

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Topic ban enacted--v/r - TP 01:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Topic ban IjonTichyIjonTichy from the Zeitgeist movement, broadly construed. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As nom. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. I'd prefer the one I proposed over this, but I'd prefer this over doing nothing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but wider ban, more severe. Editor is far too deeply involved in the Z movement, cannot think independently, cannot be of any use to the encyclopedia except as an example. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, though as I said above, I think an indefinite block would be preferable. If this is to have any chance to work though, it will need an uninvolved person explaining in detail to IjonTichyIjonTichy exactly what it entails, and making clear that it includes everything he does on Wikipedia, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in. And that it specifically includes trying to Wikilawyer around the ban. He has to accept that anything which looks like a ban violation in our opinion, not his will result in an indefinite block. Clearly he will need to have a specific exception for somewhere to ask specific questions relating to the scope of the ban, and should he want to do so, to eventually ask for the ban to be lifted (a sub-page in his user space maybe - or one in the user space of a volunteer admin?), but otherwise, a ban is exactly what it says, and no arguing. And he needs to be aware that regardless of issues relating to TZM advocacy, his behaviour on talk pages has been unacceptable, and that any further verbose screeds of original research and the like, of endless failures to accept clear consensus, and all the rest are likely to also have serious repercussions, regardless of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  That sounds like a pretty much perfect explanation to me, and I'd have no problems with your posting of it on ITIT's talk page should this proposal be passed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per my above comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Pragmatic support: I don't think ITIT is malicious; I have no intention of pushing them off-wiki entirely; but the ongoing TZM thing isn't helping anyone. Some time spent improving articles on other stuff could be helpful. If there are other problems on other articles, well, we cross that bridge when we get to it, but I hope IjonTichyIjonTichy can make some genuine improvements elsewhere bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Much of the disruption is exactly in these long repetitive posts on talk pages. Regular editors learn to ignore them, but a contributor new to the subject will find the walls of text off-putting. A site ban might be kinder. It'd be great if he took an interest in fly fishing, or postmodernist theater or something, but I don't think that's likely. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I have put up with Ijon's argument style and pro-TZM agenda for a very long time. His repetitive verbosity is numbing, and even more so when he is being dignified and civil, although lately, I have seen him descend into personal attacks. And I have not borne the brunt of Ijon's endless discussion of the same issues; others far more involved in the article than I have. He has exasperated the patience of all who deal with him and should be banned from any edits related to TZM on any page in Wikipedia. As for Andy's comments about blocking him, that must wait for a later time if he violates the ban. Ijon may choose, as Andy understandably fears, to misinterpret the ban, but it is not his interpretation that controls whether he is blocked for violating it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Perhaps if he is forced to work only on topics where he isn't deeply biased he'll start to understand and accept Wikipedias policies. Worth a try. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I have been watching activity for a couple of weeks and it is clear that the user will never accept Wikipedia's procedures for writing neutral articles in connection with the Zeitgeist movement—it is too easy to use Wikipedia's reputation and Google ranking to promote one's favorite topic. The incomprehensible walls of text on talk pages are very unhelpful (see this whitelist request for a superb example). There are a couple of other SPAs active in the area (and 38 articles mentioning "zeitgeist movement", see search), so this won't be the end of the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ! A lot of that unsurprisingly was IjonTichyIjonTichy adding TVP, TZM and RBE to unrelated "See Also" sections. I hope that behavior will be covered under "broadly construed". I've undone most of it. There was a couple of articles where it actually made at least a little bit of sense, I let them stay there. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that 'broadly construed', even if 'narrowly interpreted' would cover it perfectly well - though as you note it wasn't all ITIT's work - TZM promotion won't stop with his ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be the major stumbling block in regards to this topic-space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per bobrayner; suggest a simple paste and edit of AndyTheGrumpAndyTheGrump's comment would provide a good start to explaining the ban to IjonTichyIjonTichy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• support I think this is needed--a restriction for mainspace only will not prevent the disruption elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I had a feeling it was going to turn out like this a couple of months ago when I saw what he was doing and warned him at the time. Despite his 'ostensible' friendliness, he alternates that with withering attacks as an editing rationale and method. No place for that here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even though I generally argue against Draconian solutions - in this case it is the only choice. I would expect that any "reincarnation" would be recognized quickly, for sure, from the style of his posts. Collect (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sad it has to come to this, but for all the reasons given by others, this just can't go on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. His "contributions" disrupt the other editors who are trying to improve the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I think there's pretty broad consensus for this one; can we get a close? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

User:Greczia

Greczia (talk · contribs), a new account of the controversial user:Tirgil34 who deactivated his account before he could be banned for confirmed sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34/Archive), is inserting wrong and pseudo-scientific POV theories in various articles, most recently in the article Tarkhan. His claim goes against all consensus in the academic world and he adds irrelevant and non-related sources to his claim in order to make them look sourced in the eyes of those who do not have much knowledge of the subject. I asked him on the talk page to come up with reliable sources. All he does is WP:OR and google-search of irrelevant and unreliable books. Admin intervention is needed. On his user-page, he makes no secret of being Tirgil134. He was banned in the German Wikipedia for exactly the same reason: sockpuppetry and propagating false and partially racist/nationalistic ideologies; see de:Benutzer:Greczia. User:Tekisch who is a well-respected member of the German Wikipedia can give you more information. --Lysozym (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And here we go again, what should I say to this? Another nationalistic persian try to close my account. Nothing really new. Let's come to my recent edit: Very racist/nationalistic, isn't it? And imagine, it's even sourced. Of course in your mind everything which is against your POV is simply bad (the same goes for your everlasting conflicts on Germany Wikipedia). You are well-known for your nationalistic persian POV on German Wikipedia (former users Phoenix2 and Tajik). You were and you are still famous for pushing nationalistic POV-edits in various Turkic articles. Instead of acquiesceing other opinions you are continuing your stubborn POV. POV-Example: [Turkic Peoples]. In his opinion Turks(possibly Altaic) came from Iranians(Indo-Europeans).

And I was not "banned in the German Wikipedia for exactly the same reason", as you said. User:Tekisch wasn't even involved. You are trying to do the same false report as User:Bouron did a while ago. What happened? Insufficient evidence. --Greczia (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at some of your edits, and you do tend to change or add material with no sources, or in some case with sources that only support one of the many claims made. Here is an example of that: [52]. If you try to work constructively with other editors and make sure you have reliable sources for everything you add, then you would probably have an easier time contributing. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your general point, but in that specific example Greczia was restoring material added by someone else[53]. Kanguole 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please show me some of my edits indicating parts in which I've added material with no sources and POV-sources? (exept of this exaggerated one xD) --Greczia (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the one I linked to before was one of the few that HAD sources. So I'll bite and say: The other ones. Seriously, you need to have sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this edit so far ok, or is there any POV? Of course I've referrenced the sentences. --Greczia (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been asked to come up with relevant sources, not unrelated stuff quickly googled. Your POV is in total contrast to what real experts say, for example Peter Benjamin Golden in the respective article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Your POV claims are fringe theories at best. You ignore discussions and you fail to come up with RELIABLE sources. So I ask you again: how do the sources that you have attached to your POV prove your claims?! Have you actually read them or are you just trying to fool everyone by making your POV look sourced by adding irrelevant and unrelated sources to them?! As for the German Wikipedia, you were posting the same nonsense about Etruscans being Turks. And your nonsense was constantly being reverted by various users, including admin Koenraad [54]. The reason for you ban has been given here by that admin: sockpuppetry, ethnocentric POV, falsification of sources, POV and OR, editwars, false accusations against others users, unenyclopedic behaviour. To make it short: it seems that nothing has changed since then. And the article Tarkhan is the best example. --Lysozym (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34/Archive)

• "I can translate it in a few sentences: As well as on enwiki I made no secret of my new identity. Otberg and Koenraad got to know to my new account (Greczia) and that's the reason why they wanted to close my account again. They mentioned some past incidents to strength their fake-report. In short: they did the same as Bouron did. The problem with the dewiki is that there are many admins who are abusing their administrative rights to solve their private problems. I've protested against this decision on dewiki per e-mail. I hope to resist against this harassment on dewiki as well as on enwiki." --Greczia (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't continue fooling us with your fake-report. About the article Tarkhan we have to discus on the talk page, as I informed you on [Revision history]. I will answer you as soon as possible. --Greczia (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think the contributions of Greczia definitely need to be looked at closer. Edits like this [55] removes a section claiming it has no references, but it has one. I checked this book out and this appears to be an added deliberate misquote for example: [56]. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I later recognized that this edit was made first by Gabriel Stijena: Revision as of 21:27, 16 August 2012

So, I admit my mistake by backing Gabriel's edit. My original edit was: Revision as of 16:31, 13 August 2012 The reason was the "unreferenced section since June 2008". Nevertheless even there was a little sourced part I have not seen. --Greczia (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User:98.195.86.32

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

---

Temporarily blocked user is now using his talk page for personal attacks against admins. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have revoked talk page access for the duration of the block. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for taking up your valuable time on all of this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal Attacks by 82.9.112.125

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

---

(edit conflict) 82.9.112.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted a personal attack at User talk: Malik Shabazz. I propose a 24 hour block for personal attacks. Electric Catfish 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless it happens again I don't see why it should be blocked. --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I was a blatant violation of NPA. It would be a preventative measure to prevent further personal attacks from this IP editor. Electric Catfish 18:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no sign that the IP intends to continue this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Uninvolved closer for RfC requested

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

---

At Talk:American Family Association#RfC there is an RfC that may be resolved and due for a close. Could someone uninvolved in the issue please take a look and see if the calls for closure are accurate and do so? Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Doing this now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

BLP edit warring on British Jews

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

---

British Jews has been the subject of much contention this week, due to a dispute over the BLP-worthiness of categorizing Ed Miliband as a British Jew. I considered reporting this to WP:ANEW, but given the potential BLP concerns and the behavior of the parties involved, I think the complexity of the issue merits a report here, instead. Here's the (rather long) timeline:

Tl;dr version: There are four or five parties, all established editors, edit warring repeatedly over the inclusion of a BLP mention in British Jews.

11 August: Youreallycan (talk · contribs) removes Miliband from the list with the edit summary "Removing Ed Milliband from the infobox - he is not even in the catagory British Jew". Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) reverts YRC ("rv edits not rooted in Wikipedia policies/guidelines.") 12 August: YRC re-removes Miliband ("Ed Milliband is a living person that is not even in the catagory British Jew - is clearly not notable as a british Jew - open a RFC") Nomoskedasticity re-reverts ("I thought you weren't editing articles") YRC and Nomoskedasticity go for ("As per my commentsd - living person that is not even in the BLP cat British Jew") another ("is this really the right time for you to get into an edit-war??") round ("POv pushing BLP violator") Viriditas (talk · contribs) joins in the reverting ("Take it to the talk page"). He is reverted by YRC ("BLP - you open a discuasiohn - the subject is not even in the wiki cat British Jew so does not belong in the infobox here") Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) reverts ("No basis in policy for this deletion."). YRC reverts his revert ("BLP - the subject is living and we have not even catagorised him as a British Jew - so there clearly needs discussion in regars to this disputed addion"). Viriditas files an ANEW report against YRC. A few minutes later, I full-protect the article for two days. On the ANEW report Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) enjoins YRC from editing "British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband, or any related page" until the (mostly unrelated) Arbcom request against YRC has been resolved. Since the page has been protected and YRC told to not edit related articles, Black Kite (talk · contribs) closes the report with no further action. About ten minutes after the ANEW report is closed, Viriditas opens a discussion of the issue at Talk:British_Jews#Removal_of_Miliband. 12 August - 15 August: With the article full-protected, extensive discussion about the issue goes on at [[Talk:British_Jews; however, neither side apparently convinces the other. 15 August: After the full-protection wears off, Nomoskedasticity returns Ed Miliband to the list ("per talk page discussion") Reverted by Snowded (talk · contribs) ("No consensus for change") Revert reverted by Viriditas ("Actually, there is a clear consensus for restoring the image and not a single argument explaining why we shouldn't") In the course of three consecutive edits, YRC reverts ("not - no consensus - that it is clearly still disputed and about a living Marxist athiest brought up in a secular family being tagged and promoted as a notable British Jew") I notice the revert-warring, but then see that the argument seems to have moved on to the talk page. I decide that perhaps the combatants have realized they were doing it again, and decided to go the disucssion route rather than the edit-warring route. 16 August: Turns out I was wrong. Gabriel Stijena (talk · contribs) reverts YRC ("you need a consensus on talk page for removing these pics") Snowded reverts Gabriel ("There has never been consensus on the talk page to add them, please wait until its resolved") Viriditas reverts Snowded ("On the contrary, I see an overwhelming consensus. Objecting for the sake of objecting while ignoring consensus is disruptive") Snowded reverts Viriditas ("Four editors four and three against is neither overwealming nor is it a concensus. stop edit warring,") Nomoskedasticity reverts Snowded ("rv per WP:OR, the obvious basis for Snowded's editing here") Discussion continues on the talk page, but no one is getting anywhere.

Given the possible BLP concerns here, as well as the length and breadth of the edit warring over time and number of users, I think this whole situation needs more scrutiny. Full-protection didn't get the message across, and blocking any of these users would presumably be contentious enough that one admin shouldn't do it without consulting others, so I'm now opening up what should be done to community discussion. (Please also note that YRC is currently undergoing an RfC which will most likely end in him agreeing to restrictions including a time-limited editing break, followed by (among other things) a time-limited topic ban on BLPs. This fact may or may not affect community opinion of how to deal with the British Jews situation) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Messy but not a record. The YRC RFc/U should not enter into this discussion -- it has not been closed at this point, and it is unreasonable to use bills of attainder in any case <g>. What we have is a categorisation dispute - and there is no really perfect noticeboard to resolve such an issue. My own position is that categorisation of living persons is fraught with peril, and that if there is any dispute, that such categorisation should be deprecated from the start. I suppose this might lead to the "wrong result" in some cases, but I suggest that there is no harm in not categorising a living person, while there is conceivable harm in categorising a living person. Advantage: not categorising. Collect (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's time the consensus at the RFC was weighed up etc, not many more comments look forthcoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• At the core it's still a content dispute; why not push suggest the involved parties towards dispute resolution? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I think most would agree that categorizing subjects as Jewish is an ongoing, contentious issue. The British Jews article is just a macrocosm of that problem. Frankly, I don't think there's any good way to deal with it generally, or at least not any way that would be approved by consensus. For the current issue, just get rid of the gallery in the infobox. If that's unacceptable to the community, then require that any person listed in the infobox be categorized as Jewish on their page. If whether they should be so categorized is in dispute, until that dispute is resolved, they can't be placed in the British Jews article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Second that - common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew: "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself". As someone who identifies as a British Jew, I obviously do not agree with this assessment, which I find personally offensive. But, regardless of my own views, this position does suggest that YRC should not be involved in such edits, since he appears to regard his own (minority) view as more important than Wikipedia guidelines and talkpage consensus. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is ANI a place to discuss how to deal with an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Of course it's a discussion on the article. If YRC believes that the description, or self-description, of a person as a British Jew is "racist in itself", then it is very hard to see how he can be editing objectively and in good faith on the article British Jews. RolandR (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see little evidence of 'objectivity' or 'good faith' in many others involved in the discussion either. Yes, it is possible to cherry-pick a rather silly comment by YRC to 'demonstrate' his lack of neutrality - would you like me to see what I can find from the 'other side'? Or would it instead be better to move ahead, and act on Bbb23s proposal? I've seen no arguments against so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, as far as I'm concerned the reason for this thread is that there's some serious disruption - by multiple people - going on on that article. It's based on a content dispute, yes, but the content isn't the problem I want to see addressed. What I want to see addressed is that no matter what the cause of it is, we need the disruption to stop. And I'm fresh out of good ideas for how to make that happen smoothly, so I'm hoping other people will weigh in here with ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, any other user would have been blocked on hitting 5RR in the space of just over an hour. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23's proposal would make a good topic for an RfC. I don't agree that ANI is the place to adopt it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Roland - "Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew" - I said, (and that comment was part of a talkpage discussion and should not be presented as a single comment like that) "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself" - I don't agree with that at all - I meant, to focus on race is racist in itself - you are taking the wrong interpretation of my comment, I didn't mean in a negative way at all - There are many other people that have stronger ties and connections that I do accept we can describe them as British Jews , British Sikhs etc - but Miliband is a Marxist atheist born in England and brought up in a secular family - I think its undue to add his picture to the infobox of the British Jew article under such a situation - he is not even in the British Jew category after discussion and sensitive consideration/discussion he was placed in the British people of Jewish descent. Its clearly a disputed and contentious issue/portrayal - users should find someone less contentious to add and stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewishness is not a race. I have suggested several times that if you are not inclined to learn properly about Jewishness and Judaism it would be constructive to leave related topics to people who do understand them. Part of the disruption we are now experiencing is that you have declined to learn and yet continue to edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So - if its not a race and hes a Marxist Atheist brought up in a secular family then he clearly does not belong in the infobox of a Wiki British Jew article does he - Is it contentious/disputable, is he a living person - Yes, yes, yes - so stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan

The concept you are clearly unfamiliar with is ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, can we try to not re-litigate the content dispute here? What would it take to get you all to stop reverting? Would you be willing to go to the WP:DRN or mediation? Would you be willing to open an RfC on the issue? My main concern here is the the revert-churn on that article has to stop, so what resolution methods could we send you to that would enable you all to stop reverting? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Category - British Jew (Ethnic group) - perhaps clarification is required. - They have stuffed him in anyways - contentious or not and I certainly won't be editing the article again anyways - if they like a Secular Marxist Atheist that much let them keep him - this is exactly the problem and the BLP violation through adding him to the infobox - its not clear that he is being added to an article about an ethnic group only - have a read - there are clear issues and its vague - in this article British Jews, Ethnic/Ethnicity is not mentioned at all in the lede. Youreallycan 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ed* Milliband a Marxist? Eh? Secretlondon (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ralph, his father, was reliably noted as such AFAICT in a large number of places. [57] may or may not be sufficient to label Ed an "atheist." It is a better source for calling David an atheist. It is certainly not usable to assert Jewshness to Ed per BLP standards. Collect (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't enough, for he has not said, "I am an atheist". He has said "I don't believe in God". There are reliable survey statistics showing that the majority of people who do not believe in God do not self-identify as atheists, but prefer another label like "agnostic" or "uninterested in religion". Per BLPCAT, we have to go by self-identification, and until and unless Miliband says "I am an atheist" we do not have any grounds for attributing that self-identification to him. --JN466 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: YRC has decided to begin his one-month editing break, BLP topic ban, etc as of now(ish), so he won't be contributing to this thread or the article in question for the foreseeable future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this should be an issue because all the sources on the Talk:British Jews page seem to support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. In fact no source indicating otherwise has been presented. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've presented a bunch of sources illustrating the difficulty. They are reproduced below. I note that British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom ... if we redirected British Jews to Judaism in the United Kingdom, then Miliband would be gone straight away. Alternatively, if we were to move the article to Britons of Jewish descent, I'd have no problem including Miliband. JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sources don't illustrate any difficulty at all. Here's the diff of my response on the article talk page (which is surely where this discussion belongs). Anyway, why on earth would we redirect British Jews to Judaism in the UK?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom? You do realise that putting Miliband in the infobox of British Jews is in some ways just as absurd as putting Salman Rushdie in the infobox for British Muslims? --JN466 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're not aware of the significant differences between Islam and Jewishness, perhaps you could make an effort to learn? The equivalence you're trying to make is just not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is Miliband's self-identification. And from the sources I've seen, including those below, he doesn't self-identify as a Jew, even as he acknowledges that his Jewish background is an important part of who he is. You may say that according to the Jewish perspective, he is and always remains a Jew, whether he practices Judaism or not. It matters diddlysquat. From the Catholic perspective, everyone baptised a Catholic is a Catholic forever – semel catholicus, semper catholicus – even if they loudly proclaim they are not, and instead aver they are Buddhist. The Catholic perspective on such a person is equally irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't display such a person in the infobox of a British Catholics article on the strength of what Catholicism says. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and it does not privilege culturally or religiously conditioned views that attribute identities to people against their will. Get over it. --JN466 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If differences or otherwise are irrelevant, then perhaps you could cease drawing equivalences. Once again, if self-identification is the only thing that matters, then we can go with what Miliband has said about himself, which leads quite directly to the conclusion that he is Jewish in the only way that matters. We might disagree on that matter, but I'm not the one who continues to make points and then say that they are irrelevant when challenged on them. I'm quite happy to stick to discussion on the basis of self-identification as policy requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayen—you say "…from the sources I've seen […] he doesn't self-identify as a Jew…"[58] I disagree, and I believe the following constitutes self-identification:

"There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous."[59]

The above is an intact, whole paragraph from a reliable source containing a quite clear quote from Miliband. I think that it is obvious that Miliband is saying that he is a nonobservant Jew. As editors I think we should be careful not to misconstrue the phrase "I'm Jewish". It means "I'm Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have long given up the idea that there is any point talking to you about this issue. As far as I am concerned, you should be topic-banned from categorisation disputes, and anything similar, and I'll be making a proposal to that effect below. JN466 15:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought the matter here it is a behavioural issue, I don't know whey the content is being discussed again. I attempted to summarise the position here. There are two questions, one is the ethnicity one and the other is if Millibrand should be listed. If the ethnicity question can be sourced (ie Judaism is about birth etc. etc) then the question still stands as to if someone who has declared (and whose parents declared) that they were no longer practicing counts as representative of British Jews to the point of being one of six people selected. I only got involved in this issue very recently (having come from another ANI thread) but it is impossible to get any discussion going. At no stage has there being any consensus for the inclusion of Millibrand. As of last night four editors were for, three against and as of this morning there are more against. Despite that, three editors Nomoskedasticity, Veriditas and Bus Stop have persistently inserted him variously claiming an "Overwhelming consensus", or original research, or bias by other editors etc. If you look through the talk page you will see that the three editors mentioned will only engage on the ethnicity issue, they have persistently refused to discuss the consensus issue. Yesterday I suggested that if they were unhappy they should raise an RfC and that if they felt they could justify the accusations they were making against other editors they should bring it to ANI. Instead we just got another direct change to the article. On the content issue I think Jayen466 summarises it well above. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—can you show me any source suggesting that a person who is "no longer practicing"[60] is no longer considered a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not for content issues Bus stop, or for repeating discussions that have already taken place ----Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• An incident this morning (well on Singapore time which is where I am at the moment) illustrates my point that this is a behavioural issue. In response to my suggestion that four editors for inclusion and four against did not constitute a consensus for change, Viriditas stated "Wrong. No consensus on Wikipedia is determined by numbers, only by arguments, of which you and three others seem to have none". This is the same editor who also claimed an "overwhelming consensus" when the editor count was 4-3. I came to this article without any background in the issue following a link from the RfC case. I looked at the debate and added my opinion but it has been impossible to get any discussion of the issue other than a "He is Jewish the sources say it end of argument" type statements. Then every day or so one of the protagonists adds the picture claiming that they have won the argument. I think the issue of Jewishness as somehow different from all other religions in claiming ethnicity not belief needs examination and proper sourcing. That might be set up separately from the specific article. The issue of behaviour linked to consensus however is a stand alone issue ----Snowded ^TALK 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the policy on consensus. It is not determined by a majority vote but by the quality of arguments. We rely on sources, not on personal opinions. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • And your position (to clarify) is that your and three others have advanced arguments of quality, while the four who oppose you have advanced none? Further that you can determine this and edit the article accordingly without an RfC, mediation or any of the other processes for dispute resolution?----Snowded ^TALK 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My position is that your actions and the actions of others here in this regard, is no different than let's say, a group of trolls trying to create a local consensus contrary to our site-wide policies. You're not making arguments based on reliable sources, you're not following our policy on original research, and you aren't following our policy regarding living people, the two criteria of which (self-identifies as a Jew, relevant to the topic) are met. Now, I'm not saying you are trolling, but your behavior is virtually indistinguishable from a troll. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you for clarifying that. As I said, irrespective of how the two issues are resolved (ethnicity + inclusion in the montage), any resolution is prevented when editors take the position you have above and use it to justify edit warring. But that is for the community to resolve. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some sources to take into account

Extended Content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/9880/ Quote: The Jewish Telegraph in Manchester has reported that reaction to Ed Miliband's election as Labour leader was greeted by "stunned faces", noting concern over whether he may become the "first prime minister in recent history who could not be described as a friend of Israel". http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2010/10/01/miliband-not-a-friend-of-israel Quote: The Jewish community have reportedly offered a mixed reaction to the election of Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership. The Jewish Telegraph, based in the North of England, expressed a lukewarm image of Mr Miliband, who is from a Jewish background. Its leading article argued that he had "nailed his colours to the Palestinian mast" during a fringe event at the Labour party conference. It also claimed that he "has rarely publicly associated himself with... the Jewish community". 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/30/ed-miliband-north-jewish-reaction Quote: There is also recognition that for all the fame of his family's name he has "never identified with the British Jewish community". [...] "It's an aspect of the Miliband brothers which hasn't really come up in all the many discussions we've had with friends during the election. There have been plenty of opinions one way or the other, and I think quite a few people wonder if Labour has made the right choice. But their Jewishness hasn't really figured." One reason, suggests Neil Roland, an artist and photographer related to the Laski family, one of Manchester's great Jewish dynasties, could be that "Ed has very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things. He and David would not be where they are today without their Jewish background, but it is often the case that the ones from the community who make good in England, which really means making good in the secular world, are those who have given up the religious aspect." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-reveals-agenda-for-power-with-labour-and-a-personal-insight-6508358.html Quote: "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous. My parents' community was the Left community." He does not think Britons mind whether politicians are religious or not, in contrast with America: "I think that's rather a good thing and it speaks well for us as a country." He does not regret having no faith to draw strength from. "No, because my belief comes from a set of values about the kind of society I believe in. It's a very strong part of who I am. Different people come to their politics from different vantage points. I think you can have equally strong politics." JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion here between Judaism as a religious belief, and Jewish as an ethnic/cultural category. As I noted above, I call myself as British Jew. I am also a Marxist and an atheist, and I see no contradiction there. It's not up to anyone else to tell me how to define myself. Similarly, if Ed Miliband, or anyone else, calls themselves a Jew, it's simply not our role to tell them "No, you are not". On the other hand, if someone does not call themselves a Jew, or specifically rejects such a description, it's not our role to insist that they are. We go by what reliable sources report, not by our own interpretation.

On another issue, YRC is unequivocally wrong. Ed Miliband is not a Marxist, and I very much doubt that anyone could find a reliable source stating that he is. In fact, if anyone produced a source making such a claim, I would straight away take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In my opinion, making such a patently incorrect claim would automatically render the source unreliable. RolandR (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good analysis Roland, I agree entirely. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have frequently argued in these pages that labeling someone simply as "jew" is meaningless. Any such label must be accompanied by a description of in which sense they are consider themselves to be so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that point -- but it's not quite the argument that others are making. The argument of some is that we can identify people as Jews only if they are Jewish in a religious sense (hence all the blather about not identifying Miliband as Jewish given that he is a Marxist atheist, non-practicing, etc). Our article on Miliband does in fact make clear in what sense he is Jewish -- but the issue now is that some object to including him in British Jews because he isn't religious, and that view requires a misunderstanding of what being Jewish means/can mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of categories for potentially complex issues like ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity basically misguided and should be abandoned. Somethings can be easily categorized (e.g. perhaps citizenship, and place of birth and other either/or type categories ). As it is used now those categories are is frequently more misleading than informative. And they tend to just become battlegrounds for different kinds of boosterism. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no devotion to categories; they are meant to be navigational aids, but I'm doubtful about their value in those terms, and I wouldn't oppose eliminating them. But again that's not what's at issue here, and doing away with categories wouldn't resolve the present dispute (re British Jews). If we insist on including in that article only people who are religious/practicing Jews, we would end up with an article that seriously misrepresents the topic of "British Jews". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, Nomo, at least not in my case. If I had seen a strong statement from Miliband somewhere that he identifies as a Jew – at least culturally as well as ethnically, even though he does not believe in God – I would have no problem having him there. It's just that there are so many statements about, from himself and others, Jewish and not, that he does not identify as a Jew, nor with the Jewish community, that he has "very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things", etc., that I feel it is us imposing the label on him when he has to some considerable extent rejected it. In addition, the article, British Jews, is at present heavily slanted towards the religious (rather than cultural or ethnic) meaning of the term, which compounds the problem. --JN466 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true of some. As for self-identification: once again, I agree that we should focus on that. If we do, then once again you're leading us astray: "very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things" is a quote from some photographer, not from Miliband himself. Others have provided above a number of statements from Miliband himself on this matter, so I won't burden the section by reproducing them again here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A statement from a biographer is exactly the best kind of source for summarising selfidentification. People often make conflicting statements during their lifetimes that can lead to different interpretations, if Milliband's biographers generally conclude that he has rejected a jewish identity then we cannot classify him as having such and identity - that would be OR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, which is it -- self-identification or biographers? Anyway, the person JN is quoting is hardly a Miliband biographer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more things he said in the Jewish Chronicle, a little after he became Labour leader, and after criticisms of his stance from British Jews, incl. that he might be the first prime minister who was "not a friend of Israel":

He is keen to address this issue: “I consider myself as a friend of Israel... I have lots of relatives living in Israel. I admire many of the aims of the founders of Israel. I have absolutely no truck with people who question the legitimacy of Israel.

"But the reason I said what I said is that sometimes you have to be honest with your friends. As a friend of Israel you worry that some of the things the government has done haven’t necessarily promoted Israel’s long term interests. I mentioned the blockade and what happened with the flotilla, but just for the record, I absolutely condemn Hamas rocket attacks on civilians in Israel.”

I ask him why he didn’t you move more quickly to reassure the Jewish community? He concedes there is some bridge building to be done: “There is a task for me to get to know the Jewish community better as the leader of the Labour Party and it’s something that I take very seriously.

"And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country. I think it’s very important for me, whether I was Jewish or not, to put that on the record. And my door is very much open.”

Notwithstanding what he says in the JC about his own personal background and upbringing, the way he talks about "British Jews" there, and says "his door is open", it is not my impression that he felt like he was talking about his own community. He is, rather, talking about a community which he feels he, as a political leader, needs "to get to know better". People do not talk like this about their own community. Of course, it may be that as time goes by, he will indeed become closer to the Jewish community, and his self-identification will change. So I am always prepared to look at new sources, but as of now, I don't feel we have what it takes to support a "British Jew" categorisation, as opposed to a "Briton of Jewish descent" categorisation. JN466 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: User:Bus stop topic-banned from Jewish categorisation, broadly construed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as not done. There is far, far, far too much discussion about content from basically everyone involved and surprisingly little evidence of poor conduct, one diff really isn't enough, and it doesn't seem any worse than a large number of other posts in this section which are off topic. If you guys want to ban BusStop from this topic for disruption you need to present evidence that backs this up in a clear and concise fashion and to avoid getting distracted by the content issues however tempting that may be.

Mediation may well be an appropriate next step to handle the content disputes, it seems a bit too complex for WP:DRN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

It is my impression that User:Bus stop has been at the heart of innumerable conflicts around Jewish categorisation. He is listed as the most prolific contributor to Talk:Ed Miliband, and as far as I can tell practically all his or her contributions there are about whether Ed Miliband is Jewish (Off2riorob has a similar number of contributions to the talk page, even thirty more if you count contributions by the Youreallycan account, but then Rob actually took Ed Miliband to GA status). I remember even Jayjg telling Bus stop that they're being too reckless around these issues. It's my belief that the encyclopedia is better off if Bus stop is taken out of these disputes, and that there are other, more reasonable editors around who can champion views in his part of the POV spectrum. JN466 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. JN466 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- being a prolific contributor to a talk page is not a reason for a topic-ban. Personally, I find Bus-stop to be a pain in the ass (excessively verbose, repetitive, etc.) and it often pains me to find myself arguing for an outcome that he also favors (though typically on different grounds), but there is no reasonable case for a topic-ban here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you just made it. --JN466 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If we banned everyone I thought was a pain in the ass, this would be a very small place. Bus-stop is not being disruptive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Being a constant pain in the ass on talk pages is disruptive because time dealing with editors who are a pain subtracts from time people have (or want to contribute) to work on articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, Bus stop is being disruptive. And banning that kind of behaviour would make this place more suitable for scholarly discourse. We can and need to become the platform where the best minds in the world will watch over the content. But that is not going to happen while Randy from Boisie is dominating the conversation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Several editors whom I respect have said that Bus-stop's behaviour is no longer disruptive. I have read through the British Jews talk page and think Bus-stops behaviour was reasonable; and below, Bus-stop affirms the importance of reasonable debate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I have suggested this repeatedly in the past, as the result of multiple incidents. He is incapable of engaging in rational debate on the subject. He cherry-picks quotes out of context. He engages in endless WP:OR. He invents bogus terminology to try to get round policy. He drags topics off-topic at the merest provocation. For a typical example of this I recommend reading Talk:Adam Levine/Archive 1#Is it Wikipedia's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?, Talk:Adam Levine#Another source, and Talk:Adam Levine#Jewish, another source. Bus stop seems to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a court of law, and we are here to make definitive statements regarding an individual's ethnicity. We aren't. That isn't our job. His endless disruption needs to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of Bus-stop's style of behaviour, and agree it needs to change or be restrained by the community. It is our job to say as much as can be said about a person's beliefs and heritage that is relevant and not an unreasonable intrusion into their personal life. We are a kind of court of knowledge, and reasonable debate and our policies and guidelines are our tools. When an editor cannot or will not employ these, they must be excluded from the debate, because competency and a commitment to our policies and guidelines are required. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Bus-stop's behaviour has changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose He has strong views, he's paid his dues, and this is not warranted in this case...Modernist (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing here warrants topic banning. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Simply pointing out that Bus stop had been previously subjected to an indefinite site ban, and since he has been returned to editing, I think partially due to efforts lobbying for him to be allowed to do so by some parties like myself, he has still shown the same tendencies toward less than well-considered, or possibly even rational, discussion which led to the initial ban, particularly regarding one of his few fields of interest, Judaism, and particularly a denial of the temporary conversion of Bob Dylan to a form of Christianity. I tend to think that there may be sufficient cause for perhaps an ArbCom request regarding him now or in the future, but would think that at least the evidence presented here isn't sufficient for any sort of sanction. By saying that, however, I am in no way implying that there might not exist sufficient evidence for such, just that it hasn't been presented. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want evidence of recent behaviour by bus stop that might justify a topic ban, I'd recommend reading Talk:British Jews#Removal of Miliband, where Bus stop was seemingly intent on turning a debate on article content into a court of law, seeking an authoritative 'ruling' on a question to which there can be no definitive answer, and even if there could be, it isn't Wikipedia's purpose to do such things. Consider this statement:

Snowded—should reliable sources define Jews by a definition applicable to another identity? We assume that reliable sources have done their homework in this regard. It is axiomatic that each identity has its own definition. We assume that a multitude of sources have not overlooked some aspect of the definition of a Jew and we assume they are applying the criteria pertinent to Jews. All information at Wikipedia is filtered through reliable sources. Why aren't there any sources saying that perhaps Ed Miliband may not be Jewish? Don't any reliable news outlets or biographers want to get the scoop on that piece of information? If there were any reason to think that Ed Miliband were not Jewish would not some source have conveyed that piece of information by now? Yet neither you nor any other editor is showing us any source suggesting that the individual might not be Jewish. I suggest that we adhere to the findings of those reliable sources that are available to us. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) [61]

Classic Bus stop language, as he argues that "each identity has its own definition". In the case of Jews, this is self-evidently not the case - , there are multiple and conflicting definitions - not that 'an identity' can have a definition. People define things, and frequently redefine them depending on context. That this isn't an 'axiom from sociology for example is probably because it is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need to be. (And what the hell does he mean by an 'identity'? Something that goes on an identity card? It is entirely possible to 'identify with' many things at once. Nobody has a single abstract 'identity' anyway.) We have an article on the subject (to which Bus stop is a frequent talk-page contributor) that makes this entirely clear: Who is a Jew?. Bus stop knows that 'Jewishness' isn't clear-cut, yet continues relentlessly to argue that Wikipedia must make definitive pronouncements in its own voice as to whether an individual is Jewish or not. This isn't merely disruptive, it is entirely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. He should be topic banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because it takes two, or often many more than two, to tango and in this case at least five editors are jumping around a hot potato topic about a Jewish-born prominent British politician, i.e. Ed Miliband. User Bus stop (talk · contribs) is a very knowledgeable and skilled editor. He does feel passionately about some subjects and he is tenacious and determined in justifiably asking for clarity about definitions especially as they relate to the complex intersection between a secular POV and one, say, coming from the classical POV of Judaism. What happens is that some editors feel that he is over-stepping WP "behavioral" rules when all he is in effect doing is repeating requests that are always logical, accurate and to the point. A better solution would be to impose a WP:FULLLOCK on the Ed Miliband article and let the warring editors cool off. Or treat all the arguing editors equally. It is a pity that editors cannot have frank and honest ongoing debates without resorting to this kind of request for draconian intervention that would be counter-productive in this instance and WP would be the loser. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to define who is or isn't a Jew. You seem to be making the same mistake as Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "It isn't Wikipedia's job to define who is or isn't a Jew."[62] That is correct. What we are doing is evaluating the propriety versus the impropriety of the inclusion of Ed Miliband in a photo-box which already exists at an article titled British Jews. I feel you are blowing the question up to unmanageable proportions when you make a pronouncement such as "It isn't Wikipedia's job to define who is or isn't a Jew." It has to be added that obviously it isn't. Bus stop (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy. I do note that there are several editors who try to psss off clear violations of conduct guidelines as "frank and open discussion" or something similar, when others would often describe it as off-topic tendentious and disruptive editing. It may well be the case that in at least some cases they are themselves not competent to perceive the difference between them, and I think that refusal to act according to conduct guidelines, or seemingly even acknowledge them, is a very serious problem that more than one editor involved here probably has, and that may well be ultimately only addressible in all instances by request for ArbCom involvement. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While John Carter has a bee in his bonnet that I cannot help, I fully agree with Andy's observation that it is definitely NOT WP's job to define anyone's religion or lack thereof, and in fact I have long opposed the practice of WP's growing lists and categories of Jews, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews, somewhat to no avail, so we are in agreement that it's overdone. But editors (and hence probably readers of WP) seem to want that kind of ethnic and religious information inserted into articles even about Jews who are far-removed from their own religion. And that's where the problem arises, since Judaism regards a Jew as both a member of an ethnicity as well as of a religion/spiritual beliefs and practices (see the key Who is a Jew? article especially Who is a Jew?#Jewish by birth), unlike any other religion that does NOT consider ethnicity part of being Christian or Muslim or Hindu for example, because while on the one hand WP does not care and does not and should not decide anyone's religious status, HOWEVER when the religion itself historically defines a Jew as one born to a Jewish mother (as is the case with the Milibands) then according to both the broad and narrow definitions of that religion that person is Jewish regardless of what WP may think. WP cannot redefine what Judaism holds, that would itself be a violation of WP:NOTMADEUP by WP itself! WP can only work with the working and accepted definitions extant in the real world. IZAK (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by the Halakha. If you really can't understand the difference between Wikipedia making a statement that "this person is Jewish by the criteria of a particular religion (which very often the individual concerned doesn't adhere to)" and "this person is Jewish", I suggest you avoid such topics in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, it would be a very sad day if WP was in any way an expression of Halacha! So don't worry about that. I agree with you on that score. No Halachic scholar would consult WP about those matters so you needn't worry, we are safe here in a state of blissful confusion obviously needing our own version of The Guide for the Perplexed. I do NOT say (and never have) that WP is bound by Halacha! And I am not involved in such topics defining who is Jewish and who is not (because it's a waste of time, and most folks will just never get it!), but evidently some editors want to, and there is no need to crucify them at ANI for having the courage of their convictions! In fact I support REMOVAL of all mention in articles, or via lists and categories that make any mention of any subject's Jewishness when that subject does NOT self-identify as Jewish , see my long-standing position at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. But regardless of what either you or I think, the fact and reality remains that as far as the the TOPIC of Jews and Judaism is concerned it IS a factor as explained in the Who is a Jew? article because of complications arsing from historical Judaism's definition of a Jew as being both a member of an ethnicity (regardless of how that person views themselves) as well as of a religion. This is a complication unique to Jews and Judaism and that is why some editors, and readers of WP, take it seriously because they know it's an important subject. You cannot wish things away and tell people to ignore the unique realities and true facts about any particular religion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity is by definition self-defined. That is what ethnicity means. If it isn't self-defined, it isn't ethnicity. As for the realities being 'unique', as a former anthropology student, I know enough to suspect that the premise is dubious at best - and you are still suggesting that a religion that people don't adhere to is somehow relevant to 'true facts' in this matter. To put it bluntly (and rudely), as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it isn't - if the person in question isn't a follower of Judaism, we are no more bound to consider the relevance of the perspectives of that faith than we are to consider the relevance of road traffic regulations in Ulan Bator, unless the person concerned also does. Ed Miliband isn't a follower of the Judaic faith. Any discussion of how he is seen by that faith is off-topic. As for only supporting the mention of a person's ethnic Jewishness if they self-identify as such, that is a start - but sadly, when contributors endlessly trawl through sources in order to find a comment made in passing in order to provide 'evidence', and then slap a label on individuals not because their ethnicity is relevant to anything, but instead to add one more to the list of Jewish 'X's or whatever, this 'self-identification' becomes a joke. It is totally unencyclopaedic. This isn't an ethnoreligious database. We shouldn't be going around trying to 'prove' that people are of one ethnicity or another - if for no other reason than that ethnicity is not only self-defined, it is contextual. As came up in another of these tedious debates, Harrison Ford once stated that "I feel Irish as a person and jewish as an actor". He may well have been joking, it is hard to tell. What is blindingly obvious though is that a statement like that shouldn't be used to support assertions that "Harrison Ford affirms his Jewish identity for our purposes", as Bus stop claimed in a gargantuan heap of WP:OR [63]. This is the problem with Bus stop. He thinks that it is Wikipedia's 'purpose' to categorise individuals by ethnicity. It isn't, as I hope that you would agree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I can't argue with your statement, and indeed it is overdone to dig up people's ethnic identities, something I avoid on WP. However: I cannot help but notice that unlike you and me far too many WP biographies get into it, not just about being ethnically Jewish, but WP bios almost always break down the ethnic ID's of American personalities in the USA see Category:American people by ethnic or national origin with 263 sub-categories !!! : Italian (e.g. Category:American people of Italian descent) and even breaking it down to sub-sub categories such as Category:American people of Italian-Jewish descent, Irish (e.g. Category:American people of Irish descent), Scandinavian, German, Greek, African, Latino, Asian etc etc etc and hence Jewish also Category:American people of Jewish descent with sub-sub-categries e.g.: Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent etc etc etc since Jews have in any case been treated as an ethnicity apart by gentiles over the millennia, regardless of Jewish Law. In the USA ethnic consciousness abounds. There are parades all the time all over the place celebrating ethnic origins and ethnic pride, so it's no wonder that this spills over on to the English-language WP, to the bewilderment perhaps of the UK-based editors where the ethnic origins of public personalities is not trumpeted as much as it is in the USA. So perhaps that's part of the problem with the Milibands of Britain being analyzed under an American-ethnic style microscope. But as for me, this kind of stuff is just a royal waste of time as far as I am concerned. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this sort of wrangling about religious affiliation should be tamped down.→StaniStani  21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stan: It can't be helped when it involves topics related to Jews and Judaism because of problems stemming from the Jewish religion itself (and not from WP or from editors) as fully explained in the Who is a Jew? article. Personally, I have avoided those kind of situations and do not get involved, and I am not involved with talks about Ed Miliband's status and honestly I don't care because Ed is free to do with his life as he wishes, but that is not the point here, but I can understand why it is important to some editors, because it is a key theological and ethnic issue as far as the broad subjects Jews and Judaism are concerned that makes it into this frustrating issue, that any person with serious Jewish studies behind them would know. So it's always going to be around no matter who or what is blocked or banned or censored. It is a perennial issue in Israeli and Jewish communal politics, and this is just a small example of how it can bubble over. So better to keep all parties talking and hearing them out rather than taking a quick fix and blocking the un-blockable where only WP loses in the end when gifted and informed editors are penalized for their zeal that can and should be harnessed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support he is wasting a lot of people's valuable time with his tagging contests.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread and to deflect responsibility from the editors failing to subscribe to our policies and guidelines and to place the blame on a single editor regarding a subject that is not under discussion. In other words, this is a "hey look over there" proposal, distracting us from looking directly at the problem. The real problem is that multiple editors have failed to use reliable sources as they were intended and have failed to edit in accordance with BLP. In this case, the problem is not Bus stop, but his past problems are being used to color this dispute unfavorably. To summarize: an image of a British Jew was added to an article about British Jews because the subject identified as a British Jew in reliable sources and because it was relevant. However, we are being told by the disputants above that 1) there is no such thing as a British Jew, and 2) even though the subject self-identifies, a Jew isn't really a Jew unless that Jew meets an arbitrary set of criteria established by a Wikipedia editor, a set of criteria that is not found in any reliable source. Far from proposing a topic ban on Bus stop, it appears that his accusers have been promoting original research, ignoring sources, and promoting their own, unpublished criteria of who can be considered Jewish. With this in mind, this proposal should be seen for what it is—a distraction from the real problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  Viriditas, looking at the three definitions of Jewishness – religious, ethnic, cultural – could we not agree that (1) Miliband has explicitly rejected self-identification as a Jew in the religious sense (2) Miliband has emphatically confirmed that he is of Jewish descent, and that this has strongly affected who he is (3) Miliband has said that he did not grow up in the Jewish community, and has also stated that it is his job as Labour leader to get to know the Jewish community? Could we not then further agree that the glass is more than half empty, and that this state of affairs is admirably described by saying he is of Jewish descent? JN466 10:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't recall any sources where Miliband has "emphatically confirmed" that he is "of Jewish descent", and the fact that you are so emphatically stating the point without sources goes directly to Viriditas's assertion that you are misusing/ignoring the sources we have, doing/promoting original research, and thus failing to adhere to BLP policy. But this discussion really belongs on article talk pages, not ANI, and we could make better progress there if you would withdraw your proposal re Bus-stop so that this thread can be closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  He has said he is Jewish, but not in a religious sense, and has spoken at length about his parents' escape from Nazi German; and he has said that he did not grow up in the Jewish community and should make an effort as Labour leader to get to know it. So there is no question that he is of Jewish descent: he is. The question mark was never about that, but about weighing the absence of religious and cultural identification. But I will tell you something – I will flip-flop on this. The reason is that I see he wrote a lengthy piece about his Jewishness quite recently in The New Statesman. And that to me shifts the balance in the dispute about including him in the British Jews article. However, I will not retract this proposal. Bus stop's comments in the Harrison Ford article e.g. were ridiculous, and Bus stop simply does not help us resolve these disputes. JN466 16:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. It might help get us to a resolution on the article(s) if you could post about this new source on the talk page of British Jews. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  I will also add my support, given this new source, for Miliband's inclusion in the article. If we are going to have such articles at all, this is the sort of sourcing that is required - an in-depth discussion by the person involved of his relationship with the said ethnicity, where he makes it clear that he indeed considers himself a member. Like Jayen466 though, I still support a topic ban on this subject for Bus stop, for multiple the reasons already given. His presence in such discussions disrupts them to the degree that article content suffers, as contributors actually interested in finding material of clear relevance to articles, rather than in shoe-horning in individuals on the basis of WP:OR, Google-mining, Wikilawyering, and other dubious practices are deterred from taking part. Indeed, it is notable that such behaviour (not confined to Bus stop alone, nor solely to one side of the debate) led to the New Statesman source apparently being missed, in spite of its obvious relevance. Bus stop cited a Huffington Post article which itself cites the NS article - but in amongst the hoo-ha and kerfuffle, nobody seems to have looked for the original. This is desperately poor reasearch - and looking for articles of direct relevance to the subject we are discussing is precisely the sort of research we are supposed to be engaged in. (As an aside, I think that this debate might also have been resolved more easily if the 'British Jews' article was clearer about its topic - British persons who consider themselves to be Jewish by ethnicity - and possibly converts to Judaism who don't consider themselves ethnically Jewish, though I'm not entirely sure about the latter.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I had no idea what a hornets nest I was entering on this one, but its impossible to have any sort of discussion on the subject. All you get is a constant repetition of a single narrow interpretation of selected sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I recall a long sequence at Talk:Judaism [64] where the editor seems to think "Jew" and "Judaism" should be the subject of one article - and argued that at length. In fact, I quite suggest everyone here read those discussions, and see where the problem appears to lie - which is not just in categorisation, alas. (nodding to Slrubenstein) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sometimes, with the best will in the world, it is better for certain editors to stay away from certain topics. This is a case in point. --John (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• There have been an absurd number of recent ANI cases where editors have been subject to requests to be sanctioned over incidents in which the editor in question is actually right. That isn't what ANI is for. The lightweight topic ban procedure at ANI (which I generally think has been a huge improvement) should not be abused in this manner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Could you clarify what it is that you are suggesting Bus stop is 'right' over? We appear to have been discussing what a substantial number of contributors see as a long-term pattern of disruptive behaviour, rather than a single incident. And as I've already pointed out above, the latest issue might well have been resolved more quickly, with the same ('right') result, had Bus stop not engaged in his usual OR, synthesis, and general obstructionism in the debate. Rather for looking for new sources, he argues endlessly about the exact meanings of existing ones, even when they clearly don't support his POV-driven efforts. And let's not pretend that his contributions to these topics are motivated by a wish to improve Wikipedia's encyclopaedic content. This is self-evidently untrue. He has one objective, and one objective alone. To classify people as 'Jews' or 'non-Jews', preferably in the most direct in-your-face manner possible. If this seems implausible to those unacquainted with his behaviour, I recommend reading the tedious discussions in Talk:Adam Levine/Archive 1, where Bus stop repeatedly objected to proposed article content on the basis that it didn't contain the exact sentence "Levine is Jewish", but instead told readers that Levine considered himself to be so, explained where he got his Jewish ethnicity from, and what his perspective on Judaism is. This obsessive insistence on turning the project into Jimbo's Jumbo Jew-Spotter's Guide is what this discussion is about - and if it is 'right', I must have fallen through a wormhole into another universe entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  The only problem with your statement is that in this instance, Bus stop has not engaged in "his usual OR, synthesis, and general obstructionism". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support per AndyTheGrump. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if there is a specific problem with this page and its edits, then deal with it there. but this overall generally construed thing seems a bit much. Soosim (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not about this page, it's a long and ongoing problem. Those well aware of the problem, please help document the most egregious cases. --JN466 10:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Question Given the disagreement, above, about the sufficiency of the evidence and conclusions to be drawn, is there a reason why RfC/U should not be the procedure to pursue first? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  Were this the first instance of such misconduct, I would probably agree with you. The fact that the editor was previously indefinitely site banned for conduct relating to the same general topic, however, does raise very serious recidivism questions. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per maunus, andy and nom. This editor is disruptive because he is relentlessly pushing the categorization of people as Jewish and is a major drain on the time of others as shown by, for example, the archives of Ed Miliband and Adam Levine. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per others. There is a clear history of disruptive and questionable history with this editor, unfortunately, and this seems to be a continuation of earlier behavior. I myself think that there is questionable behavior on the part of other editors related to the general topic of Judaism, possibly/probably sufficient for ArbCom review, but that is not in and of itself sufficient reason to not support sanctions against this editor. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disproportionate response. Topic banning from Miliband if and only if YouReallyCan is also topic-banned might be reasonable... Carrite (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  I did not initiate a suggestion that Ed Miliband be added to the photo-box at the article British Jews. I never added "Ed Miliband" to that photo-box. I did not initiate the discussion at that article's Talk page about this. I only weighed in after the discussion was underway. My involvement in other discussions I think has followed a similar pattern: I have entered discussions that were already underway. Editors in this thread have mentioned my input to discussions at articles "Adam Levine", "Harrison Ford", and "Bob Dylan" so I am going to respond to those:

  The first discussion involving Jewishness and Adam Levine begins here. You do not see me enter that discussion until it is long underway.

  The first discussion involving Jewishness and Harrison Ford begins here. You do not see me enter that discussion until it is long underway.

  The first discussion involving Jewishness and Bob Dylan begins here. You do not see me enter that discussion until it is long underway. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  If this is true, then it appears that Jayen and others are not fairly representing the facts, and appear to be misrepresenting your role in these disputes. Based on the above, Jayen's claim that you are "the heart of innumerable conflicts around Jewish categorisation" appears to be false. Can you talk about why you think Jayen and others are trying to shut you up? Are they biased in some way, perhaps because they have been personally involved in other disputes with you? Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Did you notice that Bus stop is the most prolific contributor by some margin to Talk:Adam Levine? And all of their contributions argue for just one thing: that "The article Adam Levine should clearly be stating that Adam Levine is Jewish". Even though Adam Levine is not Jewish according to Halakhic law on account of having a non-Jewish mother, refused a bar mitzvah when he was a kid, and eschews formal religious practice. For reference, the current article wording is, Levine has Jewish ancestry on both sides of his family (his father and maternal grandfather were Jewish), and considers himself Jewish, though according to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalized, spiritual way of life". He chose not to have a Bar Mitzvah as a child.[6] The talk page consensus is that those are accurately reported and well sourced facts. Bus stop however said, The language presently in the article is misleading and not supported by sources. When we read that he "considers himself Jewish" we are reading an implication that he might not be Jewish. That implication should be removed. Come again? The upshot is that Bus stop argues for clear statements in Wikipedia's voice that people are Jewish, even when there are complexities like a non-Jewish mother, and deprecates statements casting subjects' Jewishness in doubt. The history of the previous site ban is here, and the matter apparently began here, when it was said Bus stop was "the primary figure in a months-long edit war at List of notable people who converted to Christianity and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion. [1] [2] [3] He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary." That thread resulted in an indef block. There is a history of disruptive behaviour going back more than five years here, and it's always related to the same single issue. --JN466 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two sides to the "ethno-tagging" charge. I won't try to employ a succinct term to encompass something as sensitive as an area of perennial disagreement among editors. I am saddened that others freely employ terms like "ethno-tagging". I want this project to be a place that houses rational discussion in the absence of meaningless name-calling. If we don't take the time to spell out what we are saying, we might as well be hurling rocks. Reliable sources are our key to addressing and resolving the issues that beset us—not original research. Concerning living people "self-identification" can be an important component among the reliable sources considered. Adam Levine "self-identifies" as being Jewish many times in numerous reliably-sourced quotes. Wouldn't it be original research to argue that he is not Jewish because his mother might not be Jewish?

I only think that every editor has a Weltanschauung, or world view. I am not blaming any editor who might disagree with me over a point. But we have to have rational discussion. How could I be the heart of a conflict if I have joined a discussion after it was already long underway? It is often edits in article space which necessitate Talk page discussions. In the case of the "British Jews" article this involved the addition and removal of "Ed Miliband" from the photo-box by other editors—not by me. Thus a problematic situation existed long before I had any input at that article's Talk page concerning the question of the permissibility of "Ed Miliband" in that photo-box. Clearly the discussion on the Talk page was called for and Viriditas did the right thing in initiating that discussion. But a salient point is that I did not initiate the discussion. And again—I did not ever add or remove Ed Miliband's name from the photo-box. A contentious situation was already underway before I weighed in. I tried to do so rationally, with the support of sources. This has been the case at other similar situations at other articles. I have weighed in after discussions were underway.

When was the last time I typed anything on the Adam Levine Talk page—November of 2011? Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. November last year, when you dragged the last few remaining bones of the long-dead horse from its grave, and proceeded yet again to whack away once more with your usual vigour, seemingly unaware of its demise: [65]. Quote: "The article Adam Levine should clearly be stating that Adam Levine is Jewish. We have an abundance of sources in which he says that he is Jewish and in which others say in reference to Adam Levine that he is Jewish". The article already said that Levine considers himself Jewish, that he had Jewish ancestry, and went into detail into his relationship with Judaism. This seems not to have satisfied you though, as usual. This it the problem with your behaviour. It isn't so much that you start these debates - they are probably inevitable - it is that you completely fail to recognise when it is time to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, my impression is that you join these disputes and then post so much and so frequently that these disputes come to be about you. You have not only been the most frequent poster at the Levine talk page, your posts are frequently longer than those of everyone else involved. This comment from Bbb23 to you on the Levine talk page is typical: "No wonder this thread is so long - you don't listen, you just repeat yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)" Consider what Nomoskedasticity said, above, while arguing against a topic ban: "Personally, I find Bus-stop to be a pain in the ass (excessively verbose, repetitive, etc.) and it often pains me to find myself arguing for an outcome that he also favors (though typically on different grounds)." This is someone who is on your side. Could you possibly entertain the idea that it might be time for some self-reflection? How do you explain the reactions you engender from other editors? --JN466 10:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

JN466—"self-identification" had already been established when you presented a second source providing "self-identification". This source was already providing "self-identification" when you presented us with this source. You only conceded that we could include "Ed Miliband" in the photo-box at the article "British Jews" after you provided that source. But in the interim you provided us with lots of sources that in light of the "self-identification" already established, were largely irrelevant. Here for instance, and here—are sources that have little bearing on whether we should include this individual in the photo-box. Yes, "self-identification" was established by the source that you presented. In it we read: "I am Jewish".[66]. But we already had this source in which we read: "I'm Jewish".[67] That is "self-identification". It is a source that was presented much earlier. And it is relevant. The question before us concerned the propriety of including "Ed Miliband" in the photo-box at the article British Jews. In light of the fact that we had "self-identification" for Ed Miliband, your sources presented in this thread and on the "British Jews" Talk page were besides the point. Your source which provided "self-identification", found in The New Statesman, was a good source; it reinforced "self-identification". I am not meaning to detract from the quality and the relevancy of that source. But you and certain other editors seem to hold the opinion that if sources show that a person is a secular Jew/nonreligious Jew/nonobservant Jew/nonpracticing Jew, that somehow Jewishness is eroded to some degree in that individual. I don't believe that is the case. We are always looking to see what sources say and what our policies are. In the case of Ed Miliband no source has been presented even remotely suggesting that he might not be Jewish or that this was in doubt. Our policies place a great deal of importance on "self-identification" in these sorts of matters. Therefore in my opinion it was established a long time ago (a week ago) that Ed Milband was acceptable for the photo-box. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked you whether you could reflect on the fact that multiple editors keep telling you that you post walls of text repeating arguments you have already made, and that have already been responded to. In response you post another wall of text repeating the same arguments you have already made, and without addressing the question actually asked of you. The question was, "How do you explain the reactions you engender from other editors" who describe your posts as "verbose" and "repetitive" and say "you don't listen"? --JN466 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, without going into broader issues, I do not think you are reading it carefully. The statement that a person considers himself Jewish, but .... is akin to the statement that someone considers himself honest, but ... -- it is a way of denigrating and casting doubt on the person's self-definition. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From the article: 'Levine has Jewish ancestry on both sides of his family (his father and maternal grandfather were Jewish), and considers himself Jewish, though according to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalized, spiritual way of life". He chose not to have a Bar Mitzvah as a child. Is there a 'but' in there? I can't see it. How exactly does referring to someone's own self-identification in detail, rather than resorting to Bus stop-style quoting of 'anyone who describes anyone else as Jewish' as authority on the subject constitute 'casting doubt'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump|—please tell me if there is a proximal reason that I should be topic-banned. I believe the most recent kerfuffle took place at the "British Jews" article. Did anything transpire there, involving me, that you find questionable? Bus stop (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you ask, yes, your very involvement as a habitual POV-pusher is reason enough. In relation to this topic, your involvement is self-evidently contrary to the interests of Wikipedia. Your sole objective is to indulge in yet more obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging, with complete disdain for any attempt at neutrality, objectivity, or encyclopaedic style. You have been engaged in the same disruptive behaviour for five years. You have been told multiple times, by multiple contributors to just shut up, drop the stick, and find something else to obsess over. Even those who (broadly speaking) have a similar perspective to you are telling you to stop. But no. You refuse to. On that basis, you are unfit to edit, comment, or otherwise participate in any topic involving issues as to whether someone is to be described as Jewish or not. Wikipedia isn't an ethnoreligious database. It isn't a court of law (Halachic or otherwise - though if it was a court of Halachic law, Levine wouldn't be Jewish, as I'm sure you are aware). We aren't here to determine 'who is a what', just because you think it matters. If we removed every reference to individual's ethnicity, I doubt if 90% of our readers would notice, and of the remaining 10%, a large proportion would be the sort of people who's interests in the subject are rather different from your own. It may surprise you to read this, but an obsession with 'determining' who is Jewish is a minority interest, along with stamp collecting or train-spotting. Most of us don't care, and we don't like having to spend endless hours arguing about the exact wording of articles about individuals who's ethnicity isn't even remotely relevant to the reason they are written about in Wikipedia. Your behaviour amounts to de-facto trolling, regardless of your intent - and your intent is in itself incompatible with the objectives of the project. You seem quite capable of contributing constructively to subjects beyond issues of Judaism and Jewishness - why not just give it a try? I'm sure you'll find that the people you've chosen to obsess over will manage well enough without your efforts here. It isn't as if you are their sole representative in the Wikipedia community, after all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that rant. Other fair-minded editors should take note—AndyTheGrump has no recent diffs to present. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What would you know about 'fair-mindedness'? You asked a question, I answered it. Still, if you want a diff, how about this recent one one, where yet again you try to side-track a discussion on other matters (in this case your own behaviour) into a content dispute - and drag up the same old arguments, and the same old sources, that have already been argued over umpteen times before. [68] You were asked a specific question, which incidentally you still haven't answered - instead you engaged in yet more soapboxing about your obsession. Please get it into your head that it is your behaviour that is at issue here: it would be equally disruptive, and equally meriting sanctions ,if you behaved in the same way in disputes about music genres, Star Wars characters, or the classification of locomotive tenders on the Clevedon branch line of the Great Western Railway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• For heaven's sake, please shut down this nonsense proposal. If one side of the "there is no such thing as Jewish identity" content dispute deserves to be banned from the encyclopedia, then so does the other. If it's a content question whether we should acknowledge group identity here on the project we can hash that out as a content matter. If it's a behavioral question, which site bans are supposed to address, then both sides of this dispuate have been hacking away and filing administrative disputes against each other for years now, and we should not dignify their tendentiousness by joining in their latest squabble. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon—you say "both sides of this dispute have been hacking away and filing administrative disputes against each other for years now".[69] Let me just point out that I have never filed an administrative dispute against anyone. Bus stop (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon, That is a gross misrepresentation of the debate. I've seen nobody argue that "there is no such thing as Jewish identity". The question is whether such 'identity' (a fluid term, not an unequivocal 'fact', even for individuals by the way) is a matter of encyclopaedic interest in regard to individuals who's 'identity' is of little relevance to their notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are two sides to a discussion it doesn't mean everyone is disruptive. A single individual can be disruptive whilst the others are not. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Support Per my above comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Bus-stop's behaviour has changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second request to close - So far as I see, the !votes above are 11 in favor of the proposal and 7 opposed. I assume, as always, the closing admin will in fact review the comments as well. Should the proposal fail, I have already stated that I believe there is sufficient basis for a request for arbitration, and I do not necessarily believe that the failure of this proposal, if it does fail, would make that any less reasonable. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving this open for longer. But regardless of the closer's conclusions, this thread has exposed a serious problem that may only be truly resolved by a more formal process. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole—the serious problem this thread has exposed is that several editors resist the inclusion of a man named Ed Miliband in a photo-box at an article called British Jews. As Viriditas correctly points out: "This is a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread and to deflect responsibility from the editors failing to subscribe to our policies and guidelines and to place the blame on a single editor regarding a subject that is not under discussion." Read the rest of his post here. If you think Viriditas' words are mere hyperbole you have to read the abominable "discussion" concerning this which can be found on the "British Jews" Talk page here. I urge any closing administrator to look at that. Of the several problematic editors participating in that thread I think one is most exemplary of utter dismal grasp of fundamental Wikipedia standard operating procedure. That is User:Snowded. This individual has only posted sparsely in this AN/I thread. User:Snowded has continued to participate in ongoing discussions on that page right up until almost the present. It boggles my mind that the ideas advanced by this individual are not met with disapproval—but they are not. Read for instance this post. In reference to The New Statesman article in which Ed Miliband says explicitly "I am Jewish", User:Snowded says:

"I read it when it came out and I agree its essential reading. I am less sure its conclusive. It shows the complex relationship that many people have with a religious/ethnic background of which (as the article clearly states) they were never a park. The self-identification in that article is qualified. There are however two issues here. The first, is the non-practicing issue on Jewishness in general, and there is a stronger argument there for self-identification, although I think it would have to be unqualified. The second is the criterial for inclusion in this article - its not automatic that someone who . If the article was about British people from a jewish background I would be in favour, but its about British Jews. Editors have to reach some form of agreement there about who qualifies to represent the community as a whole by being chosen for one of the pictures. I think that requires something more than the New Statesman article. Personally I think given the title of the argument it requires practice, or at the least a very strong and clear identity not a very mixed one."

In a nutshell User:Snowded is of the opinion that articulate "self-identification" of the form of "I am Jewish" is still insufficient for the purpose of the placement of "Ed Miliband" into a photo-box for "British Jews". The New Statesman article can be found here. User:Snowded was a major participant in all parts of the discussion of the past two weeks concerning this issue. AndyTheGrump has not uttered a peep about this behavior displayed by User:Snowded. There is a little bias at work.

Viriditas correctly states in this section of this thread: "The real problem is that multiple editors have failed to use reliable sources as they were intended and have failed to edit in accordance with BLP."[70] Bus stop (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And that post illustrates the basic problem with your behaviour. You have so locked into the categorisation issue you seem unwilling or incapable of dealing with a different argument. On all articles with photomontages there are many people who qualify to be included and editors have to agree on the criteria to select those to represent the group. Its not enough to establish he is Jewish, or that he is prominent. I'm new to this particular dispute, but I have been trying to engage you in a discussion about those criteria for weeks. The only response is you repeat your "he is Jewish mantra". Its impossible to work with you in any collaborative way when you simply ignore what people say. On the separate issue of if he is Jewish or not, you persistently ignore the fact that he always qualifies that statement in some way. You cherry pick quotes that suit your purpose. I agree with others that your behaviour merits an arbcom case if its not resolved here. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Snowded is clearly telling a side of a story. This is required reading for anybody who wishes to understand what has transpired in the past couple of weeks leading up to this thread on this AN/I page. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I am telling a side of the story, what else can I do? I agree everyone should read your reference. It shows you consistently refusing to engage with the question of the criteria for someone to be put in the photo-montage on the page, and stubbornly refusing to talk about anything other than your ethnicity/categorisation obsession. On your criteria anyone of any prominence who at any stage says "I'm Jewish" should have their photograph on the page. I now know there is a history here, I came to the page without any prior knowledge of engagement with the issue, tried to structure it and met a brick wall. To be brutally honest here I've been involved of the years with many a controversial article, but I have never see an editor so unwilling to engage with the issues as you. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have been trying to ignore this but it won't go away. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit receives a lot of attention from people with a particular interest—sometimes that's good, but in cases like this, it's not. There is no reasonable basis for anonymous strangers to agree on an objective means of determining whether or not X is a Y when Y is something as fluid as being Jewish, and it is not the role of Wikipedia to ensure that everyone who might possibly be considered Jewish should be so labeled. The very fact that there is an argument which cannot be resolved by clear secondary sources shows that obsessing over whether X is Jewish does not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Except it's not a fact, and there is no such argument. This was resolved a long time ago, but several editors refuse to allow a BLP who says "Yes, I'm Jewish" over and over again in source after source to be categorized as Jewish. Far from what you claim, Bus stop is not the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq—you say "There is no reasonable basis for anonymous strangers to agree on an objective means of determining whether or not 'X is a Y'"[71] That is a reasonable statement. Then—should we have a photo-box at the article British Jews? The existence of the photo-box requires decisions to be made as to who is a Jew and who isn't a Jew. Should the photo-box be eliminated? That is a reasonable solution to this problem if this problem is as intractable as many editors feel that it is. Let me say right from the get-go that I would not miss the photo-box if it were eliminated from the "British Jews" article. I would support its removal from all such articles. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I also have to concur with what Viriditas says above, that "it's not a fact". We actually are not determining "facts". We merely use "self-identification" as the gold-standard for purposes involving living people. If a photo-box is to be kept, and it is not 100% clear that an article such as "British Jews" must have a photo-box, then it follows that we are tasked with deciding who goes into it. There is no factuality associated with such decisions. We simply establish working guidelines and adhere to them—for the narrow purpose of populating the photo-box. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk)

AndyTheGrump—as you've posted this here, here, here, and here, it would seem to me that it might constitute a variety of harassment. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the relevant guideline here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which, as per that page, is a form of disruptive editing. We don't often see such editing on a noticeboard, do we? John Carter (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the above would be one more instance. Any closing admin should take into account the apparently flippant attitude towards this process, of one of the key accusers, regarding me and my editing activity. AndyTheGrump wants me banned for reasons that do not necessarily relate to the benefit of the encyclopedia but rather to his particularly antagonistic relationship to me. I don't think I am the cause of this. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The above editors' almost total refusal to in any way respond to or even clearly acknowledge one of the most obvious problematic behaviors, refusal to get to the point and obfuscation, is rather clearly demonstrated above. A reasonable point has been raised repeatedly, asking the accused to actually directly address a key point, and that editor has gone out of his way to perhaps demonstrate the same behavior he is accused of in refusing to directly address the matter. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

John Carter—there is an important difference between saying nothing while using many words to do so, and saying something in an admittedly and perhaps unfortunately long form but with the redeeming virtue of containing some nugget of communication. I hope I don't spew hot air. I try to me mindful of what I am trying to say. And I try not to be excessively long-winded. Please feel free to tell me to clarify something if I have not been clear. Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I believe you are engaging in behavior that could be characterized as hounding. I think I understand correctly that your wish to have me topic-banned would best fall under the heading of personal vendetta. I won't be responding to future posts of this type and I am of two minds as to the wisdom of responding even this last time to your repetitious posts that serve highly dubious purpose. Have a good day. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"highly dubious purpose"? Would you care to either expand on that, or withdraw it? What purpose beyond looking to the interests of appropriate Wikipedia content are you suggesting I have? That is a serious allegation, and I expect a clear and appropriate response. Without one, I shall have to consider what action will be appropriate - and you will certainly have to explain yourself directly in your defence - no chance of off-topic waffle there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The serious problem highlighted by this thread is editors talking past each other, and each taking as given the very point they disagree on: what, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is meant by the term "Jew"? To say in Wikipedia's voice, "He is a Jew" in a category, caption, infobox or anywhere, what criteria must be met? Bus-stop's style of engagement on this topic is problematical, but may well be resolved simply by resolving this larger question. That can probably best be done by the involved parties instigating an RfC, ideally, in my opinion, a simple civil discussion RfC, not something with prescriptive propositions and !votes - just an invitation to discuss the issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—Wikidemon expresses the nature of this thread: "For heaven's sake, please shut down this nonsense proposal."[72] The proximal cause of trying to get me topic-banned begins at the top of this thread. I displayed no problematic behavior or editing activity at the British Jews article in the past two weeks—none whatsoever. Vague accusations are tantamount to "nonsense". Bus stop (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop "highly dubious purpose" isn't a vague accusation in this context. You have accused me of acting for "dubious" reasons beyond the interests of the encyclopaedia. If you aren't going to tell us what you mean, at least have the decency to admit that you didn't mean it. 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me you act with personal animosity towards me. That is not good. I see, for instance, that just days ago, at the very same article that we are occupied with in much of the above thread, namely the "British Jews" article, you make an edit which concerns an edit of mine which I made to that article a long time ago—in September of 2009—and you leave an edit summary referring to "Bus stop's ridiculous edit." I am questioning the way in which you are seemingly holding me accountable for edits I may have made some time ago. Are you acknowledging that I have been editing trouble-free recently? We can't carry forward bad feelings. That only perpetuates problems that may have beset us in the past. I hope that I am not topic-banned here. That is obviously the subtext of almost anything we are discussing. Mutual respect will in the final analysis be what is best for the encyclopedia despite differences of opinion and the feelings that different viewpoints on sensitive matters engender. Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you see it as 'personal animosity' - indeed perhaps it is. There is no requirement however that Wikipedia contributors must like each other. And yes, you are accountable for edits you made a long time ago. And yes, the edit in question was ridiculous, in my opinion (or at least, the justification given for it in the edit summary was). Even if I am wrong though, my comment was made in regard to the appropriateness of your edit to the article - and to imply that I'm driven by some sort of external "dubious" motivations in my actions on Wikipedia is entirely unjustified, in the face of a complete lack of evidence for such external motivations. And as for why I (along with several other contributors by the look of it) might have a 'personal animosity' towards you, the discussion below is clearly significant. Faced with what we see as verbosity, repetitiveness, and a refusal to listen, animosity towards you may be an inevitable consequence. People make value judgements about others based on how they perceive them. That is all we can do. If you want people to see you differently, you need to act differently. Perhaps you have already made such a change - though in my opinion it appears that some of your comments here suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—isn't "religion" a contentious topic? You are suggesting that I "act differently."[73] We need to talk about religion to edit articles. Yes, I should act differently, and I apologized to Jayen466. If I've made an improper statement to you, please tell me what it is. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a rather disjointed post, Bus stop, and I don't really understand what you are asking. However, to answer one question, yes, religion is clearly a contentious topic. As to whether we need to talk about religion in articles or not, clearly that depends on the article topic. Regarding the Ed Miliband one, we don't, beyond establishing that he isn't a follower of the Judaic faith, and shouldn't be presented as one - not that anyone was trying to do this, as far as I'm aware. For the 'British Jews' article, it is a more complex question, given that the majority of those within the scope of the article are clearly Jewish by faith as well as by ethnicity - where that article seemed to go wrong is in using 'religion-based' definitions in regard to the topic as a whole, which is deeply problematic. I've done a little work on it to try and clarify its scope, but it needs more done. Sadly, it seems to have suffered from a bit-by-bit addition of new material, with little concern for flow, or for structure. I think that with a little effort and a little goodwill there is the potential for a much better article - but it needs to make clear what its topic is (which was far from clear when the question of Miliband came up), and the 'demographics' section in particular needs to be rewritten as a logical sequence, rather than the random collection of (sometimes contradictory) data that we have at present. The sources are there, it just needs rewriting to put it into some sort of logical order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole—there is a difference between the most reasonable solution to a problem and that which is acceptable to a consensus of editors. I for one would not mind in the least bit, the elimination of photo-boxes at articles such as "British Jews". But would a consensus of editors permit that? Bus stop (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- I have been travelling for a few days and am astonished to see that this thing is still running. There is obviously a need for a more effective way of resolving the issue. Topic-banning Bus-stop won't do it (and I don't think that recent behavior merits it, whatever one makes of older stuff [where I agree there were problems]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. So that seems to be 12 !votes in favor of the proposal, 7 opposed, consider Nomoskedasticity already opposed. And that makes I think three !votes to close this discussion. I do however think, as I said above, that there are grounds to request ArbCom involvement. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as an uninvolved editor, it's quite clear that Bus stop's pattern of editing with regards to the categorization of Jewish BLP articles is disruptive. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I have disagreed with this editor upon occasion, but he partakes in discussions and is willing to listen to arguments, including arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I agree it is hard to explain something to him, but that is his good right. I am okay with this editor being around on Jewish-related articles. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a clear case of misrepresentation, as pointed out by IZAK, Nomoskedasticity, Wikidemon and others. I find Bus stop to be a knowledgeable Jewish editor and do not think he should be hounded on the basis of this explosive Who is a Jew issue. Yoninah (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bus Stop has consistently sought to improve Wikipedia coverage in this area, adding categories and descriptions based on reliable and verifiable sources. A tpic ban is entirely unjustified in this case. Alansohn (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence to support this. Not proportional ban in terms of what is claimed he did. Why is one editor being singled out here? This is a big dispute involving many ppl and this approach is not fair at all. Crystalfile (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A simple question for Bus stop

As asked above by JN466 (twice): How do you explain the reactions you engender from other editors who describe your posts as "verbose" and "repetitive" and say "you don't listen"?. [74][75] Please respond to the question asked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I don't think that I am verbose. I may stretch out a bit with a thought. But this is a fun project. I am not trying to entertain people. I think I am merely aiming for clear communication. Repetitiveness is not merely repetitiveness but an attempt to make clear the thread of a thought. One needs to backtrack in the course of expressing oneself to avoid a series of disconnected assertions. Repeating a part of what one has previously said, but while developing thoughts further, tells my fellow editor what I think is most important in a given post I may be making. Do I not "listen"? I read very carefully what others have written. Do you know that sometimes I find the posts of others to be illegible gibberish? Sorry but it's true. I sometimes don't know what another editor is trying to say. Sometimes I ask for clarification and sometimes not. Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the above. Sorry for the time delay. I had to gather my thoughts before posting my response. If this is seen to be inadequate I trust you will ask again in a follow up post. I will try again to address your questions. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I do however feel that you have missed the essential point of the question. Perhaps it needs rephrasing. Many contributors have described your posts as "verbose" and "repetitive" and have said that "you don't listen"? Why do you think these contributors are saying this? We aren't asking you whether you think yourself verbose etc, we are asking for your explanation for why so many other contributors think this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—we can talk these matters through. I don't think these are insurmountable matters. Perhaps I am verbose and repetitive. I merely tried to explain above how this can be justified. The justification is based on the requirements of communication. My argument is that being verbose and being repetitive can actually aid communication! Clearly in most cases it is exactly the opposite. But I try to harness words in any way I can to get the point across—whatever that point may be. As concerns "not listening", I think you should explain what that might mean. I have tried to explain that indeed I do read what other editors post. I therefore am technically "listening". I can only assume that you mean that I do not necessarily respond to or acknowledge everything another editor has typed. This may be the problem you are referring to. I do not necessarily feel obligated to respond to obfuscation. What I mean is that it is not unheard of for an editor to post a comment that is clearly understandable for a sentence or two and then to lapse into incomprehensibility for another couple of sentences. I am going to have to assume good faith of course and I don't have any specific editors in mind. I'll conclude by saying that a post has to contain internal logic and the various sentences have to add up to a comprehensible whole. In other words there is no way to "listen" when a person has not made themselves clear. The burden of communicating clearly is on the person putting together a post. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, if you are actually arguing that being verbose and repetitive aids communication, there will be little point in continuing this debate - particularly since you have already said that, and are merely repeating yourself. You have once again failed to answer the question asked. I'm not asking you to justify your postings, I'm asking why do so you think so many editors find your postings problematic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I concede that my posts may be "verbose and repetitive". I am communicating in the way that I am accustomed to communicate. We can all adjust our way of communicating to accommodate others. Perhaps this is a good idea. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Back on Topic

If the parties can't agree and won't go to DRN or Mediation, than perhaps they will do an RfC? It looks like they need more uninvolved editor's opinions. And just settle it. Either the leader of the Labor Party is in some sense a British Jew or he is not, according to the considered Judgment of the community. That's all we can do for that. Edit warring and six editors arguing about it for over a week, is not getting the job done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Either the leader of the [Labour] Party is in some sense a British Jew or he is not". - or in some senses he is, and some senses he isn't. This is the root of the problem. You are apparently asking the community to make a 'Judgement' (nice capitalisation) regarding someone's ethnicity. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If something is unclear, we have no business 'deciding' it for ourselves. Ethnicity is fluid, contextual, and often just plain contradictory. If Wikipedia is actually going to 'get the job done', it will do it a lot quicker if it stops representing opinion as fact, and obsessing about which box we can shove people into. The relentless POV-pushing that goes on in regard to this topic is utterly out of proportion to its significance to article content. It is worth noting that when the question as to whether Miliband's ethnicity was significant, the ethnotaggers resorted to citing an article about the subject from a Guardian blog. Except the article wasn't about his ethnicity as such, it was about how little it had been commented on, and about how this was part of a wider trend - with ethnicity, religion (or lack of) and the like becoming increasingly insignificant in British politics. [76] If Miliband is a 'British Jew' (if...) it certainly isn't what he is notable for. The British public appears (with the exception of POV-pushers and taggers of various kinds) not to care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you have strong opinions on the content question. But for content there is no substitute around here for assessing consensus. If considered judgment on the content question turns your way, so be it. If it does not, so be it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to look at the behaviour - the three editors who have edit warred to say he is Jewish have done so on the basis that it is the consensus position. THey have done this even though they have been four against three, and now four against four. Their response to challenge is that they are right and those opposed are wrong. Suggestions that we call an RfC or mediation have been ignored. Instead they wait a day then change the article. Wikipedia is governed by behavioural control and the community needs to deal with this. You can't make progress with editors who claim consensus because they think they are right, change the article to conform with that and refuse to engage in normal process. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine blocks/bans/page locks for tendentious editing, but obviously it takes more than one "side" to insert or delete content repeatedly over time. Just stop that and settle the content issue (full stop), using WP:Dispute resolution. If you don't open a DRN, or mediation, or RfC, you cannot blame anyone else for not doing so, so just do it. Those who then refuse to participate in content DR put themselves on thin ice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you have good intentions here but I think you are being naive. DR requires both parties to engage and there is no indication that this would be possible, the opposite in fact. Suggestions of an RfC resulted in the article to being edited with a false claim of consensus. I came into this one as a neutral and the atmosphere is poisonous (and I've seen a lot of contentious issues over the last seven years). Attempts to structure the problem, get a discussion going meet with blank rejection. In those circumstances it needs neutral parties to look at the behaviour issues. The "it takes both sides" is an easy response, sometimes you have to put the effort it to look at behaviour. That after all is what ANI is for.----Snowded ^TALK 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The root of it, and the solution to it, is enunciated in this Arbcom principal earlier this year:

Sober eyes

2) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Passed 11 to 0, 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think any experienced editor knows that, the issue is to get the participants to a state where it is possible to define the problem for third party review. I think you are really missing the point here but we probably have to agree to disagree, maybe you should engage and see what response you get. Its all too easy to throw out a 'plague on both your houses judgement", sometimes its valid sometimes it isn't. As I say engage with the editors concerned and If your experience is different from mine all to the good. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In the beginning of the end, (where talk page discussion is at impasse) it doesn't take any agreement to open the DRN, mediation proposal, or RfC. All it takes is one good faith effort by one editor to do it (and name the proposed parties and/or provide notice). Thereafter, any effort to obstruct consensus making, is more easily identified, recorded, and handled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think I have edited this article. I tend to think that Miliband should be included, but am certainly open to discussion and persuasion. If there is to be such a discussion, however, it needs to go further than this one article, since the problem arises on very many pages. There appear to be two entrenched positions, with many other editors in between. On the one hand, we have editors who wish to sprinkle the label "Jewish" over every possible article. Some of these editors, I fear, have POV motives -- whether these result from antisemitic or from Jewish chauvinist prejudices. (See the discussion at Hunt the Jew for a recent example.) On the other hand, some editors wish to remove nearly all examples of such labels, possibly even in cases where they are justified. In some cases, as this discussion well illustrates, there is a lamentable confusion between the religion of Judaism and the ethnic/cultural identification as a Jew. An RfC, or mediation, or whatever other form of dispute resolution, needs to look at these issues as a whole, and help develop a consistent position for all articles. Otherwise, even if we resolve the specific problem with British Jews, we will find the same dispute cropping up elsewhere every other week. RolandR (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well thought out but sometimes it is easier (and more subtle) to focus on one example and work from there, in doing so, perhaps principals of universal application will suggest themselves and also the pitfalls (of un-tailored solution) will be more easily explored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you this is more than just Miliband it is an issue that will carry on and on and if not Miliband then somewhere else, my view is that people should be categorized or highlighted as X where that categorisation makes sense, not simply because they are X. I'll try to explain this in relation to Miliband from a personal experience - A couple of years ago I was taking a family down to London to the museums for the day. Usually we park up at Stanmore and take the tube in from there. However, the Jubilee line was closed that weekend so we took the bus from Stanmore to Edgware station. Sitting on the top deck, bus passed by the Synagogue on Stone Grove. The kids had just come out, all dressed in their best, some kicking a football about, others just chatting and laughing, one or two of the bigger ones with a smaller kid (probably a brother) in a headlock. It took me back to how I remembered it from when I'd go with my mate's mum to pick him up on a late Saturday morning. Now when I read Miliband's comment I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous. then I relate what he says there to those scenes outside those synagogues and undoubtedly the associated youth club which he was never part of. Now whether Miliband should be listed prominently as a British Jew I don't know. My feeling given that the article is mainly cast in term of the religious aspects, is that he doesn't belong there as he was never really part of the religious nor secular community. OTOH he is a good example of someone with Jewish ancestry that isn't part of the religious or secular community and if that is a typical experience of ethnic Jews in Britain today then he does indeed belong there, but the article should reflect that experience. John lilburne (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is primarily about one person (Milliband) how about an IAR solution: get someone from WM UK to call Milliband's office, explain the issue we're having (we have an internal disagreement on how to interpret a particular source), and just plain ask whether Milliband wants to be included in the category. Then go ahead and do whatever he says. This should probably be done by an OTRS volunteer so the response can be ticketed. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am missing the reference to who exactly said that Jew is the only name of a people that can be used both in a derogatory and praising manner, depending on how you pronounce it. For some reason British Jew sounds quite offensive to me. Or is that just my imagination playing tricks again? ... No, definitely offensive. Maybe it is the fact that the guy did not win the Nobel Prize yet, and has too many enemies who would want to use Wikipedia in improper ways. Or maybe it is the font I am using. At any rate, offensive. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I call myself a British Jew, so obviously I don't find it offensive. I don't call myself a "Jewish Brit": first, because I don't actually like or use the term "Brit", and secondly because I see the word "Jewish" as an adjective describing how I behave. I don't observe any Jewish religious practices; Jew is a description of my ethnic and cultural heritage and upbringing. But both my view, and Ysaniv's above, are subjective, and cannot take precedence over reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Brit, sounds a bit better to me, but it's British, so I guess it's an WP:ENGVAR thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here. For some reason Jewish Brit sounds like you like the guy. But what would I know, being not really a Brit nor a Jew. Anyone care to call me a Jew to my face? We are already in AN/I, we really won't have to walk far. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the word "Jew" in itself should be a putdown is offensive to many Jews and non-Jews. On the other hand, few people would disagree that "Jew lawyer" is a putdown, while "Jewish lawyer" is not. Such is the legacy of a long history of anti-semitism. --JN466 10:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Atheist Jew. Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me? :) Seriously now, unless someone declares himself or herself to be of a particular faith or race, Wikipedia has no business reporting on such matters. And that my friends, is as clear as the fact that there is order in the universe, regardless of what name we give it. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The term I see sometimes is secular Jew.[77]. As far as the insistence on self-identification, I don't think that helps the subject or our readers. Unless the matter is actually contentious, it's fine to go by good secondary sources just like for anything else, rather than demanding first-person attestation. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, unlike the Count the way you pronounce secular Jew is offensive, as I do not recall stateing a faith or a race. Therefore, I would like to ask you, 66.127.54.117, with all due respect: Were you talking to me? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Since 66.127.54.117 is not reponding I would like to ask that his comment and my response to it be revdeleted. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Secular Jew" is the term I've heard for what Count Iblis proposed calling "atheist Jew". I gave a link to an article using it, that I don't think was supposed to be offensive. That part was remarking on the earlier between you and Count Iblis, giving an existing recognized term as an alternative to Count Iblis's suggestion. The part about self-identification was addressed mostly to you. I don't agree with you that "unless someone declares himself or herself... Wikipedia has no business reporting on such matters". Self-identification is a good way to resolve cases where there's doubt or contention, but generally if we have secondary sourcing documenting the relevance of something, then we should use it. It would be silly for WP to refuse to describe Barack Obama as African-American if we couldn't source it to him directly, since it's of enormous relevance to understanding current US politics and it's covered by massive amounts of other sourcing. We would look for a self-identification if there were conflicting reliable sources arguing that his name was originally O'Bama and his background was actually Irish rather than African, and we weren't sure what to do.

By traditional Wikipedia practices, secondary sources are actually preferable to self-identification since we are supposed to use sources independent of the subject, but for something like this I can understand treating it a bit differently.

FWIW, I do not understand what it is that Yaniv256 is finding offensive. If there is something, maybe someone else could explain it to me. My impression is that Yaniv256 is being unnecessarily combative, but maybe I made some kind of faux pas unintentionally. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No harm done. For the record, I was not referring to you would have been just fine. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I subscribe to the faith of Woody Allen, Kenneth Arrow, Isaac Asimov, Bob Dylan, Albert Einstein, Paul Erdős, Sigmund Freud, Milton Friedman, Stephen Jay Gould, Karl Marks, Itzhak Perlman, George Soros and Jesus. Do you really think that little box of yours fits them in any way, shape, or form? →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 17:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I am here, AND am a mature Jewish widow (though childless and still of child-bearing age), I feel compelled to mention that I am very curious about this peculiar emphasis in Wikipedia biographical articles. It is almost as though there is the following logic:

IF (JEWISH = TRUE) THEN (STATE EXPLICITLY) ELSE (STATE NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION)

I recall occasional mention of individuals who are described as "Roman Catholic". I don't recall any biographies mentioning those of the Protestant persuasion though. Nor do I recall any biographies of individuals who are designated as Muslim. I recall reading the biographies of Emanuel Derman and Nissim Taleb. Derman is described as Jewish from the very beginning of the article, but nothing about Taleb's faith or lack thereof is mentioned. Neither are notable because of religious affiliation. Both are notable in the field of quantitative finance, and Derman in particle physics as well. This has nothing to do with Judaism.

Since I am here, I thought that I'd mention that my introduction to contributing to Wikipedia included my perusal of an incredibly lengthy discussion regarding whether or not Dmitri Mendelyeev was the equivalent of a Russian Morano, I guess the term is "crypto-Jew". It was absurd, given that some of the basis for this was someone's idea that "Mendel" was a Jewish name (and sure enough, that started a branch debate about whether Gregor Mendel, who was a monk I think, was ALSO a crypto-Jew)! Why is there this obsessive interest in categorizing all humanity as Jew or NOT-Jew on Wikipedia? It is creepy. (Meanwhile, the page about pogroms says that the word "pogrom" should not be associated with Jews, that there are pogroms in Africa too. Pogrom is a word with etymological and recent meaning in the context of Jews being hunted down in a very specific part of the world that was NOT on the continent of Africa!)

Okay, I think I have said enough for now. I digress. The British Jews matter is separate, and pertains to a particular article. There are certainly British Jewish people, versus the specific subject of that article. My little diatribe of ire is directed at biographical content on Wikipedia in general. I think it is a relevant concern, regardless of this ethnic or religious Jewish consideration. Other religions do not receive this sort of scrutiny. While I like to know who is Jewish and who is not, for (probably obvious) purposes of my own, I find the sort of coverage provided by Wikipedia to be somewhat unsettling, not the least of which is due to the fact that it is done inconsistently. --FeralOink (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, FeralOink, there is an ongoing slow edit war at George Galloway over whether he should be listed as a Muslim or a Catholic, or whether no religion should be listed. Interestingly, in that case too the people insistent on describing him as a Muslim seem to be split between Islamophobes who think this is an insult to Galloway, and Muslims who think this shows the appeal of their faith. Parallels to this debate -- and with some of the same participants, too! RolandR (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Classic. Yes, this thread is a symptom of the bigger scandal of simplistic, declarative, prescriptive categorisation, including all categorisation on this project, not just categorisation of people. But we may need to begin by addressing this aspect of the problem. I would like to see a loose and open discussion somewhere - ideally an RfC - on the obvious controversy surrounding the categorisation of people. I suggest we all follow Jayen's links to the who's a Jew app. That scandal is affected by many of the same ethical dilemmas as this one. We will learn what we can from any lessons there. I'm thinking we should approach the company and ask to elaborate on the reasoning and philosophy behind their decision to dump the app. They're not fools, and we should at least expose ourselves to their perspective. Whether we collate and publish lists of who's a Jew/gay/gypsy, and who we include are significant ethical questions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you FeralOink for your comments - it is good to see the view of those from those not already involved in the mud-pie-slinging 'debate', and your thoughts on the subject are very much mine. As RolandR indicates, there are examples beyond Judaism/Jewish ethnicity where a similar problem occurs, and our George Galloway article is a case in point. However, with regard to your 'logic', I've seen statistics from elsewhere that appear to demonstrate this explicitly, though I'll have to see if I can find the original source. It is certainly the case that membership of ethnic or religious minorities in general is commented on in Wikipedia more often than membership of 'the majority' - though that is a failing of society as much as of this project, and one that tends to be mirrored in external reliable sources (though sadly if it isn't, there seems sometimes to be a tendency to look for unreliable ones, just to apply the label...)

Regarding our 'Pogrom' article, I'm glad to say that it currently seems to make clear that Jews that were almost always the victims: "A pogrom (Russian: погро́м) was a violent riot against Jews, condoned by law enforcement, in the 19th- and early 20th- century in the Russian Empire, characterized by killings and destruction of Jewish homes and properties, businesses, and religious centers. The term has been subsequently extended to refer to certain similar attacks against Jews in other times and places, and to certain attacks against other ethnic or religious groups". I suspect that an earlier version may have been substantially less clear on this point. Such articles tend to attract contributors with strong opinions, not to mention the occasional kook and the regrettably far-to-common political extremist engaging in 'historical revisionism' of the most obnoxious kind. Cool heads not out to promote an agenda of their own keeping an eye on content seems to be the only way around this.

This actually goes to the heart of the problem. Contentious Wikipedia articles relating to ethnicity and to faith are perpetual battlegrounds, and as such deter the 'cool heads' from contributing - it gets left to the POV-pushers (of multiple persuasions) and a few stubborn defenders of Wikipedia policy on neutrality to fight it out. Sometimes, in spite of what goes on behind the scenes, a half-decent article can emerge, but in the process it drains the less-ideologically-driven contributors of their will to continue (or even their will to live ;-) ) and causes far to much friction on noticeboards like this one, and elsewhere in Wikipedialand. As for any way to prevent this happening without a fundamental rethink about how Wikipedia is created and maintained, I've yet to see one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Jew or not Jew? app withdrawn by Apple after French court case

Editors may be interested in a recent Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/24/jew-or-not-jew-iphone-app_n_1111730.html

PARIS -- French anti-racism groups dropped a lawsuit Thursday against Apple Inc. over an iPhone app called "Jew or not Jew?" after it was removed from circulation worldwide. [...] SOS Racisme, MRAP, the Union of Jewish Students of France and a group called J'accuse joined in a lawsuit against Apple, arguing that the app violated France's strict laws banning the compiling of people's personal details without their consent. Under the French penal code, stocking personal details including race, sexuality, political leanings or religious affiliation is punishable by five-year prison sentences and fines of up to euro300,000 ($411,000).

There is currently a discussion on the wikien-l mailing list whether or not this could be a problem for French Wikimedians and French Wikipedia. --JN466 10:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not very clear what you're getting at, Jayen. Are you suggesting that the iPhone app is similar to Wikipedia in some way? Or is that you think putting personal information about someone in their article breaches French data protection law? Both of those sound pretty unlikely to me. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that what Jayen is pointing out is that a certain number of editors go around "ethno-tagging" people who do not self-identify as a Fooian, in particular concerning Jews because (from my limited understanding acquired by being involved in wrangling/debates over this) apparently someone is Jewish (ethnically I believe) if one of their parents, or mother is, so they are definitely Jewish (religiously as well), even if they have publicly stated that they are atheists and do not practise etc. etc., and they still get catted as "Jews/Fooians" against their wishes IMHO - see Wikipedia:CAT/R (A Nobel prize-winning scientist who clearly stated that he was not religiously Jewish (name escapes me) is still catted and on the list of Jewish Nobel prize winners for example.) And this is akin to what the Apple app was doing, compiling people's personal (religious/ethnic) affiliations without their consent (or necessarily their agreement). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Feynman? RolandR (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the one, cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Niels Bohr as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I get the background. I guess what I would ask is how is the app similar to Wikipedia? Or, how, precisely, might Wikipedia be in breach of French law? Formerip (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It may not be a problem confined solely to French law, either. EU contributors in general might have to consider whether the more blatant forms of google-mining-for-the-purposes-of-ethnotagging might possibly fall within the scope of the EU Data Protection Directive and related national legislation (i.e. the Data Protection Act in the UK). I'm no lawyer etc, etc, but it seems possible that these laws may be a factor too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I sense over-excitement. These links may be helpful: [78] [79]

European Data Protection law may well apply to checkuser though, in case anyone is stuck for something to whine about at the moment. Formerip (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd not assume that Google-mining to add another entry to a 'List of Xish Ys' would necessarily be seen as "publication... of any journalistic, literary or artistic material". It looks to me more like compiling a list of Xish Ys - which is to say "processing of personal data" as described in the EU Data Protection Directive. [80]. As for your second link, I fail to see its relevance to the present discussion. It is taken as read that we are referring to material already published. The question is to what extent can such material be 'mined' for the purpose of compiling structured lists concerning ethnicity etc. At this point, maybe we do need legal advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No we don't. You go get some if you like. EU Directives don't directly confer rights to individuals, so we are just looking at national law on a country-by-country basis. For the UK, at least, there's no question to be answered about "mining" data, whatever that means that's different from collecting it. That's what the second link shows. A website that republishes people's personal data (presumably in a structured way - I don't imagine anyone set up a website just to publish this one woman's details, and the site is described as a "directory website") such as home address is not in breach of the Act. So there's no way that a website that republishes the information that actor Luke Cohen is Jewish can be in breach. If it were normal WP practice to get the information by ringing round synagogues, then there would be a data protection issue. Formerip (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I've written previously. The UK Data Protection Act (1988) which you previously linked provides an exemption for "processing... undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material...". If compiling a list of Xish Ys for the sole purpose of publishing a list of Xish Ys is self-evidently 'journalism', the entire point of the Act is null and void. In my humble not-a-lawyer opinion. I'm not talking about putting reliably sourced and relevant information into journalistic articles. The Act exempts journalism. Does it exempt collecting data for the purpose of compiling lists that are intended for publication? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. The second link again. The site talked about is a database of people's addresses and other personal details. Just random people. It may be a massive state-sponsored invasion of privacy, but it's legal. Formerip (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The database in question is the electoral register - names and addresses. It doesn't list ethnicity, or sexual preferences, or other personal details. Get your facts right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh for Jesus's fuck's sake. Email casework at ico dot gsi dot gov dot uk and ask them to burst your bubble gently. Formerip (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Formerip seems to have blown a fuse, I'll point out the ICO's webpage on the UK Electoral Register: [81]. Firstly, it notes that the information on the register relates to "name, address, nationality and age". Nothing whatsoever about ethnicity, faith or sexuality - the topics of significance here. Secondly, there are two versions of the register. Listing on the first, 'full' version is compulsory, but "It is a crime for anyone who has a copy of the full register to pass information from this register onto others if they do not have a lawful reason to see it". There is also a second 'edited' register from which it is possible to opt out - this is the one which is sold. Anyway, this is entirely beside the point. The Data Protection act makes explicit provisions for "Sensitive personal data" including "the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject", "his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature" and "his sexual life" amongst other things, and I see no reason to assume that claiming to be a journalist while adding such material to a database (which is what adding individuals to a Wikipedia 'list of Xish Ys' involves) would necessarily be seen as an adequate defence. Hence my suggestion that we may need legal advice, rather than the opinions of those who aren't actually qualified to say. Incidentally, does anyone know which particular French legislation led to Apple withdrawing their app? Was it the French enactment of the EU DAta Protection Directive? If so, it may be of significance to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely too fucking right we don't need the opinions of those who aren't actually qualified to say. That's why I've given you the email address so you can get the legal advice you're after. It's a dedicated email helpline for public enquiries about the legislation. What are you waiting for? Formerip (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are suggesting I should ask for legal advice on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation? I don't need legal advice for myself (or at least I hope I don't) - I'm not using Wikipedia for the purposes of constructing ethnicity databases. Others are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside from any legal uncertainty, I think there is just something imprudent and impudent about publishing lists of people we deem to be Jews, gays and gypsies. I have no problem with nuanced descriptions of a person's faith and heritage forming part of a BLP where it is relevant, but labeling them in an infobox or categorising them as simply "Jew" is ambiguous and often misleading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a specifically French law. The LGBT category's deletion discussion in the French Wikipedia, conducted in 2005, cited Loi n° 78-17 du 6 Janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, in particular article 8 thereof. I suspect this was the one under which the French Apple lawsuit was filed (note the mention of a €300,000 maximum fine in both the HuffPo article and in Article 47 of the law). JN466 09:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out the French Wikipedia does not use Jew or LGBT cats at all, nor infobox statements neither. I quite like it. :)) JN466 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point from Jayen, as the LGBT catting tends to be very polemical to say the least, with similar slanging matches and hissy fits going on at certain articles where people's sexuality is THE big issue. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, in reply to your question above, no it's not the EU Data Protection thingy, read the Huff Post article, it explains it. Basically, here in France they are not even allowed to determine your religion and ethnicity for the national census, this is supposedly to avoid the possible racist exploitation of such information but paradoxically gives rise to right-wing politicians claiming that 85% of France's prison population are black or Arab (with absolutely no possible base upon which to found such statements apart from "heard it from the prison warders"). Also, as there are no statistics available, it is very easy for the true French to believe they are being overrun by hordes of saracens from their former colonies, and certain elements of the media pander to these fears, as does the Front National which scored a quite disturbing 18% in the recent French presidential elections. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons. There is definitely a controversy here, but I think it needs wider input. I've never opened an RfC before. I hope this is OK. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Scottish football clubs and content related to The Troubles

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719 § A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again

Uncool editing at Celtic F.C.

Ricky072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently added and then, after I removed it, restored with an edit-summary mentioning ZOMG censorship some controversial material relating to fans of Celtic F.C., sourced only to The Sun and a photo published by a self-styled Ultras' blog. He has since bolstered his argument with a link to a YouTube video. As I have edited the article extensively, could an uninvolved admin possibly educate this relatively new Wikipedian, who only edits in relation to Glasgow's two football clubs, on the finer points of WP:RS and WP:EDITWAR, etc? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He reverted your revert once and added an additional source (albeit not a good one), so its not really editwarring, although as this is IRA related, he probably needs to be aware (and doesnt know) that there is a 1RR regarding many troubles related matters so needs to be careful. Youtube is not a reliable source, however, im surprised this is deemed serious enough to raise here when it has been widely reported and is known to be the case. How about this source [82], a daily mail article talking about the police warning Celtic fans regarding IRA chanting? or the Guardian if tabloids are unacceptable [83] BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

the Independent, UTV, Telegraph, and i could find numerous other clearly reliable sources that back up the part about IRA chants. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian source is a decent one and, as I said to the user, I would support a talk page discussion towards adding something based from better sources. I cannot support the sort of hostility the user typically engages in, as exemplified more by the edit summary than the revert itself, though the revert is somewhat worrying when the user was blocked for 3RR only a few weeks ago and has received multiple warnings since. As I said, I am not looking for enforcement at this stage, but more of a word to the wise about sourcing, wikiquette and such matters. If this was accompanied by a friendly notification that further conduct like this would be likely to lead to a loss of privileges I would not complain, and neither I think could the user.--John (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a word to the wise about canvassing? Nobody Ent 19:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

john is to involved with the edits of the article/articles in questions as a admin he should be stepping aside and letting someone else look at it dependently and neutrally, i think ricky isnt being constitutive however i think john in his approach isnt helping either, im surprise john appears to have canvassed as a adminAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Nobody Ent to read over WP:CANVASS and state which part he thinks my single neutrally worded notification contravenes. Thus far, there has been no response. --John (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how posting a single discussion on the noticeboard which has possibly the most diverse group of frequenters on the project could possibly be construed as canvassing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

basalisk you are clearly unable to read but john posted on admin bwilkins user talk page asking him to take a look at this for him that is canvassing to me, but hey i am sure another wikipedia policies will be used to justify it, personally i dnt care as the user in question is basically breaking the rules but john isnt helping in my mind with his attuide towards itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. And asking an admin "Hey, please take a look" is not canvassing. Asking an admin "Hey, please come decide this in my favor" is canvassing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Ricky's editing has now reached a disruptive level. He has been warned and blocked by at least 4 admins yet shows no signs of change or even acknowledgemnt of what he may have done wrong. Adam4267 (talk)

I find this report here from John rather unusual, as is the canvassing aspect of his edits. Ricky072 is quite an inexperienced editor and should perhaps take note of what sources should be used and when. Monkeymanman (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It was quite obviously not canvassing. Ricky can only use the "inexperienced" excuse for so long. He has been warned what not to do many, many times and has been blocked aswell. IMO he has shown no signs of even trying to learn how to become a better editor and has argued with anyone that has suggested he is doing anything wrong. Adam4267 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous Topic Ban U-Turn

User:Adam4267 was given a topic ban from editing Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade. The previous discussion is here. He has admitted that he was topic banned here. Now recently he has started re-editting the articles and has been involved in an edit war [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] etc. I believe this has breached his previous sanctions. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that the topic ban was shortened to three months: [89]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I left this message [[90]] on bletheringscot's talk page, which I think is relevant. 220.255.1.156 (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

He deleted it, so here it is:

Hi Blethering Scot. Just my take on the recent goings on at Celtic F.C supporters. I think this is a good example of why there should be stronger sanctions against canvassing on wikipedia. Personally I think Getefane has not been hostile (on this page, which is the only one I can speak of) - far from it, I think his patience is barnstaresque given his edits were deleted on numerous occasions with little or no explanation.

I think the central point is though that both yourself and AndyCrawford came ino this as a result of blatant canvassing [[91]] from adam4267 as far as I can make out. Ironically, andycrawford originally said the edit was "fine and sourced", but anyway, as a result of this canvassing the two of you appeared on this page.

why do you refer to me as andycrawford??? my username is andrewcrawfordAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that as you both work closely with adam4267 on the football pages, where he clearly does a good job, I think you both had a conflict of interest and didn't treat this neutrally. My advice for the future would be don't respond to canvassing.

no offence i only edit Rangers F.C. article i dnt really care about any other football article on wikipedia nor do i work with adam, i have done conversation and arguments with him on the rangers issue nothing else, i have been editing other footballs article related to rangers because of the whole deabte on whether there dead or not i rather not be watchign and having to keep on top of them i rather work on tv shows articlesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case,the reason I intentionally broke the 3RR rule on this page was actually to bring attention to what i thought was some underhand goings on with regard to canvassing, with the end result that adam4267, who has had a topic ban on this page previously, was able to hide behind other editors and didn't need to properly justify his deletions, which I'm sure given his history on this page (i.e. topic ban) was very convenient. All I would ask for is that you're more careful in this regard in future. 220.255.1.152 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.150 (talk)

I have already said what I think of my topic ban here. I stand by that completely. That is all I will say on this. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I will repost what I asked you here. So why are you edit warring on an article that you were topic banned from? Monkeymanman (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My take on the matter - but I'd first like to NB that I get on well with Adam, we help each other out over at the Football WikiProject, so I'm sure certain editors will reject outright what I'm about to say. Adam had a 3 month topic ban in September 2011, and as far as I can see he adhered to it and has become a better editor since. Therefore he is more than welcome to continue to edit the articles in question again. I cannot see him edit warring or breaking 3RR recently, though the conduct of everybody involved on this article has been far from perfect. Is any admin intervention needed now? No. Does everybody need to take a chill pill, step back and use the talk page? Yes. I have added the article to my watchlist and will continue to monitor. Should anybody edit war or break 3RR, I will happily take appropriate action. Oh, and Monkeymanman - it takes two to tango. Why are you edit warring as well? GiantSnowman 14:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1/ yes agreed everyone has behaved badly 2/ if you're going to make accusations, as against monkey man, please can you reference them so the rest of us know what you're on about (and it comes across as more civil 3/ yes it is a problem that you also work closely with adam4267, as it means you're not a neutral party. It would really help if one of his colleagues on the footy project at least pointed out to him where he could improve his behaviour220.255.1.159 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input GS. I agree Adam is a productive editor but he received a years topic ban (reduced to 3 months upon appeal) on this article. I simply stated that I believed his recent editing had breached his previous sanction. As to your last point I agree it takes two to tango as you say. However have you actually looked at the pages recent history? The last time I edited the article was August, 8th and it was to correct blatantly wrong material. I would like you to take your final comment back. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, does it matter if someone breached an expired topic ban? That's why topic bans have expiration dates, and why topic bans aren't always set indefinitely. We ask someone to stay away from a particular area of Wikipedia for a short time in the hopes that they can return to that area later and be productive rather than disruptive. If Adam is engaging in the same behavior that led to the previous topic ban, that's one thing, but violating an expired topic ban isn't a problem at all, because the topic ban no longer exists. -- Atama頭 16:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Monkeymanman - removing factually correct information from an intro (it's referenced later in the article), removing mention of Celtic as the SPL's joint-most successful club, again factually correct, removal of referenced information without comment in the edit summary, same again here. You are pro-Rangers; Adam is pro-Celtic. We get it - you guys ain't mates. Move on. This ANI was completely unncessary. GiantSnowman 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all i suggest the ip proves his claims of canvassing, i am 100 percent sure he cant so im expecting an apology. Also he was reported by me for breaking 3RR which he did and says he did it deliberately, its pretty clear there is no valid reason to include information on a non notable subject against BLP and on a page where it isnt relevant. I asked for the page to be protected as well to allow further discussion and avoid edit warring so what more does he want, this should be closed before it boomerangs back on them especially since the topic ban has long expired. And for the record i get on with Adam as there isn't a reason not to he does a hell of a lot of good work far more than most and whilst he should maybe of explained himself better at times i don't see anything wrong here. And accusing Andrew Crawford of having a conflict of interests is peculiar at best he has virtually no involvement in this whatsoever and i suggest he has been only dragged into this because he happened to agree with us.Blethering Scot 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand on what basis a defence is being launched for the editor in question.

• He has consistently indulged in reverting of content he doesn't like without sufficient justifcation/explanation. There is no ambiguity on this point. Look at the edit history - where are the explanations? Look at the talk page - where are the explanations? Ah but wait a minute, Adam has explained the deletion of at least one section of content... "please read WP:NPF". Yes, that is it (WP:JUSTAPOLICY). Discussions have taken place with other editors such as User:Blethering_Scot, yet throughout, the editor in question, still hitting the revert button, chooses to remain silent. Well not quite...
• This, a blatant act of canvassing through a barely-disguised ad hominen attack on yours truly, a clear breach of WP:NPA with some cheap, childish stereotypes derogating my reputation as a new editor, along the lines of "removing all the negative stuff about Rangers and adding negative stuff about Celtic". Complete nonsense of course, backed up with ZERO examples to support the allegation. I stumbled across the page which allowed me the opportunity to defend myself, though luckily other editors had stepped in on my behalf prior to that.

The issue of whether or not X editor supports Y team is totally irrelevant here GiantSnowman, this is about the breach of fundamental principles: justifying contributions, and respecting other editors.Gefetane (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam's three-month topic ban ended over eight months ago, so there's no way a breach could have happened this month. I see some mild edit warring but nothing much close to 3rr (am I missing something?) and meanwhile, the article page has been protected. This looks mostly like another FC content dispute to me and as such, I'd think it belongs on the article talk page. Hopefully, the editors will learn that the old back and forth mostly winds up as a hopeless waste of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I guess this was flagged up here more in case we do go back to those problems - hopefully we'll start heading in the other direction. I'm struggling to understand bletgeringscot's response. The canvassing, as has been noted several times, was here [[92]].It's all very well saying "it's pretty clear there is no valid reason to include the information" but I disagree and responded, on the talk page, with reasoned arguments referenced to wiki policies why I disagree and got no direct response on the points I raised. you also kept mentioning "going against concencus" when despite the canvassing it was pretty even.

Incidentally, if giant snowman had bothered to look at the edit history he would see the monkey man was about the only person not edit warring, but ce la vie.220.255.1.100 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, adam4267 has now moved onto the Green Brigade removing the reliably sourced information that helped get his previous topic ban, describing it as "fluff" 220.255.1.121 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK. I was ready to close this as [expletive deleted] until I read the last remark--Adam again removed the "poppy protest", and if I remember correctly this was one of the things that led to the topic ban. I have no intention of rebooting this irritating threat full of irritating comments by people who irritate each other, but any subsequent removal of the material should be followed by consequences. I have reverted this edit based in large part on User:John's judicious commentary of 15 March 2011, on the article talk page, in reference to his edit of 13 March--what is good enough for John is good enough for me. It is time to let this go, Adam, or you might find yourself banned again. Another option is for everyone to get topic banned, or slapped around a bit, and the article to be fully protected. Really, this is too much. GiantSnowman, please give red cards all around. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Seriously Drmies, what are you on about. At least read what you are doing before you do it. John's comments aren't in anyway relevant since he wasn't talking about that. Although seeing as he wanted poorly sourced tabloid material removed I'd say - not that I can speak for him - it would be more likely he'd agree the material should be at least trimmed. Adam4267 (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This response is so out there that I have to question your competency. If John wanted it trimmed he would have trimmed it. I'm tempted to say "duh" and make reference to dogs returning to vomit. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What relevance is "poorly sourced tabloid material" to this topic? I'll assume good faith and take it you have actually checked the relevant citations regarding the O'Rourke incident, or the UEFA fine/supporter ban, and realised that neither multiply-attested example comes into that category. So what material is it you refer to and how is it of relevance? Gefetane (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about your edits or Celtic F.C. supporters. Adam4267 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, final point. I raised this ANI because I believed Adam had breached certain conditions of his topic ban (1 year topic ban conditionally reduced to 3 months) by editing the same articles in a similar way. I have not contributed to either since August, 8th. Giant Snowman fair play, I didnt know myself what I contributed to wikipedia 13 months ago but you obviously know better than me. This was actually before Celtic won the league last year so it was factually incorrect at that time. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep insisting i was involved in the canvasing but yet you cant prove it. The only reason i even knew what was going on in the first place was because i saw the reverts back in forth between Gefetane and Adam. I dont have WP:Footy on my watchlist as didn't and have no intention of taking part there ask GS if you want have absolutely no interest in that page what so ever anymore. Gwen there was someone breaking 3RR and that was our ip from singapore he ip hoped so the ip looks different but they geolocate to the same place, he said he did it intentionally and comments on the talk page leads me to believe he thinks users can break 3RR and unless its blatant vandalism then that not the case. Drmies the page is already protected and that should probably be extended for another short whilst to allow this to settle down as i can see two users in particular not letting this go.Blethering Scot 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1RR

Maybe these kind of pages should be restricted to 1RR for all editors? It means that it'd be easier to prevent disruptive editing, and force people to use the talk page. GiantSnowman 08:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Explaining contributions and respecting other editors is as fundamental to wikipedia as it gets I'd presume. If particular editors don't want to follow those simple rules, it is those particular editors to whom repercussions should be directed. I can't see it's anything to do with "these kinds of pages", whatever that means. Gefetane (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the edits to Green Brigade hyperlinked above, I see content that relates to the Irish Republican Army. The edits to Celtic F.C. supporters directly reference The Troubles in the prose. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case already applies. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Good point; in that case lets collate a list of articles that require {{Troubles restriction}} adding to the talk page. GiantSnowman 15:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it is a good point regarding the supporters page, yes the Green Brigade. If its to stretch that thin then clarification should be sought. I suggest that this isn't anything to do with the troubles, its very much a Celtic and Rangers thing. Have a look at Rangers F.C. you will see sectarianism edit warring between a few users, both flared up at exactly the same time. Blethering Scot 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy for the 1RR to cover any page - Rangers and Celtic alike - which is the source of sectarian editing. GiantSnowman 16:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the entire Celtic-Rangers rivalry is nothing more than an extension of WP:TROUBLES at heart (Hell, Vintagekits himself warred over Celtic pages back in the day), it's worth considering formally extending it over the entirety of Old Firm-related topics. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have to if I'm honest. Im not overly bothered but the two are severely linked and given editors are involved in both disputes its a concern. Also i suggest the page protection which is about to expire any minute i think be extended as this isnt anywhere near reaching a consensus and two editors in particular i think are unlikely to leave it alone.Blethering Scot 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think there is anything wrong with a (preferably temporary) 1RR. I think saying it comes under the troubles heading is a bit much. Maybe the sectarianism in Glasgow page would but just because the Green Brigade and Celtic F.C. supporters page mention the IRA hardly means the pages are related to the troubles. It's very much a perifary part of both pages as well. Adam4267 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TROUBLES, like most ArbCom enforcements of the type, is interpreted broadly. The vast majority of contentious editing around Old Firm articles pertains pretty bluntly to either sectarianism or (Northern) Irish nationalism. In terms of how these dramas play out the distinction is academic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Im not overly sure that by definition if totally covers it either but its certainly underline related and can be perceived as linked. Im not sure what else can be done but if im honest the whole things a total embarrassment if anything the Rangers page is actually worse at the moment. The whole thing needs contained and sorted and i think a restriction would help massively in forcing much needed discussion. Blethering Scot 17:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it can apply, however, I would say it's a bad idea. I think a temporary 1RR or full-protection until the edit-warring stops is the best idea. The fact is these pages are generally rarely edited and a lot of the time (particularly for the Celtic & Rangers club pages) the vast majority of edits and disputes take place in the bits which don't relate to the troubles. Although the bits about sectarianism clearly do relate that is a very small part of the article and to restrict editing for a small part which is rarely edited seems like a bad idea to me. Adam4267 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to include all relevant articles. Admins are perfectly capable of differentiating between sectarian-based disruption and normal editing disputes. This is also the case for "normal" Troubles based articles where disputes arise that aren't fuelled by sectarian POV pushing. Yes, we could just put the obvious articles under WP:TROUBLES (Green Brigade, Famine Song etc.) but that seems somewhat pointless. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the problems aren't related to just the obvious ones i agree with black kite and thumperward, better all than selective articles its fairer and largely appropriate and lets face it 1RR forces discussion and in a way highlights the real issues. The sooner the better as far as im concerned the problems are widening and need brought under control my specfic concern relates to the Rangers article.Blethering Scot 19:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

All is certainly better than none. GiantSnowman 09:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Given its clear from here that it should be included in that can it be added to the Rangers and celtic articles where sectarianism is covered now. Because at the moment issues are still arising and these pages are not obviously covered. I don't mind adding the temp but im not an admin so dont know if i can.Blethering Scot 21:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Disciple of Hitler"

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

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we should go around calling people a disciple of Hitler--at least not without quotation marks or other hints of irony. Please see Talk:Nubia#User:Dougweller_and_his_Eurocentric_POV, where Tamsier (talk · contribs) saw fit to use those words to refer to Dougweller (talk · contribs). There's a bit of context here, besides recent edits to Nubia itself (involving a straightforward copyright violation): Dougweller and I have been investigating what initially seemed to be questionable sourcing by Tamsier--see Talk:Saafi people, section "Deleted material on Serer Symbols".

Note: I am not here to file some civility problem; we're past that, I believe. What we are dealing with is longterm disruptive editing, and now a hounding of Dougweller, as the article contributions suggest: Tamsier had never edited Nubia before; Dougweller is the second-most active editor of that article with 17 edits going back to 2008. "Disciple of Hitler" is no accidental insult here: Tamsier is making a case that Dougweller (and me too, I guess) has a Eurocentric agenda--and a Nazist agenda I suppose--and we're taking it out on him.

More context and more history (in this case with me) is found in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bbb23 (Tamsier claims that Bbb is a clone of mine and thus should not be an admin); scroll down to Tamsier's oppose, where the background for Tamsier's unsavory oppose is provided by Kelapstick's comment and links to an ANI case from way back when. At any rate, we are dealing with an editor who may well be rightly praised by some for countering "systemic bias" on Wikipedia (User:FeydHuxtable's comment at the above-linked RfA) but who treats it as a battleground, and seems to have singled out Dougweller especially for some particularly distasteful venom. Why Dougweller saw the need to deny such a ridiculous claim I don't know--I think it is time for a broader forum to air this out. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A little while ago, I warned Tamsier that if they did something similar again, they would simply be indef blocked. However, that should not be interpreted as me thinking the situation is resolved; I only addressed that particularly egregious aspect of the conflict. It would not be stepping on my toes if anyone else felt more action is needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yikes. Okay, I've been involved between these two in the past, working at DRN over Serer Religion, but I didn't see this one coming. There is one policy and one almost-a-policy-guideline that have been violated here. WP:NPA, of course, but also...WP:TPG: Never use headings to attack other users. Possibly WP:AGF, too. Sanctions are in order. What sanctions, I don't know, because I'm too in shock to evaluate what would be fair. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note also - Tamsier does NOT have a clean block log [93] in this area, although the last block was in November 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd also like to link to some rude behavior at Talk:Roog, Talk:Frei_Caneca, User_talk:Tamsier#Tempplate_problem, Talk:List_of_African_words_in_Jamaican_Patois, and Talk:Liber_Ignium. As with Dougweller, he began editing articles (removing sources and adding tags) in my edit history after I appeared on his radar. Eladynnus (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit clash) If my Hitler remark is unsavoury, then I sincerely apologize to Dougweller and take that back, and will cross that out immediately. I should have used more subtle language to express my views, I hate gulgar language anyway for anyone who knows me. That said, we should not delude ourselves to assume systematic bias does not exist in English Wikipedia especially when it concerns African articles. Further, I did not see anyone warning or bringing this user (Eladynnus) to ANI when they called me a liar among other things not just in talk Saafi (see link above) but elsewhere. Doug told them to cross their remark out [94] but they were not warned nor brought to ANI. Considering the fact that two admins were party to that discussion (Dough and Drmies), both of whom I had disagreements with in the past [95], no fuss was made. In talk Saafi, the three of them ganged on me, in the end I just decided to ignore them rather than trying to canvass others for their opinions or waste my time arguing. My examination of Doug's edit has been set out in Nubia talk (see above). The Serer issue has practically been put aside (even the redirection of the Saafi deity Koox to the Seex deity Roog by Drmies because of Eladynnus's say so, who was highly involved), because I have other commitments and practically retired from Wiki. However, I decided to come here and address the double standards of some. One last thing, accuse me of anything else but not using Wiki as a battle ground. If I am not busy writing African related articles, I am busy sourcing them. This is why I cannot understand people who use Wiki as a vehicle for revenge or to be disruptive vandals. I use my Wiki time for the betterment of the project not for silly stuff, and I have no patience for people who try to waste my time when I have other things to attend to. So please accuse me of anything but not disruption or using Wiki as a battle ground. Tamsier (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• • You don't want to be accused of using Wikipedia as a battleground, but you're quite content to accuse your opponents. of using it "as a vehicle for revenge or to be disruptive vandals", without a lick of evidence to support that contention. As long as we're talking about "double standards", you're operating with one right now, and it needs to stop. The good work you do on African articles doesn't give you carte blanche to lash out at people who disagree with you over specific cases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Most of this I'm not going to touch, but I would like to note that "liar" is less offensive (to me, at least) than "Nazi." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Who does not realize that "Nazi" is offensive? But, as I marked above, it's not even that particular insult I'm concerned with. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've invited Tamsier to report me to anyone he wished if he thought my comments were against Wikipedia's policy, and he has yet to do so. Note also that I haven't crossed paths with Drmies recently except here and on the Saafi talk page and certainly didn't ask him to merge the Roog article.Eladynnus (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• (multiple e-c) "If my Hitler remark is unsavoury" (emphasis added)? It is hard to believe any rational adult could ever even consider it reasonable to use the word "if" in this context. I believe the above backpedalling is too little, too late. No competent editor would have used such grossly inflammatory language in the first place. The above accusation of "double standards" is equally amusing, as no one seems to have accused Tamsier of anything of the type. There seems to be to be little if any doubt that there are grounds for some sort of sanction as per Floquenbeam above. The suggestion of an indefinite block seems to me to be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• That's a subjective opinion, but I don't remember using the word Nazi. If I did, please point me where? @ Eladynnus are you sure about that? [96] , [97]. Tamsier (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tamsier, "I didn't call him a Nazi, I called him a disciple of Hitler" is like saying "I didn't call him a Nazi, I called him a member of the German National Socialist party." You have completely fucked up here, and your best chance of getting out of the trouble you've put yourself in would be an honest apology to Dougweller for insulting him and avoiding any further contact with him. It's pretty clear you're hounding him, and Helen Keller could see that you made a personal attack on him. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please don't be disingenuous, the only meaning that can reasonably be drawn from "Disciple of Hitler" is "Nazi", and, in fact, it would appear to have been chosen specifically to be able to say "Where did I use 'Nazi'" Such attempts at obfuscation will not protect you from your actions, as (generally speaking) folks are a lot more sensible around here and can't be led by the nose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also this edit summary from the editor too: [98]: " Eurocentric POV. Friends of Hitler also here?". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's be plain: Tamsier, this is utterly unacceptable and I'm trying to find a good reason why you shouldn't be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, based on recent behaviour and the past blocks, I see no reason why this editor should not be blocked. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit clash) I have striked out the comment I have made (see Nubia talk) and my sincere apologies to Doug regardless of our differences in opinion. I have no problem apologising for my deeds as I have apologise to Drmies before without being forced, but decided to do so because I felt it was the right thing to do. In spite of our differences, I hope Drmies can attest to that. I will offer my apology to Doug on his talk page. Whatever happens here, I think it is the right thing to do. Tamsier (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To my opinion, the remark is totally unnecessary and totally disgusting, so a block is warranted. And a big one too due to the multiple bloch for incivility, editwarring and harassing in the past. The Banner _talk 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If the editor was called a liar and two admins just said "tsk, tsk" to the slanderer, of course the person so slandered is going to behave offensively. Why was Eladynnus not blocked when they refused to strike their uncivil comment? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

But I did! [99] Eladynnus (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Self- --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Eldynnus appears to have striked it out. But, without looking at the specific circumstances, I think what someone else has done is besides the point. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• What's left is "[Dougweller,] whose mission is to delete or tag all Black African related subjects. Believe it or not, he is an administrator." The first part is a blatant--OK, a blatant thing that is not true and the editor knows it. The second part is a sneer. If one wonders where Eladynnus's now-struck (after Dougweller asked them to do so) "liar" comes from, it's the bigger problem that we were dealing with: an important set of statements added to a number of articles by Tamsier was not verified in the source. I did not start this thread for a simple insult, but for a pattern of disruptive behavior. Ownership is part of it, hounding (or stalking) is another: a simple question--how did Tamsier get to Nubia? Answer: Dougweller was there. What did Tamsier revert that prompted the offensive remark? Answer: A removal of copyrighted material, and that (as far as I can tell) Dougweller thought it was a paraphrase of copyrighted material, whereas I found it was verbatim plagiarism from another source is beside the point: Dougweller made a good-faith revert and explained his reasons in an edit summary, which was followed by Tamsier's knee-jerk "Nazi you delete Black peoples' articles" response. That should be indicative of something more than just a passing insult. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• A block for his recent remarks and a broader sanction for the broader problem are not mutually exclusive. However, I agree that the broader problem should not be derailed because of the more egregious recent comments. It sounds like you're suggesting a possible topic ban on African articles and an interaction ban with Doug, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm in complete support of a block, but if no uninvolved admin feels that is reasonable, then this discussion should end in an interaction ban on Tamsier's end. What I propose is that Tamsier may not initiate discussion with Doug, though Doug (having done nothing wrong) may comment, question, or otherwise initiate discussion about Tamsier's actions, to which Tamsier may civilly respond within reason (but no further). Should Tamsier violate this by badmouthing or hounding Dougweller, Tamsier will be indefinitely blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And I certainly am in favor of some degree of blocking, although I'm not sure whether the above is for an indefinite block, or a shorter one. I and at least Floquenbeam above have already proposed or supported an indefinite block/ban. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I should probably let this go, as "clarifying" may do more harm than good, and is probably emphasizing an unimportant detail. But, to clarify: I didn't say above that I supported an indef block. I said that I had no real opinion on that, and if others thought more action was necessary, they shouldn't interpret my warning to Tamsier as evidence that I thought nothing more was necessary. Feel free to argue for further action, but don't do it "per Floquenbeam". I haven't looked at their entire contributions to have an opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are implying that the great and powerful Oz here could ever make a mistake. I have however struck that material from the above comments. I do still think that there is good cause for at least some significant length of block, and I have to shut up now because the freaking sky is raining trout, or is that trouts? John Carter (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin comment on block in response to Ian.thomson. I personally don't feel a block is reasonable anymore. Perhaps right after the comment but with Tamsier striking the comments and with his participation here, I think continued discussion would be better than a block. Non-admin opinion on topic ban: I also think a topic ban is unreasonable. Many folks have said that Tamsier has made huge contributions to articles related to Africa. I think a stern warning against battleground behavior, especially calling folks Nazis, which will result in a no-shorter than 3 day block on the next offense is better.--v/r - TP 01:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the point is of an interaction ban either. TParis, Tamsier struck one part of a larger insult; as I noted above, there's plenty left. I don't know who the "many folks" are: I named one, but if those huge contributions are made with questionable sources (so far there is little evidence that a key piece of evidence actually exists--see, as I mentioned before, Talk:Saafi people) and at the price of antagonizing and hounding editors like Dougweller (you've not commented on the hounding), then I'd like to know what the balance is. "Continued discussion" is nice, indeed, but note the "discussion" here: first, Tamsier argues that "disciple of Hitler" does not mean the same thing as "Nazi", and then sloooowly finds out that calling someone that might actually cause offense, and then apologizes (addressing only the Hitler part--not the other insults or the hounding). And this editor, who has made such huge contributions, gets away with calling someone a disciple of Hitler, a Eurocentric POV pusher, a deletor of Black peoples' articles, because that someone is trying to clean up a copyright violation? From someone with huge contributions one might expect better common sense, manners, and knowledge of policy and guidelines.

    I'm waiting to see what our Interlibrary Loan department has to say on the contentious article (again, Talk:Saafi people). If it turns out that the article does not exist I want at least a topic ban for Tamsier. If it turns out that Tamsier continues hounding Dougweller, or others he suspects have some sort of racist agenda, then I think you all know what needs to be done. And I really wish that the larger issues were addressed more. Did someone say "Peace, chewet, peace"? Very well. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Perhaps mentorship might be in order. Tamsier needs to learn to handle disputes without getting emotionally charged and going after other editors. A bit of mentorship might address that.--v/r - TP 02:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Tamsier's contributions have been huge in a quantitative sense but his evasive action regarding citations and his ownership attitude toward articles remain problems. If you read his comments here and his apology to dougweller you'll see that he has *only* addressed the Hitler issue and made complaints about being attacked. He has a temper and if you read some of those talk pages that I linked to you'll see how rude he can get. Where is my apology for comments like "you don't edit you vandalize" or "I am so sorry you lack the capacity to read" or "First, learn to spell "Tempplate" (template) properly" or "don't address me again until you have learn to communicate properly"? (e-c, btw)Eladynnus (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Tamsier has placed a "Retired" tag on his talk page [100]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that, if he isn't disciplined now, Tamsier won't be back in a few weeks or months, continuing his current behavior, and anyway he has already promised that his retirement will not be a strict one: " I was thinking of semi-retiring due to personal commitments but will drop by from time to time because I don't trust your "edits"." Eladynnus (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Are his scare quotes on "edits" supposed to mean something like "vandalism (but I don't want to call it that outright because I'll get into more hot water")? Given the past, it seems more than likely that he'll be back, with the same behavior, and may even get another pass if he gets in trouble again, as he's apparently done twice recently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

One more reason that we really should have a user:RetirementEnforcerBot which periodically checks for editors using {{retired}} and indefinitely blocks them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's my concern also. First let me say that after some rambling comments at Talk:Nubia I went to bed, realised I'd not said anything here at all, got up, replied to Anthonyhcole saying that the 'liar' bit I'd told the editor to strike out had been stricken and that I'd reply tomorrow(today), went back to bed, and of course as typical discovered an edit conflict this morning. Back to the subject at hand. Tamsier left a gracious apology on my talk page about the Hitler thing, but that didn't deal with his calls to have me desysopped or statement at Talk:Nubia that the reason I removed the copyvio wasn't that it was copyvio but that I wanted to remove the phrase ""black civilizations" (a phrase ironically then described as racist by another editor). This and other comments appear to be an implication that I'm a racist (although I suspect the issue here is more that I am definitely not Afro-centric). I first encountered Tamsier when I ran into an edit of his at, I believe, Reincarnation although it might have been History of writing, where I found some claims stated as fact that were clearly interpretations. I posted my concerns to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Serer as these were mainly archaeological issues. I also then discussed them briefly with him at User talk:Tamsier#Discussion at Wikiproject archaeology and it appeared that he took my point about not presenting interpretations as fact. I still wasn't happy about some of the claims made in various Serer related articles but life's too short and they were too many. Long story short now, I later realised that he was using a fringe site as a source and after some argument managed to get that deleted. We went round the houses at DRN and elsewhere, especially after he simply removed the fringe source but left another source in. Several other 'discussions' - characterised by his calling me or other editors names, saying he's being bullied/hounded, calling for me to be desysopped, and then backing down. He even accused me not adding sources to articles citing my 2nd or 3rd article edit ever (where I had a source but had failed to add it), and a recent one where a known problem caused my source to appear at the top of the section). Some editors might have simply backed down because of all of this and/or felt reluctant to look at other articles of his despite the problems already shown, particularly after the charges of editors ganging up on him, bullying and hounding. Whether that was intent or if he simply can't keep himself in check I don't know. But it's part of a pattern that he's shown in the past, see his block log. His template now says retired. Maybe this is so, only time will tell but I'm not optimistic as he has spent so much time here he may not find it easy to keep away. We've got a lot of articles we wouldn't have otherwise, although I suspect there may not be as good as they might be and may have some problems if the one's I've looked at are an example. I doubt that this is over. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he called me a vandal outright in the previous sentence (you are poor "editor", POV Pusher, disruptive and a vandal.), but his main "thing" has been to go to the handful of articles I've created and criticize them for not having enough sources. He is really emphatic about the importance of having lots of sources and links for articles, and I think in his eyes the quantity of sources directly increases the quality of the article, hence the cut and pasted bibliographies in all the Serer articles and his habit of doing stuff like this. Eladynnus (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That long list of Serer articles in 'see also' is ridiculous, since that's why he created the template. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The stated reason for Tamsier's last block (November 2011) was "Disruptive editing: including harassment, edit warring, incivility." That still seems to be an apt description for the problems he creates. Nine months after the last block we are seeing no improvement in his conduct. Tamsier has strong views about article content and will tolerate no disagreement with his own thinking. We should now be considering an indef block, with a right of appeal in a reasonable time like six months. EdJohnston (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Tamsier has displayed the same "faults" he sees in others, a cultural bias, and the attacks are completely unacceptable. That he didn't (and likely doesn't) understand the offensiveness of his comment, and only struck it under the threat of blocking further demonstrates his bias and inability to work collaboratively here. This isn't an incident, this is a pattern of intolerance that is inconsistent with our methods and goals. The only reason I haven't already blocked is due to the concerns of TParis, whom I respect but fear may be too accepting of his overly limited striking and half hearted apology, and perhaps a reconsideration is due. That he is has "retired" looks more of a method for avoiding scrutiny than a sincere decision. Allow me to simply add my name to the "me too" list for blocking, and will support what appears to be a consensus for some type of strong preventative action here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't base any judgements on me. I'm in the middle of an experiment on civility to try different approaches to enforcement. I'm trying to avoid blocks myself. But feel free to do as you want.--v/r - TP 14:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've tried very hard to be patient with him and have been tempted to take him here before this occasion. I've tried to balance his behaviour with his work. But given this last outburst and his only partial apology and that after much of the above criticism he received, I don't see him as a net bonus to Wikipedia, and I see his behaviour as pushing people away from articles he seems to regard as his. I'm also concerned about the content of those articles. I've mentioned some of my concerns above. There's another problem. He's admitted that he isn't that proficient in French, and his major source and some of his other sources are French. And this seems to be a problem for him. I was looking at Serer ancient history and wondering why there was a link to the 2nd century Bishop Irenus. I found the source in pdf form on Google, and clicked translate. And there it was, the word 'Irenus'. Googled for that and found frighteningly many mentions from this article, but that was all except of course for the bishop. So I searched the pdf - Google goofed, the word was 'venus' and that of course changed the meaning entirely (see Talk:Serer ancient history where I go into detail on this). It was clearly nonsense before, but Tamsier didn't recognise that. I found that quickly, but if there are any French speakers around with a fascination for the Serer, there's a nice job here for them. :-) It's this sort of thing - translation problems, sourcing problems, pov editing etc that lead me to say now he's not benefiting the project. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that a final warning is the least that personal attacks of that nature would require. My one concern with leaving it there is the rationalization we see here. If calling somebody a "Disciple of Hitler" is not as bad as/the same as calling them a Nazi, where will he perceive the line? What level of insult is "okay"? I worry that he will wikilawyer his way around the specific warning he received. If we decide to try mentorship, I think it would be a good idea to make clear to him that toning it down "a notch" is not an acceptable alternative. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This. Tamsier doesn't need to tone it down a notch. Tamsier needs to tone it down four or five notches. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• In all of my time here, I have encountered few editors as infuriatingly frustrating as Tamsier, who has the unique knack of wilfully driving himself deep under the skin of other editors with all spines bared to attempt to win debates. We crossed paths at Libyan civil war some months ago, and the result wasn't pretty at all. He found the POV of the article to be slanted in an unacceptable way; instead of going about trying to balance it, he drive-by tagged the article and demanded on the talkpage [101] (later ([102]) that others "fix the problems and remove the tags I have added". When asked to maybe try to improve the article himself and not make other editors do his heavy lifting, things got very nasty indeed, and near everybody present (myself included) flew off the handle. My own conduct was particularly reprehensible, and I take full responsibility for it. However, we find that Tamsier acts in a similar manner to that which is described above: from slurring Arabs as "facist [sic]" to declaring that I "should know" about Nazi atrocities because of my German username. He went so far as to try and take the article hostage by blanking the offending section—the only time he interacted directly with the content ([103]). Throughout the discussion debate argument flame-war, he behaved as if he was the "boss" of the article, demanding that us other editors be "more productive" and insisting it was our duty to "fix" the articles (then turning around and crying WP:OWN when we say that he should actually try editing the article before causing a ruckus). All parties involved in that shitfest, I think, tacitly agreed to forget about it, and Tamsier left the building (for new drama, it seems). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I have no opinion on the "disciple of Hitler" comment. Seemed a bit off base, but thats the nature of talk pages sometimes. What I do agree with Tamsier with is the "Eurocentric" editing and POV that many of these articles have come to represent. Not saying that Dougweller is guilty of this, most likely not, but far too many articles have become Eurocentric, despite the fact that most article views originate within the United States. This leads to a majority of articles viewers reading terms, spellings, dates, and other items that are unfamiliar to them. The general editing pattern is that anything that does not directly involve the United States, automatically will use "British English" or an off shoot thereof. Its a general pattern , so there are some articles that do not do this, but there are far too many based on the current article views of each country. So if Tamsier is frustrated with the "Eurocentric" view of Wikipedia, I can definitely sympathize.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think Tamsier has taken up arms about the use of "colour" instead of "color", but ok. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No of course not, but the same logic applies. And of course the arguments over spelling are not new and in my opinion will never go away until a permanently solution is used.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Block. I've had a good read of all of this and have thought hard about it, trying to use as much AGF as I can. But I have to say I think Tamsier is a net negative to the project, and needs to be prevented from editing both for the repeated personal attacks and combative approach, and also for the lack of general competence that Drmies has uncovered - after those examples, everything Tamsier has created must be suspect. There is certainly systemic bias in Wikipedia, but the way to combat that is not by making accusations of racism and bigotry and by incompetently writing from sources in a poorly-understood language. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked for three months (and no objection if anybody wishes to lengthen it). From what I've seen of Tamsier from a distance, on and off, over the last few months, he's been a textbook case of a tendentious editor, so I'm not astonished at all to hear of the things others have noticed of him. Agenda editing, involving poor use of unreliable sources, undue weight and POV issues, coupled with incivility? We don't need that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Being prevented from removing original research

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

---

At the article Byrne I have been attempting to remove the "Byrne clan coat of arms" for which no reliable sources have been provided. The chief herald of Ireland states that there is no such thing as a family coat of arms in Irish heraldry. However, numerous editors insist on preventing me from removing the material despite its being original research. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's got four citations from what appear to be reliable sources on it -- what more do you want? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is a content dispute...this might be taken as WP:FORUMSHOPPING as this is under discussion right now on the article talk page...and I'd note that the IP's comments in edit summaries, such as here and this one, are concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What the Office of the Chief Herald actually says is "There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a ‘family coat of arms’. A grant of arms made to an individual extends to his or her descendants of the name, not to a family as such.", which appears to suggest that a descendent clan of the name Byrne can indeed have a coat of arms. But it's a content dispute and not eligible for this board (and there appears to be a consensus against 89.100.207.51's position) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not (yet) a matter for ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The first source is obviously an online Bucket shop (heraldry) - a business that specializes in selling people the arms of someone they happen to share a surname with, regardless of whether they are entitled to bare them. Bucket shops are the main source of the propagation of the myth that their are family coats of arms in Irish heraldry. As the chief herald of Ireland has stated categorically that there are no family arms in Irish heraldry, how can a source be considered reliable if it disagrees with him? The chief herald is the ultimate arbiter on heraldic matters. If my name were byrne, and I was granted a coat of arms, my descendants would be allowed to bear it. My brother's descendants would not, depite sharing a surname with my descendants. A name does not give you the right to bear arms. Descent from the person to whom they were granted does. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still a content dispute, and still doesn't belong here - go discuss it on the article talk page, and if you get a consensus supporting you, you can remove it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The Foothills Paper does NOT have "unpaid staff"

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

---

The Foothills Paper does NOT have an unpaid staff as the owner/editor David DeMulle has written on The Foothills Paper Wikipedia page. The staff is paid in cash. The Foothills Paper operates at a loss but subscriptions to the paper negate the claim it is non-profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.74.166 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute; not an AN/I matter, you need to discuss it at the article talk page with reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The Foothills Paper has "terminated non-profit status"

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

---

Please update the Wikipedia entry on The Foothills Paper. By it's own declaration (August 10, page 3 edition) "The Foothills Paper has terminated its non-profit status". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.74.166 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposal to close WQA

Of interest to readers of this board since (according to the proposal) "AN/I should be able to handle civility complaints (and it already does)." 28bytes (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Future time stamping to keep active longer... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Recurrent disruptive editor in Reconquista

Can an administrator intervene in Reconquista about this user? It will be much appreciated. Please take a look at the ongoing dispute. Various issues with a disruptive editor edit warring (sometimes even erratic edits), breaking civility rules (not consensual, not contributing, failing to go to talk), tendentiousness, pushing his point of view, unexplained changes, showing defiant attitude, failing to provide reliable resources,... Keeps insisting even after another editor intervened against his disruptive editing. I urge an intervention, really WASTING my time. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Holy moly. Without even studying the full recent history it's clear to me that Provocateur knows a thing or two about decent writing which others don't, as indicated in this revert of their edits, with a rather [...] edit summary. This is not good writing: "Twentieth-century Spanish historiography stressed the existence of a linear phenomenon by which Iberian kingdoms opposed and reconquered the Muslim kingdoms understood as a common enemy." Drmies (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Further evidence that WP:BOOMERANG needs to be cited here is found on the talk page. Provocateur left a lengthy explanation of their edits three days ago, which the plaintiff here didn't see fit to respond tom, and their commentary on Provocateur's talk page claims vandalism has taken place. Plaintiff also calls Provocateur a vandal on User talk:Akerbeltz, and then a moron. "Erratic"--yes, but on the other side. To boomerang it all off, they tell Provocateur to sign their comments and then leave an unsigned ANI notification. Inaki, I suggest you drop your complaint, start playing nice, and realize that, for instance, what the French educational system has to say about the Reconquista (an unverified statement on Roland being taught as historical truth, without dates or context given) has little bearing on the article. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• If Iñaki LL refuses to use the talkpage (other than "I don't have time for this shit") and continues the blanket-reverts, Iñaki LL needs to be topic-banned. It's quite simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  Disagree. Topic bans are for when an editor displays a particular bad behavior only in the context of a particular topic. Iñaki LL is displaying a disdain for the use of talk pages in general in the comment in question. Unless you're referring to the reversion side of it to justify the topic ban? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  I was merely looking at this particular case; if it is indeed a common problem/attitude, then yeah, something else must be done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The distinct sound of a boomerang in the air... Provocateur has a significantly better style of writing that is markedly more encyclopedic than anything that Inaki is reverting to. If anything, Inaki should be learning from Provocateur's style rather than complaining about it. It's remarkable that Provocateur has dealt with Inaki with such patience considering the [104] issues and battleground mentality that Inaki is displaying. Many of Inaki's edit summaries and comments hypocritically parrot the need to "stick to good faith" when they seems to be incapable of doing so. Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• For someone with such a username they are remarkably unprovocative. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  I dunno, they provoke thought and (productive) change... - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have read the comments here, some of them are…, really, are you serious? I am in disbelief, are we talking about the same thing? I have come to look for support against a disruptive editor when I was tired of warning him about basic attitudes in editing, he has gone to Talk only after persistently disrupting, after which I have resorted here rather than dwelling on the same thing again, since he has refused to go to Talk before, preliminary things are to be dealt with first. It is apparent that this is a reactive editor, not building up with his edit, not doing much but rephrase the content others (me) add to put it his own way and sticks to edit warring (e.g. revert edit of his with explanation "all wars are more or less 'ruthless' by definition", as told by himself, well no, sorry) and even altering the content of a reliable source (see edit history), or adding serial small edits, not a collaborative style definitely. Obviously this is not about correcting linguistic style, which I do accept OF COURSE (I have been always well open to such contributions). Granted often his writing style may be better than mine, English is not my first language, ‘continuous’ may be better than ‘linear’, be it so (I think that is anyway the word used by my cited source, can´t confirm it now, the source page is not in the public domain on this date).

After seeing various dubious POV edits (mingled with petty linguistic corrections as I see it), I have preferred to resort here rather than dwell on the same things again on Talk, The individual in question shows an apparent disregard for any editing rule and lack of cooperation. Blackmane, are you being ironic? If any battleground this is his - not adding but 'Christian' everywhere, the 'threat' (to what?), and showing prejudice (Muslims “still threatening”, duration of the Reconquista), not adding any reliable source. He has reverted correct data I had added (“Charlemagne in Narbonne 759”, “Septimania occupied in 719” instead of Narbonne as I had put it, which I seriously doubt), when he had the opportunity to change the phrase ‘and French historiography’ and put instead a correct one, which is ‘Portuguese historiography’ actually, THAT would have been helpful, a contribution. Apparently contributing to the reliability and correctness of the article was not among his concerns.

I urge you consider seriously all these points that haven´t been even mentioned here. By the way, I don´t think I mentioned 'shit' as told above, but he used, ‘French shit’ exactly. The word ‘moron’ was intended to use in a one-to-one informal notification and not meant to be offensive but express my mood, not meant to go public (not used on the talk page or on the editors user page), but I will apologize for it since my purpose is not to be offensive. Besides editing contributions of others, I don´t see how he is adding anything but his point of view ("in good style"), with a handful of linguistic fixes. I could go further on the points above (Drmies, unsigned ANI notification is an anecdote (oversight), I saw Provocateur wasn´t signing and was having all his own way, I don´t think it´s a sin to remind...). Some of the comments above I can´t find them but ironic ("Provoke thought?" Clichés provoke thought?). Sorry, I have contributed for more than 4 years in the Wikipedia, you can check my articles, I can say I am baffled to say the least. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want things to be public, don't say them on-wiki. But that insult is indicative of the problem here: you're wrong and you can't see why. That you confuse the edits by Provocateur as nothing but bias ("his point of view") suggests that writing is not the only problem--reading may be a more important problem. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation by User:173.72.155.84

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

---

I am concerned about User:173.72.155.84. He appears to have graduated from minor vandalism to introcuding hard-to-find factual errors to a major BLP violation. Look at these posts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaycee_Nicole&diff=prev&oldid=501642999 (Not really harmfull, but completely missing the point: the author was in middle school. The fictional character was a senior in high school)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_Clear_Channel_memorandum&diff=prev&oldid=502528138 (Test post)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Man_%28song%29&diff=prev&oldid=502812813 (Vandalism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Redneck_Rampage&diff=prev&oldid=502876562 (Bad grammer - present/past tense mismatch)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merkle%27s_Boner&diff=prev&oldid=502881595 (Feeding the trolls?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Roddenberry&diff=prev&oldid=507405456 (Introducing a hard-to-catch factual error -- Star Trek says "All the different versions in total amount to 726 Star Trek episodes.")

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teller_%28entertainer%29&diff=prev&oldid=508639300 (Removing a category that Teller definitely belongs in)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orson_Scott_Card&diff=prev&oldid=504938988 (BLP violation: Puts Orson Scott Card is Category:LGBT Actors even though he OSC is not an actor and is a practicing Mormon who opposes homosexual behavior and the legalization of same-sex marriage.)

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to discuss this with the user on their talk page and you should have notified them that you were bringing this up here. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought I had done that. Notice sent. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I left a warning on their page. About half their edits are arguable in good faith, the other half aren't. Next vandalism after the warning will result in a block long enough to allow the IP to cycle through to the next customer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I think we can close this now. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Gunter removing reliable sources.

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

---

User: Gunter (talk · contribs · email) Edits: [105], [106]

List of oldest companies has no reliable sources whatsoever, which is especially problematic since most companies on there are also not notable for any other reason and have no Wikipedia page of their own. So today I started adding reliable sources. This immediately was reverted by Gunter, calling it vandalism. I pointed out on the talk page that his removal was against Wikipedia policy and reinstated them, but he removed them again. I can not imagine any reasonable explanation for why he would remove reliable sources.

He earlier claimed that no reliable sources was needed, since you can trust the companies own biased claims. I added two examples of companies falsely claiming earlier dates but this seems to have made no impression on him. He also on the talk page only gainsays everything instead of trying to engage in debate, and claims such nonsense such as that companies would be legally liable of they claim an incorrect date, and apparently refuses to care about Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like a bad case of WP:OWN, combined with a complete inversion of WP:RS. No company should be included on the list based solely on material from their own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I'll give the editor a final warning. It's also a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. GiantSnowman 16:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Of course reliable sources are required. Of course we prefer them to be independent and pass WP:RS rather than from the companies themselves, although primary sourcing from the company is better than no sourcing, if it can be trusted. WP:V and WP:RS explain this. A list is a type of article, and the requirements of sourcing is not waived. If not, why don't I just put the company I work for as the oldest in the world, then update my webpage to say Adam was our first employee? To insist that the company's website is more reliable than independent sourcing flies completely in the face of WP:RS. BTW, the current method of using external linking for each source is a major problem and each needs to be properly cited, instead of using inline linking. The phrase "this must be verifiable on the company's website" in the lede is also problematic as it is also is counter to WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A company is legally liable for misinformation. They are the most reputable source of information for their founding date. To put in extra references to newspaper articles or other webistes, which are probably using the wikipedia list anyway as their source, or just themselves looking at the companies webpage, provides no value at all. Gunter (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong answer. Have a read of WP:PRIMARY - "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." I've issued my final warning, let's hope you get the message. GiantSnowman 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but that is a rather silly statement since all these companies come from different countries which have different laws regarding accountability. And their laws are not our concerns at Wikipedia, WP:V and WP:RS are. This isn't optional Gunter, this is how all article sourcing works. This list is no exception. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• If the only source for this list is company websites (which fail WP:RS), and published sources which base their statements on Wikipedia (likewise failing WP:RS), the list should be deleted as being inherently impossible to source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  Technically, WP:V does require that some of the names be removed if they aren't verifiable. Not sure if the whole list needs to go, but at the very least, someone may need to take a chainsaw to it. I'm guessing that there may be some articles out there talking about old companies as a group, which would be fine for sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I intend to do what I did with List of Knights Templar sites. Go through the list, add sources if I can find them, if I can't, and then remove each entry entry if no source arrives after a couple of months, say three. This site is obviously way bigger, so it will take years and years, I suspect, unless I get help. :-)

With some luck, Gunter might see the light and start looking for sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gunter, per WP:RS self-published sources may only be used for verifying facts about themselves as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Claiming to be the oldest company in a business is both self-serving and exceptional, and as such it has to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. Misinformation may be a legal offense in some jurisdictions but most companies like to brag about themselves, aka advertising. And given this aggressive reply of yours, and your repeated removal of valid sources without a legitimate reason, which amounts to vandalism I see no bright future for your arguments in this thread. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note the appearance of meatpuppet RebeccaH (talk · contribs) who is removing the reference column again. I'm at 3RR and literally leaving for a long weekend within the next hour - I trust y'all to monitor please. GiantSnowman 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like she is removing the column, which is a formatting issue, not exactly the same, although we need someone to simply go through and "fix" this entire article now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  Not exactly, but I've left her a note, and so has GiantSnowman, so hopefully she will understand to not do that now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• A side issue perhaps, but if the world's oldest company was founded in 578, why do we need a list of companies extending to 1851? How is adding a company founded that recently in any way relevant to the supposed list topic? I'd have thought that a 'list of oldest companies by country' with one (independently reliably sourced) entry per country would be sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  That would more likely be an issue for WP:DRN than here, but an interesting point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. The article is overly large and unwieldy. There are a lot of problems (how to identify age in the case of takeovers), so the whole notion is questionable. But I agree with Dennis, these aren't really admin observations.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, Gunter just made it an admin matter again with a claim of "vandalism". Note that I have started trimming based on a clear consensus on the talk page. BTW, this ridiculous whale of an article is making it impossible for me to edit: just getting the diff for that revert of Gunter's took me a minute. There is broad agreement on the talk page to trim, though the parameters aren't clear yet--I think it would be helpful if some uninvolved admin (I've been editing the article) made the obvious even more obvious: Gunter, keep this up and you'll be blocked. You're not helping your case; now is the time to save your article, not to dig in. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I made the point clear on his talk page now. He is out of rope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• And he's now been blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the RebeccaH account indefinitely as an obvious and abusive sockpuppet (meatpuppet, it matters not). Gunter's continuing to edit war, and his bluntly clueless and antagonistic replies to the entirely reasonable entreaties he's received don't suggest to me he's willing to edit in a constructive and collegial way. So I've indef (not permanent, just indef) blocked this account too. I suggest he remain blocked until he can show he's actually willing to abide by all those really fundamental rules of Wikipedia that he's so far indicated he feels don't apply to him. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

user:History2007

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

---

I'm dealing with an editor (History2007, talk) of an article whose work is highly questionable. When I arrived at the article Suetonius on Christians the editor had misspelled a central name every time it was used. S/he had described Suetonius as confused five times. At the moment s/he talks about contempt five times. I find this POV. Repetitions abound. For example, the second parts of the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs of the lede are just repetitions of opinions from later in the text. Most of the article was based on the opinions of scholars who don't supply any evidence for their claims and the editor didn't indicate by name that s/he was citing opinions of these scholars. With some effort I seem to have the user citing names for opinions now. However, now, whenever I try to remove a repetition of material s/he reinserts it and has just reached the limit of my tolerance, claiming that I have 3RRed. Having dealt before with what I consider a disruptive editor who didn't understand 3RR, I will head off the issue here and seek help from you. -- spin^control 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I consider myself notified. And yes, I did say that you crossed WP:3RR after I had left you a message to avoid it. You did cross WP:3RR after notification. That is clear.

My feeling is that the real issue is Doktor spin's statement just above that an article is questionable because it is based on "opinions of scholars who don't supply any evidence for their claims", after having been requested a number of times to read WP:V. Just today, his characterization of scholarly opinions as "less than verifiable" was responded to on WP:V by another user, as it been explained to him before elsewhere. Dr Spin seems to think that some scholars are "nitwits" (his word, not mine), other scholars generate "hot air" (his word, not mine), others are wrong, etc.

And by the way the issue of "contempt" is that expressed by the Roman historians such as Pliny, Suetonius, etc., not among Wikipedia editors. It is a "content issue" not appropriate here, and I added another reference for it by Stephen Benko. But again that is a content issue, as are all possible misspellings.

As for "Suetonius being confused", yes, there are again multiple scholars who say that (and is in fact the 'majority scholarly view'), and that was why it was in the article. And it is again a content issue, supported by multiple scholarly references. I would, however, note that the characterization of scholars as "nitwits" as mentioned on Doktor spin's talk page, and changes that deviate from source by calling scholarly opinions POV has gone too far.

As for my work being "questionable" Doktor spin, after writing 600 articles, and many on DYK, I have a feeling I may know what I am doing, after all - although I am getting really, really tired of having to explain WP:V to users again and again.

By the way, here are the 4 diffs:

• [107]
• [108]
• [109]
• [110]

As for "not understanding 3RR", the policy is both simple and clear:

"Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

And there are clearly 4 of those now. What is not a content issue is Doktor spin's crossing of WP:3RR after notification. That is a bright-line rule breach. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If I had crossed the 3RR History2007 would have done so as well. However, as I understand it, no particular edit has reached the 3RR, though I think History2007 has certainly displayed a penchant for both disruptive and biased editing. His/her main contributions seem to have been, rather than dealing with content, to paint the primary source Suetonius as confused and contemptuous, based on scholars who don't usually spend more than a paragraph or two on the issue, so they usually don't provide anything more than untinged opinions. The proposition that Suetonius is confused is unfalsifiable, as R.T. France has indicated. I could cite other scholars in the article on the issue, but that would just continue the cycle of escalation.

History2007 seems to confuse the issue here with what is said on talk pages. If I think that people who use POV terms such as "pagan" are nitwits and said it in an article then there might be something to complain about. If I said that a scholar was wrong in an article without a source for doing so there might be something to complain about. However, as this hasn't happened, s/he doesn't understand that what is on the talk pages has no effect in the article and is irrelevant here.

As to the list of reverts, let's look at them. The first:

• [111]

If one looks at the diff, they'll see that the material which deals with dating has been moved after the new section on dating. Perhaps, History2007 could have paid more attention and saved us this error. Next,

• [112]

This is unrelated to the previous edit and involves the repetition of material found later in the article. Then,

• [113]

A rewording unrelated to any previous edit. Finally,

• [114]

This involves the removal of a reinsertion of the repeated material mentioned in the first diff above. In fact, I cut "Most scholars agree that this expulsion of some Jews around AD 49-50 is consistent with the chronology of Paul and the time frame Suetonius refers to" from the text, yet it remains there... well, the original statement of it. I find History2007 somewhat confused about the 3RR and I don't see why things have to be repeated for no apparent justification. -- spin^control 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not so. But I am not even going to respond to this, or watch this again for another half a day. Will be a waste of time. The reverts are clear ("whether involving the same or different material"), and I made sure I did not do 4. You should know how WP:3RR works, given that you were blocked for it in March 2009.

But your calling other editors "disruptive" is just not OK. Not ok at all.... and does require some action. I will stop now. A real waste of time here.... History2007 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You made sure you did not do 4. Instead, according to the definition you seem to be using, you did 5 in 2 1/2 hours:

• (reinsertion)
• (reordering)
• (renamed section)
• (rewriting with omission)
• (removal of bolding)

-- spin^control 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Spin, you are clearly at 3RR. Have you actually read WP:3RR? Ah, should have checked your block record first. It's a long time ago, but 2 blocks for 3RR plus a 3rd block, and you've been warned. Your removal of material from the lead, which you call repetition, was your first in the last 24 hours (although part of a sequence stretching beyond 24 hours). Later you "Removed reinserted repetitions of POV opinions." Then you removed the word "some". Time to stop. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit shocked, Dougweller. You're functionally saying any correction of fact is a revert (as in the case of the "some"), as is the pruning of any reduplication. --spin^control 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Spin, a revert is a revert whether you're right or wrong, except in blatant vandalism, and a clear violation of BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

IIUC, this seems to mean that any notion of "revert" has been defined out of Wiki:revert such that it now means "change (non-self-correcting)". Is this correct? -- spin^control 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It means "reverting what's been removed". If somebody removes someting you inserted, and then you reinsert that content - or vice versa - regardless of what else you do in that edit, it's a revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is something like--though not quite--what I understood, but not what Dougweller (or History2007) has indicated: any removal (or, functionally, any change that doesn't simply add) is now claimed to constitute a revert. There is no sign of returning to a prior state, as entailed by a real world use of the term. -- spin^control 04:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I really do not want to spend time on this, but trust me Doktor spin, reading the policy helps. It says:

• A revert "can involve as little as one word".

• "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

So if editor A make 10 changes without an intervening edit from editor B that is one revert. If editor B has made an intervening change, then that sequence will become two reverts, etc. The policy is simple and clear.

On that note, now that we are here, perhaps someone could also help explain the issue of "majority view" to Doktor spin. I do not seem to have succeeded in explaining that. The glaring example of why that explanation is needed is that he wrote 3 subsections with a sentence at the end which said something like:

• Nevertheless, most scholars date the event to around AD 49-50

Now since when does policy suggest that minority opinion should come first, then majority opinion follows it at the end, with the "nevertheless" attached? That is not how Wikipedia works. Someone needs to explain that. It is like saying "nevertheless most geologists hold that the earth is round". History2007 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember that photo you wanted me to look at? I took this sentence,

"Most historians date the expulsion of some Jews from Rome to around AD 49-50 and the chronology of Paul coincides with that date, and is consistent with the time frame Suetonius refers to.<ref>''Christianity and the Roman Empire: background texts'' by Ralph Martin Novak 2001 ISBN 1-56338-347-0 pages 18-22</ref><ref name=Cradle110 />"

which had basically no context and I provided it with one as it now follows after a chronological argument (excluding Cassius Dio's 41, Orosius's 49 and examining the Gallio inscription, the most complex, which yields a date range--which you did not appreciate and disfigured). The argument ended with a date range for the expulsion of 47 to 53. Despite that date range many Christian scholars and a few Jewish scholars--most of whom provide no argument and usually resort to claiming that most scholars believe it--accept the restricted date range. Hence, I contextualized the complete statement cited above with a "nevertheless" in order to show that there was a noticeable difference between the date range in Slingerland's six peer-reviewed articles and the opinions of others (usually expressed in single paragraphs of popular books).

The sentence was placed in the most logical place for it, ie with the discussion of the date range from the Gallio inscription and that follows the other issues. Benko, M. Stern and others support the 41 dating. A number of other scholars are happy to cite Orosius despite his debunking. The most substantial and most interesting is left to last. It is with this that the "Most historians" statement, which remained the same as when you wrote it here, was attached to the discussion on the date range with the contrastive adverb "nevertheless" placed before it as an anaphoric hook. -- spin^control 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this is the appropriate place to delve into Roman history, so I will be brief. As Doktor spin just stated above:

• He presented long arguments within the article to support the "date range 47 to 53", which he knows to be the minority opinion, given the next statement here.

• He then added a statement to the end that "nevertheless most scholars date the event to around 49-50" which he knows to be the majority opinion.

That is clear. I am sorry, but despite his good intentions, there seem to be "problems" in this user's comprehension of Wikipedia policy, as manifested by the statement that started this thread, namely his rejection of "opinions of scholars who don't supply any evidence for their claims", after 4 years on Wikipedia. This is further manifested by the questions asked on Secondary source and WT:V after having been asked to read WP:V, and the very existence of this continuing discussion. I am sorry, but I am not at all certain how I can explain the relevant Wikipedia policies to the user in this case. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Look History2007, you whinged about something and now you are saying that you aren't interested in the clarification. My issue here is the fitness of the material you have put into that article. So just a reminder. In this diff you made the following change:

"at the instigation of Chrestus" became "at the instigation of Cherstus"

at the same time changing most other instances of "Chrestus" to the erroneous "Cherstus" and constructed this gem:

"Suetonius misheard 'Cherstus' as 'Cherstus'"

the first of which you changed a minute later to 'Chrestus', but in reality you needed to say "Suetonius misheard 'Christus' as 'Chrestus'", all the while claiming "Suetonius is somewhat confused". It stayed that way with additions for weeks. You were so interested in the confusion of Suetonius that you actually inserted this factoid five times:

"Suetonius is somewhat confused..."

"The confusion of Suetonius..."

"...the confusion of Suetonius..."

"Suetonius is somewhat confused..."

"The confusion of Suetonius..."

There was stuff in the lede like:

"Suetonius is somewhat confused in this passage and refers to 'Cherstus' as the leader of Christians"

when Suetonius mentioned neither "Cherstus" not Christians.

The article was filled with untinged opinions of theologians, all unattributed in the text, giving those opinions the status of facts, rather than the unsupported popular conjectures that they are. Not a single historian in the field of classics is cited anywhere in the discussion of a Latin writer, so it becomes difficult to claim that the references in the article were WP:RS. Not a single scholarly paper was cited, so no peer-reviewed opinion appeared in the article. Just

"Most scholars assume that..."

"Scholars generally agree that..."

"Most historians..."

As no opinion was attributed to the opiner in the text it is hard to tell where the cited opinion stopped and the OR--such as the following--started,

"The passage was likely written before 96 AD, when the Romans still viewed Christianity as a Jewish sect."

The lede was filled with recyclings of this mess, mixing few facts with opinions and confusion, just copying selected sentences from what was already written and flushing out the lede until it bloated to the size of the main section of the article.

You then abandoned it that way, hardly ever having provided an edit summary. When for example I introduced some scholarly argument and contrast to balance the article, you merely ratted through googlebooks to find more favorable opinions to flood the article. There was no point in my introducing more scholarship to balance the result: such escalation bloats an article while making it unreadable. Hopefully two good things have come out of this exchange: you're now supplying edit summaries and you are now introducing the people responsible for the opinions you are purveying. -- spin^control 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

While I love a good ancient Roman history discussion, this appears to be little more than a content dispute discussion now. I don't think any of the above justifies the 3RR violation should that be the actual case.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no ancient history discussion here. It's a description of careless tendentious editing of material and an editor who shows no sign of understanding the material. So perhaps there is a content dispute. -- spin^control 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The original AN/I filing appears to state that History2007 is the disruptive editor violating 3RR. It appears that User:Doktorspin has violated the 3RR with disruptive edit warring believing the right to correct information is an exemption from3RR. It is not. While his good faith is not questioned, this seems a classic case of what we used to call a boomarang but now refer to as Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. I was not interested in 3RR violating and only mentioned it because a system gamer hurled it at me. It's strange that you didn't read much of what I said in the filing. I was interested in the editing that sold nothing but opinions as content, that showed no interest in the subject and that needed to escalate when contrast was introduced. -- spin^control 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you were not interested in making a mistake. Can you show how the other editor was gaming the system? Seems like a very serious accusation. The rest really is your opinion of the editor and their intent and "I was interested in the editing that sold nothing but opinions as content" just seems like an admission that this is a content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the accusation of "gaming the system", apologize and plead ignorance of the inner workings of the 3RR such that 1) the rule no longer deals with reverts but any changes and 2) that any number of these reverts when done in sequence becomes a single revert unless an editor interrupts that sequence occasionally. So if another editor inserts something during a sequence one can construct a case for 3RR violation, given that "revert" doesn't mean "revert", but any change of prior material. I now know that this is the case and need to catch an editor in the act of serial "reverts" to make sure I get a few edits in, such that the one "revert" becomes a series. -- spin^control 22:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been with Wikipedia now for over 5 years and I still had to ask for a clarification on 3RR just the other night.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My advice now naturally is to work out when other editors are asleep and then you can "revert" as much as your heart desires and it's still only one "revert". -- spin^control 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Doktor spin has now embraced the WP:3RR policy, following his apology above. Can we also clarify the "majority view" issue please? History2007 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't embraced it, though it is clear you have. I will however remember what the definition of Wiki:revert is.

What exactly do you mean by the "majority view" here? Do you mean the majority view of history scholars? Perhaps you could start citing a few. Do you mean the views published in scholarly journals? You will remember that the flat earth belief was the "majority view" for millennia. If I cite from several articles by a scholar that have undergone peer review (ie several scholars have had to support publication) and published in various scholarly journals do you think it is a reasonable response to ridicule the writer (whose first name is Dixon), referring to him as "Dixie" 12, because he has the temerity to espouse views discordant with the generalities you've found on googlebooks? -- spin^control 03:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope someone else can explain what "majority view" means. I have not been getting vary far. I have provided you with a link to the policy before - a few times in fact. Believe me, I am really (I mean really) tired of holding tutorials on policy here. There should really be a help center of some type to explain policy to you - go on WP:Help desk and ask. When you say that Dixie/Dixon has "the temerity to espouse views discordant with the generalities" that means that you know he has the minority view and is going against what the majority of scholars say. The guideline WP:RS/AC makes it clear how that is to be stated. So:

• If 70% of scholars say the earth is round, and 30% say the earth is flat, the flat earth group is the minority view. The round earth group is the majority view. The minority view does not get to set the tone of the article, and gets less real estate.

But why do I bother wasting my life holding tutorials here? Why do I bother? This is utterly frustrating... History2007 (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A general note: It seems that there are WP:Competence issues with respect to Doktor spin regarding policy comprehension, and something may need to be done about it. History2007 (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You have nicely evaded responding to what I said to you. You showed your competence when you left the article in such a disreputable state on July 29th. It was a shambles of unattributed opinions, errors, repetitions and even a dose of OR. In fact there is still some of your OR in the article. Consider this: "Others such as Stephen Benko and H. Dixon Slingerland see it as having little or no historical value." This claim is not derived from Van Voorst, nor is it true. It is merely your tendentious manipulation of your source. What you might more reasonably have said was that these scholars did not accept the historical interpretation that Van Voorst claimed as near-unanimous. That says nothing of "historical value". Both Benko and Slingerland hold the passage to have historical value, just not that which you prefer. This certainly doesn't augur well for any other articles of historical import you've ventured to improve.

If 70% of scholars assert the earth is flat will you accept it or ask for evidence? What percentage of historians (rather than theologians) assert that Suetonius--who you think it hilarious calling So-so-tonius--was probably talking about Christus and Christians in Rome? You wouldn't know. Do you think theologians trained in Koine Greek are experts in the field of Latin classics? Can you cite any of them who has published a scholarly paper on Suetonius? Both Benko and Slingerland have. Both of them have faced their peers and have had their work published with the approval of their peers. Selling popular books (such as most of those you have found on googlebooks) has a different set of criteria. It requires no scholarly approval whatsoever. Citing someone who can manage a facile paragraph on Suetonius and make sweeping generalizations in a book aimed at a popular audience (such as Koestenberger), doesn't make the generalization representative of the majority of historians, though perhaps of theologians. -- spin^control 07:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

After all the requests to read WP:V, Doktor spin is still asking:

• If 70% of scholars assert the earth is flat will you accept it or ask for evidence?

This seems to be a case of WP:Competence with respect to policy comprehension which is running into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have tried to explain WP:V before, and he has asked on WT:V and Secondary source before and on Secondary source they explained WP:RS to him. We have a persistent case of History2007 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• With all due respect History2007 and Doktorspin, much of this conversation is inappropriate on this noticeboard. The 3RR accusations have been made, and I believe that is all that is needed here. As suggested above, you might want to make your way back to the talk page or possibly get a third opinion on the point of contention. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case. I actually started my response to this saga by pointing out that it was mostly a content issue and not appropriate here, then we got side tracked into the policy comprehension issues. I asked for further opinions on WP:RSN anyway... This should have never even gone beyond 3 paragraphs... Amazing waste of time it has been.... If the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT continues we may have to come back here... I hope not... History2007 (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Wikilawyering to the end. -- spin^control 10:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@I Jethrobot, true but as History2007 says he didn't bring it here, and evidently has been trying not to continue it.

@DoctorSpin - I have just looked through both the content issues and the editing and seems that your charge against History2007 is completely groundless, and a medium-sized boomerang. I'm no expert on Suetonius but know enough to conclude that you are indeed demonstrating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here regarding WP:V and WP:RS, and are not even correct on the content issues. Having advertised the article here do not be surprised if other editors coming to it now will be taking a view nearer History2007. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The more the merrier. It should make it easier to rehabilitate an article that's been in a sorry state. -- spin^control 16:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close. I have to agree with others above. There is some evidence that Doktorspin might have engaged in problematic editing, but History2007's assessments of Suetonius are basically correct. Most historians use him, but he generally so far as I can see qualifies somewhere below the Gospels in terms of historical reliability. While there is some basis for action against Doktorspin, I'm not sure that imposing sanctions would necessarily be the optimum result here. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing this, but it is simply wrong to accept that "most historians" do anything without having historians making the comments. You wouldn't accept dentists making comments about grammar, despite their knowing a lot about mouths. No scholarly papers have been cited for this "most historians" crap about Suetonius. People like Crossan, Dunn, Koestenberger, et al. are well reputed theologians who are meddling in historical issues for apologetic purposes. You trust their knowledge of biblical interpretation, but none of them have degrees in history. The already noted unfalisfiability of their espoused theory also shows that they are not WP:RS. It's safer to be more generic and talk about "scholars" rather than "historians". If you want to be serious about history, you need historiography, not apologetics. You cite the scholarly journals over popular books. If you cannot do this, you bring Wikipedia's content into disrepute. -- spin^control 03:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Second the motion and follow it up with actual begging. LOL! Please, I implore any uninvolved editor to just close this. I don't know if he deserves sanctions or a block, although if 3RR is a brightline rule and he actually violated it...anyway, at this point he just seems to be standing on a soapbox.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems spin is still being overly aggressive on the particular talk page: [115]. (I also note the use of the word "accusation" here [116]) IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Mass undiscussed moves by user:MAXXX-309 from Kiev to Kyiv

I bring this here because those moves by MAXXX-309 (talk · contribs · block log) cannot be undone by regular user. Kiev (originating from the Russian Romanization) is the more common English name than Kyiv which is claimed to be more accurately reflecting the Ukrainian Romanization. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), it's been decided long ago that unless extraordinary circumstance occurred, we only make redirect with "Kyiv" as the variation to the article title which contains "Kiev". MAXXX-309's moves are largely unacceptable before proper consensus reached, for which I demand all his moves from Kyiv to Kiev to be reverted instantly. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that sucks. I moved a couple of them back but have to go off and do other things (my job, unfortunately). Drmies (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Kiev is Russian name of Kyiv. It became more common in English because of Russification policy, made by Soviet occupiers. Proper Ukrainian name is Kyiv. I agree that Kiev is more common in English. But if we will continue to use the wrong name, the RIGHT name will NEVER become common. -- MAXXX-309 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. If 'Kiev' is more common in English, that is what we will use. We aren't here to correct historical wrongs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is how Wikipedia deals with foreign terms. Base on your theory, "China" should be moved to "Zhongguo" because it is the correct Mandarin Romanization of the country's Chinese name. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) We don't use Wikipedia as an instrument to Right Great Wrongs. The naming practices regarding Kiev have been discussed – ad nauseam – at the main article Kiev. As long as consensus there remains as it is, the page will remain at "Kiev", and therefore the various subarticles will remain there too. Since you have admitted that "Kiev is more common in English", you have not a snowball's chance in hell of convincing people that this should be changed, because common usage just happens to be the one and foremost criterion we go by in such situations. That's our policy, like it or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

All moved back, thanks to Future Perfect at Sunrise and Drmies--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I got the remaining three or so that Drmies didn't get around to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

MAXXX, it's possible that the common English name may change in the coming years, just like Bombay and Peking changed in the past decade or so (to Mumbai and Beijing), but for now it's too soon to move those articles. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

An editor has started canvassing for an RfC (including two editors with a particular point of view, with ~100 watchers each) I started, one user talk page watcher has already turned up. I think the main arguments have already been made; can an admin weigh up the consensus before it becomes like WP:votestacking? Talk:Reincarnation_research#Section_.22Conclusions_and_criticism.22_-_undue_weight_and_the_like.... IRWolfie- (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Could you provide a link to the canvassing? In any case, the RfC started about 35 hours ago. That's well short of the normal 30 days. In addition a topic that's mostly about religion and beliefs (see Wikiprojects list at the top of the article's talk page) was listed at Maths, science, and technology, which seems odd. I'd be inclined to let it run, but I suppose it depends on the nature of the canvassing. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I put it as the RfC myself to attract a wider audience. The topic is not about religion and beliefs and not about the study of beliefs about reincarnation, it purports to be the scientific field getting evidence for reincarnation and I don't think parapsychology topics are usually placed under religion.

Here is the canvassing [117][118][119]. See here: Talk:Reincarnation_research#Canvassing. See this as well: [120]: "I'm presently engaged in a tricky merge proposal at Reincarnation research, if you would care to take a look... ", which was posted after he gave the editor a barnstar. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie is making a mountain out of a molehill, and is simply wrong in several of his assertions. I certainly didn’t give anyone barnstar and then ask them to join the RfC discussion. That is nonsense. To the best of my knowledge no editor I notified has joined the RfC to indicate support or oppose. One has offered a comment, that is all. Notifications were done in good faith and in accord with WP:Canvass guideline, and I have explained this in some detail on the RR talk page. This is some of what was said there:

Text copy and pasted from a different talk page

Comment Johnfos has been canvassing editors to this discussion: [121], [122], [123]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I have operated within the WP:Canvass guideline, and have been quite open about it, using editor's Talk pages rather than emailing them. Skeptics are well aware of this discussion, since there has been a post on their noticeboard. The Maths/Science people are well aware of this discussion, since this RfC is (for some reason) located in the "Maths, science and technology" area. But there are additional editors in the philosophy, religion, and sociology area who needed to be notified. If you feel I have done something wrong, please take it to the relevant Noticeboard. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) That is precisely not within the canvassing guideline. Firstly, It's not "their" noticeboard, it's a wikipedia noticeboard. Deciding to notify individual editors who you know have a particular POV is canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC) As 217 says above, "I didn’t know him before", which is true. And I certainly didn't know his POV on RR. Why are you against getting more involvement in this decision, per the guidelines? Since you seem intent on trying to make an issue of this, I would now respectfully insist that you take the issue to the relevant noticeboard and I will be happy to discuss it further there. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I've already brought the issue to ANI and asked for an admin to look over the current arguments and weight up the consensus. The issue is that your notifications are based on notifying individuals who have a particular POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The real issue of relevance here is that the RfC was put in the wrong category. It should be in something like "Philosophy and religion". Another problem is that the RfC was started some time after the Merge proposal discussion was started, without any notice. (The Merge proposal was started here and some editors had already participated when the RfC was begun here.) The third problem is that several editors are now talking, not about a merge, but a simple redirect, which would effectively blank all existing material. It seems to me that the solution is to declare the RfC invalid and go to AfD.

I am also concerned that Wolfie is making this very personal, instead of assuming good faith and focusing on the issues. Johnfos (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite being labelled a vandal, disingenuous, smug etc, I never take anything personally (it's rarely worth the effort), please don't interpret what I take personally. This page is merely one page I edit amongst many others. Notifying individuals (as my diffs demonstrates) you feel have a particular point of view is canvassing. The article has already been merged so I wouldn't get to hung up on merge vs redirect.

Was it really necessary to copy and paste multiple comments from a discussion I've already linked to?

The link [124] clearly shows you giving an editor a barn star before asking them to comment on the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, honestly, this is dragging on and on. I don’t see the problem with bringing in some relevant material to this discussion from elsewhere, and I don’t know why you would change my posting like that. I gave the barnstar to User:Jeraphine Gryphon, who has been unwell, and mentioned the RfC (on the same page) to User:H. 217.83 just as a passing collegial comment about what I had been working on. I have never met 217 before and had no idea about his POV on RR.

The real issue of relevance here is that the RfC was started late and put in the wrong category. It should be in something like "Philosophy and religion". You seem to be saying that the "article has already been merged" and it just needs to be redirected. Are you trying to pre-empt the outcome of the RfC? I can assure you that many editors will be unhappy if the article is simply blanked through redirection, especially after the recent work that has been put in to bring it up to standard.

It is clear that the integrity of this RfC process has been compromised and the solution is to declare the RfC invalid and go to AfD. Johnfos (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn’t know Johnfos, so my contribution to the discussion has nothing to do with canvassing. I don’t know how well Johnfos and Jeraphine Gryphon know each other, but I know Gryphon as a great contributor who wouldn’t be bought with a Barnstar. But I don’t know about other users being asked to contribute, so I have no idea whether Johnfos might have canvassed or not. --217/83 14:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: To the best of my knowledge no editor I notified has yet joined the RfC to indicate support or oppose. Maybe they just don't have an interest in Reincarnation research. One editor (217) has offered a comment, that is all. I say again that my notifications were done in good faith and in accord with WP:Canvass guideline. Johnfos (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks to me like Johnfos left neutrally-worded messages on the talk pages of editors who were likely to be interested in the subject matter of the RfC. I don't know if the editors were predisposed to support Johnfos's side of the argument, but he certainly did not try to bias them with the notifications he posted. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Malaysian language

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

---

Can an administrator please have a look at this article. An IP editor is consistently reverting to a BS version despite established editors restoring. request for page protection filed 4 hours ago - no response. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

all done - thanks! --Merbabu (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:IPWAI

Request several months' block of IPWAI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at least as it pertains to Joan Juliet Buck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. He keeps edit warring with the same material, trying to add a comment from a blog by Michael Totten when that area of article already has sufficient criticism: [125] [126] Doesn't seem to edit much else on Wikipedia and has been warned numerous times by myself and User: Scolaire at length to no avail (see prior diffs, [127], and [128]). I suggest several months' block because he has demonstrated time and again that he thinks he can just come back and do the same thing after two weeks (see prior diffs). thanks.--Aichikawa (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I changed the article links on IPWAI to user links. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked a mediator to look at this issue and am waiting for him or her to get back to us on this issue. I think what I put in is fair comment, public information and properly sourced. As far as what else I do on the wikipedia is nothing to do with it but it is false. I think I am very active on the wikipedia IPWAI (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are using a passing comment in a blog as a source. And a near copy-and-paste of the source is arguably a copyright violation anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Joan_Juliet_Buck - all rather confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See also a pevious DRN request by IPWAI. Both IPWAI and Aichikawa appear to think that if they simply post on a noticeboard, the 7th Cavalry will ride in and settle the issue in their favour. There has been nothing of what most of us would call a discussion between these two, or between any two editors on the article. But while IPWAI seems to have nothing more than a bad case of Idinthearthat, Aichikawa has major ownership and civility issues (see my comments at the current DR). Aichikawa would like to see "several months' block" – he should be careful what he asks for! And I would prefer if he would stop linking my name with his as though we were allies against the forces of darkness. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• As IPWAI has a clean block log, several months seems over the top to me. Suggest 24 hour block for disruption, escalating as necessary. I also advise IPWAI to read over WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:GNG more closely. Aichikawa has a clean block log too, and I'd propose a community-endorsed trout and final warning for ownership and civility problems - future issues of this sort WILL lead to blocks. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

24 hours isn't sufficient. If you look at the history log, it shows that IPWAI came BACK to argue the same thing two weeks LATER. 24 hours won't solve a thing on their part. They're not on Wikipedia that frequently anymore. As far as civility issues go, Scolaire has problems with this as well: "they simply post on a noticeboard, the 7th Cavalry will ride in and settle the issue in their favour" and "as though we were allies against the forces of darkness," hell-o? As well as ownership issues for the way he has suddenly decided he is the "head editor" of this article in the last few weeks, editing out other's edits vehemently when it doesn't suit him.--Aichikawa (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is properly sourced information, a view of a notable journalist who is an authority on Syria. There is no reason to reject his comments for no reason. Not one person has even bothered to answer this. IPWAI (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong: "You are using a passing comment in a blog as a source. And a near copy-and-paste of the source is arguably a copyright violation anyway". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is rewritten

IPWAI (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, The Tablet and Guardian's condemnations are already posted. Even if this guy weren't a blogger and was an "authority on Syria" you imply these news outlets aren't and so we need him. It's simply overkill.--Aichikawa (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy is much more notable then these bloggers, I wonder why you are selectively picking them over him beside the emphasis is different in these cases. Are you aware for example that 11 journalist refused to do this story before Joan accepted it?

IPWAI (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not convinced he's more notable than The Tablet or The Guardian aside from the fact that AndyTheGrump has already outlined WHY his source can't be used here. Do you not understand what a blog is versus a not-a-blog? And this inside knowledge you claim to have: You don't provide any kind of documentation and even were it true, who cares? It would just show how keen the magazine was to have an exclusive on Asma al-Assad (they after all approached "12 journalists") so I don't know why you're not vandalizing Vogue wall as well.--Aichikawa (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Bosniaco

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

---

Bosniaco (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

The user created Đukić (Sandžak) which was deleted (an article about a supposed family with nonsense history-section, plain original research), then he created it again, and it was deleted a second time, then he created it a third time under another name Đukić (Djukic). He has been warned for uploading copyrighted material, revert warring, rewriting protected page, and creating the Đukić-articles (see his talk page).--Zoupan 11:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Both articles now deleted and page names salted. Creator being warned not to create inapropriate pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks as if the user has been blocked already. Closing this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've blocked for 1 week. De728631 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

TVFAN24

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

---

TVFAN24 is going against the Wiki policy of WP:YEAR and when I tried to correct them, they sent me nasty, homophobic messages onto my talk page. They have had severe issues with WP:OWN in the past and is clearly showcasing those issues once again. After I corrected their edits to follow WP:YEAR, they went ahead and reverted them all. They don't go off of consensus either, they do as they seem fit and if someone corrects them, they give a major attitude and like they did to me, give off homophobic insults. This is not the first time when they've thrown around a severe disrespect for an editor, either. They clearly need to be reprimanded for their actions. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 12:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

These are the diffs: [129], [130] (MusicFreak, it would have been helpful if you had provided them yourself). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to indef this person for his nasty personal attacks? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Black Kite couldn't think of one ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Especially considering their block history and their current restrictions. Black Kite (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Posted in the wrong section sorry

Jinx69 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Jinx69 trying to break 3RR by proxy?

Resolved

 – I'm an idiot. GedUK  14:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Jinx69 (talk · contribs) left me a message on my talk page asking me to make a change to Evolution (to add in the phrase 'is hypothosised'). I wondered initially why a confirmed editor would ask me to do such a thing. Having looked at his (blanked) talk page history, I began to suspect the reason. Having received an edit war warning for the same article.

Is asking me to edit it instead an attempt to carry on the edit war by proxy (as it seems to me)? If so, should he be blocked, and if not, then what, if anything, next? Now he's involved me, I don't think I should probably block him myself.

Thoughts gratefully received. GedUK  12:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the timing of the edits, I see that he contacted you before ever editing evolution. Since receiving a warning about edit warring at that article, Jinx69 has restricted himself to discussion on the talk page. So it does not appear to me that Jinx69 was trying to carry out an edit war by proxy - but there are clear problems with POV edits and a bit of soapboxing that probably merit keeping an eye on his edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Edgar for doing objective research.

Yes i contacted the above user BEFORE i realised i could just edit it myself, i thought it could only be changed by the user above so i asked him on his page. The claim is the height of ipse dixit though no one else concerns themselves with the lack of scientific nomenclature. I don know what 'proxy' is either.

Jinx69 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know how I missed the timing issue, sorry. GedUK  14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proxy --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Offensive image placement at ITN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

this is not an administrator issue. Users can discuss concerns at Wikipedia talk:In the news, but no one needs to be blocked, and nothing needs to be deleted or protected, because of this concern.

---

Right now, on the main page, we have an in-the-news item at the top that is about a notorious mass murderer. And right next to it, we have a portrait photograph of some other guy – suggesting to every unaware reader that this guy is the mass murderer named in the text.

Am I alone in thinking that this is a BLP violation that needs to be fixed immediately?

See discussion I opened at Wikipedia talk:In the news. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an ANI issue. Just pull it. Hot Stop 12:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried moving the picture, but it led to an ugly display error, so somebody with more technical experience at ITN will have to step in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What determines the order of entries in that listing? It would perhaps be sensible to place the item corresponding to a picture at the top, next to the picture. --Mirokado (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've yanked the picture for now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I've moved the picture down by the entry where it is referenced. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is said to break the layout on various pages. It's been discussed and rejected repeatedly. —David Levy 13:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The items are reverse-chronological by date.

The idea of placing the item corresponding to the picture at the top has been suggested on multiple occasions (as have other possible tweaks), but consensus for such a change has never been established. —David Levy 13:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea of making the image non-static has been discussed and rejected numerous times. That this is known to cause technical issues (both on the main page and on other pages on which the template is transcluded) is one of the main reasons. —David Levy 13:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This concern (the unintended association of a notorious individual with someone else) has been raised in the discussions to which I refer above, with no consensus that it's serious problem (due to the image title and "pictured" text). —David Levy 13:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a serious problem, and if people in earlier discussions didn't see that, they were wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Even when it's not a problem like the present one (which I agree is a problem), it's always been confusing. Readers shouldn't have to figure out which item goes with the image by looking for (pictured). Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

By "the present one", I assume that you're referring to the Traian Băsescu image. Correct? (It's been replaced with a photograph of buildings.) —David Levy 13:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so. To be clear, I'm only noting (not defending) the discussions' outcome.

In the future, if such an issue arises (and must be acted upon immediately, due to WP:BLP-related concerns or another reason), please simply blank the "image=" parameter and remove the "(pictured)" text. It's okay if ITN occasionally has no image. —David Levy 13:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think anyone with half a brain would be able to determine simply by reading through the listed news items on ITN that the picture is actually of the Romanian President, not the serial killer. Nevertheless, I agree with FPAS that the image really ought to be changed so as to avoid the possibility of giving people such a misconception. Kurtis (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• This is an important discussion to have, but we don't want to split the discussion between venues. As this isn't really an admin issue, and in the interest of keeping the discussion in one location, I'm closing down this discussion. Please make any future comments to the already-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news. --Jayron32 13:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

dead horses should stay unbeaten.

---

• Discussion about the image itself should indeed be held over there, but I have grave concerns about one of FPaS's comments above: specifically, this one. This sort of "I'm right no matter what anybody else thinks" attitude is not something we need on Wikipedia; indeed, were it a new user saying something like that that instead of an admin, the reaction would likely have turned to comments about boomerangs and cautions about consensus vs. "My Way". Yes, there very well might be/have been a serious problem, but such a ringing denouncement of consensus sounds like something I'd expect from the people running the asylum at TVTropes, not an admin on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And he's been properly chastised for the comment he made over there. There's really no reason to keep drumming it up, as it appears from his actions that he's backed down quite a bit from his extreme stance. Yes, his comment was eggregious, people have already called him on it, and we've all moved on. Continuing to bring it up here, after the situation has passed, is (ironically) no less eggregious of a hard-line stance than he did. Everyone else seems to have let this drop, and things were going nicely before you decided to open this closed wound. There still is no issue that needs dealing with here. People get emotional, they say stupid things, and then eventually cooler heads prevail. That entire process has already completed itself, and I am not sure what is to gain by reopening this just because of some impertinent comments from the past. Let it drop here already. If you have something substantive to add to the discussion note above, which is working quite well with FPAS's participation, then feel free to. But seriously, reopening this feels like an attempt to punish him for a transgression, and as bad as that transgression may have been at the time it was made, it's blown over and doesn't need any additional time devoted to it. --Jayron32 17:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • My apologies; that was not my intent. I have struck the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It's all good. Don't sweat the small stuff. If that is really all, I'm closing this down too. --Jayron32 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Claudine Barretto

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

---

The article Claudine Barretto contained a large amount of copyvio from [131] with a highly promotional tone. I've tried to remove it, but new editor User:Claudinenian has been repeatedly re-adding it despite several warnings at their talk page. The editor's name suggests a potential WP:COI. Editor has also been uploading copyvio images of Barretto and adding them to the article. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours by 5 albert square. Electric Catfish 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah beaten to it by Catfish :) blocked for 31 hours for copyright violations and I've advised them to read our copyright policy in their time out from Wikipedia. Hopefully they'll return a reformed editor :)--5 albert square (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Consensus at Family Research Council

An RfC has just closed at Talk:Family Research Council#Rfc on inclusion of Hate group in lead regarding in-principle inclusion of text in the lead. Another discussion was carried out at Talk:Family Research Council#Proposed hate group mention in the lead. while the RfC was going, in order to establish the actual wording. Now, I think that this second discussion reached consensus, but there is a lot of text on the talk page, and some editors added their own versions, apparently unaware of the previous discussion. Now another discussion has started at Talk:Family Research Council#Inadequately explained removal from the lead. Could an uninvolved administrator (a) determine whether the initial discussion reached consensus, and (b) indicate whether that text should stand until a new consensus has been reached? Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User St. Anselm is engaged in an edit war. Three times within the last forty minutes he has reverted text regarding this issue. Regardless of what he thinks was the outcome of a thread totally separate from the RFC that was ongoing, so far seven editors have started a new discussion on the exact wording. Nor was the discussion ever closed. St. Anselm should at least show that he is making a good faith request here by reverting his own third revert. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mighty rich for you to bring up this off-topic point when you are edit-warring right along with him. Belchfire-TALK 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment It's my opinion that the RfC was closed properly. However I have asked the closing admin to please elaborate on his rationale.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Now you folks can discuss without reverting.--v/r - TP 02:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we give the EW'ers a blanket party?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the first discussion reached consensus, but the second seems to have, which would suggest that the wording established there (including criticism of SPLC) should be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If we add the reverts by StAnselm and little green rosetta together, we've got the makings of a nice little tag-teaming effort and a definitive 3RR violation... just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.81 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming that those two editors are sockpuppets? Becasue two legit editors can't "combine" to create a 3RR violation...just saying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Considering I've been discussing on talk of both the article and various user pages and trying to reach consensus, your suggestion that I'm involved in an edit war is ludicrous. Perhaps you should login and join the conversation?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • [132], [133],[134], [135], [136], [137] - And the diffs make all the difference. Certainly looks coordinated to me. You did three, he did three... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.81 (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course two of my edits had no edits in between, so they rightfully count as one. And my last edit that has the summary "Restoring text per WP:LEAD (include prominent controversies), not because of lack of "mandate" per RfC -- I won't restore again if reverted until discussion occurs" is pretty darned clear that I was inserting text per guidelines not addressed by the previous editor, and my willingness to discuss. And guess what, we discussed the changes in a polite and reasoned fashion. So there you have two edits of mine, with willingess to discuss and actually discussing. Now where is this coordination you are talking about?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request Could someone please take a look at the recent contributions of the ip editor above? Seems pretty obvious that this is a logged out user wishing to sling some mud while keeping his/her hands clean in the process.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about the IP, also. Behavioral evidence suggests it's one of the logged-in participants, but there are enough differences in style that, if it's a WP:SOCK, he's making an effort to make different edits logged-in and not logged-in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

IP has been blocked as a quacking sock of an (already-blocked) editor with a disruptive POV in this topic area. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

SPA trying to push limits

Quione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing inappropriately for an extended period of time at Talk:Aspartame controversy. These edits seem calculated since the latest commentary followed asking about the limits, including topic bans: [138]. More than sufficient warnings about behavior have been dismissed. Administrators' discretionary sanctions for fringe theories have been mentioned in past efforts to engage [139][140]. There is an extended history of disruptive comments ([141][142][143][144]) and accusations [145][146][147].Novangelis (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I must say this has gone on long enough, and I for one am sick of being called an industry shill. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This user does not seem interested in building an encyclopedia. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Maryland Pride

Maryland Pride (talk · contribs) is being openly hostile to other editors (example; and another example), even those to whom he has approached for help. Mainly this occurs in the course of editing Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) and related files. This is continuous in spite of previous remarks from other editors regarding WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc. (e.g., [148], [149], [150], [151]). I believe, at the very least, a topic ban is in order, if not an outright block. This comment is how he reacted to CT Cooper (talk · contribs) after they responded to his own request for their help. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 39.

(The shorter version of all this, perhaps, is the comment/warning I left at Maryland Pride's talk page: diff.)

Furthermore Maryland Pride, as per WP:QUACK and these comments, is very likely a sockpuppet of Neno8403 (talk · contribs) (originally blocked, along with other accounts, due to copyvio/non-free issues - see following paragraph). More details at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neno8403 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Neno8403. Also note Maryland Pride's comments here and here, and note that they most likely refer to 158.72.22.150 (talk) whom I tagged as a sockpuppet of Neno8403 way back in Jan. 2006 (see User talk:158.72.22.150/Archive 1). I recognized Maryland Pride as a sock account when the it first appeared, but did not block the account as it appeared the editor had improved his behavior and that the net effect would be positive. (For example, at least this time around the editor was asking for assistance: here, or as previously mentioned these comments.) In hindsight I believe I was wrong, and not blocking the account was a mistake. (I don't recall whether block evasion had occurred to me, but the older accounts were a couple of years old, so I assumed good faith that this was a clean start.) However, I think the sockpuppetry (or block evasion) is greatly outweighed by the civility issues.

But another issue, which goes back to the earlier accounts (and led to their blocking in the first place), is that the user is unwilling, or unable, to abide by Wikipedia's policies regarding non-free content, and going back to the WP:CIVIL issue, is confrontational about it. Skier Dude (talk · contribs) had (rightly) tagged File:Northwestern Logo.png with {{Non-free reduce}}, and Maryland Pride responded thusly. This happened again with a related file (File:Northwestern High School Wildcat Logo.svg; apparently uploaded to circumvent (or spite) the tagging of the original): Maryland Price again removed {{Non-free reduce}}, this time using the edit summary to insult Skier Dude in the process ([152]). When I reverted the tag's removal, Maryland Pride reverted again ([153]) with the rationale that I had not provided an edit summary nor a talk page comment. The template itself uses clear language, so I am not sure whether Maryland Pride refused to read it, did not understand it, or chose to ignore it. There's also this recent exchange. The non-free issues reflect a long-standing pattern going back almost 7 years with his earlier accounts.

I think a block, or at least a topic ban at Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) (and related files), is warranted at this point. However, I didn't think it was fair for me to apply a block, at least not without first mentioning why I had not done so when the account appeared (and I have explained this on the user's talk page). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've notified users Maryland Pride, Skier Dude, Toddst1, Cresix, CT Cooper, and Danjel (all of whom I had directly, or (via diffs) indirectly named in this report). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree that Maryland Pride needs to modify the manner in which he interacts with other people. However, has there been any attempt to codify the problem in the form of a WP:RFC/U? I don't disagree that there is a problem with how he works with others, but I am also concerned with diving into a block or partial ban without first exploring other options. --Jayron32 18:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of one. I figured by now he'd been told enough times, by multiple editors. (I was adding more {{Diff}}s to that effect before I saw your response.) FWIW I'm also not the first to consider a topic ban (diff; though I gather that's as far as it went). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, I'm not entirely opposed to enacting sanctions, but I am leary to do so unless all less-strict avenues of reaching this user have been tried. That's all. I'm not tied to the RFC/U process, per se (many people don't like it.) but we should not just go from "lots of people get in arguments with him" to "block him" in one step. There needs to be some other attempts made to reach him and to show him that his behavior is a problem, which I agree that it is. --Jayron32 19:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree MP has some serious problems in interacting with others and his/her editing (ownership) at Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) is a great example of how many folks have tried to work with him/her to no avail. I'd support a topic ban there and perhaps other sanctions. Not opposed to an RFCU either. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a topic ban - I suspect it would result in this behaviour simply continuing on another article somewhere else, but an WP:RFC/U is worth looking into. Failing that, simply blocking MP if further behaviour like this occurs would also be appropriate - I think the socking issue should only be forgiven if there is a turnaround in behaviour sometime soon. CT Cooper · talk 20:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - User:Lysozym

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

---

User:Lysozym has long been engaged in disruptive editing at the article Hazara people and as such his/her behavior requires the attention of administrators. Please check this person's edit history on the article Hazara people. He/she has been deliberately removing sourced material referencing the Hazara's Mongol ancestry. These references come from an academic source, and a secondary source from the media:

• Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor
• Mongolia: Afghanistan’s Minority Hazara Students Find Peace in Ulaanbaatar

Despite the names of these two sources being pointed out to this individual in the edit history, his/her latest reversion explanation was that "no, simply a link to a newspaper article about Afghan students in Mongolia" despite the fact that this individual is fully aware that the first reference clearly does not come from a "newspaper article", but comes from the American Journal of Human Genetics. This individual is clearly engaged in disruptive editing and an inflicting an edit war at Hazara people by routinely removing these two sources. اردیبهشت (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Possibly compromised account?

I declined a request to block an IP that was made at WP:AIV. I left a note for the requesting editor on his talk page explaining my reasons and got back the response that he never made the request.

Could someone else look at User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones#68.185.89.83 and see if they can figure out what's happening?

I have not blocked this person since whatever's going on, it doesn't seem to be harming the project. Maybe it's some sort of STiki glitch? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet $10 this is just STiki automatically reporting an editor to AIV when the program is used to revert an editor with a recent final warning on their talk page. No block needed for Gareth, but looking at the edits he reverted as vandalism, he probably owes the IP an apology; those edits don't look like vandalism to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears you're right. That seems like an undesirable feature for STiki -- it should ask the editor before making a report without the editor's knowledge.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is the erroneous identification of an edit as vandalism. I can think of little reason why you would not want to report someone who actually vandalized after a final warning. (And in fact it appears that the reporting behavior is controlled by a checkbox, though it's not very obvious.) T. Canens (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott - Death and filmogrophy - hurtful remark

Im posting this to raise awareness of a hurtful, detrimental, subjective insult on the page of tony Scotts filmogrophy on Unstopable. Somebody placed in the text that and I quote Tony Scott died a coward. This is a incredibly hurtful remark to the Scott family anyone who knew him, worked with him, or loved his films, or anyone with moral values. Please remove this hurtful remark for the following reasons firstly this is false as tony Scott Was working on a film two days prior to his death, secondly It suggests anyone who has committed suicide is a coward, and most important of all it is a sickening deprived false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.66.187 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, that's just some minor vandalism and has already been reverted. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons fair use upload bot

I have just blocked Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs). As far as I can tell, this is an unauthorised bot, and I can say with moderate certainty that if it was not a bot, and that this was a user uploading large numbers of non-free images without license tags, fair use rationale and (in some cases) adequate sourcing information, then they would have been shown the door just as quickly. I doubt that this is something that would have been approved had it gone through the proper channels; though I can appreciate the intent, I don't really think that enwp should become a dumping ground for deleted Commons files, and I certainly don't think we need bots uploading non-free content. I am posting here for a review of this block, and I give full permission for my block to be overturned by any administrator not previously involved with this bot if I am mistaken. J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it is run by Dcoetzee (per [154]). I'll toss a notify to him here but I do agree that even if the bot was requested on commons, we at enwp should have been informed and validated its run. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bizarrely, it also appears to be uploading PD images that haven't been deleted from Commons (i.e. [155]) and then posting a notice on the projected articles' talkpage that is therefore unnecessary (and incorrect). Since it doesn't appear to have been authorised and appears not to be working correctly, I think the block is good. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the questionable uploads the bot makes are not really bot-determined and hence not directly the fault of the person who runs it / programmed it. As far as I understand, the bot runs on demand, triggered for specific images by Commons users who believe en-wp might still have a use for an image that's up for deletion at Commons. That's a reasonable idea in principle, but unfortunately it's often been used by people who apparently lack a clear understanding of what gets kept here on en-wp, so they send over stuff that really hasn't got a chance to be kept. It's also problematic that the people who trigger these image moves – and who therefore really should count as the "uploaders" for these files – aren't required to then fix the tagging and FURs here themselves. Apparently the feeling is that they just send the stuff over before it gets deleted on Commons, then it's up to people here to either rescue it by fixing the FUR and tagging, or let it automatically fall into the deletion queues. But I share the feeling that's really not a good way of doing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep - also it looks like the bot transfers files that are nominated for deletion at Commons that are used at enwiki even if they're not later deleted, hence my example above. That's one problem - the second, which you've mentioned, is worse; if a Commons file is in violation of their policies, there's a fair chance it might be in violation of ours as well (i.e. obvious copyvio or NFCC failure). The last thing we want to happen then is for the violating file to be copied here instead... Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea of the bot is sound but only for images that are actually set for deletion from Commons. Furthermore, here on WP, it needs to tag the images with 7-day notices about rationale and licenses so they can be fixed by the editors of pages that use the materials; it is unreasonable to expect Commons editors to know the rationales, for example. But this all needs to be authorized *here* before that can occur. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the bot only transfers files which have been explicitly tagged by a Commons administrator to be transferred here using the {{Fair use delete}} tag, which should normally only be done either for works which are clear copyvios, or after a deletion request has been closed. I generally only use it when someone specifically requests a reupload to En, although some other admins use it more often. In the case of File:1907_arrest_of_Dora_Thewlis.jpg above, it was mistagged by User:Túrelio without a discussion (who believed it was a clear copyvio) - I've advised them of this discussion. @Masem: the bot does tag the reuploaded files with 7-day notices, using {{di-no fair use rationale}} (I think that's the right tag?). The bot was authorized for a 7 day trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commons fair use upload bot, but I forgot to request an extension after my 7 day trial expired (oops, my fault). I also probably should have linked that discussion from its user page. I can seek the appropriate authorization, but I'd like to get feedback on what changes if any are necessary. The bot was created just to streamline the process of reuploading works that are about to be deleted to En - if a Commons administrator wants to reupload it here - and it does so more correctly and reliably than a human attempting to do the same thing manually. It may be possible to have it reupload files after they are deleted instead of just before, but this would require some substantial changes to the implementation. Dcoetzee 00:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As the Commons' admin being mentioned here, allow me a general note: if I remember right, this bot was installed by Dcoetzee, partly in response to complaints from/on :en about not being notified about impending deletions of :en-used images hosted on Commons. I - and probably likewise my admin-colleagues on Commons - "activate" this bot when we find :en-used (and potentially fair-usable) images on Commons requested for speedy or regular deletion (mostly due to being a copyvio) with some probability of a delete-close. So, the only aim of our additional effort of manually adding the required template into the image page is to save the respective image for your project. Of course, we may err 1) in simply not thinking of the :en-fair-using possibility (result: image is gone) or 2) in using the fair-use-to-:en process too early/often (result: image remains, but locally you may have a bit more work). Everybody who knows the workload of the rather few deletion-active admins on Commons (this week we had nearly permanently a backlog of >500 files in the copyvio-speedy category, which should ideally be empty) shouldn't be surprised that such errors happen.

The fair-use-to-:en tagging of above mentioned image File:1907 arrest of Dora Thewlis.jpg by me was obviously of a type 2) error. However, at the time when I put it into the fair-use process it was tagged for speedy-deletion[156]. In hindsight, my fault was to take this speedy-deletion tag at face value. While I am sorry that this has resulted in unnecessary work on :en, such errors cannot be excluded in the future.

As this fair-use-to-:en process was created solely for the benefit of :en, it is up to you to decide what bothers you more, a type 2) error every now and then or loosing a number of fair-use-able images. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Fatidiot1234 breaking etiquette

This is abrasive and insulting, with no cause for it [157]. He called me an idiot unprovoked. He is falsely accusing me of vandalism on the Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City page, though none of the editors involved there has done so. I would ask intervention here, remind the editor that there is no need to call others stupid or attack them without reason, to remember to assume good faith and to be civil. Maybe a short block, a wiki-break of sorts, would allow the editor some time to cool down and not get so heated so quickly, so we can return to being constructive. Bellae artes (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned user. One more nasty comment and Fatidiot1234 may be blocked. De728631 (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ifightback

Ifightback (talk · contribs) has been wantonly moving articles of certain Philippine TV shows with Tagalog titles to versions with English titles. His rationale has been usually the same improper edit summary: "iT IS BETTER TO PUT IT UNDER THEIR INTERNATIONAL TITLE FOR FOREIGN READERS ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT WILL/OR IS BEING SHOWN OUTSIDE PHILIPPINES, LIKE KOREAN D..." (this is already enough to net him a user warning for improper edit summaries).

We are exerting every effort to undo all his unilateral moves and he has been warned for malicious contributions; last month, he previously made a bad-faith ANI report against the same editor who warned him this time around. We cannot find any notable source for a show's supposed "international title" (he probably translated them himself). We need sysops to stop all of these, since many articles couldn't be reverted back to their original Tagalog titles. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Without any statement as to which language should be used in the titles (i.e. without any regard of whether he's correct or not), his behavior certainly seems problematic. Unilateral action in the face of opposition is never a good idea, doubly so when it happens to multiple articles in rapid succession and accompanied by an ALL CAPS edit summary. Even if he is correct (and I'm not saying he is), he's working very hard to ensure that the correct result gets reversed. His behavior needs to change dramatically if he's to stay around here much longer, regardless of what the Wikipedia articles should be titled. --Jayron32 14:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I even tried moving back one of the articles, but the original name could not be used again, thanks to his handiwork. That's why we need sysopping to stop them all. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If I may add, according to Ifightback's user page, he "moderates" a number of articles, most of them are related to ABS-CBN. Seems to me that he is somehow violating WP:OWN as well. -WayKurat (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He does "moderation" now? Fuck him. Subukan lang niya sa mga artikulong pinaghirapan ko, makakatikim yan sakin. (Let's see him try on the articles I've worked hard on, he might get something from me) --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Eaglestorm has been warned to stay civil. Comments like the one above are harmful and not at all constructive. De728631 (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving all those articles without pause and consensus is also not constructive. I won't apologize for speaking my mind against such people, so instead of reprimanding me first, why don't you help out as well with repairing the damage he caused? --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer is very simple: the most obvious misconduct gets addressed first. While we first have to assess all the potential damage Ifightback may have done, your rant clearly sticks out in this thread. De728631 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now warned Ifightback not to move any such pages without individual consensus. Further unilateral moves of this kind may result in a block. Many pages have already been moved back but there are still some that need to be moved over redirect or similar. De728631 (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock disruption at a requested move

A requested move at Tenedos [158] is being plagued by sock disruption. IPs and brand new accounts without any previous contribs are popping up one after another, all to "Support" the move. I'm counting at least 3 [159] [160] [161]. The latter even had the nerve to remove [162] one of my comments about how one of the IPs had no previous contribs. The style and tone of the 64.134.223.42 IP and User:Cinque stelle remind me very much of the move initiator, User:AbstractIllusions, itself a brand new account without previous contributions (and 95% of their contributions to the Tenedos requested move), although there is no shortage of suspects who would be willing to engage in such disruption. It is characterstic that they are trying to conceal their tracks by removing my comments on Talk:Tenedos regarding the disruption. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not file at SPI?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Because there are too many potential suspects. Athenean (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't see anything that is out of line with other cases that we process.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There could be any number of sockmasters. Every SPI I have seen has one sockmaster, buy here there could even two or more sockmasters, and even if there was only one, I'm not sure who it would be (there are many candidates). Anyway, I need to run now and won't have access for a while. Athenean (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, since they keep removing my talkpage comments where I point out that these are brand new accounts and IPs without any prior contributions (in order to cover their tracks), an additional reason I posted here was to document this disruption (I don't think they would get away with removing my comments here), so that a potential closing admin be aware of what is going on there (again, since they keep removing my comments). Athenean (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you named a master above and one named account that you think is a sock. If you listed your information in a proper SPI report and believed that there were proper grounds then you could request checkuser to help sort this out if you are willing to supply the diffs. A checkuser may figure out the elusive master that lies behind the report.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Some canvassing has been going on, E4024 posted this to my talk page. [163] and another to a different users talk page. [164] I'm not certain to what extent, but I've never played a part of that article, which is surprising to me. Not sure how I was contacted, but the RFC is probably tainted badly already. Though I am not sure what is actually going on, here. I'm unfamiliar with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought Canvassing means trying to bring together like-minded editors to try to influence certain editing. I only tried to bring in more editors to discuss the issue and so put an invitation to several users' talk pages, none of whom I know personally. If you look into my contributions you can find out the exact list of invitees. When you look at the list you will see that they are random users, not known to act together on certain articles (as far as I know). I tried to chose admins simply because the discussion was heated and boring as among very few users. I saw the name "I feel tired" (or smt like that) and made a joke-call to that user because of his user name. All clear? --E4024 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS, but really this isn't so much about you since I doubt we'd gladly hop on over these socks, I'm not sure where they came from, but the entire topic is weird to me. Though it is usually okay to notify via template to the relevant Wikiproject or other avenues, it is probably not a good idea to go asking random people for assistance hoping that they are favorable for your ideas, the entire thing is supposed to not be a vote, but too often people will go with sheer numbers rather than arguments made. I doubt you are in trouble, this is nothing at all in comparison, but the topic is a weird one and I have no idea what is going on. I just thought you could explain the situation better, since I doubt the socks will turn up here even if directed to. This isn't a witch hunt or a disciplinary thing, you seem entirely unaware of such obscure jargon and the hundreds of 'guidelines' under people are expected to follow... often without prior notice. Don't worry so much, I just hope you can explain the situation for everyone at AN/I, many of which are Admins or experienced and active users. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Chris: If your words are directed at me, I have no reason to worry about anything; I couldn't feel easier. As I do not know how to make an RfC -or am too lazy to learn using those gadgets- I asked you to do it for me, possibly because I saw a bot with your name, and as you did not do -I guess- anything about that I continued putting invitations to people's talk pages, people whose names were on the screen for changes in my watchlist. (Frankly I even do not know where to find a user if there is no blue link around. The Admins I know of their authoritative voice tone. :-) I know everybody can see each other's talk page so have no doubt when I write something in your or user x's page it is a public communication. As I said above, I asked people to come in because the discussion was not among sufficient users. On the other hand, I chose especially Admins because the discussion was getting heated. As regards sock claims, I am always open and voluntary to be checked for sock or sockmaster investigation. In Turkish we say "I did not eat anything raw so why would I have a stomach ache?" Please go ahead and get me checked if you have the faintest suspicion about my being or having a sock. I have nothing else to add, other than greetings... --E4024 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are a sock, I'm pointing out that said dispute exists and is now sitting at WP:WQA#Attack on Editors from one party and I was contacted for another. I really haven't looked into the matter much for a content dispute. My dictionary says Tenedos is the old name and Bozcaada is the modern name. From the Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, but that is a different matter. Though I do not run a bot, it is possible I had typo corrected or did some sourcing on an article in your watchlist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope all "socks" get caught and removed immediately. I also hope when people besmirch my name, they at least have the decency to contact me about it (oh well for that). I am open to any investigation or verification, so bring them on. I appreciate false accounts very little because it make my hulk-like argument seem weak. YES I AM NEW!!! Whew! We got that out of the way. And apparently that means 1. allegations against me to start the conversation, 2. alternating lectures that go against Wikipedia:Naming Convention guidelines, 3. allegations again, 4. rejection of my evidence without even looking at it (like EVERY opposer has done), 5. more allegations, 6. and then allegations behind my back (by the way, to equate my lengthy, poetic explications with someone who made the point in three sentences is truly insulting) 7. And then when that discussion happens behind my back, I am dismissed as a Single-Purpose account, as if you all didn't read my amazing entry on Middletown State Homeopathic Hospital and my merge for Estevanico, both cutting edge. Awesome. When is the punch in the gut? If I don't become experienced and a blue-linked account, it isn't for lack of energy, passion, or ability: It will be because of community-encouraged bullying. Life's too short for this. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence on any of the accused members being sock puppets? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@Abstract: I guess you are a well-educated native speaker; if not, congratulations for your excellent English. As English is one of several foreign languages I try to speak, not without difficulties, would like to ask your kind help in understanding your reference to the presumed insult. I gather you mean explaining one's argument in few words is an ability, right? (Please If you bother to answer me do not make mithological allegories as I am way distant from that area of knowledge...) All the best and thanks for your contribution for making WP a more objective source of info. --E4024 (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@E4024. I was being somewhat playful about that point. It wasn't a big insult. Athenean said "The style and tone of [two users I disagree with] remind me very much of the move initiator" [who is me]. [Note: he said this behind my back and made no effort to let me know it was being said]. Both of those users are brief, compact, and have a gift for succinct, targeted questions. My "style", in contrast, is lengthy, evidence-heavy comments. To say our "style" is at all similar is either 1. absurd or 2. just an attempt to muddy the waters. If any of the accounts are sockpuppets, I am seriously saddened and want them gone, now. But remember, Athenean isn't the best judge of this: he started his engagement with me by saying that my account was fraudulent. If that's how you start a conversation after a guy spent significant time in the libraries compiling every reference source he could find on the issue to make a new move request that is now based upon the widest understanding of the evidence ever, then I start to question a person's ability to really detect these things and probably the person just uses these allegations to try and influence the outcome through subterfuge. [Note: he pretty much admits as much above. He is making these baseless, broad accusations so that administrators will put it in their decision]. I got too much honor and work put into this to try and influence the discussion through deceitful means. Just want us to make the right decision based upon the evidence. If that isn't mine? Cool, I'll move on. But if it is a decision based upon a mass of baseless allegations from the start...that's less cool in my book. Either way, I got my own style, it isn't like the other users. Athenean asserts it is similar (with no example), I find that equivalence to be somewhat offensive to the stuff I'm saying. That's it. Hope I kept it non-mythological enough (but probably didn't). AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio by Balabanpasa

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

---

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

Balabanpasa has once again posted copyright material he had been warned about after he posted it the first time. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And he has continued to repost it, claiming that it's not a copyright violation of this page. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, content from this site was repeatedly added by Balabanpasa. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Kendrick7 - Faliure to abide by AfD

user:Kendrick7 did not like the result of the AfD regarding Mitt Romney's Tax returns here. The result was delete. As a result of this action Kendrick7 has decided that he will simply restore the article against the AfD here.

I notified Kendrick7 that there is Deletion Review here, and Kendrick7's response was this. Regardless of anyone's feelings on the article Kendrick7's actions are simply unacceptable behaviour. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor notified Arzel (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Kendrick7 called my revert of his violation of the AfD vandalism which I strongly reject. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I supported the deletion of Mitt Romney's tax returns because its existence was being used to justify a lack of coverage of the topic in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. After the deletion went through, various editors attempted to merge in some of the deleted material (full disclosure: I supported this). Their efforts were met by reverts from Arzel and other conservatives who, as far as I could tell, were working to squeeze the material out of Wikipedia from both sides.

Kendrick7 saw this and he did the right thing. He negated the dirty tricks and wikilawyering, and that's commendable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete BS. I removed only a POV graph and opened up discussion on what material should be included into the main article. Still, if you can't make an honest statement than you should probably just stay out of the discussion. Arzel (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who even glances at the article history can see an edit war over the inclusion of tax return material. I suspect readers will believe their own eyes over your vulgar denial. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Note The link that you've given doesn't seem to show you informing Kendrick about Deletion Review. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors should not merge content during an AFD. AfD participants should not work "around" consensus by beginning a merge process on their own, before discussion. While preservation of content is a good consideration, copying may be contentious and may create additional steps and administrative work if undoing any copying is necessary. Such a merge also causes an attribution dependency breakage between articles that may require the merging of article history that would be lost if the source page is deleted. AFD participants may offer proposals and negotiate with the other participants during the discussion. If needed, editors may ask the closing admin how to rescue the content or what additional steps that need to be taken.

If the consensus was delete, why was the article redirected? It should be deleted, period. The closing statement says the consensus was delete, not "redirect" not merge with redirect...just delete. So...why wasn't it deleted? Was it deleted and then just recreated? Since it is obvious that it will probably just happen again an admin should delete the article again as per the closing.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted by User:Mark_Arsten, the closing admin, and then recreated as a redirect by User:Kendrick7. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This user, Kendrick7, is labeling other editors edits as vandalism when they clearly are not, and edit warring against the consensus of an AfD and of an article talk page. It seems admin intervention is necessary to put an end to this. Note I put a speedy delete tag on the recently recreated redirect "Mitt Romney's tax returns", as the user is warring over returning that to a full article as well. Tarc (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the article needs to be deleted again (edit: I see that Tarc has tagged for speedy delete. I support that) and set so it cannot be recreated without an admin. The outcome of the AFD did not mention merging and in this instance it is a contentious move to do so without a clear consensus now that the AFD has closed. Merging the content is controversial now as the decision did not include merging any content.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the CSD G4 is valid as the page as it currently exists is a redirect, which fails the "substantially similar to deleted version" criteria (of course, it was not Kendrick that made it a redirect, the CSD WOULD have been valid for the previous version before Viriditas made it a redirect). I'll ask them (Tarc/Viriditas) to this page for their thoughts, rather than do it individually on two separate talk pages. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The speedy deletion has been declined by User:Crisco_1492, as it is a valid redirect. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am the original AfD nominator. I don't think it's too much to expect the closing admin to abide by the community's decision, is it? If the consensus was "delete", not "redirect", why is there a redirect??? This seems a little fishy to me. I would like a neutral admin to review that decision. Belchfire-TALK 07:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted by User:Mark_Arsten, the closing admin, and then recreated as a redirect by User:Kendrick7. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I thought the redirect was created by Mark. My bad. Belchfire-TALK 07:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reading the AFD there is a clear consensus that there should be no standalone article and that no merge is required. The creation of a redirect subsequent to the discussion is an editorial decision and is not prevented by a separate decision to have no standalone article and delete this content. Redirects are not articles and it is very rare for AFD to rule on a redirect and invariably requires a proper discussion of WP:HARM and WP:BLP issues which do not come into play here. I have closed 1000's of AFDs & DRVs over the years and I am very comfortable with the creation of this redirect. If the nom is still not happy than I suggest they list the redirect at WP:RFD but they will need a much better reason than the one we have here. This thread is redundant is policy has not been broken, no wikicrime has been committed and there is an appropriate avenue of remedy that doesn't require reference to the dramah boards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Spartaz that was not at all accurate. The consensus was to delete. The redirect was not made subsequent to the discussion. The article was recreated against the AFD consensus and THAT IS a violation of policy. Recommend the deletion of this article.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And it was then blanked into a redirect repeatedly. Nobody has yet made an argument why a redirect is any more harmful than a redlink in this case. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that and? It is still the article that consensus agreed to delete. If the article is back the answer seems simple...re-open the AFD. It is more harmful than a red link because a redlink means the articler does not exist, the information is not in history and there is no way it can simply be reverted back to an article in the future. If this is not deleted as being to difficult to figure out then someone needs to inform every editor whose consenus has been dismissed. So either re-open the AFD (the same AFD not a new one) or notify all "delete" editors so that they can add input here. The keep votes need not be notified as far as I am concerned since they seem to have gotten what they wanted over the consensus, and we are not worried about being fair obviously. Seems a no brainer to me, but what do I know? I'm just some random editor with no experiance to speak of here I guess. Yeah, why worry about consensus. A good trick that works is much more useful than a group of people wanting to cooperate.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• As stated above, the redirect is/was not part of the Afd, it is a separate editorial decision, and there is no reason to delete it on the grounds of recreated article, since it isn't a recreation of the article. You can nom it as Misc for deletion, but I seriously doubt that would get much traction, as it is a reasonable search term. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Correct, and I don't think a redirect is a problem. The issue is that Kendrick restored the article multiple times against AfD after creating the redirect. Arzel (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that was the issue brought here, but it appears Amadscientist feels the redirect is also an issue, unless I am misunderstanding him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not misunderstand me. I do see the redirect as being in direct conflict with consensus, but this is a teachable moment about Wikipedia bureaucracy, as a good trick to over ride consensus, because this is exactly that. An AFD is closed as delete. The article is deleted. Whether or not the the new article contained similar or slightly different information, the fact is the article was recreated immediatly after the AFD and is extremely controversial. An editor makes the mistake of redirecting and now we are being told we are stuck with it because a redirect is an editorial decision? Would another uninvolved editor who reverts that and then tags the actual article for AFD then be doing the same type of editorial decision making? Would that satisfy the red tape of this situation or are we truly stuck with this. I guess I should just be happy that the information is still available and not worry that this was an end run around community consensus likely to be played again by editors. As I said, wide gap in policy here, but I am not going to battle over it. Let the article stand as a redirect and let there be NO POSSIBLE way to undue this, as it appears is so. I should just let this make my political minded side be happy about it, but frankly the whole thing makes me very uncomfortable to see how this was done.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Any editor can create a redirect, even over a previously deleted page. Let's say "Umbrella (song)" were deleted. An editor could then redirect the title to the album on which the song appeared, no matter if the AFD was delete, merge, or redirect, to preserve blue links and because it's a plausible search term. This is acceptable, and in my opinion desirable, as people are still looking for the information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Had I noticed Kendrick re-creating the deleted article (presumably he had saved a copy offline?) and revert warring over it I would have blocked him last night. He seems to have stopped reverting though now. If he does so again, feel free to notify me and I'll block him. That being said, if anyone feels like the redirect is an issue, I think the best idea would be to go to WP:RFD. Usually no one objects to the redirection of an article that has been deleted at an Afd, but since people find it concerning I think an Rfd would be the best idea here. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Naapple added a copy of the deleted article to Talk:Mitt Romney citing WP:PRESERVE, so that is presumably where User:Kendrick7 got markup for the recreated article. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I yanked it from the history of Kendrick's constant reversion of the deleted article. I chucked it in the Romney 2012 Campaign talk page in hopes of appeasing both sides, since the material didn't seem false or contentious; just a long-winded POV fork. This apparently didn't work. Maybe an admin needs to delete it, it's still sitting in the talk page. It will always be available in history though. Could I be notified next time when my name is used? Naapple (Talk) 09:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Mark. A redirect like this would not fall under G4, as it is in no way "substantially similar to the article deleted", which is why it was declined. I'd suggest protecting the redirect if it a) survives or is not sent to RfD and b) is continually recreated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it was an edit-war over a redirect vs a deleted-article restoration; if I had tagged it at the right time (i.e. the Wrong Version(tm)) then the rationale would've been a perfect fit. Yea, tagging the article while in a redirected state was not ideal, but IMO you coulda saved us all a bit of WP:BURO time. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Except for the fact that it's a viable search term, which would preclude its speedy deletion as a redirect. I'm not going to G4 a redirect from a video game character or anything like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• I came on this from finding in the speedy-deletion list a copy of the article at User:StillStanding-247/Mitt Romney's tax returns tagged as G4. WP:CSD#G4 allows "content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)". Given the history,and the edit summary "Save a backup" when it was created, I decided that this was circumvention rather than a plan for improvement, and better speedy-deleted than exposed for a week's argument at MfD. The main article, recreated after the AfD, had been over-written with the redirect discussed above; given the clear delete decision of the AfD, I have re-deleted that and replaced it with the redirect, so that the deleted article is no longer in the history. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I quite openly backed it up to make rescuing lost material easier. I've since backed it up to my hard drive, so nothing was lost. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to circumvent consensus. The article was deleted, and it will stay deleted--you can't rescue it. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize a backup couldn't be kept around at the time. In order to appease some of the folks who wanted a merge, I tossed it into the Romney 2012 Campaign talk page [[165]]. I guess it would need deleted there too, along with the history? Naapple (Talk) 16:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the problem was with backing it up as a page, as opposed to in a page, but please check the relevant policies to be sure. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

@SS247 My blunt comment above was prompted by your use of the word "rescue" in regards to the article, it's a bit of a loaded term around here (Wikipedia:Rescue). I thought you were saying you were going to try to get the article restored even though it had been deleted by consensus. I guess I wasn't assuming good faith there, so I apologize for that, but please be very careful when editing in such a contentious area. I've full protected the redirect until after the election, so I think things are now settled wrt that. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

page move war

Admin intervention may be needed at Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy - this title violates BLP in that a straight reading implies Akin is involved in rape, but the title that the article has been moved to (edit to add) during the page move war is non-illuminatory of the actual topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a temporary move to Todd Akin's comments on rape and pregnancy as non-blp violation while a dicussion takes place on the talk page to come to a consensus. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

While I think the year should be mentioned for the sake of descriptiveness, I would support move-protecting it at the suggested title. To be clear on the problem, "Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy" does not sufficiently identify the subject and could be taken in a very bad way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind why there's even an article on this nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The place for that discussion is here.--JayJasper (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't studied the dispute, and in particular, I haven't thought carefully about whether this should be a separate article from Akin's article or the election article. But if the decision is to have a separate article, it occurs to me a possible, less ambiguous alternate title would be "Todd Akin rape-and-pregnancy controversy": this makes it clearer that "rape and pregnancy" modifies "controversy" and eliminates the possible initial mis-signalling of "Todd Akin rape".... Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is "rape and pregnancy" together are still misleading as to the source of controversy in a way that creates BLP issues. Looking at it Red's suggestion is also a problem. I had thought he was suggesting a slight modification of my rename to "Todd Akin's 2012 comments on rape-induced pregnancy" by removing the year, but clearly this retains the misleading and less precise "rape and pregnancy" phrasing in some manner. Akin's comments were on pregnancies caused by rape i.e. "rape-induced pregnancy" and not comments on each topic individually. More importantly, by making it that broadly worded it would seem to make the subject about any comments he has made on rape and pregnancy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

i agree that "rape-and-pregnancy" just adds the implication that the non-existant victim of a non-existant rape is pregnant with a non-existant child. The title needs something to indicate that it is about words and not actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding the word "comments" to the title is fine so it doesn't appear Akin himself is in an actual rape controversy, but the word "controversy" needs to remain because that's what this topic is. Adding the year to the article title is extraneous and only serves to imply there are multiple other articles with the same titles but in different years, ie 2011 Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comments controversy, which obviously doesn't exist.--Oakshade (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

the reliable sources arent using "controversy". Todd Akin's comment that “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancy is the phraseology that I am seeing frequently in sources. Its gawdawful, but if the AfD doesnt put the article out of its misery, it may be the best we can do until Legitimate rapegate becomes the terminology used. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is splitting hairs to an extent to try and distinguish between whether the subject of the article is the comment or the resulting controversy. Clearly if the subject were seen as independently notable, it would just as much be about the comment as it is about the controversy surrounding it. Personally, I just find it difficult to see how "controversy" could be incorporated into the title in a way that isn't awkward.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears litterally thousands of sources are using he word "controversy" or "controversial" in regards to this controversy.[166] It's the controversy instigated by the coments. To not refer to this controversy as a controversy would be innacurate. --Oakshade (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What about just "Legitimate rape" controversy? Why does Akin's name need to be in there? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it's fundamentally connected with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And Watergate is fundamentally connected with Richard Nixon. What's your point? Our article on that isn't located at Richard Nixon Watergate scandal. Iran-Contra affair isn't Ronald Reagan Iran-Contra affair. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Those events had many co-conspirators and neither was authorized by Nixon or Reagan respectively. Are you suggesting that Akin's comments are not his, but rather those of a team of conspirators? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding on to what Bugs said, there is also the fact that we are using the common names with those articles. Your suggestion would not be the common name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The word "controversy" should be used in the article, but it would be difficult to incorporate into the title in a natural manner. Many sources also refer to his comments so, again, this is just splitting hairs to argue over whether the subject should be the controversy or the comments. Nothing would change with the article itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean how we refer to the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke comments because it was all about her comments that she wanted to make before Congress, and his comments about her? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you are responding with that. My point is that the term controversy would be difficult to incorporate into this title. Should someone have a way to do that where the title is descriptive and doesn't seem awkward I would have no opposition to it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My point is merely that it is easy to have that word in the title if that is what the article is about. The title of the article I referenced could also be described as "awkward " but it is what the article is about. I suspect the same is true in this instance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There are significant differences between the two situations. Akin's comments did not concern any specific person and so the controversy is strictly limited to the content of those comments rather than any personal dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

the point is not the article subjects are the same, the point is that the word "controversy" may sound awkward in a title, but is perfectly acceptable there and is appropriate if a controversy is what the article is about. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was unacceptable or inappropriate. The controversy and the comments are quite inseparable from my perspective so I do not see why "controversy" is necessary in the title if it is going to be difficult to make a good title with it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:ArdenHathaway - personal attack posted on main user page

I gave this user a Level 1 template earlier today for persistently posting irrelevant material. This was his response: [167]

The "documentary" is propaganda and the discussion about it is only in the Zero Dark Thirty article to mount a partisan attack the Obama Administration. By adding the material on the partisan creators of the documentary, I provided information from which the reader can judge for themselves whether it's an example of "Swiftboating," which it is.

I am a fan of Kathryn Bigelow, so I don't want somebody's partisan propaganda spoiling an article about a work of art (the film).

You, on the other hand. Aren't you a paid PR flack working for right wing causes?

This editor is certainly entitled to a dissenting opinion, but this seems more than a little off-base to me. Belchfire-TALK 05:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, your summary is not accurate. The material he's inserting has the support of other editors, myself included, and it's well-cited now. As for his comment, I have to admit that I've wondered the same thing myself, but decided it wasn't likely. In any case, if you didn't have a track record of persistent incivility and frequent personal attacks, I'd be much, much more sympathetic towards your plight. All I see here is someone you edit-warred against and is understandably unhappy with you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of said edit warring. WP:BOOMERANG may be around the corner. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Based on a report at AN3, I have fully protected the article for 3 days, blocked User:ArdenHathaway for 24 hours for edit-warring and for personal attacks, and warned User:Mollskman.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandalism of articles related to Nazi Germany

We have a indefatigable IP-hopping anon making disruptive edits to articles related to Nazi Germany. See 95.178.176.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for an example of their work. Their leitmotif is changing "Nazi Germany" into "National Socialist Germany", but they have a general pattern of disruptive editing: section blanking, describing West Germany as an "American puppet state", and so on.

Similar editing patterns can be seen from 95.178.241.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 95.178.150.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and they have also made edits from 176.222.32.0/20 and 89.201.128.0/19 -- and there are more.

Repeated warnings and blocks (see above) seem not to have been effective. All their edits are made from addresses owned by Optima Telekom, a Croatian ISP, but their originating addresses span a number of netblocks, so a single rangeblock isn't going to get them, and hitting every IP address range that they have edited from will end up blocking most or all of Optima Telekom's customers. Short of dropping AS34594 at the edge routers, anyone have any suggestions for how this might best be resolved? -- The Anome (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This Google network report on that AS might also be of interest. -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at their routing announcements, their entire advertised range would seem to be covered by 5.43.160.0/19, 89.201.128.0/17, 95.178.128.0/17, and 176.222.32.0/20. Perhaps that's not too big an address range set to temp-block, after all: the whole lot comes to not much more than a single /16, and shouldn't cause that much disruption if the block is kept to an anon-block only. I've now anon-blocked this whole (very small) ISP for a short period. Hopefully this will hold things off for a bit to allow cleanup to occur. -- The Anome (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be getting a lot of thos nazi sympathiser crap lately, to the extent that I wonder if there isn't a coordinated campaign coming from some other site. Of course to find out we sould have to look at their websites, which I don't think I can stomach. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Something funny going on at WP:TH

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

---

Over at the Teahouse (WP:TH), there's a user complaining about impersonation and harassment. I've blocked one of the IP addresses I think is behind it, but we need some more eyes over there to help investigate and to nip this in the bud. If anyone wants to come over and help, that'd be super. --Jayron32 13:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm moving this here. Below is the collapsed version of what was left at the Teahouse question page.

Moved from the Teahouse to here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do I report if someone has been using my ID as Karankyle posed as me and asked a question on my articles for creation question page? Help me! I don't want someone to use me! Karankyle (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Don;t listen to him! Listen to me! This is the IP adress of KaranBhugtiar and this Karankyle has done enough damage towards my account! Block him!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.142.20 (talk • contribs) I've blocked the above IP address. Karankyle, can you indicate which page, via a link, the impersonation has happened on, so we can check and see what is going on? --Jayron32 13:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I have also asked at WP:ANI for other administrators to come by and help investigate and keep an eye on this. Hopefully we'll get to the bottom of it. --Jayron32 13:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC) OK. I've been doing some investigating, and this needs to be handled at WP:ANI rather than here. I'm going to close this down. Any further comments on this issue need to be handled at WP:ANI, a discussion which I am working on starting presently. --Jayron32 13:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The involved accounts seem to be:

• KaranBhugtiar (talk · contribs)
• 58.146.142.20 (talk · contribs)
• Karankyle (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit confused about what is really going on here, but something needs some explaining. I am inviting all three to come to this noticeboard to explain themselves. I had previously blocked the IP address, but I have unblocked because I am not sure what is up. --Jayron32 13:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Confusing indeed. This request by Karankyle brought me to a redirect Selina Kyle which has been semi-protected last year as the "target of an IP block evader" 71.162.104.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), a suspected sock of Noob saibot red. See also AFC/Selina Kyle in popular culture where both KaranBhugtiar and Karankyle have been editing. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jogoblin and its archive. And to be honest, I'm going to add the IP (2nd time it'll be in the SPI) and KaranBhugtiar to the SPI since this smells of WP:BROTHER and WP:COMPROMISED. - J Greb (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Also... I doubt it Noob saibot red, unless they've moved or picked up a proxy half the world away. - J Greb (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Checkuser results confirm socking. All are blocked and tagged.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

BLP article protection request

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

---

Can an administrator please protect Flux Pavilion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) due to constant BLP violations and vandalism. Dynamic IP addresses are not letting up. Thanks! -- Luke (Talk) 18:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The Sarasota News Leader

Please see User talk:Dougweller and this edit at the article with the edit summary "I am Robert S. Hackney, the president and co-founder of The Sarasota News Leader. I was correcting entries made by someone with no connection whatsoever to our publication, who made false entries as a prank". I restored it, and explained on the editor's talk page that they should raise the issue on the article talk page. Instead I've been sent what is referred to as a confidential email, so I can't reveal the contents I guess except I think I need to say that they want the article deleted, are asking for things I can't do, and making various claims and threats. We may need to block the editor but that won't solve the problems. I will suggest they email OTRS. Anyway, if anyone can take a look at the article, it would be appreciated. And as a hypothetical, can someone exclude the fair use of logos or trademarks without permission? Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because it is fair use. Having said that we are far more stringent about fair use than we strictly need to be.

The most likely reason for this article to be deleted is under notability criteris. Rich Farmbrough, 17:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

I have just deleted a screenshot image of their webpage that was being used under a free license from the uploader. Theoretically it could have been converted to fair use, but The Sarasota Newsleader has a disclaimer on their website that they "specifically exclude from 'fair use doctrine' any reproduction of our logos or banners in any other medium or publication without written permission." Is that even possible? De728631 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Fair use" is a legal standard, it cannot be "waived" by the owner of a copyright, because it is not dependent on their permission. It is a set of circumstances and situations under which various courts have ruled that copyrighted material can be utilized regardless of the desire of the copyright owner. If a copyright owner believes their property is being used in a way that is not consonant with "fair use", their option is to start legal action. A disclaimer does nothing whatsoever, except betray a lack of understanding of the law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess Rich has already answered my question. De728631 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A minute of web search didn't find much in the way of good sourcing establishing notability for this new publication, so I added a PROD. If there is an AfD I'd support deletion. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I support this prod. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Now at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am prepared to replace the image after the hornet's nest calms down at the article—if it is not deleted. I posted the stub on the publication and developed the expansion. Do not want to take a great deal of everyone's time to argue the point. I think it deserves a page due to notability, but do not want to create a controversy. I have gone into more detail at the page talk _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. I can now say that there are no threats and that I will inform my correspondent about the AfD. I believe that the underlying problems are being resolved by the parties involved. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Heads up.

Neil Armstrong is dead.[168] Might be wise to put more eyes on his article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

BP

Quite some time, the BP article, particularly its talk page has turned into WP:BATTLEGROUND. In June, the dispute between two editors over the lead of this article started. It was brought to DRN (relevant discussion is here); however, there was no consensus found. Discussion continued then at the article's talk page without any progress. The conflict between editors escalated (particularly during last week) and at the moment a number of comments do not discuss the topic but other editors supplemented by personal attacks and harassment. I will not provide any particular diffs as the whole talk page is overloaded with that kind of comments. Any assistance to cool down the heated discussion and making it more constructive is appreciated.

To avoid any potential misunderstanding I am providing an overview of my involvement in this discussion. I edited this article first time in 2010 and have had it in my watchlist since. Although I have mad 64 edits to this article, I am not the main author of this article (most of the current text is not added by me and significant part of my edits are just housekeeping). As in June I tried to make a compromise concerning the lead [169], I was invited by both involved parties to participate in the DRN process. [170] and [171]. I made my contributions to DRN, including disclosure of my involvement in the discussion [172]. However, the discussion ended without consensus. I have been also involved in the talk page discussion although after the latest escalation I'd rather limited my involvement. Beagel (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I also think some assistance is needed. In my opinion, there is editing at the BP article that looks like there is some kind of COI, and behavior that no editor should have to endure. Calling attention to this has ruffled some feathers to put it lightly. For my part, I came to the BP page to update it in May 2012, and noticed glaring POV right away. BP's Solar Program had closed but was still in present tense in the article. I corrected the text and added BP's stated reason for the closure from their website (it wasn't profitable enough) with a link. The reason "not profitable enough" was immediately removed by Rangoon11. Next, I noticed serious "greenwashing" in the Intro, and tried to correct it by separating the green claims from the mention of BP's accidents, which were (and remain, due to Rangoon's insistence alone) together in one paragraph in BP's Lede, like a point/counterpoint. After failing to remove the POV, I brought the issue to the NPOV Noticeboard and then to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. It ended after a month with no resolution. We argued in circles, and continue to now.

Rangoon11 made changes to the BP article that heavily slant the Lede to the positive, and has stood by them and reverted any attempts to change it for around a year and a half. [Rangoon's greenwashing 1][greenwashing 2] In the DRN, Rangoon11 claimed without provocation not to have written the greenwashing, but that claim was not backed up by the talk pages and appears to be absolutely false. Subsequent questioning has resulted in Rangoon's lashing out (seen especially in their latest additions to the talk page) and making subtle threats that I am being watched and they are enjoying it.

An incomplete sampling of diffs regarding behavior:

Early on, Rangoon11 said "I suggest you go off and write a blog".

Rangoon11 now seems to be toying with editors and making cutting remarks "Well sadly...."(i think you are that stupid)

This comment was made tonight against my character and work

Rangoon11 has a history that shows I am not first to experience difficulty with their editing and communication style.[173][174][175] petrarchan47tc 07:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You should avoid assigning contentious labels to other user's edits, such as "greenwashing", as it fosters a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It's more productive to stick to policy based arguments. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. petrarchan47tc 08:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the dispute resolution attempt, NPOV noticeboard discussion and the talkpage discussion I recommend that a request for comment be opened to get a wider view on the issues raised here. Per the dispute resolution policy, such requests "can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change". You should also contact any relevant Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Environment (particularly the Environmental Record Task Force) and WikiProject Companies. This noticeboard is meant for situations where urgent administrator action is required, for example blocking users to prevent disruption of the project. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think it is urgent to consider a block for Rangoon11 from editing the BP article specifically for the reasons I outlined, and perhaps at Wikipedia in general based on COI editing in this case and the information found in their AN/I history, which shows this is a pattern. petrarchan47tc 09:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not see the project moving forward with Rangoon11 on board. Their participation is heavily biased and antagonizing. petrarchan47tc 09:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to make any serious proposals along these lines, you will need to familiarise youself with WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. In any case, this is a content dispute, and if there's a long term pattern of negative behaviour by one user in particular you can propse specific remedies at a request for comment on a user. The world won't end if there isn't an immediate block issued, and remember, Wikipedia does not have a deadline. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Petrarchan47's comments above give a flavour, but only a flavour, of the sustained and pretty extreme personal attacks which they have been directing at me in BP related discussions. I have been accused of harassment, COI editing, paid editing, working for BP and lying. It should also be noted that Petrarchan47's sole interest and focus on the BP article has been puffing up and adding perceived "controversy" type content. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Rangoon's assessment. My only interest in this article is to get the bias out of it with my main focus on the Intro. Records show I have made this claim from the beginning. I have made multitudes of improvements to the article, and no one has accused me of being biased in my edits save Rangoon11. Secondly, I have never claimed to know why Rangoon11's editing seems 100% like what one would expect from someone with COI, I have claimed that it really does not matter to me the cause - my understanding is COI editing is equally egregious on Wikipedia and can be shown by edits alone. Also I have never said Rangoon harassed me. But there are diffs included above which show the behavior is antagonistic and immature as well as dishonest and aggressive. I have accused Rangoon11 of bullying, and this was seconded in the DRN by a third party: [Rangoon's] "style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial....". I realize this isn't the place for a formal complaint, but needed to comment on Rangoon's statements. petrarchan47tc 05:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that it is strongly encouraged that editors declare conflicts of interest at Wikipedia before editing. Previous accusations that Rangoon11 had such a conflict of interest were found to be unsubstantiated. Furthermore, to quote from WP:COI, "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban". You should try and verify suspicions about other editors' conflicts of interest at WP:COIN without publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have completely misunderstood this. I thought a conflict of interest could be shown by behavior, by slanting an article and refusing to allow any change, and did not realize the definition was so narrow. So for that misunderstanding, I do apologize. If a ban is in order, OK. How then does one address the problem I am seeing in the BP Intro? By using "POV" instead? petrarchan47tc 06:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I still recommend that you open an RfC on the content dispute. When a small number of editors are engaged in a heated content dispute, it becomes impossible to form any meaningful consensus. An RfC will invite more editors to stop by the BP article, take a look at the issues discussed on the talk page and help to reach a consensus. When only a small number of editors are engaged, it becomes impossible to form any meaningful consensus. I can give you a hand starting the process if you like. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my late entry which puts it out of sequence--I was unable to post yesterday. I came across this article a few weeks ago (June 11) and was surprised to find that it had only one sentence in the lead related to BP's poor environmental history and about two or three times that amount of copy devoted to praise for their environmental green efforts. Knowing that they were responsible for the Gulf oil spill, not mentioned even though it has been called the worst ever environmental disaster in the U.S., I felt that the lead needed to be edited. I spent a fair amount of time reading the article's environmental sections and their sources, the editing history, and the ongoing talk page discussion between Rangoon11 and Petrarchan and concluded that Rangoon11 had been whitewashing the BP article for some time. I note that editor 203 has suggested that it is advisable to not use words such as "greenwashing" when speaking of another editor's edits and I am sure s/he is correct and it was a poor choice on my part to use the phrase and I apologize to Rangoon11. However, in my defense, the company bias seemed so extreme that I felt I needed to come right out and say what I perceived to be the facts of the matter. Also, I am familiar with Rangoon11 from other articles, GlaxoSmithKline for instance, where other editors have stated that she has an apparent strong bias for the corporate interests as well. I agree that it would be good to have other editors offer suggestions to help us move forward. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I reported the case here not because of content dispute (I fully agree that this notice board is not a place to discuss content) but because of hope to end WP:BATTLEGROUND, calling names, and commenting editors instead of discussing the content. When yesterday seemed that this may come to end, some today's comments dividing editors into camps and making accusations are discouraging. Unfortunate to say, but it seems more and more that name calling and harassment by baseless accusations are acceptable behaviours. I would kindly ask administrators to keep eye on this article and its talk page. Beagel (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no magic button in the admin toolkit that ends battleground mentality, so bringing this dispute to the attention of admins won't necessarily help to resolve it. Getting some experienced editors to take a look at the dispute and make their own contributions to forming a consensus is a better way forward. Petrachan47 has taken my up on my offer to assist in filing an RfC on the content dispute, and I will follow that up on his talkpage. The repeated personal attacks aren't appropriate nor acceptable behaviours on Wikipedia, and that policy details the procedure for dealing with them. Disrupting Wikipedia with abusive editing will result in users being blocked from editing to protect the project. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

203, I happily accept your offer to help, and thank you for the suggestions made here. Because of RL, I do not have the time to carry them out, which takes learning about them first. I would love any help in bringing attention to the page and talk page. I have left oodles of information with links on the talk page, which if looked into, can help show newcomers just how lacking the article is when it comes to negative information about the company. The talk page will also show what a seemingly endless nightmare it has been to try and remedy this. petrarchan47tc 22:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Two months ago I wrote, "It looks to me as if Rangoon11 is the one introducing POV into the article, the one advocating greenwashing by butting together in one paragraph the mention of severe environmental criticism with the mention of slight environmental commendation. Though the one cannot possibly balance the other, it is made to seem so. Rangoon11's style of communication has been bullying and stultifying rather than collegial." I don't see any change. Rangoon11 has the audacity to state "BP's safety and environmental record worldwide and over its whole history is in fact good", despite news reports and analysis showing BP's safety record is in fact many times worse than all other petroleum companies. (ABC news wrote that "OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 'egregious, willful' safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation." That's a ratio of 760 violations by BP to 11 by all others combined!) Rangoon11 cannot move past the favored or presumed position that BP must be good to see that BP is, in fact, not good with safety. This is classic tendentiousness showing itself by impedance and hindrance of any sort of good faith addition which brings BP's abysmal safety record the proper amount of weight. Rangoon11 cannot stonewall forever; the article must move forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing scholarly sources, disruptive edit wars, violation of 3 RR

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

---

اردیبهشت (talk · contribs) has one again removed a reference to the Encyclopaedia Iranica - the most authoritative scholarly work on the subject - because it does not support his ethno-POV. Only a few days ago, he was banned for 4 days because he was removing the same source from the article Iranian cuisine and calling it "vandalism". This user - who is also stubbornly ignoring the policy of using Latin letters in his username - is a man on a mission who is not interested in discussions. Most of his edits are stubborn editwars. His latest edits in Hazara people are technically a violation of 3RR. Had he not removed that scholarly article, it would have been a violation of 3RR. Admin attention and intervention is needed. This user does not seem to havy any interest in constructive work. --Lysozym (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not the most authoritative source, it is merely one souce out of many. Yet that source, too, confirms the edits i have made and so i do not object to its removal, it has merely been replaced but can be re-included. It is you that has been engaged in silly little inter-ethnic Afghan feuding and a strange POV campaign on that article and others seeking to deny Hazara's their Mongolian racial heritage which is what is recorded about them in all other sources. As such, your desire to conceal this fact is dishonest and disruptive. اردیبهشت (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Iranica IS the most authoritative source on the subject. Anyone with basic knowledge in this field knows and aknowledges that. In any way, this edit is an act of vandalism, because you have once again removed a reference to that source and changed the content of the intro to your POV by ignoring the consensus among leading scholars. I have no idea why you are so obsessed with "proving" that the Hazara have no connections with Iranian peoples, whom you consider to "be white and pure". That is racist nonsense. The Hazara are a mixed people. They are the product of waves of Mongol and Turkic peoples mixing with the local Persian and related populations. That's why they speak Persian and not Mongolian. That's why they have genetic similarities with both Eastern and Western populations (a fact that is highlightened in the genetics section). Your edits are POV and they are unencyclopedic, because you delete high-quality scholarly sources and replace them with news articles supporting your POV. You should have learned at least a little bit after your most recent ban. You were banned for removing reference to Iranica. And now, shortly after your ban was lifted, you come back and continue your extremely disruptive and unencyclopedic editing. Wikipedia is neither a platform for POV-pushers nor for strange racist ideologies of "pure peoples". --Lysozym (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please learn how to stick to an issue at hand and not make false accusations and assumptions about other people which you know are simply not true. Until such time, it will continue to be incredibly testing to take you seriously. اردیبهشت (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your objectives are clear. This edit is a violation of WP:STALK and WP:POINT. Maybe you can explain to us why you revert back to a version that is a direct violation of copy rights and draws heavily on obviously falsified content. Maybe you should have read the talkpage first. I let the admins decide. --Lysozym (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, please stick to your own issue at hand. Also, im afraid that stalking is characteristic of your attidue and has been initiated long before by you, so please do not play a victim here.[176][177] اردیبهشت (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR:
1)[178]
2)[179]
3)[180]
Please note that these edits are identical with previous ones of a few days ago. Meanwhile, he continues his racist approach, claiming that the Hazara are neither an Iranian people nor are related to them (a ridiculous claim that is opposed by all scholars; the Hazara are an Iranian people because they speak an Iranian language). --Lysozym (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR requires 4 reverts in 24 hours not 3. One of those edits are to AN/I and is broken when I view it. Though edit warring should stop. Its time to take the matter to WP:DRN for content disputes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! اردیبهشت (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No rule has been broken there. Also, those edits are the same because you have been reverting them with your disruptive editing on the article by removing sourced information as i had mentioned in my initial complaint prior to this one. All you are doing is trying to complain back because of your obvious childishness and out of your silly little inter-ethnic Afghan feuding that you have expressed and admitted to me in a previous discussion. اردیبهشت (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments like that are unhelpful and can be seen as uncivil. Despite what you may think of the reporting user, it is probably best not to make references to their behavior or call their edits silly. The matter is serious to the both of you. Such civility concerns are best handled at WP:WQA. And that applies to Lysozym as well, calling ردیبهشت a racist is NOT helping to defuse the situation. Stick to matters of content rather than your judgement of their personal beliefs. For the sake of WP:CIVIL ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• My vote would be for an indef block of اردیبهشت, for edit warring, disruption, and POV pushing. He was recently blocked for 4 days, and almost immediately returned to the same behavior when his block expired. He clearly has no plans to be cooperative in any sense of the word. Honestly, I was about to block him myself, but I'm about to leave for the day. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm considering a lengthy block as well. The second edit he made after returning from their block was to continue edit warring. Clearly the first two blocks haven't driven home the point that edit warring isn't acceptable. AniMate 23:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd impose a final warning; either they fix the problem at WP:DRN/WP:3O or somehow agree to disagree, but either way the edit warring has to stop. ردیبهشت obviously feels strongly about the matter; rather than have an indef block be handed down, I'd bring them before a board and if ردیبهشت continues to edit war, be indef blocked until such a dispute can be resolved. Final chance, I say. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That edit was not a revert or edit warring. I added a secondary source with a different re-write for the introduction, one that kept material from both sides of the dispute over that article's content. As for 'POV pushing', im afraid you'll just have to read through the references in their entirety if that is how this dispute appears to you. Nothing ive added to the article Hazara people has been without a source. اردیبهشت (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your first article edit after returning from your last block. Here's an edit from before your block, and a third from today. You are edit warring. Clearly and unambiguously. In fact the bulk of your edits seem to be undoing or reverting edits by User:Lysozym. You've immediately returned to the battleground and that is unacceptable. We block people to stop disruption in the hopes that when a block has lifted or ended the disruptive behavior has stopped. Your disruptive behavior clearly has not stopped. I'm leaning towards blocking this account for at least two weeks, unless you can give me a reason not to do so. AniMate 00:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this user since s/he made this pointless deletion request on Wikimedia commons [181]. This user appears to be nothing more than a POV-pusher who removes content s/he does not like. I support the motion to indefinitely block this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Indef, per ScottyWong. NotHere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Indef block as well per the concerns by ScottyWong. اردیبهشت has been edit warring, and caused disruption and POV pushing, and we must not let the user disrupt Wikipedia any further. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Indef, per Scottywong. And both اردیبهشت and Lysozym please understand that now that this AN/I has been opened, continuing your arguments on third party talk pages will not help either of you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked this account indefinitely. I was considering blocking for a set period of time, but the more I look at this users contributions the clearer it becomes that they are only here to push a POV and won't edit constructively. As with any of my rare administrative actions, anyone may reverse it in good faith. AniMate 07:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat toward MadGuy7023

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

---

By 2602:306:3815:8CA0:ED57:F5CD:585C:3C2A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff "I can let you know that his lawyer will be contacting you." Jim1138 (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Too slow, already blocked by User talk:IronGargoyle Jim1138 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like they're back as an ipv4 address, still with the "legal action will be taken" stuff. - SudoGhost 22:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've put a short semi-protection on the article, to see if that will deter them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It won't, public relations person ownership of this article has existed for three years. See this 2009 edit and this 2011 edit for examples. The prose in that second edit explains why you're getting legal threats, by the way. The basic conflict here is that you (Jim1138), MadGuy7023, and Bonnie13J think that this is an article about a group in the 1990s, whilst the PR person thinks that it's the vocalist that goes by this name. The puffery is atrocious for a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia article, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, right - presuming there's notability, wouldn't a sensible solution be to create two articles? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
          • That'd assume there's notability - and that they'd let it be written with reliable sources as opposed to WP:THETRUTH... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I extended protection a bit. Now, does anyone know how to remove the redundant "Album" column from that Singles table? Drmies (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
              •  Done -- Dianna (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• It should be noted that being an IPv6 address, the IP may be dynamic if the user uses stateless address autoconfiguration, although I can pretty much guarantee for AT&T that there will be no collateral damage. If a rangeblock is needed, 2602:306:3815:8CA0::/60 is the range to block (that's what AT&T gives to its end-users).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And sure enough, 2602:306:3815:8CA0:F5A0:EA79:A516:1D7B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which also made the same edit to the article, is squarely within that range.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you serious, AT&T gives a /60 to each user??? I should check into that. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, IPv6 has about 3.4x10^38 addresses available, which is enormously more than the number of stars in the observable universe, so there are plenty to spare. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the accounts involved, User:Maxamillionchicago, should be blocked for having an inappropriate username. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? Maxamillionchicago (talk · contribs) has a grand total of one edit, ten months ago, which certainly looks like it was trying to be helpful even though a lot of what it added wasn't usable, and I don't see that you could consider that one edit to be "inappropriately promotional". When exactly did ANI become WP:Requests for petty vindictiveness? Mogism (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Note: Psychonaut didn't claim Maxamilliionchicago's edit was promotional, but rather that the username was promotional. The conflict above is related to the article Max-A-Million which may not have been obvious. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but if he goes by the name Max-A-Million, and is from Chicago, the username is valid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is off-topic for this page but it appears that the person "Max-A-Million" (also occasionally rendered as "Maxamillion"(see this Jan 2012 news story) and the band could possibly be related or could be the same thing. There is a rapper/singer from Chicago (see 40hz/Max-A-Million webpage) going by that name who claims to have performed the reggae version of Sexual Healing. Since sourced names of the band-members are not rendered at the actual article (and I am not up on the rap world), the exact relationship is unclear to me. Shearonink (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:World bus boy

Not sure if this is quite the right venue but World bus boy (talk · contribs)'s been prodding a few articles with odd rationales and reverting when people contest the prods – he's also not responded to a comment I made in his talk page, so I can't really be bothered with trying to engage further. Could someone take a look? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

All re-prods re-removed and second warning given. In my opinion, we should treat this like a uw-vand3 warning: one more warning if the behavior continue, and if he persist after that, block without warning. Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Make sure you notify users who are subject of conversation here. I did it this time. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• This whole situation is odd. His rationale for so many PRODs, including for articles he created is "I wanted to delete this article in Wikipedia to protect the reputation and interest of the company." Something is going on here. This is a long time SPA that has changed his mind on all the stuff he has created, all of a sudden. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dude723

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

---

This user, possibly a young child, is using Wikipedia as an excuse to develop hoax movie/TV ideas and insert them into related articles. The Dude has been warned quite a few times about this and refuses to comply. Freshh (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• You need to notify users when they are mentioned on a discussion here. I've taken care of it. That said, many of the user's hoaxes are also located their sandbox, and have been nominated for speedy deletion as hoaxes. The user appears to have had their pages deleted many times before, and has been warned many times, and doesn't appear to care. I strongly recommend a temporary block. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Freshh brought this here because I suggested at WP:AIV that it was better suited to scrutiny here. Before making that suggestion, I did try to follow Dude723's history, and it wasn't easy. It seemed like a mixture of cluelessness, whimsy, disruption, and I think occasionally a reasonable contribution. It doesn't help that I know little about the subject matter that Dude723 focuses on. That said, I came close to blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Good call Bb23 on the scrutiny; I'd like him to answer for the multiple accounts and socking (listed in order):
• ToonBoyDan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Dude722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Dude723 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Looks like a duck to me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• The existence of Dude722 and Dude723, used by the same editor, is not sockpuppetry unless the accounts have been used for something listed at WP:ILLEGIT or other similar activity. Which the accounts may well have done, of course, but if so it hasn't been explained here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He's creating hoax/fantasy articles in his user space(s), then inserting elements of the hoaxes into existing articles. Pure vandalism. This is a competence issue, it seems. Doc talk 09:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of concrete evidence, here is similar hoax-y editing of List of The Muppet Show episodes between Dude722 and ToonBoyDan [182],[183] and another two between Dude723 and ToonBoyDan on Salute Your Shorts: [184], [185]. And so the vandalism triangle is complete. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So do you agree that it's not sockpuppetry? Just vandalism that is being undertaken by the same person from more than one account, transparently named, right? (Seems to me that a block is going to be necessary anyway, though.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

While Dude723 could feasibly be argued to be excluded as a sock, since it started after the others ceased editing, the other two cannot. There's nothing transparent about it unless you actually link the accounts properly, which this individual did not. And each incarnation is guilty of time-wasting vandalistic nonsense. Doc talk 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The only part of the sockpuppetry policy that the other two (Dude722 and ToonBoyDan) don't meet is "editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts". (This could be fixed by, for example, asking them to do so.) No-one has provided any evidence that those two accounts are purposefully doing anything covered in WP:ILLEGIT. It may be an irrelevant distinction now, but I think it is important to avoid encouraging the viewpoint that the only requirement for being guilty of sockpuppetry is "uses more than one account". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

But the editor has violated WP:ILLEGIT, so no, it's definitely sockpuppetry. Per what I noted above, there are comparable contributions to the same page under different usernames. That's clearly Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts for all usernames in question. You are right the distinction is not really that important now, but the fact that the editor has the same name on their userpage and has a similar mode of creating hoaxes makes this a fairly obvious case. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 10:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"in a way to suggest that they are multiple people" is what comes right after the bolded text you quoted from the policy. He's not suggesting that he's multiple people, because, as you rightly point out, he includes his full name on the userpages of both accounts! He's therefore not violating the policy in any substantive way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

After ToonBoyDan created Shark Tale 2 and it was deleted, he attempted to do a runaround by creating the same article only now as Dude722 which is "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" as well as "avoiding scrutiny". Simply, if you receive warnings about something on your talk page and you attempt to do it with another account then it is illegitimate socking. At that point, one doesn't need extend good faith for the third account...we needn't let folks like this have them precisely because we don't want to have to go to the extra efforts in cleaning up behind them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that meets the definition. Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: that's not the writing style or vocabulary of a "young child". The editor is adult, or mid to late teens at the youngest.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. They remember watching TV in the 90's[186] so that rules out a young child. Doc talk 05:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Slaps self with a trout, considers requesting change of username to "Shirt (not actually as clever as he'd like to think he is) 58". --Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this edit: [187]. What really jumps out at me in this edit is not just that they have linked to their own stuff from a real article, but that they have formatted the links not to show that they link into their user space. This suggests to me that they are just not getting it.

This has been going on for months, from multiple accounts. Given that they are not a child, I can't see why we shouldn't at this point be at the very least giving them a tempblock with a final warning that the next block will be indefinite, if not just moving to an indefblock for all three accounts. It's not as if they haven't been warned.

I've now given blocked them for a week, and given them a final warning. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Jojhutton re-inserting personal threats into Talk

In the Ronald Reagan article, there is currently a debate about whether to add the term 'voodoo economics' to the Reaganomics section. In the course of this debate, the editor who opened the debate was threatened with admin action and blocking for continuing to support his stated position when he opened the RfC. I had refactored one comment by collapsing it because it had replies and was not entirely a threat, and another by simply removing it, since it had no replies. (diff here and diff here also).

Jojhutton seems to believe that Talk_Page_Guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and Talk_Page_Guidelines#Others.27_comments do not apply here and that these posts are "legitimate".

My impression is that these two comments clearly fall under a personal attack, specifically "Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however." Under the WP:TPG/Editing comments section it permits "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism".

Since there are other options available to these editors, such as refactoring, personally discussing with the editor, discussing personally with an Admin, or taking it to a proper noticeboard, I see no justification for leaving personal attacks in place without either refactoring them or removing them, per policy. -- Avanu (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Adding Jojhutton's diffs for reference: diff1 and diff2 -- Avanu (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh "Good Grief". Watch out for the Boomerang.--JOJ Hutton 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Yes. The two diff's the user Avanu provided would be good grounds for a block - of the user Avanu. He's trying to be a nanny, to take ownership of a talk page. That cannot be allowed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Avanu is defending civil discourse. Now, what are you doing here, Baseball Bugs? Wasn't it made very clear to you that your style of interaction on the drama boards and utter failure to understand either the nature or importance of respectful address disqualifies you from being in any way useful here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC) So, its better to have people who are supposed to be giving logical, rational reasons for consensus, threatening one another, despite what policy says, than to remove or refactor their comments, in line with what policy says? I'm not taking ownership, Bugs. I'm following policy. For what its worth, I'm on the same side in the debate as these editors who made these comments. I just don't like people sidetracking a debate with personal attacks. -- Avanu (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) You reverted someone saying they might take you to ANI. That by itself is not a "personal attack" and is not appropriate to delete. Also, hatting stuff you don't like does nothing to improve the situation. Focus on business, and other issues will take care of themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, I assume you made a mistake with your statement just now. Your comment "You reverted someone saying they might take you to ANI" is a completely untrue statement, and is not in line with the reverts, and I was never threatened. -- Avanu (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC) In your first citation,[188] you lecture an editor about "making threats", and revert him. Whether it was directed specifically at you or not, you were in the wrong to delete it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think this falls under the guidelines for refactoring other people's comments. This is not a threat to get a user blocked, merely a suggestion. Certainly, it is unhelpful in the context of that discussion, but not a threat. I suggest it is left in but you just move on and discuss the content that needs to be dealt with. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Normally, I would agree with you ItsZippy, but this is the third such comment. I left the first instance of this comment alone, and left the entirety of the second intact within the article, merely collapsing it. The third such comment by Little green rosetta was what tipped it for me. When civil debate instead becomes calls for an editor's head, it is well off track. -- Avanu (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC) In none of the diffs did an editor threaten to block; it was put forward as a suggestion. Though not helpful in this discussion, the suggestion of a block is not enough to refactor or remove a comment. Additionally, the two comments came from two different people, neither of whom were JOJ. There was no reason to remove these comments, and JOJ was simply restoring them, which is certainly not worthy of any repercussions. Repeatedly removing the comments looks to me to be edit warring, which I'd strongly advise against. As I said before, I recommend that you continue the discussion about the content issue, and leave the comments alone. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The only people who can truly threaten a block are admins. Other editors can threaten and WP:TPG/"having them banned for disagreeing with you" sure sounds a lot like what is happening here. Regardless, I'm not going to refactor these comments again, but I am a bit disappointed. I would hope our Admin corps would be willing to take a strong stand against debate that has a chilling effect on editors. -- Avanu (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Avanu, I'm not seeing anyone threaten anyone else with "admins they know" or banning but these comments may well fall into "Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however." A consequence of disruption may be a review at ANI. This looks like a few editors trying to adjust someone's clue level before it has to actually happen. I think it is a stretch to consider these as attacks. If it is a personal attack to threaten someone with posting at ANI, what is it when you actually do it?  — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC) The point is not that they threaten it, nor that they do it. The point is WHERE they do it. An Article Talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. It is not so they can attack one another. We have proper forums for discussions on user behavior, which I listed earlier here. User Talk, an Admin's Talk, AN/I, Wikiquette, etc. Considering all the various places one can talk, there's not a need for threats and attacks at the article Talk. -- Avanu (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (sigh) Four (well, now five) editors are telling you there were no threats or attacks in the posts you removed, and that you shouldn't have removed them. Yet you are insisting that they were threats and attacks despite what others are telling you. Are you listening to the input given here? Doc talk 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I don't get the impression that you have listened either. But considering your past attitudes toward me, it isn't suprising. I'll quote myself so you don't have to work too hard, Doc. "Regardless, I'm not going to refactor these comments again" (diff) Maybe rather than being dismissive in your responses to me, you might take a moment to see that I was done. ItsZippy has been the most professional here of the respondents, perhaps you might learn something from his behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I support you here Avanu, the comments you refactored do not belong on an article talk page. But you are talking in a forum where this kind of thing is normal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I'll quote you too, Avanu, regarding what you say in this very thread about article talk pages (and I didn't have to "work too hard"): "It is not so they can attack one another. We have proper forums for discussions on user behavior, which I listed earlier here." So... are these comments from just the other day about a user's behavior on an article talk page all about? Should those observations of yours be on the article's talk page, or somewhere else? Doc talk 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just like talk pages, WP:ANI is not a place for people to attack each other. Please return to discussing why Jojhutton's actions are problematic or why they're appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you uncollapse some of that? Several of the comments were clearly on message and not uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that debate in that section was inappropriately combative in many ways other than editors repeatedly suggesting another editor should be blocked without even one of them filing a report. Talk pages aren't for conduct discussions and that is how some were beginning to use it. One could just as easily have collapsed those discussions as off-topic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Of the three that I saw as problems, I only outright removed one. One I left alone, another I collapsed, and the third I removed before it had any responses. -- Avanu (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Tricky case. I was intending to support Avanu's removal/hatting as the affected comments did not appear appropriate for an article talk page (editors should be discussed elsewhere, and injecting commentary about other editors into what seemed to be a serious discussion is often disruptive). However, on looking at the issue a bit more, it appears there is one editor who wants to ignore prior discussions and run an RfC proposing that the pejorative term "voodoo economics" be added to a biography (in brief, no). There is no good way to respond when an editor seeks to comment on every "oppose" they receive in an RfC—a talk page monitor may be helpful, but only if they had a magic button to limit the number of unhelpful comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't be so quick with that No. George Bush's expression was picked up in a major way during the campaign, so it deserves at least one mention, but in that context, especially since Bush then became Reagan's running mate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there is room for discussion on the issue. (Full disclosure: I voted 'No' on that RfC). Johnuniq, are you saying it might help to tell the editor who opened the RfC to try to comment less on each person's comments? I recognize that in some contentious consensus debates that is a behavior that is frowned on, but in others, it isn't a problem. -- Avanu (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is not about "ignoring prior discussions" if you look at the context. The first discussion under "Where's 'voodoo economics'?" was started by another editor, Brad Watson. Another editor, Galestar, supported inclusion. Opposing were Viriik, Lionel, Belchfire, and Collect. In the subsequent discussion the only newcomers were Jojhutton and Viewmont Viking to oppose. Clearly no consensus had been formed on the matter and an RfC was perfectly legitimate. However, even if there was no one else supporting his position that does not mean an RfC was illegitimate. Editors who notice an article talk page discussion without some form of outside notification are likely regulars who are more prone to having strong opinions and biases on changes to the article. An RfC can help get unbiased opinions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by the accused I wasn't going to partake in this discussion at length, but I think one comment wouldn't be out of the question. The question is not whether or not a comment is uncivil, but on who gets to decide that it is. When I saw that Avanu removed/hated some comments I looked at the situation carefully to decide if those comments actually violated WP:CIVIL. I found no reason to believe that they were blatantly in violation. If anything they were borderline. For a blatant example of an uncivil comment, See Here. What was apparent was that a single editor was taking it upon himself to decide what is and is not civil. I advised him that the first thing he should have done was ask the editor to remove or refactor. We were discussing this issue on Avanu's talk page, when, BAM, I was hit with an ANI notice. So much for discussion. Bottom line is that talk page comments should not be removed or refactored unless there is a "blatant" violation of civility. Can you all imagine all the times we have seen Tendentious editors warned about disruption on talk pages, then having those comments removed for civility? Good Grief Charlie Brown.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Jojhutton, you are not 'the accused', I simply didn't want us to edit war on this, and since the policy is clear that personal attacks and threats aren't appropriate, we were at a bit of a standstill. In my view, a rapid and final next step was to ask our Administrators to weigh in on the removal. You and I simply have differing opinions on the negativity of the Talk page comments and the strength of the policy clauses. My two cents is that comments that threaten admin action are intended to chill legitimate debate, and when people make such comments in a debate, they've left logical and rational debate at the door. In this case, I didn't treat all three negative comments the same way, and I had reasons for that. The first comment had grown stale and I assumed that it didn't need to be addressed since it was over a day old at that point. The second such comment had gotten some responses, and since the other respondents were not attacking in the same way, it would be unfair to simply remove them. The last comment had no responses, and by simply removing it, it gave the author a chance to re-write it without the attack. If we don't take any action when people make such comments, sometimes they just go away, but when it is the third such comment, editors need to be reminded that such comments aren't part of legitimate debate. -- Avanu (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I might also mention that while WP:Civil is the overriding policy here, the specific policy is WP:Talk page guidelines / Removing harmful posts and Off-topic posts. -- Avanu (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012 Deleting other user's comments

Another user added an overly detailed list of things to potentially pick and choose from to add to the main article. It was reverted. I reverted back and put up a reason in talk. Now my comments are being deleted as well by user:Ravensfire and user: Viriditas who are tag-teaming to avoid 3RR.

I think the 2 users doing the reverting are under the impression that it was posted as campaign propaganda, which I think is incorrect and assuming bad faith. As seen by my history, I've typically been critical of Paul, but I don't think this user who posted the information had the intent of campaigning the info. It's simply a list of speakers and dates useful for adding bits to the main article.

What really perturbs me is that my comments are being deleted as well, and no effort was made to include a reference to a list which apparently would've been acceptable. Naapple (Talk) 22:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Do it again too. Since you mentioned it, why didn't you reference a list? Love the tag-teaming claim though - it's obviously impossible for people to agree that an hour-by-hour breakdown of a campaign event isn't something that should be on a talk page. Nope, not possible at all. Has to be tag-teaming. Didn't you see my super-secret message to Viriditas asking them to swoop in and make sure it stayed out forever and ever? Oh, wait. Sorry, there wasn't one. Hmmm, might that be some ABF on your part there? Noooo... Ravensfire (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Very mature. No one's suggesting an hour by hour breakdown go in. It just so happens that's how the list of speakers is listed by hour. And yes, 2 people reverting against 1 person and then them screaming 3RR is definitely tag teaming. Naapple (Talk) 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Napple, you probably could've just pointed to a page that contains that schedule rather than post it directly to the talk page. If you weren't suggesting it should've gone in as-is, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it all and described what, specifically, might be relevant. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who posted it, or even wanna bother sorting it out. If the list posted by user:Charles Edwin Shipp was too long, why wasn't just that part deleted with a mention that a reference should be listed instead? The material wasn't contentious. Instead the entire post was wiped, including my comments. The whole thing was handled incredibly poorly and could've been fixed if it was simply brought to the talk page to begin with.

The issue here isn't so much the details of the material, it's that all trace of the conversation, including other user's comments were deleted. Naapple (Talk) 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A link to the list was added by the original poster and this issue is now over. I'd like to point out this whole thing could've been avoided if even a tiny bit of civility was used and a simple request of providing a link (even in combination with blanking the list only) was made instead of blanking the whole topic along with everyone's comments. Viriditas, Ravensfire, please don't delete people's comments and assume good faith. Thanks. Naapple (Talk) 23:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Assuming good faith" means not accusing two different editors of tag teaming. You may want to AGF yourself, kind sir. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed the extended campaign schedule. User:Charles Edwin Shipp's comments make it clear that he posted it with the intent that it be incorporated into the article, so citations of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP in edit summaries when removing it are a non sequitur. Please see the guidelines for editing other's comments. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely disagree. It's NOTAFORUM and SOAP when you restore edits like this. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a place to promote your favorite political candidate. Go use a blog. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an ad. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• The entire Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012#Ron Paul pre-conference rally section should be removed as an (unintentional) abuse of Wikipedia to alert readers of the talk page about an upcoming campaign rally. Material like that has no chance of being retained in an article (apart from the outrageous promotional aspect, very few future campaign rallies warrant mention until secondary sources perform an analysis of the event, after the event). Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was fixed. In any case, I don't think a talk page on wikipedia is where paul-bots are getting their info for a rally in Tampa. Naapple (Talk) 15:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

108.60.139.170 (talk · contribs)

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

---

Accusations of supporting pedophiles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm far more concerned about the comment made by 66.110.251.145 that 108.60.139.170 was responding to. We have a policy against having such opinions displayed in user space, but saying that in an AfD? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not accuse the IP of being a pedophile, which is why a registered editor reverted Seb az86556 after Seb az86556 reverted my comment for a second time. This Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report is ridiculous. Seb az86556 stated that my comment contributes nothing to the AfD, when the same goes for other general comments in that AFD (such as AJHingston's, the comment that is right above mine). I had a right to provide correct information about what rape is, even while stating that the IP made a comment that sounds just like what pedophiles say. The IP was mostly talking about pubescent and postpubescents, which is outside of the definition of pedophilia (except for sometimes in the case of early pubescents), which is why I stated "And while statutory rape usually concerns sexual activity with pubescent and postpubescents" before I went on with my commentary. My comment mostly has nothing to do with pedophilia. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"What you are saying is just like what pedophiles say". That has nothing to do with pedophilia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that you don't read all of people's comments. I clearly stated that "My comment mostly has nothing to do with pedophilia." Jeez. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm. And that makes a difference why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it makes a difference per all of what I stated above. Now let others comment on this. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes zero difference. Retract the comment please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If WP:Consensus is for me striking through the pedophile part, I will. But, again, I did not accuse the editor of being a pedophile, which is why it does make a difference. And keep in mind that if the pedophile part of my comment should be retracted, then so should the IP's commentary on adult-child sexual encounters, per Wikipedia:Child protection. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

While my comments should not be so construed as to be defending 108.60.139.170, 66.110.251.145 really needs to be indefed as this comment (particularly the part about statutory rape not being real rape) does violate Wikipedia:Child protection, as 108.60.139.170 pointed out. Per that policy, this really isn't up for discussion or consensus and needs be actioned ASAP. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You're totally misreading the policy. None of those comments warrant blocking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, they do, and I've blocked 66* accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Which part exactly? Enlighten me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It took me a couple of readings as it's buried in the middle of the sentence, but the IP's statement here regarding statutory rape laws is blatant defense of pedophila. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah... well... I took that as sarcasm. But alright. If that's the threshold, you will need to also block 108.60.139.170 who in their post defends sex ith a 16-year-old, which is advocacy for committing statutory rape. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I like to think my sarcasometer is well-tuned and it didn't even twitch. As for 108* - 16 is the age of consent in many jurisdictions, including 30 U.S. states. I'm not sure if the fact Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, where the age of consent is 18, makes it an issue though - in that case the IP should be warned to change their comment first, as they may be in a jurisdiction where it's 16 and it would, thus, be an honest mistake. (And his comments read as if he's in such a jurisdiction.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

True. So let them retract. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll give him a ping on his talk page. (Done.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Seb az86556, you're the one misreading the policy, just as you've misread everything else. The IP's comment was quite clearly expressing that statutory rape is not harmful to minors. Heck, the IP, as shown above, doesn't even believe that statutory rape counts as rape. What the IP stated is a clear-cut violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT. By law, those who are under the age of consent or age of majority are children, and statutory rape sometimes regards prepubescents. While the IP cannot be indefinitely blocked, even if a static IP, considering that Wikipedia doesn't block IPs because they get assigned to new people all the time, she (she's identified as a transsexual woman) should be blocked for that comment. And if not blocked, that comment, or at least the statutory rape part of it, should be removed. And as for defending sex with a 16-year-old... No, I stressed that there is vast mental and physical difference between a 10-year-old pubescent and a 16-year-old postpubescent. For your information, as The Bushranger pointed out, age 16 is the most common age of consent in North America. Refer to Ages of consent in North America. Sex with a 16-year-old usually isn't statutory rape, and it's far from pedophilia. Not to mention, that the earliest age at which a person can be diagnosed with the mental disorder pedophilia is age 16. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the actual comment 66.110.251.145 left on the AfD, does that need to be scrubbed or what? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been sent to Oversight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. If the jurisdiction a user is in constitutes the threshold, are users from Sonora free to say that they like sex with a 12-year-olds? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You really do have a problem with interpreting people's words. In your view, I'm somehow the bad guy, but not the actual person who was expressing the view that statutory rape is A-okay because it isn't even rape. Unbelievable. Anyway, The Bushranger, I explained further here. With the IP's comment being removed, mine should be removed as well. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP's comments were clearly referring to instances of people who are going through or have gone through puberty having apparently informed consensual sex with people over the age of consent, which is a subject of legitimate controversy. Although AfD is not quite the place for such forumish talk, it is hardly an example of advocating "inappropriate adult–child relationships" not only because it wasn't "advocating" anything but also because plenty of places in the world, including the developed world, have age of consent laws where the age limit for informed consent is far lower than the lowest in the States. That block should be lifted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not how I read, or read it, even after a second look. Regardless, though, I believe that unblocking would be up to ArbCom now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it won't help if your judgment is clouded on the issue, which I think is most likely the case. Any time there is a dispute over age of consent it is not unusual for people to see everything as being about child abuse. When someone is talking about statutory rape as it concerns age of consent, I think there should be a great deal of consideration given to whether the comments can be reasonably taken as referring to the legitimate controversy. I fail to see how this is not a case of someone saying that age of consent laws often involve situations where people willingly have a sexual encounter and as such only constitute rape in a legal sense rather than any practical sense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this here? The policy clearly says to send it to arbcom and not discuss it. Frankly I'm tempted to just delete this thread but it seems way to late. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it's unclear to me if arbcom was ever notified, I've notified them now. Edit: Sorry I missed Bushrangers comments which seem to imply arbcom was notified. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Aware of the block, but not of this thread. Arbcom is in communication with the user. Hatting simply because this discussion features a real live person behind the IP, which is why these things are supposed to be handled with a little discretion, rather than plastering "paedophile" all over the user. Theoretical discussion of the application of the Child Protection policy to statutory rape can take page at Wikipedia talk:Child protectionElen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MoonLichen and personal attacks

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

---

MoonLichen (talk · contribs) has committed personal many personal attacks against me, even after many warnings. [189] [190] [191]. He also gave ME a PA warning for my giving him a warning. Note that he deleted the 2nd and 3rd warnings from his TP. I request a block for some time (24 hours maybe?) so he stops attacking me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Add to this the creation of a blatant hoax Fragplatz, now being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 22. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a 24-hour block for MoonLichen would work, as personal attacks are not, and should not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that MoonLichen just tried to remove this comment and the one above it from this noticeboard. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant to remove the first one. Did not seem to have any bearing on the topic at hand, but if it helps you with your character assassination, then by all means... --MoonLichen (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the relevant diff. At ANI we are generally interested in an editor's overall behaviour, regardless of the primary topic of the report. If you think that is an assassination then you might have misunderstood something. And it's definitely not up to you to remove content by other editors in a discussion like this. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with avoiding personal attacks is that it's impossible to know just what a person is going to take personally. There comes a point where it is clear that you just need to stop communicating with a person because they are taking everything you say the wrong way. I recognized that and said "let's agree to disagree" on my talk page. I'm really just trying to end this conversation, but this person has camped out on my talk page and will not stop dogging me with warning tags and now they're reporting me to the admin noticeboard. StringTheory11 needs to take a chill pill. --MoonLichen (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

MoonLichen, that seems like a reasonable solution. If you and StringTheory can avoid interacting with each, then we will avoid a great deal of drama and be able to get on with things. Does that sound acceptable to you both? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, as long as ML is warned that should he make personal attacks again, he will be blocked from editing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some background: I note that MoonLichen appears to have (a) created a blatant hoax article, Fragplatz, and (b) replaced their talk page by a redirect, so that they will not recieve notifications when other editors edit what they believe to be their talk page. I'm not particularly impressed by this, and I'm not particularly hopeful about their interactions with others, which seem to be generally combative. -- The Anome (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

More: I note that MoonLichen edited another editor's comments on Fragplatz, replacing them by a wholly misleading misrepresentation of those comments. This was four days ago, on the 22nd.[192] Since the hoax article was created some considerable time ago, this makes me doubt that they are editing in good faith, and I've temporarily blocked them from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A vandal destroyed Ishikawa Goemon

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

---

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishikawa_Goemon&curid=36832484&action=history

I don't know how to fix it now, the article is a now a redirect loop to itself and there's no history to revert and restore the content to from before the move.

Talk:Ishikawa Goemon too. --Niemti (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also all the other edits. --Niemti (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to help fix this issue. I would request WP:CSD and help fix the page move vandalism as well. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's even going to help? --Niemti (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Page appears to be at Japanese bandit Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am positively sure my CSD nomination certainly will help without a doubt. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The redirects have been fixed up. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to ask, why are random users even allowed to move articles? --Niemti (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Because most moves are productive and admins don't have time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• All fixed. Looks more like a simple series of errors by a new user. Let's be mindful of the greater harm of mistaken accusations of vandalism. CIreland (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A published book has word-for-word plagiarized a Wikipedia article and is charging money for the book and the author is claiming to reserve rights over this material

This a general community matter, not an administrator matter. It's now on the Village Pump. Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

block/ban evasion

This and this are most likely edits by a blocked/banned user trying to evade the block/ban. The respective IPs are 82.113.122.166 (talk · contribs) and 86.174.78.24 (talk · contribs). I think that the site should be semi-protected. I justified my edits on the talkpage. What he calls "vandalism" is in fact consequent removal of obvious copy right violations. --Lysozym (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If all you are asking for is page pr otectipn you will probably get better results at WP:RFPP. If you believe this is a certain user evading a block it wold be helpful if you could tell us who you believe it is and/or file at WP:SPI. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't seen a blocked user (yet) but I have blocked both IPs for 48hrs and semi'd the page for a week, since there was a copyvio involved. Those IPs are British Telecom, which seem to rotate every 24-48 hours, so if you think it's a blocked user, give me something to go on as CU won't. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:JohnMannV

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

---

Im bringing this here because of concerns re this editor. He was blocked twice in December 2011[193] for making ethnic insults on page Talk:Tuples in association football. He has began this again in lesser form making accusations against Scottish Editors.[194] He believes all scottish editors are against him and that we wish to promote Celtic, this is not true in any form. There have been multiple discussions since December 2011 that have established consensus, he has been asked to discuss this as no consensus to include but keeps reverting.[195][196][197][198]. He also deleted all content of the talk page where discussion took place previously.[199]. He is acting it seems like he feels he owns the page, insults or accusations against other editors because of there nationality is inappropriate. Im not happy at these threats including giving me 24 hours to prove he deleted material see here.[200]Blethering Scot 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another ANI was in December 2011 but will need to find links. These are his first edits since his short block in December 2011.[201]Blethering Scot 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks i was kind of struggling to work out how to find it.Blethering Scot 18:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems several admins suggested if he revived his previous editing practices after his block then further action should be taken. The fact he is edit-warring, and making rascist comments shows he is not acting in a good manner. Adam4267 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note for the previous blocking admin so they may review this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not as familiar with Wikipedia as Blethering Scot (formerly Edinburgh Wanderer), is it not pertinent to point out (in a non-derogatory manner) that the same group of editors that support giving greater prominence to a Scottish football club at the expense of other clubs, happen to be Scottish? The "deletion of discussions" mentioned by Blethering Scot was my reply to him in this section. If that deleted any discussions, then it was purely accidental and I apologize. It is also no coincidence that the same individuals that are displaying a bias in favor of Celtic F.C. already happen to be listed on this ANI page above [202] regarding the same exact Celtic F.C. club I am referring to. To make a very long story short, when the article in question was originally about "tuples", the same group of Scotsmen tried to argue that F.C. Barcelona's "sextuple" was not notable by continuing to stretch the burden of proof even after I provided evidence from FIFA itself and at least 5 reputable news sources referring to it as such. Once a consensus was finally reached to fully detail F.C. Barcelona's sextuple as a notable accomplishment and they didn't get their way, they moved the goal posts yet again and changed the title of the article to specifically specify "season" so as to "legitimize" their later removal of 90% of the section regarding F.C. Barcelona's sextuple, and thus give greater prominence to Celtic F.C.'s quintuple. Yet the controversy regarding whether F.C. Barcelona's sextuple of interdependent victories can be considered as "one season" was never fully resolved, yet this same group of editors took it upon themselves to move forward with their biased definition in order to diminish the accomplishments of F.C. Barcelona and give more prominence to their Celtic F.C. club. Throughout the entire discussion, they have acted as if they were above the world governing body of the sport (FIFA) and several reputable news sources. I kindly insist that everyone read the following talk sections in full for the complete evidence of the travesty that has transpired in this article:

• 'Sextuple'
• Barcelona Inaccuracies
• Questioning whether 'yearly' achievements should be in the article
• Stop diminishing the "unprecedened" and "record-breaking" "sextuple" of F.C. Barcelona in order to increase the prominence of Celtic F.C.'s quintuple

I understand my manner of speaking may be rough around the edges, but it is completely unfair to be always ganged up on by the same group of editors, especially when I have been one of the very few editors to always provide several citations from highly-reputable sources to back up all the facts I stated in the talk page of that article. I simply could not sit idly by and watch a concerted effort to instill obvious bias in a Wikipedia article. JohnMannV (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read any of the discussions. There are editors from all over involved in those discussions. You haven't take part in any of them. Your first edits after block was to pursue the same course of actions that you did previously. Edit warring and nationalistic insults. It was decided that the notable achievement is a season not a year. It was decided to mention barcelonas achievement but not give undue weight as they hadn't achieved the season only a year. Read the discussions in fact I clearly asked you to discuss however you ignored made insults and edit warred. I don't believe inexperience is an excuse here. Blethering Scot 19:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please point out where I made nationalistic insults. That is a false accusation. Pointing out the fact that the users that are ganging up on you are all from the same country is not an insult, so please stop creating straw man arguments to detract from the issue at hand. Furthermore, if it was decided to "mention barcelonas achievement but not give undue weight", then why did you state "Ive changed the wording slightly. Article is looking really good thanks to Kahkonen" (emphasis mine) at 16:20 on 24 December 2011 (UTC) referring to this specific version by you at 16:18 on 24 December 2011 (UTC) that gives much greater prominence to F.C. Barcelona compared to the version from yesterday that had slipped under the radar until I saw it today? JohnMannV (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record User:Edinburgh Wanderer and User:Blethering Scot are the same account. It was renamed by a beaurocrat. Blethering Scot 19:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

re " is it not pertinent to point out (in a non-derogatory manner) that the same group of editors that support giving greater prominence to a Scottish football club at the expense of other clubs, happen to be Scottish?" quite simply, and quite emphatically NO it is not pertinent. editors of any and all sorts are to be judged simply on the basis of their edits. period. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but then how does one address the issue of biased editing by a concerted group of individuals sharing the same interest/agenda? JohnMannV (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

After discussing on the talk page, if the issue remains, you can bring POV concerns to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When bringing an issue such as this up at the neutral point of view noticeboard, would it be pertinent to mention then that the biased editing is coming from the same group of individuals who happen to be from the country the football club in question is also from? Because I would imagine that would be pretty pertinent information in order to establish context (e.g. motive) in order for the POV issue to be better understood by editors who were not involved in the discussion. JohnMannV (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor who actually lessened the weight on the article as far as I'm aware wasn't Scottish. This isn't a content dispute nor is it one of neutral pov as clearly by giving undue weight to a team who didn't actually achieve what the article about is a pov. It's also rather presumptive that all Scottish editors support Celtic or to be honest care about that achievement. I don't. Blethering Scot 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. Look at my | talk page, when we had these long discussion back in December, I was ganged up on by Adam4267, Chris Cunningham, and you, and only you 3. What do all 3 of you have in common? You are all from Scotland. Where is Celtic F.C. from? Scotland. Sorry, but I do not believe in coincidences. JohnMannV (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

re slipping under the radar it didn't. That was the new consensus.Blethering Scot 22:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So rather than stopping your nationalistic accusations you continue. So you edit war, have a massive pov, make nationalistic accusations shows serious signs of ownership to an article and continues at an ANI about their actions. Utterly ridiculous. For the record im a Hearts fan as the picture that randomly appears on my userpage of Tynecastle will show you[203]. You cant accept that since last December other editors from outwith Scotland which is hardly the point have also discussed and come together with a WP:Consensus. Are you going to accuse Pretty Green who just reverted you of being Scottish, when all they have done is go back to the consensus of the article.Blethering Scot 22:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up Peter Green, who is not Scottish, and has specifically |said he doesn't see "any harm" in reverting back to the December version I reverted to. Furthermore, you are 100% guilty of your accusations against me. Specifically: "edit war", "massive pov", and "shows serious signs of ownership". Why else would you have such an issue with reverting back to a version you yourself said was "looking really good". You're the one being inconsistent here, not me. JohnMannV (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As Chris's name has been brought up i've notified him. [204].Blethering Scot 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As usual, he has called his "friends" to come support him. I don't have any friends on Wikipedia, so I guess that puts me at a disadvantage. JohnMannV (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another accusation. I Suggest you read the header of this page. Which states you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You mentioned Chris not me. Also its widely known around these parts that me and chris are not friends so thats actually rather funny.Blethering Scot 00:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And your clearly mis quotting Peter Green he states Whether or not we list the trophies is, for me, a moot point: I'd rather not do it, but if it makes people happy then I don't see any harm. He also says before that As far as I can see, the best option with dealing this is two acknowledge Barcelona's achievement, but also to note that it is not 'six trophies in a season'. That is what the current status is and i can tell you that it was him that actually reduced the weight of that section in the first place not me or any other Scottish or Celtic supporting editors as you call us falsely. Also where was i making any unfounded accusations, edit war you broke WP:3RR edit war, masive pov pushing against consensus to promote a club, you are the only one doing that. Ownership you cannot accept or read the discussions that show there is a WP:Consensus and insist the version you want is the correct one again showing ownership, i dont make unfounded accusations and i especially dont make accusations at users because of there nationality. You were blocked for the exact same thing in December and returned with your first edit doing the same thing not good.Blethering Scot 00:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, did you just openly admit that a single person (Peter Green) is responsible for reducing the weight of a section that was defined by consensus (a consensus that included you, Chris Cunningham, myself and several others)? This is the smoking gun. There is nothing more to say. It shouldn't even have been a discussion to revert what one individual changed, back to the version by consensus, yet the same group of individuals that agreed with me back in December fights me today on this very issue. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe this situation. JohnMannV (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No im disproving your point that its only Scottish editors who disagreed with you. There was consensus and he reduced the weight.Blethering Scot 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the new "consensus" you keep bringing up that "coincidentally" occurred after I was gone and after the original consensus had been reached (a consensus that included you, Chris Cunningham, myself and several others). I want to fully investigate and dissect it. Considering you haven't linked to it yet and it seems to be your only argument (albeit a very weak one), my gut feeling tells me I won't have much difficulty picking holes in it. I also highly doubt that new "consensus" was as robust and multilateral as the one you, Chris Cunningham, myself, and several others reached back in December. JohnMannV (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User whose contributions relate almost exclusively to one argument on one article is twice blocked for issues related to said dispute, returns seven months later to pursue the same thing again. Furthermore, this time the editors he's chosen to identify as the opposing bloc are explicitly identified as Celtic F.C-supporting editors. This is nationalist edit warring, certainly, but not on behalf of that disparate group of editors who don't see JohnMannV's side of the argument (almost none of whom support Celtic; the two admins who blocked him aren't even British). Open and shut. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous that you would state publicly at an ANI "but not on behalf of that disparate group of editors who don't see JohnMannV's side of the argument" (emphasis mine) when on 22 December 2011 you yourself said on the talk page of the article in question (and I quote): "Nevertheless, if sources refer to Barcelona's success as a sextuple (and they do) then we have to consider it as such: however, rather than macking about with adding the words "or year" to the article title we can simply add a footnote explaining the situation. So remarkably I'm actually in the same boat as JohnMannV et al on this particular issue". To use your words, open and shut. JohnMannV (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of further discussions have taken place and decided not to give undue weight to the achievement that actually isnt covered by the article is not understood, we acknowledge the fact they did it in a year, adding all the trophies in list order gives undue weight over the clubs who did. Chris may still have that view and can discuss on the talk page like you clearly should of done. Showing edits before the current WP:consensus was reached is irrelevant. You were asked to discuss very clearly by me instead you ignored and decided to edit war. You had the chance to discuss and attempt to change that consensus instead you went down this route thats lead us here. There are correct ways of going about things and there are wrong this is most certainly wrong. Blethering Scot 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice this tag-teaming between the same group of individuals, both of whom have changed their stories since December yet back each other up under pressure. This is what I had to deal with in December and what I'm having to deal with now. It is preposterous when you consider they both agreed with me back in December, and the moment I looked away, the section in question completely changed, and when I went to revert it to what we had all agreed on, they started an edit-war with me, and then have the audacity to accuse me of starting this incident. Thankfully, all the evidence backing my claims are in plain view for everyone to see on the article's talk page. JohnMannV (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What tag teaming and most of all, further discussion took place you can plainly see other editors are now involved in the article and that the consensus has changed. There isnt a change of story only a change of consensus. And you hardly looked away for nearly nine months and then returned edit warring and attacking other editors and i hardly agreed with you when you were making Nationalistic attacks against me and other editors for which you were blocked for.Blethering Scot 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully your attacks and edit warring by reverting four times against consensus is very plain to see. Its you that does not wish to follow the consensus that has developed and properly discuss which you were asked to do. If you had done so we wouldn't be here. You cannot justify the attacks nor why your behaviour is unchanged after nearly nine months. Coming back after a block and making the same edits that got you blocked in the first place is not on. The article has developed as consensus has changed its you not the article or other editors thats the main issue here. The article can be rediscussed if the other editors agree to change the consensus no problem but its your attacks and edit warring that are the issue here.Blethering Scot 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Look how you conveniently dodge the issue once again and have completely ignored my specific request above for you to provide a link to the "consensus" you claim has changed since December. Please provide a link to the new "consensus" you keep bringing up that "coincidentally" occurred after I was gone and after the original consensus had been reached (a consensus that included you, Chris Cunningham, myself and several others). I want to fully investigate and dissect it. Considering you haven't linked to it yet and it seems to be your only argument (albeit a very weak one), my gut feeling tells me I won't have much difficulty picking holes in it. I also highly doubt that new "consensus" was as robust and multilateral as the one you, Chris Cunningham, myself, and several others reached back in December. Let's see it. JohnMannV (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Listen i dont agree with you in anyway and i certainly never agreed with you in December i rasied the ANI about you then because you were making personal attack against me and other users based on their nationality. You are doing it again. Have you read the talk page and looked at other discussions that have taken place, none of which involved you, they are more recent and shows the current consensus. The only reason you got like that then and now is because your only thing you want to do is promote Barcelona. The article is about teams that have won competitions in a season, it has been the case since December that we added teams who had not done this in a season but make sure its clear the didnt actually make the achievement. More recently it was decided that yes they should be mentioned but by listing all cups put them on the same level as ones who had completed the achievement in footballing terms and thus added to much weight to it. The cups were removed and the club still mentioned which meant there was no pov and no height to a non achievement. You don't want to read discussions and cant accept that consensus can change, Wikipedia does not have to stick to something it agreed the consensus can evolve over time. It was stated at ANI and by admins on there pages at the time that if you came back pushing the same pov and making nationalistic attacks further action would be taken, you have shown by being away for nearly nine months without an edit and returning and exhibiting the same behaviour is that you have no intention in editing wikipedia in a civil an supportive manor. You stated the moment i looked away, well what have you been doing in nine months since then. If you want to discuss the content fine put pushing a pov without looking at established consensus and edit warring whilst a discussion is taking place wont get you anywhere. This is the edit that reduced the weight [205] we would have been happy to discuss again but you attacked us and edit warred which isn't likely to lead to a positive discussion. All the consensus was that it should be mentioned that hasnt changed just the weight given to it. Blethering Scot 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Let the record show that after being asked twice to produce a link to the new "consensus" he claims was formed after the December consensus, Blethering Scot has failed to do so on both occasions. I can only surmise that the reason for that is because there was no new "consensus". It was just the same group of Celtic F.C.-supporters who waited until the discussions had died down on the talk page in order to slip under the radar and diminish the accomplishments of one club in favour of the club they personally support. They used those of us with opposing views as mere pawns, first agreeing with us on a consensus to make us think the matter was resolved, only to wait for us to look way in order to re-submit their biased version under the radar. Let the record also show that when Blethering Scot stated above that "i certainly never agreed with you in December", it is a 100% lie. On 24 December 2011 at 16:20, Blethering Scot (before conveniently changing his username from Edinburgh Wanderer) stated: "Ive changed the wording slightly. Article is looking really good thanks to Kahkonen" (emphasis mine) referring to this specific version edited by him 2 minutes earlier at 16:18 on 24 December 2011 (UTC). Notice the amount of detail under the "Sextuple" section that he himself found to look "really good". He is now attempting to rewrite history and change his story to support his group's sly attempt to promote their club under the radar. He has been inconsistent from the very beginning, he has lied, and he rarely supports anything he says, even when specifically requested to do so. I, on the other hand, have stuck to verifiable and supported facts from the very beginning (linking to them where appropriate), which is why I stand on firmer ground and simply cannot let this same group of individuals -- that already appear in a different section of this ANI for a very similar matter -- continue to manipulate the public with their obvious bias. JohnMannV (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on for too long know, we have been waiting for the original blocking admins to comment and with the lack of that other admins need to decide what to do here as the only ones to comment are involved.Blethering Scot 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that he realizes he has no argument left and is unable to provide any evidence of the "new consensus" he claims legitimizes his and his groups biased editing, Blethering Scot is desperately trying to have action taken against me to silence the opposition, even though he knows that The Red Pen of Doom has already clarified to me above that the Talk page of an article is not the place to point out biased editing by groups of individuals from the same country, which I then acknowledged. So this is no longer about trying to silence me, this is now about the biased editing that has been going on in the article in question since at least last year by Blethering Scot and his well-coordinated group, the lies he has stated in this very ANI, and his sly attempts to silence opposing views. Blethering Scot, I will not back down until all these matters are addressed by an Admin. You and your group are going to be exposed and you are not going to continue to get away with this travesty. This will not stand. JohnMannV (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well im not disappering until action is taken either. You are disruptive and nationalistic attacks will not work here. TheRedPenOfDoom quite clearly told you that nationalistic attacks were not on. I dont need to provide you with any evidence you can read when you choose to, your claims of people wishing to promote celtic or ganging up on you because we are Scottish is frankly laughable. Well co-ordinated is another attack you have no evidence that we co-ordinate anything and that is laughable for instance me and Chris hate each others guts 90% of the time and having an item on our watch-list is hardly co-ordinating. If you wanted to discuss with the civil multi national editors on the talk page we wouldn't have a problem. We have a problem because you attack everyone and cant actually discuss anything civilly. I put it quite frankly that the project does not benifit in having you on the it. Editors who cannot work for the greater good of the encyclopeida should not by editing here. Are there any editors that you have not deliberately misquoted that actually agree with you at this current time, you tried to misquote Pretty green and as you did that and the evidence provided showing he reduced the weight after the discussion proved that wrong. Also you deliberately attempted to delete the previous discussions, there was no way of doing that other than intentionally which given the way you were acting is pretty clear.Blethering Scot 18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Virtually every sentence in that was an attack on me, he has no evidence of anything yet he continues to attack me and other editors based on nationality. Take a look at the block log and his editing history this clearly shows a single purpose account with the intention to disrupt and promote a pov of Barcelona, he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of something. Anyone who comes back straight of a block with the same actions as before as was stated before should have further action taken against them. Even the breaking of WP:3RR is usually a blocking offence, its pretty clear there is a major issue here so why are the admins not only shying away from action but actually even properly advising on this. Admins whould think that what would happen if someone attacked you or fellow editors based on their nationality would you accept it, would you be willing to work with them. Also if you see someone with a single purpose account that was blocked and made the same edits on return what would you do. This is a simple open and shut case of a disruptive editor making nationalistic attacks. Im highly disappointed that no action or major comment has been made here, we are 48 hours into something that should have been resolved quickly. Blethering Scot 18:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Still desperate. Still trying to silence the opposition. Still lying. Stop bringing up blocks from last year that were imposed on your behalf. The Admins are not here to service your personal agenda. Unlike you, I've backed up every single iota of what I've said with links to the specific sections. You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that supports your biased POV in the article in question, and now you have the audacity to blame the Admins for not being complicit in your silencing of the opposition so that you and your group can continue to manipulate the public with your completely biased and unsupported POV. You, sir, are a disgrace to Wikipedia. JohnMannV (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This gets better, your getting desperate now aren't you. They were imposed because you made nationalistic attack thats the reason, your not going to get anywhere because you are truly and utterly wrong you have nobody supporting your opinion and are truly depserate now by inceasing attack against me in the hope i will back of and i wont. You, sir, are a disgrace to Wikipedia is another desperate attack by you, wish you luck with that because i am going nowhere.Blethering Scot 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment: before conveniently changing his username from User:Edinburgh Wanderer. What convenience its the exact same account, also there are links from the old username to this one which is not required of a user being renamed by a Wikipedia:Bureaucrats however mine is. Your digging at straws to hide your actions is not in your favour. Blethering Scot 21:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive left another message on the last blocking admins page[206] as was already done asking them to comment one way or another, given thats what were waiting for thought a reminder would do no harm.Blethering Scot 17:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What is it you want? An RFC/U? A block? Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What I want is an admin to look at the previous block and what it was for. Look at the first edits upon his return and see that the same attacks based on nationally are still present. Virtually every reply here contains some sort of attack against users. The promoting of Barcelona, the attacks and only edits on one article make this look clearly like a single purpose account. It's the attacks that are the issue he was asked to discuss instead made attacks. Other admins replied but they are involved so it only Berean sorry if spelt wrong and you that could look at all the text and backround and advise. My personal opinion is no editor should be subject to sustained attacks especially because of their nationality. Blethering Scot 17:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

What is going on here?

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

---

Hopiakuta (talk · contribs) Somebody do something. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should anyone do anything to a user cleaning up their accounts? Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just indefblocked them, until someone else can work out what is going on and handle it. Account compromise, possibly? -- The Anome (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This comes up periodically. See [207]. CIreland (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the previous ANI conversation I've fixed all the dubious moves, unblocked them and left Floquenbeam a note. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

While I can see the editor has some issues at the moment, they do seem to make some useful contributions. I'm not sure if they are currently capable of being engaged with in a sensible way right now, and WP:NOTTHERAPY seems like the appropriate rule for the immediate moment. They seem to do these sorts of edits in bursts: perhaps a short block of a day or so until they calm down? -- The Anome (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, what, Black Kite? You are unblocking a user who is making obviously nonsensical mass page moves and who is not communicating about them? I was just about to say that, this being Wikipedia, where every kind of craziness has its defenders, I wonder how long it takes this time for someone to conclude that, no, these edits are the very mark of a productive contributor. And your unblock edit-conflicted with that comment... Well, it's your responsibility now.  Sandstein  12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Either of you, feel free to override that unblock if you want - the most important thing as far as I was concerned was (a) not leave them indeffed and (b) let their mentor know. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the rationale given that they are disabled and are editing with outdated assistive equipment: I really can't imagine any kinds of assistive equipment that would make these kinds of errors, and these edits seem to me, on the face of it, to look more like a sign of some sort of mental issue. Or expert trolling. Can anyone enlighten me? -- The Anome (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have always found that explanation to be implausible as well, but even if true it is a poor excuse. Should I be able to take a car out on the road with no brakes, a tendency to veer into traffic, and belching fumes? Tarc (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the persistence of this behavior despite a series of blocks and long time of mentoring, I fail to see the benefit of the unblock. Even if done in good faith, moving an IP talk page to your userspace is no more appropriate than moving it to "User talk:71.102.31.67 on wheels!" Why do we continue tolerating this? Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now indefblocked them for persistent disruptive editing. Fundamentally, this is an encyclopedia project, first and foremost. Regardless of the reasons for this, WP:COMPETENCE is needed, and mentoring has not helped. -- The Anome (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As an engineer with a fair amount of experience designing adaptive equipment for various disabilities, I would like to see a manufacturer name and model number for the equipment that is referred to in the "This user interacts with Wikipedia using outdated equipment" notice. This and similar notices could benefit from more details about the exact kind of problems that the outdated equipment is likely to cause as opposed to problems with other causes. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume their mentor has been notified, but I support leaving the block in place for now or longer. I don't get the "equipment" excuse, but it doesn't matter, as disruption is disruption regardless of cause, particularly when it is an ongoing issue. If the "problem" can be fixed, fine, but they need to remain blocked until then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Dennis and Guy: If this is indeed an assistive technology issue, we might be able to help. Until then, the account should stay blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object, though my actions were based on the fact that the user has communicated with both Xeno and Floquenbeam in the past and they've both been fine with any possible difficulties. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility and I also always had my doubts about the "outdated equipments" thing. Despite some research in archived discussions I did not find the basis for this conclusion. In 2008 someone suggested his disability resembled that of Autism, possibly some kind of high-functioning autism syndrome - people with nomal intellect but extended difficulties in social relations difficulties. I personally don't know. And I don't know how to help this user. I do have the feeling he means well, however. Dodoïste (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support this block. Basically competence is required and disruption is disruption regardless of the cause. If the "problem" can be fixed, that's fine. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• As I said last time this came up, blaming the assistive technology is a smokescreeen, it is not what is causing the problems. Years of mentoring have failed to help in the slightest. Having a coherent converstion woth thos user is virtually impossible because they choose to be cryptic and not directly reply to questions, not because of any tech issue. WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:CIR both apply. There comes a time we must decide to part ways with a user who causes problems rathwr than solving them, regaordless of how we may feel about the underlying reasons for it. It is not a happy moment for anyone involved, but it is necessary. We don't let the blind drive busses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user can't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those moves are being performed on his own accounts and IP. I don't see anything disruptive about it. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Accounts", plural, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, the point here is that this user is not a Wikipedia editor at all. What he thinks he is doing here, I don't know, but none of it improves Wikipedia. None of it. And filling up an IP talk page with utter nonsense and then moving it to a title like User talk:Hopiakuta/ DonFphrnqTaub Persina juneteenth 2006 ( Oy vey, D. F. T. P. 22 26, 18 June 2006 71.102.31.67 ) ~~ ~~ / 71.102.35.65 actually is not ok. IP talk pages do not belong to anyone, even if they have had the IP a long time it could be re-assigned at any time, but that is not really the point. The purpose of talk pages is communication. Hokiaputa is not using them for that purpose. Wikipedia is not a free web host for a bunch of random nonsense to be shuffled around to various equally nonsensical titles. He's wasting his own time, and whenever this gibberish shows up in recent changes or wherever and someone tries to figure out what the hell is going on, he wastes everone else's time as well trying to figure it out. Nobody is gaining anything from his edits. He is not able to contribute here in a productive manner and made it clear in the last discussion that he is not intersted in even trying to communicate coherently. He can pursue this.... whatever the hell it is somewhere else where they are not working on an encyclopedia, which his edits have no relation to whatsoever. There is nothing to be gained by unblocking this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He was editing in article space before the block before this current one and making useful edits, most of which were redirects. I managed to communicate coherently with him. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I also edit with outdated assistive technology. I teach and beta test various types of systems. Without going into details, but to hopefully provide some useful information, after running through a number of the user's edits, I would say that the claim is true, certain types of errors in the edits, and some irregularities, minor things that you probably do not see, coupled with some user content suggest specific type(s) of adaptive technology. The programmer above, looking through a specific type of my Wikipedia contributions might guess what type of adaptive technology I use. However, it is not so easy to make some other types of errors this user makes, due to specific constraints of the technology. Also, nothings stops me from apologizing when I do make the techno-error, but it is a lot of work, each post and communication, with some types of disabilities and adaptive technology. These threads on this board trend towards Jupiter-sized snowballs and participating may be a lot more work than you can imagine, certainly it removes editors from editing, ordinary editors, so the burden on an already limited editor is much greater. Th sorry aftermath of a techo-generated oops can be seen here. [208]. Eau (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He should be unblocked in accordance with the previous AN/I discussion. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so we can rinse and repeat? It doesn't matter what the cause is of these disruptive edits; they keep happening, they keep being disruptive, and until there can be assurances that the disruption will not resume/continue, the block needs to stay in place to prevent the disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He's been editing for 6 years with over 6000 edits. He's made it no AN/I less than half a dozen times in that period. Now, when he hasn't even been editing articles, he's blocked for redirecting his own accounts. It doesn't seem right. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support block - This keeps coming up over and over again, and the arguments are the same every time, and the situation never really changes. Overall, it's a net drag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Block - Apparently unblocking before was not a long-term fix. Unless something can be done to fix the problem, unblocking means (at best) a temporary lull until this happens again. --Nouniquenames (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block - He's done nothing disruptive so far. Moving pages from his own accounts that he doesn't edit from anymore isn't a sufficient reason. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support block - The project cannot be expected to deal with such a basic lack of competence here; this person completely lacks the ability to communicate with others in a coherent manner. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried? I got on fine. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Goody for you. Between this discussion and the one on WP:AN a month ago where the unblock was very poorly-received, most editors have had enough. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most editors only look on the surface. They're just seeing a lot of links on his page and don't care to delve further. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't think that unblocking Hopiakuta last month was a good call - there was a fair bit of evidence that, irrespective of whatever disability-related accommodations s/he uses, there was also an unwillingness to try to be comprehensible - but given that the user hasn't edited outside of their userspace since then other than doing some weird move-fu on account and IP talks that are "his", I don't think should have been the thing to set off a re-block. Not that it was a good call to go moving an IP's talk to his userspace, but it's a sort of understandable mistake someone might make ("The people talking to this IP were talking to me, anyway, so I might as well group it here..."). So I give the block a big "meh" - yeah, it was probably going to end up being necessary if Hopiakuta went back to editing mainspace in his old style, but as long as he was doing his semi-nonsensical thing only in his own space, there wasn't much call to do it today other than what was probably a page-ownership misunderstanding. That said, though, now that a block is in place I'm also not convinced that it will improve the encyclopedia to lift it - Hopiakuta's habit (weakness?) of making himself as difficult to understand as possible doesn't benefit Wikipedia, whether he's doing it in mainspace (in which case it's disruptive) or his talkspace (in which case it's sort of a chaotic-neutral "uhh...why are you here?"). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"why are you here" pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I don't see the point, for them or for WP, in their continued presence here. If nobody is getting anything positive out of it what's the point? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on this, probably time to revoke talk page access and then maybe issue a revdel.[209] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just done both. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can those who keep wanting to unblock this editor explain, in words of one syllable, what that user is doing, and why they should be unblocked? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a guy who may need some help, and anything we do should be carefully considered. Hopiakatu (or DonFphrnqTaub Persina) has a surprisingly extensive web presence. This blog post is actually readable, and may provide some insight. Zagalejo^^^ 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He may need some help, but Wikipedia is not therapy. Regardless of what good contributions may have been made, if disruption keeps happening (it does) and there are no assurances of it not happening again (there aren't) a preventitive block to prevent the disruption is necessary. Wikipedia has enough problems editors have to deal with without enabling a situation where they have to clean up disruption, intentional or not, that everyone knew would happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the only disruption is from people who couldn't be bothered reading the template at the top of his user page. More disruption comes when an admin blocks him just because of all the links on his user page. Moving his own accounts doesn't deserve a block or amount to disruption. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is the same person, then what that blog post shows is that a) he deliberately refuses to communicate coherently on the Wikipedia and b) that this is a severely mentally unbalanced individual who should be kept well away from this project. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the blog writer seems remarkably more able to communicate, and unhindered by "equipment problems", then the editor in question. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it confirms what I have been saying all along, that blaming assistive technology is an outright lie and that he is deliberately being difficult. Yes, it is possible that his mental illness is partly to blame. That is not our problem to fix even if we could. As has been repeated again and again, Wikipedia is not therapy. I won't add that competence is required as it is now well established that the way he communicates here is a deliberate choice, meaning he is being deliberately disruptive. As he is hard blocked without talk page access and there is obviously not a consensus here to overturn that I would suggest that we are done here and this a matter for WP:BASC should he choose to appeal that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the disruption? As far as I can tell the user was redirecting their alternate accounts to one single account per best practices. Why was this user blocked? Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I really think this is more of an issue with this user as a whole as opposed to the reasons for this specific block. Anyone who goes out of their way to make it difficult to communicate with them is not someone who should be working in a collaborative environment. I thought that had been pretty well established when this thread was closed, and I am disappointed tha it has been forced back open. For the moment this issue is in BASC's capable hands, let them deal with it. (I'd also be curious to know how moving an IP talk page that you have filled with garbage for some reason to a title like "User talk:Hopiakuta/ DonFphrnqTaub Persina juneteenth 2006 ( Oy vey, D. F. T. P. 22 26, 18 June 2006 71.102.31.67 ) ~~ ~~ / 71.102.31.67" reflects best practices, or any sane practice of any kind, but really I'd rather we just put this whole thing to bed.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no issue with the user, only editors who keep trying to block him. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we should not block users without a good rationale and then shuffle the problem off somewhere else where the user has to file a form in triplicate and show his original birth certificate, etc. This user has done nothing wrong. I'm sorry you don't like his preference for naming his user pages, but that's his own decision and it isn't blockable. Please unblock this user immediately. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You conveniently set aside the proof we now have that his "unable to communicate" shtick has been a lie. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such proof, any anyone saying there is such proof is making it up. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well one, that isn't relevant whether he should be blocked; two, I managed to communicate with him fairly well on several occasions and three, the web post was 10 months ago so has little bearing on whether he was faking it - unless his posts to Wikipedia were incoherent on the same day he posted that other stuff on the web (even that argument is wobbly). Acoma Magic (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm, not sure why you're having a hard time understanding a simple matter here. This user has been brought to AN and ANI several times in the past for disruptive editing concerns, and most of the complaints have been dismissed or mitigated, large because of the excuse of "outdated equipment" used because of his disability results in difficulty to communicate. That excuse has been exposed as fraudulent. Any other user who has done what this user has done in the past would have been sanctioned. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I too assumed that 'outdated equipment' meant some sort of special machine for disabled people. Only because of his way of communicating which is occasionally difficult to understand. It might just be an old computer. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me sum this up: User was brought to AN/I because he was moving his previous accounts. He was blocked for that. Since the argument for keeping the block in place is based on other issues, then another AN/I section should be started and a decision to be made on whether to block him. An unblock should be made now, since moving your accounts is not a blockable offence. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But failure to communicate coherently is. And why are you using bold script? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone need to communicate about maintaining their user space? There was no actionable rationale for this block and it should be lifted. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That hasn't been a problem for quite a while and isn't the reason for this AN/I discussion. For funzies. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no stone tablet on which the inscruption "Thou shalt not have an AN/I discussion about one topic deviate to related topics" - which, as this is the same editor in question, is very much a related topic. And you are seeming to not get the point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, see if you can get consensus for a block based on the issues raised. An unblock is required at the moment as it was implemented for frivolous reasons a frivolous reason. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. Just as a matter of procedure, the bad block should be removed. If a good block follows, so be it, but the current one can't be left in place "just in case" a good block might one day follow. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, your summary is inaccurate, this block is more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" thing, it wasn't for the most recent bizarro page moves. We're simply at an "enough is enough" moment. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If moving former accounts is not just rule breaking but also a blockable offence, then the block is fine. If it's not, then an unblock is in order and a discussion on whether to implement a block based on something else can take place. Acoma Magic (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read what people write here, as most of your replies ignore any points others have actually made. Several users, including yourself, have tried to handhold and coddle this user over the years because of alleged communication issues due to a claimed disability, a claim now shown to be 100% fraudulent. People get blocked for being disruptive and deceptive all the time here, this was no different. We all know now that Hopiakuta can indeed communicate in clear English, so he is free to follow the steps at WP:BASC. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed the points made. No disability has been shown to be fraudulent and he's communicated in clear English on Wikipedia quite often, both recently and long ago. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the disability itself was fraudulent; again, please read what people write. I said that the past excuse making that this user cannot communicate competently because of poor equipment is a lie, since it has been demonstrated that the user can communicate coherently when he chooses to. Blocks have been dodged in the past because of this excuse-making. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I already addressed that as well if you look up top. I and others assumed that his antiquated equipment was referring to a special machine to aid in communication. However, it seems that it was just about an old computer or the like. Looking back, it's quite obvious that it was a mistaken assumption, as he communicates often and is easy to understand most of the time. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support block. There is not one iota of benefit given to the encyclopedia by the user's recent contributions. Nothing to do here until the user can rally the English language and request the block be lifted, using clear communication. Binksternet (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that these supports are irrelevant since a subsection needs to be started and a discussion to take place on whether to actually block him based on certain reasons such as communication issues. Until he's unblocked for the frivolous reason already discussed, then we're just wasting our time. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that your opinion that it is frivolous is in a very distinct minority. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked for direction to the policy that says moving former accounts is against the rules and blockable. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say WP:IAR, but moving former accounts is WP:DISRUPTIVE, and, together with previous blockable offences, for which I really don't understand why he was unblocked, it might be sufficient to restore the indefinite block. Assuming, without further analysis, the statements made that his article edits are sometimes good, he chould still be sufficiently distruptive that his presence causes more trouble than his absence. Constructive editors have been blocked, when it was determined (usually at AN, rather than ANI), that the problems outweighed the benefits. I supported an indefinite block previously, but I'm not commenting this time, as it takes too much effort to attempt to understand his talk page edits, to determine whether there might be some value. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A consensus on whether to block him is all that I want. WP:IAR is the policy that's required to keep him blocked. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: that Hopiakuta be blocked from editing for long-term misrepresentation of his ability to communicate on Wikipedia

Since certain contributors seem to think that Wikipedia has to operate like a court of law, and that a block which is self-evidently justified based on what we now know should be lifted on the basis that it may possibly have been incorrectly imposed in the first place,I propose that we settle the matter by immediately imposing a new block on Hopiakuta, for long-term misrepresentation of his ability to communicate on Wikipedia - such a block to be lifted only after Hopiakuta has given a clear explanation, in his own words for his behaviour, and also given an assurance that such misrepresentation of his ability to communicate will not recur, and that he will at all times attempt to communicate with others to the best of his ability - it will of course be up to the unblocking admin (and ultimately the community) to determine whether any such assurances from Hopiakuta can be given credence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, for reasons given above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because there's no evidence he misrepresented his ability to communicate. The title and reasons above should be changed or diffs provided. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. He's been communicating just fine on and off. You're making it sound like it was just discovered that he can communicate well. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that at this time, as noted above, Hopiakuta's block is based at least in part on the contents of a rev-deleted edit (see posts above from Baseball Bugs and Mark Arsten). That rev-deletion was valid and the contents of the edit should not be discussed on-wiki. I'm reluctant even to make this post here and call attention to it, but I hate to see a great deal more time spent on discussing this block in the abstract without reference to it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. Should we close these threads noting that the blocked user may appeal to ArbCom?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should. I also hate to see more time wasted on discussing this block in the abstract without reference to it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

His response was based on a template telling him to come here and defend himself; even though he was just indefinitely blocked. Naturally he was annoyed. So no, the block was never based on that. Now cast your votes and reasons on whether to block him (also somebody unblock him so he can respond here, as that's what's supposed to happen). Acoma Magic (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what is supposed to happen, nor is it what is going to happen. This should have been left closed two days ago, but lately there is an obnoxious trend here of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior. Unfortunately it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. Amd, sorry folks, but the revdeleted edit is pretty bad. The fact that it had to be revdeleted, as Brad noted, means the details are not going to be discussed here but I can assure you it reflects an attititude completely incompatible with Wikipedia, and it is in fact coherent. When he wants to be really nasty he can communicate just fine. When he wants to just be irritating he chooses not to. That is why he is blocked and why he will remain blocked until he appeals it himself, so please, let's finally let this lie where it is and let BASC handle it should he choose to appeal the block. This desperate advocacy on his behalf is accomplishing nothing. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Acoma Magic, I share your distaste for the way many people here handled this, but after Hopiakuta's now-revdel'ed response, there is no benefit to him in leaving this ANI thread open; he is simply not going to be unblocked without contacting ArbCom. There is perhaps a benefit to those who wish to Fight and Speak Truth to Power, or a benefit to those who wish to further mock someone who can't answer back, but there is no benefit to him. As such, I am going to close the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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