Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ludwigs2 on Talk:Muhammad/images

A little background: Talk:Muhammad/images is a special talk page created to deal with the large number of editors who come to complain about showing depictions of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, due mostly to religious considerations. Consensus has been decided on multiple occasions that images of Muhammad are acceptable on the page, this has been truly exhaustively discussed in the past as you can tell by the large disclaimer on the top of the talk page, and by reading the archives. This does not mean that consensus cannot change, but it's unlikely and doesn't seem to be happening now.

Furthermore, WP:NOTCENSORED is unambiguous when it states "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."

User talk:Ludwigs2 has made it goal recently to strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims. It is true that some sects of Islam consider it unethical to depict Muhammad as I'm sure most people here know.

It has been explained ad nauseum to Ludwig that policy does not allow us to consider religious beliefs when writing this encyclopedia and his response is that we should invoke WP:IAR. I explained to him that IAR still needs to be determined by a consensus and that he cannot unilaterally invoke it to force a POV into the article. His response was that other editors are abusing the rules by enforcing them and if we stop abusing the rules then he will stop IAR.

This conversation has been going back and forth with the same points being explained by several editors many times, and it has now crossed the WP:TE line - the entire page is one large WP:BATTLEGROUND at this point, with several WP:IDHT, WP:NPA and WP:AGF issues such as accusing all the other editors opposing removal (which as far as I can tell is all other editors, though there are editors who would like less images for various reasons) of WP:OWN and expressing disbelief that the people he's dealing with can think the way they do and still be normal adults.

I'm asking that an uninvolved admin assess the situation and determine if Lugwigs2 requires some kind of a warning or if I'm being overly dramatic, and I thank you in advance for reading the talk page thread because it is a bit long.

The relevant thread is here. I'm not posting diffs because the entire thread demonstrates the points I am attempting to illustrate, as it's not a single comment that is at issue here. There are other threads involved in this discussion, but this is the most recent and best highlights my complaint.

N^oformation ^Talk 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This was bound to hit the AN/I fan sooner or later, just one massive Facepalm. If I may offer a pre-rebuttal to what Ludwigs2 is like about to touch on here, neither I nor IMO anyone else asserts ownership of the Muhammad article. I have said "images will not be removed this article" as a simple acknowledgement of the slim-to-none chance that it would ever actually happen. It's like saying "Ron Paul will never be President" or "the Bills will never win the Super Bowl". One is not staking out an aggressive posture against either scenario taking place, but is rather acknowledging the likelihood of occurrence, or lack thereof. It has also been endlessly frustrating to deal with a user who demands existing policy be bent in an absolutely wrong direction to accommodate someone's religious beliefs. And not even a specific someone, all of this is in defense of nebulous "some people out there don't like this article" sensibilities. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have said similar and have elaborated in the same way. The article can certainly change if a consensus to do so is formed, but it will not be done based on religious considerations and the chances of the article being depiction free are slim. This is not asserting ownership. N^oformation ^Talk 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe the term you're looking for is "Slim to none, and Slim left town". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A very very tiny portion of the diffs of behavior related to this can be found here[1] (this was for an AN/I or RfC/U I planned on filing but am still working on organizing and moving the diffs over from an offline copy). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that I am aware of this thread, and to clarify some misperceptions in Nofo's presentation. beyond that I will allow administrtors to review the material before commenting further.

comments on Nofo's summary:

• I am not trying to "strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims." As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, I want to undertake a frank evaluation of the value of these images to the article to see if keeping them is worth all the immense amounts of trouble that they cause. as Nofo noted, there is a special subpage (with 16 archives) all focused on these images; one would expect the images to be of vital importance to the page for all of that conflict, yet as far as I can tell they are at best decorative illustrations. That struck me as nonsensical - why cause this much trouble over eye-candy?
• Nofo and Tarc have (understandably) downplayed the extent of wp:page ownership. I have had at least four editors (including one admin) tell me bald-face that the images will not be removed under any circumstances, and that any discussion of the matter is unacceptable (two most reacent examples [2],[3], though there are dozens) I have consequently been forced to turn to wp:IAR simply to get any sort of discussion going.
  • The IAR justification, incidentally, is over the misuse of NOTCENSORED: the policy is being used to retain images that have no particular value to the article but are highly controversial - effectively offending a significant population of our readers and damaging the project's reputation without any overriding encyclopedic reason.

please review the talk page at your leisure; happy to answer any questions. Hopefully this can be resolved without further drama on the page. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

P.s. this has been cast as being about me, but there are at least two other editors in the discussion making similar arguments to mine who have not been notified. I will leave notices in their talk (I don't want to involve them unless they choose to participate here). --Ludwigs2 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is so very not true, and I can provide faaaar more diffs to prove it's not than the tiny handful in the link I posted above. Shall I? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I very clearly said "without a consensus for your position, these images will not be removed" in that diff, I seriously doubt anyone will read that as ownership. N^oformation ^Talk 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors insist on calling the Bible stories fairy tales, without concern for offense to Jewish and Christian believers. What's so special about Muslims, that they should be catered to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fairy tales? In mainspace? Do we? --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Example? I rather think we tolerate highly biased articles making out that Jesus' existence is uncontested historical fact and stuff like that. Not that this supports Ludwigs2's case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs: when it comes right down to it, I don't really care who gets offended, so long as the project has a valid, encyclopedic reason to do the offending. If we need controversial material, we use controversial material, but do we really want to be throwing controversial material in our readers' faces for no reason whatsoever? see the recent foundation resolution on controversial content. --Ludwigs2 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, at AN/I, you actually decided to make such a claim, even though diffs to prove your true motivations and feelings on this matter are right here for all to see? (to everyone else) This is why I think nothing short of a topic ban is going to stop the tendentiousness, disruptiveness and editing in bad faith (not to mention erroneous claims of being attacked while attacking others). In my opinion, that entire comment shows a bad faith response as can be noted from over a dozen diffs showing (in his own words) it is not his true motivations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering that depictions of Muhammed are usually verboten, their mere presence is of major educational benefit here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument, Bugs. Here's a gratuitous and excessive counterexample of something that is offensive but we have no educational mission to include. The concept that we should include offensive material just because no one else will host it is jaw-droppingly silly. SDY (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And that's a ridiculously, jaw-droppingly silly, and thoroughly bogus comparison. Unless you're aware of some American law restricting depictions of Muhammed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you think we should include kiddie porn if the laws of Florida didn't say no? Maybe we should include the goatse.cx image for its "educational value"? Including gratuitous offensive images is tasteless and crude: if they have clear educational value that should be easy to defend. Including them for the sake of some twisted sense of entitlement about freedom from censorship is not writing an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For quite some time we did include the goatse.cx image, first the image itself, and then a screenshot of the website with the image clearly visible. The arguments for the inclusion of that image were much better than those for the Muhammad images, and it didn't get finally removed before Jimbo got involved. Hans Adler 07:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's an alternate universe where kiddie porn isn't universally condemned as wrong and depraved, and is instead accepted, and if there's a wikipedia in that universe, they'd probably have kiddie porn in their article. The comparison is way too weak because of all the fundamentally unique issues that apply to child pornography that don't apply to almost anything else. Interestingly, I don't particularily think that a category exists whose members are "child porn, goatse.cx and the religious prophet Muhammad". N^oformation ^Talk 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Images that might be taken as extremely offensive, perhaps? The complete cultural blindness of this site is shocking sometimes. We have very different ideas about encyclopedias. Regardless, this isn't the place for this conversation. SDY (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "cultural blindess" - good thing too, if it weren't culturally blind, it would be a very shitty encyclopedia, especially with all the various interests that have tried subverting article after article. My time here at RC has proven that to me. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. There's no way I'm reading through all the material here, major case of tl;dr, but I would suggest to Ludwig that his reasoning is dubious when he argues that a possibly valid reason to remove images from said article is simply because they are causing more trouble than they are worth, when it is he who is causing most of the trouble. I agree with the original poster that an uninvolved admin might perhaps need to have a chat with Ludwig and possibly issue a warning. This discussion has truly been done to death at a variety of locations on wikipedia, and I really think it's time for Ludwig to let this issue go. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a read through of the entire section myself to get to grips with the situation. Wrt to the point raised re ownership, I didn't see any particular signs of it. I read the various "these pictures will never be removed" comments as "these pictures will never be removed based on the position you are taking". Frankly speaking, all I read was the same argument repeated over and over again until it was escalated into heel digging and declarations of applying IAR ad nauseam until the pictures were removed for the sake of the sensibilities of religious hysterics. --Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this was brought here. Ludwigs2 is not just repeating the same arguments over and over again. The most recent round of discussion was kicked off by the resolution recently passed by the WMF on controversial content. Raising the issue here on Wikipedia with what are very easily our most "controversial images" was fully acceptable. In response, Ludwigs has been met with abuse and vitriol. Ludwigs eventually decided to pursue an RfC (supported by myself, Anthonyhcole, and others); a number of regular editors (Tarc is the worst, but also Robertmfromli) have made strong attempts to stop the RfC. When a group of editors attempt to assert that their understanding of policy is so obviously correct and their opponents are so obviously wrong that we shouldn't even ask for the community's input, that is the very definition of ownership. Now, I will admit that Ludwigs2 is on the extreme end, and the chances of his preferred outcome (i.e., no pictorial images whatsoever) is essentially a no-go, but Anthonyhcole has done a very good job of pointing out that there is a middle ground here that needs to be considered (i.e., that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE). WP:CENSORSHIP is fine, but it is being used as a bludgeon on that page, as if its very existence means that anyone who even considers removal of any images there is nothing other than a Sunni apologist. My opinion is, once we settle on a wording, we need to let the RfC run. If it turns out (as is likely) to support the extremist "all images are good position", then fine--of course, Ludwigs2 and any other editor must be free to pursue further dispute resolution. That has really been my position all along: that a group of editors are essentially trying to prevent dispute resolution due to their sense of their own unerring interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian: Me? I tried stopping the RfC? Are you truly serious? I kindly ask you to review the page history. I was willing to give up[4][5] because of Ludwigs2's actions, but I *NEVER* tried stopping it. The exact opposite is true. *I* restarted it THREE times[6][7][8] and *I* made the only proposal that had any chance at getting any images removed (other than you tacking virtually the same proposal onto proposal #5). So, would you like to retract that claim that I tried stopping the RfC? And apologies for the bolded text, but your claim is so vastly different than what really happened. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Qwyrxian: Apologies for any tone you may read into that. That page is a massive mess, and I am sure you simply missed the things I pointed out above. I am upset about such a claim being made against me, but I know (from seeing you around for a long time) that it's nothing more than not having gotten a handle on that massive walls-o-text talk page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This AN/I is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content discussion. There may be a middle ground and that's fine but in the meantime Ludwig has made personal attacks, assigned motives to other editors and yes, has repeated the same argument regarding offending Muslims over and over again to the point of WP:TE. He is yet to make a policy based argument against WP:NOTCENSORED, which specifically rules out using religious belief as a valid criteria of building the pedia. Instead he invokes IAR, which he would not need to do if policy was on his side. Yes there have been edits by editors who share my view on the images that made me cringe, I didn't find their behavior bad enough to take to AN/I, but if you do then by all means open up a case. However, in what you wrote above all you did was point to the behavior of others and not that of Ludwigs. Please see some of the diffs below. N^oformation ^Talk 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I have absolutely no problem with an RFC nor do I oppose changes to the way images in the article are handled, and I don't think other editors do either. The problem people have is that we cannot make a case based on Ludwig's reasoning that it offends religious beliefs. Other arguments are fine. I brought this thread here so that an uninvolved admin can step in and calm the waters - not to stifle discussion or stop DR. N^oformation ^Talk 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I find Ludwigs2's arguments quite sensible, and am more inclined to the view that there are a number of editors opposing Ludwigs2 who are overinvolved on that page, and who are turning this into a battleground over principle. I am still trying to get up to speed with the subject matter, but as far as I can make out, pictorial representations of Muhammad have never been as common and widespread in Muslim traditions as pictorial representations of Christ in the Christian tradition, for example; so the basic situation is a completely different one. We should focus on the most common types of representation (calligraphy etc.), just as we focus on the most typical depictions of Jesus in his article. Even among such pictorial depictions of Muhammad as did exist, the majority showed him as a flame, or veiled; yet most of the pictures we feature are those of the rarer naturalistic type – so they are both unrepresentative and more likely to cause offence. If we keep in mind that we should balance educational value and potential offence, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have far too many naturalistic images of Muhammad in the article. Perhaps one veiled one, and one showing him as a flame, might be reasonable, because these are the common styles. It might also make sense to look at how other encyclopaedias are handling this; Britannica for example does not include any images of Muhammad at all, as far as I can see; neither in the Micropaedia and Macropaedia articles on Muhammad, nor in the Macropaedia article on Islamic art (which is mostly non-pictorial). We'll probably need an RfC on the content issue at some point, and that should be well-prepared, and underpinned by serious research. --JN466 05:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many arguments to be made on the article's talk page, but one of them is not that it's against Islamic tradition. And again, this is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content dispute. N^oformation ^Talk 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as someone who has only happened on this page this past week, I see lots of "I didn't hear that" and aspersions from the other side as well, rather than an effort to seek compromise and consensus. I think everybody on that page needs a cooling-off period. (By the way, note WP:NAUSEUM.) And to address the point of tradition, I think we can agree that naturalistic depictions of Muhammad are rare, and nowhere near representative of how Muhammad is represented in Islamic tradition. --JN466 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A small portion of Ludwigs2 behavior and comments

• Engages community in attempt to remove images based on Foundation resolution[9]
• Very next post, claims (in edit summary) "the astonishment is general, not a function or religion"[10] yet the only known objection is religious beliefs.
• One justification repeatedly trumped out is "[...]and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual[...]"[11] (one of many diffs) - yet refuses to believe that such would apply to pictures of Euro-Jesus - while admitting it is because people aren't (religiously) offended by such.[12] thus indicating (again and again) the real issue is one of religious offense and not whether the images are "factual".
• Earlier admits his motivations are religious in nature[13] - continues to do so, such as[14]
• VERY early on, starts accusing those who he disagrees with of having a prejudicial tone[15] - they cite policy and it's uniform use, he calls their tone "prejudicial"
• He suggests an RfC[16], which gets given actual attention and yet two days later tries end runs around an RfC that obviously won't remove every image of Muhammad by attempting to remove one editor using WQA[17], and an attempted an end run at ArbCom hinting at our behavior (with diffs) while claiming that isn't part of it[18] (diff to final post on proposed ArbCom case so entire thread can be viewed). During this ArbCom end run attempt, he tries pointing out a "deep ideological divide in the community" by pointing out a Village Pump proposal that shows the exact opposite.[19]
• (Also) DURING the attempt to formulate an RfC to address such concerns, those with opposing viewpoints and vastly different understanding of policy than him are labeled (by him) as showing or having a bias, not AGF, incivility, anti-Muslim sentiments, personal attacks (against him), etc,[20][21][22]
• Advises he will continue[23] to bring up what amounts to policy changes in the wrong venue. Advised he should go to the right venue[24]. Obviously refuses by actions (see talk page) and again repeats (after being told by multiple editors that it's getting tendentious (and disruptive))[25][26][27]^{(and plenty more)} that he will continue to do so anyway, even after acknowledging the correct venue (and even responding with "tenacious" once in response to claims of his "tendentious"ness) [28][29]

Added by ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to limit this discussion to Ludwigs2's behavior. We *really* don't want to hash out the image controversy here as it's one that will never achieve consensus anyway. Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It achieved consensus long ago (that a few images stay) and has had it ever since. What it will never achieve is universal agreement, but that's not the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I was just about to post the same thing. N^oformation ^Talk 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as well, but in fairness to Ludwigs, we need to limit it to everyone's behaviour, even if I echo others in believing that he himself is responsible for nearly all of the conflict. Now, onto the point, I won't repeat everything RobertM has said, but I have a collection of links myself that echos those. The one I will leave is typical of his behaviour on that talk page: "...the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice." This was from last weekend, but he has made several similar accusations of bigotry and racism, the most recent of which I saw was from yesterday. That is pretty much his MO. We need to remove images of "the prophet" because some Muslims are offended, and therefore anyone who does not support his goal of censoring the article must be a bigot. He has been tendentious in the extreme and routinely makes bad-faith arguments against his opponents. Resolute 03:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cannot but agree that Ludwigs has been speculating on the motives of editors at that page and he should stop. Ludwigs2 is by no means the only offender. I would very much appreciate it if all the editors on that page would apply WP:TALK. It is extremely tedious trying to engage in rational argument when every fifth paragraph seems to be about editor behaviour or speculations about motive, from every direction. It draws out the process and just makes people dig in their heels. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The whole recent discussion on that page seems to have degenerated into battleground mode. I would not want to lay the responsibility for that at any one individual editor's doorstep. --JN466 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are on our 5th attempt at an RfC (which ironically he proposed and tried to circumvent). I even proposed an RfC that actually had a chance of getting an image or three removed (the "all or none" ones we know wouldn't change anything, and Ludwigs' written or implied as "none or none" ones weren't going to happen). If that's not a compromise, I don't know what is. Worse yet, there isn't anything else that can be compromised on in that venue. The rest require policy changes or policy addendums - where, on well over a dozen occasions, Ludwigs2 was suggested to go. We can't change nor ignore WP:CENSOR. At least 4 times, a viable compromise in the form of an RfC that may have removed some images was proposed.

And finally, the rest of us don't really need to cool off. We just don't need tendentiousness and every RfC attempt turned into a circus of repeated IAR claims and repeated claims of (grossly paraphrased) "ooh, you attacked me again!" I disagree with various of your points, yet you and I are going back and forth in good faith with points and counter-points and listening to each other. Same with other editors.

Yes, it's been difficult for us to ignore Ludwigs2, and I think all of us have tried, and most of us have failed... but ignoring him doesn't work either. And I've got pages of history in the talk page archives - plus the current page - to prove that. Simply responding to each other (as you and I have been doing) results in walls of the "Policy Whack A Mole" game, accusations towards other editors, single purpose IAR rants, and so on. I'll gladly do no more than provide a link to the Village Pump each time from now on, so the rest of us can discuss... but, at this point, the number of accusations and attacks on editors from him has gotten ridiculous, as has the tendentiousness and disruptiveness. I personally think he's long overdue for a topic ban. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob, this is a complex issue. It will take time for calm rational discussion to arrive at an idea of the best way forward, if indeed anything needs to be done. There is no hurry. The only problem I see at that page is a tendency for many editors, of every persuasion, to allow themselves to be sidetracked into ad hominem. You can ignore ad hominem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, you are correct. And my apologies, if my frustrations at others ever got misplaced and misdirected at you or anyone else. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My OPINION: Summary of this whole event

This was intended to be part of the AN/I I held off filing and was to go with the diffs I provided above and below. It has been modified to note the two locations of the diffs, as I never finished moving them from off-Wiki to my userspace)

(diffs representative of most or all of this are already posted here) When it comes to removal of the images, whether one or all or something inbetween, there are two camps involved:

1. One camp which wishes to discuss the merit (historic, educational and artistic value to the article) of each image (or the images as a whole).
2. One editor (Ludwigs2) who wishes to see them all removed based on religious objections to them. It seems that if those in "Camp #1" make what he perceives are compelling arguments, he tries that road for a short period of time. Everyone else starts discussing such with them in good faith, but as soon as it looks like there is pressure against any part of any such proposal, he tends to revert to various policy Whack A Mole type arguments based on religious objections to the images for summary removal of all of them, including suggesting an RfC that asked or implied (paraphrased) "remove all for this reason, or remove all for this reason".

It is at that point where things continue to spiral out of control. Multiple attempts have been made to restart discussions, but the end result is always the same. I can provide diffs to various such conversations where those at odds with Ludwigs2's actions were working in good faith with those in "Camp #1" - and where he sidetracked things for his single minded objective. Due to his preliminary support of some of these (before he reverts to his true objective), a person only giving the page a quick read may come to a grossly wrong conclusion about his objectives as he himself (diff below in response to Anthony, many more available) had admitted is his goal.

This is just my perceptions of the matter, with diffs in the section above I created, as well as below to support my interpretation. Your's may vary (or not). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My take on this whole thing is that Ludwigs2 wants a clear interpretation of the ArbCom resolution reflected in Wikipedia's existing policies. As a precisionist Wikipedian myself, this is something I agree with. The problem is that Ludwigs2 picked the wrong venue, perhaps to use as a test case, but nevertheless it's the wrong place to build a consensus regarding fundamental interpretations of policy.

At this point, after the same arguments have been stated over and over again, I would agree that Ludwigs2's persistence in the wrong venue has crossed the line into tendentiousness. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I took the fact that the resolution was already incorporated into WP:CENSOR with the religious censorship section left intact as the community's interpretation. I'd gladly see through such an endeavor for clarity, if you believe such is really needed. On the other side of the coin though, Ludwigs2 (I have the diffs, and can provide them later if you would like) started out at that article by removing images, caused drawn out debates about removing images, tried policy Whack-A-Mole to remove images, tried RfC attempts to remove images, tried a Village Pump proposal to remove images (was that one another end run attempt at an ongoing RfC?), and when pushed, repeatedly admits it's religious based objections at the core of his argument - hence my interpretation of his motives is different. Even with the very very unamibguous wording that was left in WP:CENSOR, it seemed more Policy-Whack-A-Mole time again. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading much of the discussion (there's a good chunk of my life I'll sadly never get back), I have to concur with RobertMfromLI's summary--Ludwigs2 does keep reverting back to the same argument over and over. If Ludwigs2 wants to use that argument in the upcoming RfC, that is fine; however, there's no point in continuing to bring it up over and over again when xe knows that the current local consensus is opposed to that position. Right now, Ludwigs2 should be focused only on helping phrase the RfC itself, then xe can add whatever additional points xe wants to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question (sorry it is my first AN/I) should we continue to report any behavioral problems or should we let the matter lie while people look things up? Since I have noticed several times since we started this that personal attacks are continuing. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

• Topic ban? Ludwigs2 seems to be behaving no differently on this article than he has on astrology, pregnancy and acupuncture. (On Men's rights, it seems that his presence provides a useful counterfoil to some of the newly arrived editor-activists.) Almost all his contributions to the discussion on the image subpage appear to be outside wikipedia policy; and he still has not succeeded in finding a way to engage with other users who do not share his opinions, without causing offense. In this case, he has been shifting between several different lines of argument in a way which makes it very hard to see whether he has any coherent objections beyond WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. My suggestion is that, since he seems intent on producing more heat than light and at the same time causing offense, his presence on that talk page is purely disruptive and not a net positive for the project. Perhaps the best way foward is for Ludwigs2 to be topic banned from all discussions of images on wikipedia for a preliminary period of six months. (On astrology, he was topic-banned for six months.) Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, Support VERY VERY STRONG SUPPORT I tried avoiding going to this forum for quite some time (hence I never even finished adding diffs to the report I started in my userspace), but I think we are at the point this is the only viable option. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• After a bad faith RfC just created today,[30] I am now inclined to change my "Sadly, Support" to "VERY STRONG SUPPORT" - as pointed out by another editor, the RfC is biased to the point it is worded similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?" This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ludwigs2 is needed to balance the POV of that article. It is striking how the illustrations of our article on Jesus are fully consistent with and celebratory of Christian tradition, while the illustrations in our article on Muhammad are not only inconsistent with Islamic tradition, but actually offensive to many muslim readers. That should give anyone just a moment's pause for thought about the neutrality that this project aspires to, and the extent to which we have achieved that lofty aim. --JN466 06:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• As a brief aside, I've paused for a moment, and come to the conclusion that we're not necessarily hearing from a representative portion of the Muslim community, since we tend not to hear from Muslims who actually like the images there; kind of a "planes that crash" problem. I won't try to bring the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images here, but to briefly state; I know many Muslims personally who feel it's a personal choice whether or not to be offended by pictures of Muhammad, and that a secular encyclopedia should show depictions of him because that will lend itself to better understanding of the subject. To the topic at hand here, I'm not making a decision on whether I want to see an editor topic banned at 3 in the morning, so I'll weigh in later on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Blade, the point is that we should pick typical, traditional representations of Muhammad, that a muslim would recognise as typical representations, just as we do in the article on Jesus. We simply don't do that. Ludwigs2 is aware of that, but he is being stonewalled, and unreasonably so. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • Jayden, Ludwig wants to remove all images of Muhammad because some Muslims find them offensive. He doesn't want some, or one, he wants none. I don't think a single other editor is opposed to removing or changes images in general, it's just that we're not willing to have no images. N^oformation ^Talk 07:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Actually, Ludwigs has repeatedly stated his true intent is to get all the images removed - that is why various of us are working in good faith with those discussing what you are talking about above - they don't want summary removal. Big difference. Does he make a few good points? Yes, and I've given him credit for them. But he then returns each conversation to efforts to simply summarily remove all images. Would you like diffs? If so, how many? Five? A dozen? That page is a convoluted mess, but you'll see (if you spend an hour or four reading it) that the rest of us are discussing every such issue in good faith, whether for or against the images. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, he has signed up to this

1. No one would object to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad (if it ever gets written)
2. No one objects to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Depictions of Muhammad
3. We believe the artists' impressions of historical events in this article have no educational value for the topic of this article - or, if they do, not enough to justify the space they take up.

so he's happy to have images that add real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry, Anthony, that is not a true representation of events. He himself admits "as I have said several times, I currently believe all images should be removed"[31] - but then follows that with "but I'm open minded[...]". Though he proposes things to be discussed that have some merit, he keeps returning the conversation to one of removing ALL images (how many diffs would you like?) - and then admits he will continue to push the issue until it happens (buncha diffs above). That's editing in bad faith. One cannot say they are open minded (and even get off to a good start on some topics) then try to turn it back to that singular motivation. That is what numerous of us are upset about. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think he agrees with me and many others that none of the images of Muhammad presently adorning the article are appropriate, due to their lack of relevant educational value, so they should all go, but is OK with images of Muhammad in a (yet-to-be-created) section on images of Muhammad. That's my reading. I know you and others read his position differently. I've been assuming you're misunderstanding his position. Time will tell. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• No Anthony, here is his reasons: religious offense[32], religious offense[33], religious offense[34], religious offense[35]... (pretend I posted about 10 more - or I simply can if you like). Every time he is pushed for justifications, he reverts to the religious offense argument - with a massive dab of WP:IAR thrown on top to ignore WP:CENSOR's section on religious beliefs. You've had to have seen those arguments. That is when things fall apart again. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yes. He believes since they're offensive to many readers, we should withhold our usual tolerance for educationally valueless images in this case. We tolerate images that breach WP:IUP like that on articles like Jesus because they're pretty, but, if I understand him correctly, he argues that images that add nothing to the readers' understanding and offend many people should go. But he's open to using images of Muhammad where they have some didactic purpose. It's not contradictory to argue against gratuitous offensiveness but go along with offensiveness when it's the inevitable byproduct of a greater good. The doctrine of double effect applies here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is not really the place to discuss content. The concern here is about conduct. An ArbCom case on images, proposed by Ludwigs2, was recently rejected by arbitrators. Ludwigs2 does not appear to have dropped the idea. [36][37] [38] Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It was rejected as a content rather than conduct issue, but I recall that several arbitrators went out of their way to state that a wider community discussion about the general topic of controversial content was necessary. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• (correct venue) Suggested and ignored numerous times. Some of the diffs above, 10-15 more if you like. I'd even help with it. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't followed Ludwigs' behaviour at Astrology so can't speak to that. We are in different camps on Acupuncture, and his argument there could be better focused, but we certainly don't need to be protected from him there. At Pregnancy, he is arguing for a view that, the last time I looked, was in the ascendancy. At Muhammad, his behaviour would be fine if he could just learn to not speculate about others' motives or respond to ad hominem.

You're right, Mathsci, he does have several lines of argument, and one of them is that we should not use controversial images in an article when (a) they have little real educational value or (b) an uncontroversial picture would do just as well. I agree with this line, and believe that (a) applies in this case, but believe it represents a novel position, and is something that should win community approval elsewhere before it can sway a content decision. But he also argues that the images lack educational value, and so violate WP:IUP, and, on various grounds, that they violate WP:DUE. On these last two points of policy, there are many others, including me, who agree with him.

His failure to observe WP:TALK has been well and truly matched by many others who oppose him on that page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If uninvolved editors who have reviewed the WP:NOT RfC and recent threads at Talk:Muhammad/images decide on sanctions for all parties involved in ad hominem discussion, I'll change my vote. Banning only one editor in this situation would be highly unbalanced. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support with reservation Outside of controversial pages Ludwigs is a great contributor, but he doesn't play nice with others and cannot accept when consensus is not in his favor. He acted this way on Astrology and was topic banned for six months so I don't know why it would be any different here. But long term what's the solution? Drama seems to follow him where he goes and simply topic banning every time he gets to this point is inefficient. Perhaps a third solution, such as mentorship, would be beneficial here. I don't want him topic banned, I just want him to accept that policy as written is not in his favor and to stop acting as though IAR will function without consensus, but if he is unwilling to stop then I reluctantly support he be topic banned from the Muhammad article in regards to images. I've seen other instances of him invoking IAR when consensus and interpretation of policy didn't agree with him and frankly it's annoying and unproductive. Honestly I jumped the gun in supporting a topic ban. Ludwigs' is a good editor and generally makes great contributes and it's not fair for me to condemn him so strongly. I think think admin intervention is necessary but this goes too far for the time being. N^oformation ^Talk 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(to Noformation) Eh, it's only a topic ban (not a site ban). He can continue to be a great editor elsewhere. It's preventative (not punitive) in order to end the disruption to what are probably attempts at good faith proposals to review the images (and their value) one more time. I'm not sure what other administrator intervention is possible other than a topic ban? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I just think it goes too far. If this AN/I was focused on behavior and not on content then I think Ludwigs behavior would have been more strongly rebuked and that he would back off from the WP:BATTLEGROUND and be willing to adjust. Unfortunately all the content is distracting from the issue. When I filed the report I made the mistake of asking people to read over the thread rather than providing diffs of specific NPA, AGF, etc, violations, which had the effect of getting people to take sides in the debate. I'm not sure where to go from here tbch. N^oformation ^Talk 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to see a topic ban either, if it can be avoided (which is why I started and never completed my filing). But, perhaps like you, I cannot think of any remedy other than one. And rebukes don't seem to work well - I'm dealing with such an issue on two other articles, and multiple admins have stopped in with rebukes which end things for a few hours to maybe a day - then edit/revert warring begins anew. I think each article has passed six such edit/revert wars. Until it's made abundantly clear that such rebukes are serious by stopping one dead in its tracks with a temporary block, they are going to continue. I suspect the same will happen here. One of those editors (in my other "situation") is also involved in this article, btw. Though admirably not engaging in such behavior on it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I imagine this will take a couple days to settle out and when it does I reserve the right to change back to support. I'm hoping that now that uninvolved editors are weighing in that it will be a bit of a wake up call. We'll see if anything changes on the talk page. N^oformation ^Talk 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ludwigs2 has done the right thing on that page, and has been behaving far better than most of his opponents. While Noformation's behaviour on the page is definitely not the worst, it's bad enough (especially the ridiculous interpretation of boiler-plate language in WP:CENSOR as a strict rule that we may not ever consider religious offence internally for editorial decisions except to prevent legal action against Wikipedia), and it's mind-boggling that this editor has the extremely poor sense of reporting Ludwigs2. Hans Adler 08:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Watch where you point your finger. I have done my very best to be civil and follow talk page guidelines. If I have done something outside of policy please provide a diff or don't label me as "not the worst." NOTCENSORED is unambiguous in regards to religious considerations, it clearly states that Wikipedia is not part of any religious groups and thus we do not follow their customs - that's about as boiler plate as it gets. N^oformation ^Talk 08:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an absurd misreading of WP:CENSOR, and it can only be explained with your desire to insult or a severe reading comprehension problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for fighting your cultural war against Islam, or religion in general, or whatever it is. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff where it's demonstrated that I was uncivil or violated any policy. You have painted my conduct in a negative light, so back it up or strike your comments please. You are now ascribing motives to me when you have zero idea what I believe about Islam. I have done nothing to deserve such accusation aside from disagree with you. Expressing my interpretation of policy and my take on an issue is not a behavioral issue and is not against any policy. And again, not considering religious belief is not the same as deliberately insulting religion. All gay people offend a portion of Christians by virtue of being gay, that does not mean that they are obligated to hide their sexuality. In the same way, we are not obligated to consider people's personal beliefs and that is why not censored specifically says "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." and "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." N^oformation ^Talk 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler's statements seem to be at odds with the history of Islamic art, as presented for example on the website of the Islamic collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Even in Vienna, Hans Adler had the opportunity to see the al-Sabah collection from Kuwait in the Kunsthistorisches Museum this year including a page from the manuscript of Nizami’s “Khamsa” depicting the Prophet Mohammed’s night journey to Jerusalem.[39] Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the that. I have found it odd that this has become such an issue when there hasn't exactly been a huge backlash against WP by the Muslim community - to me it seems like a solution in search of a problem. Personal experience wise, about half of my dad's side of the family is Muslim (the other half Hindu) and this subject never came up for me when I was growing up. I know the edict exists, but as far as I know it is not in the holy book, but it's rather a modern movement. In my personal opinion, I think that people in the mideast who flipped out about this a few years ago wrt the Danish cartoons were manipulated into doing so for political reasons. I also find that people in the west tend to misunderstand life in the East - I guarantee that this is a bigger deal to people on this talk page than it is to the majority of Muslims in my fatherland, but I suppose it's anecdotal and I could be wrong. N^oformation ^Talk 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Filling a page with undue weight images just because some Muslims are offended by them and you know you can get away with it is the really offensive thing here. This is what angers even the most liberal Muslims, who would not normally mind naturalistic depictions of Muhammad. In fact, it angers even me as an atheist living in a traditionally Christian country with many (mostly liberal) Muslims. It's absolutely despicable behaviour. Hans Adler 12:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So now I'm not only anti-islamic but I also am the one who filled the page with images. Please provide diffs of me adding images to the article and please provide diffs substantiating your previous characterization of me as an editor - any WP:TALK, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL diff will do. Never have I expressed a desire to offend anyone, I have only said that religious considerations should not be relevant, this is not the same thing and not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Please stop attributing motives to me and strike your comments - you clearly do not have the diffs to back them up otherwise you would have posted them already. Your credibility goes down the drain when you make claims you cannot back and when you're unwilling to correct incorrect statements. N^oformation ^Talk 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with Noformation. He's done nothing to warrant such claims. And I can provide over 4 dozen more diffs to show Ludwigs2's behavior that you think is "the right thing". Yes, I know you think my behavior is the worst (or is it Tarc's? someone else? who won?), but again.... dozens of diffs. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't decided between you, Tarc and Kww. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, at no time has my behaviour been inappropriate or problematic. We disagree on things, but that doesn't provide reason for you to disparage my behaviour (or to refer to me as unethical and autistic, either). I don't bring up WP:NPA often, but you are getting there.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your massive IDHT behaviour and refusal to accept that there is a valid dispute has certainly been very inappropriate and problematic. Not sure if or when I referred to you personally as autistic, although there have been situations in this dispute where autism spectrum conditions are the only remaining explanation of an editor's behaviour that is compatible with good faith. Hans Adler 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, you're as bad as he is with this repetitive IDHT quoting. I hear you both just fine, I just disagree. Strongly. The established consensus is that images of Mohammad are of encyclopedic value to the article, and that religious concerns cannot be taken into account when deciding to remove or retain images. Sooner or later, those who agitate for change again and again in the face of considerable opposition wind up like this. Ludwigs is heading down into ChildOfMidnight/Grundle2600 territory. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, Hans. You believe that religious sensitivities should be taken into account in our editorial decisions. You are wrong, and no amount of listening to you will make you right. That doesn't mean that I don't hear you, it simply means that I believe that you are fundamentally and unalterably wrong. I assume that you can accept that someone can in good faith believe that you are wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we, those of us involved on Muhammad, stop adding to this thread for a while. If we want uninvolved editors to offer their advice about this situation, the least we can do is cut down the amount of tangental reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. A cursory glance at the scores or hundreds of posts by Ludwig on the image talk page indicates obsession with maintaining a minority position based upon IDONTLIKEITSOIGNOREALLRULES. This is a secular encyclopedia and we should not set the precedent of putting content into a fundamentalist religious straightjacket, as the majority have consistently argued. ArbCom has refused to hear the debate as a content dispute and at this point the disruption needs to be terminated. Ludwig on his User Talk page indicates he sees a ban as inevitable and thinks it's some sort of game. [It's on some other User talk page, factually correct but sourced wrong, nevermind.] Time to end the distraction with a rapid topic ban. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as there comes a time when you gotta stop beating the dead horse. PS- This goes for all the editors who continue this 'delete images' campaign. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Muhammad and and all Islam-related image discussions. I see no alternative. The user keeps advocating a position incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia. We're not talking about removing some gory or porn-y pics here. He advocates removal of all human-like images Muhammad and replacing them with a flame [40]. (Note the bold font and all caps in the post, plus self-admittance that he's saying the same thing for about the 30th time.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - If Ludwigs is never going to drop the stick (and I don't see any sign that he is), someone will have to take it away from him. His continuous declarations of the majority view as invalid or not reasonably argued by his personal standard are hallmarks of the most disruptive kind of tendentious editing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - L2's continuing his behavior pattern after multiple discussions that have pointed out its disruptiveness, and his POV-oriented editing in general, justifies a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Overall, this is a perennial topic that has never garnered wise support to change the status quo. Ludwigs2 tried and failed in March of this year, then came back to try again. Same result. He has said many many times that he will not stop bringing this up until he gets what he wants, so administrative action is necessary to do for Ludwigs what he is unable or unwilling to do for himself. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, sort of. A topic ban on article talk pages only might work best. I believe Ludwigs2 should be free to propose clarifications or changes to Wikipedia policy in more appropriate places such as the Village Pump. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - from what I can see, his editing on the subject is tendentious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Guys, you need to appreciate that our present article fails to show the typical representations of Muhammad, while showing six examples of a very rare type of illustration that also happens to be offensive to many who have grown up in the Islamic tradition. Muhammad is normally portrayed abstractly, and there is a very rich tradition of calligraphy, symbols and pictograms to do that – which we don't show. Examples: [41] [42] The effect of our present article is not unlike the effect the Jesus article would have on the reader if you showed them just one cathedral painting, plus 6 shock images of Christ like Piss Christ and Jesus on the electric chair (also shown in a cathedral, but hardly representative). You could argue NOTCENSORED there, but no one would go for it, because editors would realise that it would just be completely undue to focus on such exceptional images, while neglecting the mainstream depictions of Christ. The problem with Islam, unfortunately, is that our editorship is generally less familiar with it and doesn't pick up on such subtleties. [43] So I don't think Ludwigs2 is being tendentious here; it's his opponents who are, probably unwittingly so. --JN466 07:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible way. As Anthony has pointed out at Talk:Pregnancy Ludwigs POV is increasingly gaining ground, and he was explicitly asking for compromise which seems to be happening now at last, despite the ideological absolutism of one or two editors. This Muhammad depiction issue is also astounding. I've known about it for some time but purposefully kept a distance. What I'm now reading is a sorry collection of some of the most ignorant arguments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This is an area that could use some expert commentary because I see a lot of very confused arguments for keeping these images in the Muhammad article as general illustrations. You will find plenty Muslims in today's day and age who are not offended by these images, and plenty others who are. What you wont find are Muslims who find them normative in any way. You wont find Muslims with depictions like this hanging on their walls, filling pages of books in their libraries or hanging at their place of worship. Why? Because depictions of Muhammad are fringe within Islamic history. That's a very basic fact. Sure there are traditions within which he has been visually depicted, and we have an entire article to cover that fact Depictions of Muhammad. But in the main Muhammad entry these images are completely UNDUE and nonrepresentational of the mainstream tradition today and throughout history and across the globe. Outside of the offense issue this whole matter can be resolved by applying WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Expert commentary that has been provided disagrees with your assertions above. See the comments from Johnbod, for example, in the current debate as well as the one from last March, concerning the prevalence of such images throughout history. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is Johnbod an expert in? I'm a scholar of religion and I have taught Western Religion courses. My assertions are based on that. Also, please do not confuse assertions about the art history of the Depictions of Muhammad with the history of Islam. For instance all the "scholarly" evidence I've seen Mathsci produce has been 100% irrelevant to this question. Relevant to the depictions entry yes, or to Islamic art but we are not talking about those entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your argument above seems entirely based on judgements of an art historical nature to do with the uses to which art is and historically has been put. I suggest you read the Gruber pdf below, where you will find much contrary evidence to your anecdotal OR. You obviously don't know the right Muslims, though I'd suggest some of them turn up now & then on your tv screen. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that is where the divide stems from? This is not an article on religion. It is a biography on a person. Why are we treating it like it's a religious article? We don't treat the Edison article like it's an article on lightbulbs. Related to the religion he started, yes. Included in that category because it is relevant to that religion, yes. About that religion, no. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert you couldn't be more wrong. I assume you also think that Jesus and Abraham are not religious topics, they are just biographies? The primary sources we have on Muhammad are religious. The secondary and tertiary sources the article is based on are written by, scholars of religion. I wont deny that there is biography here, but clearly it is religious biography, and clearly it is much more than that. This topic falls within the field of religion and history of religion, and history of Islam most specifically and most importantly. I'm perfectly willing to believe you made that assertion out of a genuine confusion of some kind, but if so please understand that you are sorely out of your depth here, and seem to completely misunderstand how the academic study of this topic is organized. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all out of my depth. It is a biography, albeit about a religious figure. It is not an article about Islam that happens to mention a person. Of course, since his major notability is Islam, it will broadly cover those, including using sources of the appropriate nature. But it is still a biography. It is not Islam which is how it is being treated. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my last statement. Religious traditions include all kinds of things, like founding figures. They are part of that tradition, and when what we know about them comes from the tradition, when what people have cared to know about them is related to that tradition, and when scholars who study them are scholars of that religious tradition what we have is, above all, a religious subject. Saying you are not out of your depth only makes your comments seem that much more ignorant. Sorry.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. We do not treat religious figures with undue reverence in the Wikipedia. We write biographies, not hagiographies. If you don't know the difference between the two, then perhaps we should be talking about the depth of your understanding of the subject matter, or lack thereof. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. That's a very odd thing to say to someone responding to people who challenged his own comment. I explain why I oppose this and people challenge me on it and when I respond to them that's "harassment?" Tarc next time you mean to post something look over the conversation enough not to say something inane. As to the difference between a biography and a hagiography I'm well aware of it, but I'm not sure if you mean hagiography in a technical sense or in the now more common sense. I'm certainly not promoting an uncritical view of Muhammad (common sense) though I do recognize that the "biographical" source materials for Muhammad are mostly compiled by followers of his who, if this is the correct term to apply to Muhammad even, considered him a holy person (more technical sense). That said I quite clearly understand that he's not a Christian saint, and that we're not writing about him based on an actual tradition of hagiography (most technical sense). If you believe that historians of religion only tackle biography in terms of hagiography, or as Johnbod appears to believe only in terms of theology, then you're sadly mistaken. I'll point out to you once again that this entry is written from sources that are almost entirely historians of religion (specifically Islam). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose... and I don't even want to repeat the reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that Ludwig's position may be in the minority doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to it and wikipedia operates by consensus rather then majority rules anyway. The Muhammad image issue is clearly far from a simple one with plenty of people repeating themselves. (I took part in a long ago RFC and I think I said then as others have said now on both sides that the parallels with other figures isn't simply since unlike with many other figures like Jesus, Buddha, in the modern era even people familiar with the subject will often have seen few depictions and not really have much of any preconceived idea about depictions of the person. As I grew up as a Christian in Malaysia, I can definitely attest to that. Therefore the issue of undue weight, historic vs current practice, readers expectations, making sure our use of images is sufficiently educational rather then simply offensive form a complicated mix and simply yelling 'notcensored' doesn't go anywhere particularly since most people including Ludwings aren't arguing for removing the images completely from wikipedia but how many and where they should be in Muhammad as opposed to other articles like depictions of Muhammad.) Having looked at the discussion, I agree with Seb, Griswaldo and others, cutting out Ludwigs will harm the discussion by removing an important counter-POV and I do not believe Ludwigs is being tendentious. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not assign gross mischaracterizations to our motives as you appear to have (probably unintentionally) done in your first sentence. No one is asking for the removal of Wiqi55, Jayen, Anthonyhcole, Hans (yet), or various others who have similar views. It is the attacks against other editors, the bad faith proposals, the end runs around RfC attempts, the tendentiousness and disruptiveness (which he personally admits to continuing) and such that has dragged him here. A tiny handful of diffs are already included to support this. It would thus be greatly appreciated if you would correct or clarify your mischaracterization. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not changing my comment. As I've said, the issue of something being in a minority or majority is not particularly relevant since we operate by consensus yet it was brought up several times in this discussion as have related issues like how he continues to maintain a POV that all images should be removed or stuff about how editors advocating the deletion of images need to stop, this being a secular encyclopaedia, his view being incompatibile with wikipedia's mission etc. As I already said in my first comment, I've look at the discussion and I see no evidence he is being tendentious much more so then other people on all sides. He is not automatically tendentious because he continues to support a view that is in the 'minority' or mentions that view when relevant. I don't see any evidence he's operating in bad faith either. The fact that he retains a certain POV and continues to express it when relevant doesn't mean he isn't open minded, it may simply be arguments he's seen so far haven't sufficiently convinced him. As you yourself have acknowledged, he is willing to support and discuss alternative options even if they aren't his preference and he retains his preference. Ultimately there are plenty of areas on wikipedia where there is always going to be strong differing views and where any option is going to be opposed by a fair number of people and therefore the issue will keep coming up again and again. Achieving consensus may mean a compromise, but it doesn't mean people can't maintain or should never bring up their primary preference where relevant. As a case in point, I recently participated in a discussion on the move for Burma to Myanmar. I don't believe a consensus is going to be reached for the move, but either way, I don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon (although I do think there will eventually be some resolution, at some stage the government is going to be accepted enough that whatever name they choose, most will follow and eventually only a few will try to argue for something else, like with Mumbai/Bombay for example). As for the RFC, it seems premature as there was existing, recent discussion which should have been used to guide an RFC, and it's obviously far better to work towards an agreed wording, so I agree it was a bad idea. That doesn't mean it was in bad faith. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support; mind you, it's not the fact that we fall on opposite sides of this argument that leads me to do this, nor is it the comments by the really involved editors in this dispute. However, I have a problem with being told I have some sort of prejudice against Islam by someone who's never met me based on one comment (it's in one of the numerous diffs above, I can bring it down if necessary; incidentally, people who know me know I've read Avicenna, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Taymiyya, and Malcolm X, to name just a few), which shows a serious lack of perspective on the issue (the fact that I don't agree on this issue doesn't make me anti-Muslim). Nor do I take kindly to the constant repetition of arguments that RobertMfromLI described a section above. And if anyone wants to get on me, I have PDD-NOS, so I stand guilty as charged of being on the spectrum; however, I don't see how that's germane to this particular topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am (as far as I can tell) totally uninvolved with this dispute, but after reading the associated talk pages, the horrendously worded RFC, and seeing the number of times this user has brought the same, somewhat disingenuous arguments about this issue, this seems like the appropriate step. Not to mention that, as gets pointed out repeatedly on the images talk page but has gone mostly unnoticed in the discussion of the images here: these images were created by Muslims, so the argument that these images are forbidden is on incredibly shaky ground. To keep using this argument warrants a suggestion that Ludwig drop the WP:STICK. eldamorie (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that these images were created by muslims to illustrate a certain type of book 500 or 800 years ago does not make them useful or obligatory illustrations in the Muhammad article. The fact is that if you want to show how Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic religious art, you need to be aware that "For practical purposes, representations are not found in [Islamic] religious art ... Instead there occurred very soon a replacement of imagery with calligraphy and the concomitant transformation of calligraphy into a major artistic medium." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Islamic Arts, Macropaedia, Vol. 22, p. 76.) We are showing typical religious art in the article on Jesus, but you seem to be unaware of how untypical our illustrations in the article on Muhammad are. --JN466 17:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• or 800 years ago, 300, 200, etc and still today. While there is certainly far far less figurative art in Islamic art, there is a continuous tradition, including from the 13th century representations of Muhammad, though far less in the Arabic-speaking world than for example Persia and Turkey. There are better sources here than the EB (who anyway appear to be talking about the first centuries of Islam), for example this handy PDF from the leading specialist today, in the leading journal. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• John this line of reasoning wholly misses the point. The argument is not that depictions of Muhammad weren't being created continuously. The argument is that they have not been common within the Islamic tradition as a whole and throughout it's history, and indeed have been explicitly frowned upon more often than naught. Above Robert accuses me of confusing this entry with Islam, but I think that his accusation is backwards. It is you who are confusing this entry with Depictions of Muhammad or even Islamic art, both valuable entries in which depictions of Muhammad have their educational value. But again, the question isn't about banning these images completely from the encyclopedia it is with the use of them in the main entry on Islam's founding prophet, a figure who has been known 99% of the time without visual representation. I don't mean to make this into a turf war, but the fact that art historians work in this area is meaningless to the over arching issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• And how are questions about the commonness of a particular form of art not a question of art history? The history of religion may tell you what theologians said people ought to do or not do, but art history will tell you what they actually did, or do, something general religious historians are not qualified to pronounce on. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• You do not understand what the history of religions covers apparently and that is quite unfortunate. It includes the history of ideas (which doesn't mean only theology btw) but it also covers social history. Your art history sources merely attest to the fact that the traditions of depiction existed and that within realm of Islamic art more generally they were more or less common in certain periods. The fact is that depictions of Muhammad have a negligible influence on the perception of Muhammad that has formed historically inside and outside the Muslim world. This is where the difference between Muhammad and say Jesus or Buddha is immensely significant. The historical perception of those figures has been significantly influenced by physical depictions, which, again unlike with Muhammad, abound historically and cross-culturally. Now mainstream sources in the history of Islam, which are the main sources for this entry and for information about Muhammad are true to this fact. The way we present information about Muhammad should follow these sources, and should not be unduely weighted towards information that is of virtually fringe stature when it comes to the perception of this figure. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I was not aware that depictions of historic events, even made years after the fact, were against some policy or guideline. I guess we have a lot of articles to fix. Wanna give me a hand? As you noted, this is not about the depictions of Muhammad. As I noted, it is about Muhammad - which is a place where one (free from religious beliefs) would expect to find depictions of Muhammad, both singular subject (ie: just him) and event based (ie: in a historic setting). Or are you trying to state that since this image largely touches on Islam it should adhere to religious beliefs and religious actions (on types of depictions)? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It should simply show the most common and representative depictions, and they are abstract, not figurative. --JN466 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Johnbod, I assure you the EB is talking about the defining characteristics of Islamic Art generally, and about the lasting impact Islam had on the artistic traditions of the peoples that embraced Islam. I really don't think the wording could be more emphatic: "For practical purposes, representations are not found in Islamic religious art". The images that do exist are appropriate in a curiosity cabinet like the dedicated article we have on them. --JN466 19:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, here as elsewhere, EB is not the best source. It is a strange statement, as very many of the best-known Persian manuscripts contain at least one Mi'raj miniature. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You can find the same sorts of statements all over the place. [44][45]. It's not like the Encyclopaedia Britannica is at variance here with the rest of the literature by stating a well-known fact about Islamic religious art. Yes, there have been limited traditions of depictions of Muhammad, especially in Persia about 800 years ago, but that is all it is. However interesting it may be, I am sure you don't wish to argue that it is anywhere close to being the mainstream form of artistic expression with respect to Muhammad in the overall body of Islamic art. That's calligraphy, hilyes etc. --JN466 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave you Muqarnas (below) & you respond with "well-known facts" from Islam for Dummies!!! Puuurleeease! The idea behind "especially in Persia about 800 years ago" for example, is nonsense. The various depictions of M from the few remains of that period receive a lot of academic attention, as from the founding period of the Islamic period, but there were probably more depictions in Persia from 600-400 years ago, or Turkey in the same period (certainly far more survive), and there are definately way more in Iran today. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not going to work, Johnbod. I also gave you Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim World. And just for reference, Islam for Dummies is published by John Wiley & Sons, and written by a professor of religion. There is academic interest in the depictions of Muhammad, but it is a small specialist academic niche compared to the general field. Here is a bit more on the difference between Islam's and Christianity's approaches: [46], [47]. --JN466 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop - I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam. Your comments are still misleading, and have only a highly tangential bearing on the issue here. If you think you have some "well-known facts" to share with the wiki-world, take it to the appropriate pages. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange indeed that Aniconism in Islam did not contain any aniconic art, but only exceptions to the rule. --JN466 20:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

John, the article appears to be filled with original research or otherwise unreferenced text. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, your statement (I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam) appears to be false unless you edited under a different name formerly. The edit history shows you merely significantly expanding one or two sections while making other copy and style edits. I did find it an odd claim given how unsourced much of the entry is, though those sections appear to have been in place before you started editing to your credit.Griswaldo (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - this is the same atrocious behaviour from Ludwigs that he exhibited at Talk:Pregnancy. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The biased wording of Ludwigs' RfC on the matter is the tipping point. As I note above, I clearly feel that he is a disruptive force on this topic, but I wanted to give him a chance to participate in an RfC on the matter when it was created. However, he can't even manage to maintain NPOV when formulating an RfC question, which coupled with numerous other examples of problematic behaviour strongly argues that he is not capable of discussing this matter in a non-disruptive fashion. Resolute 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't particularly care about the content arguments, nor have I edited anything Islam-related. However, this is the same behavior that L2 displayed at Astrology, Pregnancy, and a multitude of fringe science articles. The general pattern is that he stakes out a ostensibly reasonable but unpopular policy position and proceeds to accuse those who disagree of ignorance and/or unsophistication and/or bad faith and/or cabalism and/or POV-pushing (list is not exhaustive). Ad hominem rhetoric and textbook IDHT follows. Just yesterday he insinuated that an editor whom he disagreed with was a sociopath.[48] He's been topic banned from astrology.[49] He was warned numerous times for his behavior at Talk:Pregnancy.[50][51][52][53] He was even cautioned by Arbcom to "avoid drama-creating rhetoric" in a recent case.[54] This needs to stop. This is a problem of poor behavior, not content. Skinwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Unconvincing, a user is topic banned for serious disruption or to avoid an indef. I see none of that here, the user holds a minority opinion and engaged in legitimate procedures (talk, RFC) as opposed to other illegitimate alternatives. Nobody can be blamed for that; the proposal reads like "This user is shouting to loud and it annoys us" Well calmly engage in discussion or ignore. Tachfin (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I must ask, even by your rationale, may I ask you how many personal attacks and racial/religious type slurs/attacks is the quota that was needed? Lemme know, and I'll change my !vote. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support The only time I have had interactions with this editor was when he was complaining that no one was listening to him. When I pointed out that all of his concerns had been listened to, and had subsequently been rejected, he went on to attack me by calling my comment unintelligent. I gave up after that, thinking that there was absolutely nothing anyone could say to this guy, to get him to stop. He will never stop unless he is topic banned, plain and simple.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support While editing may be a bonus from all users the constant regressions into personal attacks and policy whack a mole do not lead to constructive editing. Even when called out on personal attacks he makes no attempt to either apologize to the target or refrains from doing so again. In one case he even called out someone else as using a personal attack and then soundly proceeded to do the same within the same post. Since that point he continues with the attacks. If someone needs diffs I will learn that piece and post them to show the multitude of attacks I have seen but I don't think that is necessary. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Support ban. It looks like he bounces from one article to the next causing disruption wherever he goes. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban - dead horse. I'd also support an indef block for causing more trouble than he's worth. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban All you idiots need to go away and stop waving "OMG NOTCENSORED" in everyone's faces. Thank you. --cc 11:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The user casting the above !vote was indef blocked today. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• support ban. Ludwigs has been extremely disruptive and never quotes wikipedia policy and wastes valuable time. Pass a Method talk 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. From what I have read, Ludwigs has a decent case to make, which is not so much about censorship, but about questioning what, if any, positive reason there is to have these images on that page. I've yet to see anyone answering that question in a satisfactory way; most of those who have been responding to Ludwig2 haven't even tried. Given this, it seems to me that his behavior has also been relatively restrained. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean. The 2009 book by the Islamic scholar Omid Safi Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters is copiously illustrated by historical images of the Prophet Muhammad. (Safi is chair of the Study of Islam in the American Academy of Religion.) In none of the many reviews of this book has any objection been made to the images. But the point here is Ludwigs2's conduct, which appears to have very little to do with the particular subject matter involved (pseudoscience, astrology, pregnancy, etc). Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I mean what I say I mean: which is, first, that Ludwigs point is that those who are arguing for the inclusion of these images on the page need to come up with rather better reasons for their inclusion than they have hitherto. Whether or not some other publication (in this case, Safi's book) includes them is wholly beside the point, unless your argument is "they do it, so we should too." Which is not much of an argument. And then, second, given the fact that (as you are illustrating here) so many people refuse to see the point, and prefer rather to jump up and down shouting "censorship" at him, Ludwigs's conduct seems to me to be very restrained indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We will never come up with sufficient reasons for Ludwigs, because he has shown a habit of moving the goalposts every time his arguments get refuted. That being said, reverse the question. Consensus coming in was that the images belonged. It is actually on Ludwigs to generate a new consensus that supports his view, and thus far his arguments have been centred entirely around the argument that some people find them offensive. He keeps getting beat over the head by NOTCENSORED because his only argument is to censor the article to suit a specific religious viewpoint. Also, I suspect his conduct is only restrained right now because he is teetering on the edge of a topic ban. He was very liberal in accusing anyone he disagreed with of bigotry, among other personal attacks, for a considerable period of this debate. At present, he continues to try and argue editors in circles until they give up in frustration. Resolute 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"We will never come up with sufficient reasons for Ludwigs." This sounds like a violation of WP:AGF. And for what it's worth, I think that talk of censorship is completely beside the point. So far as I can see, ludwigs is not arguing that images of Mohammed should not appear on Wikipedia; rather he is saying that they should not appear in *this* article. And that the onus is on those who think that they do belong in this article to prove their case. And, especially in that those who disagree with him seem to refuse to engage his argument, I think he has a pretty good point. And he's making it remarkably civilly given the amount of grief he's getting, of which your refusal to assume good faith is merely one (further) small instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Jimbo's talk, Safi has also pointed out that most muslims have refrained from making such images, that there are no such images in mosques and public places of worship, that in place of pictorial representations, there is a rich tradition of calligraphy, arabesques and natural designs in Islam, and that when muslims friends come to his house, where he has an image of Muhammad, he thinks twice before telling them that it is, in fact, an image of Muhammad, as some react badly to it. And I would add that Ludwigs2 has been and is being subjected to an unseemly barrage of personal comments by editors on Jimbo's talk page. --JN466 01:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• oppose ban per conviction and I do endorse the reasons given by JN466. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support the guy causes more issues then he solves. Put down the stick already --Guerillero | My Talk 23:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too complex, controversial for mob justice. Submit to dispute resolution, WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM. causa sui (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC) (moved vote to appropriate section) --Tachfin (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "shouting to loud and it annoys us"

• This user was topic banned from astrology for poisoning-the-well comments, including comparing people who disagree with him with the KKK. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Ludwigs2. On the Muhammad issue, we see a repeat of the same behavior, albeit with minor reduction in intensity. Besides the overuse of caps lock and bold in his posts (see diff above for that):
  • He writes about someone disagreeing with him that "people (like you) keep talking crap about me"
  • He writes that until people agree with him (to remove depictions of Muhammad) Wikipedia is a Jerry Springer show [55].
  • He writes in a edit summary "except, Robert, no other policies matter to you"
  • Writes about another user "You are not using ethical reasoning - that is a demonstrable fact"
  • He writes about someone who disagreed with him "what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear..."
  • He tells the same user: "keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche"
  • He even admits, after redacting another passage (not one of the above), that "I just can't control my tongue."

These are just the examples that struck me, there are probably more. There are other editors who agree with Ludwigs2 on the subject matter, including Jayen466 and Griswaldo, but these guys seem able to disagree without being so disagreeable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please close the topic-ban subthread

Can an uninvolved admin please close this subthread now? The only people who have commented here, myself included, have strongly held opinions about the content dispute(s) that precipitated the thread. Almost all, if not all the people who want him topic banned, for instance, have diametrically opposed POVs to his. Clearly we are not about to enact a topic ban based on those voices. So have we had enough of this? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with his views. It has to do with DOZENS of personal attacks and tendentiously using the incorrect venue to try to implement policy change to remove the secular mandate in the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR. Your implication, as I perceive it, that this is about the content dispute may hold true to your !vote, but I can assure you, there are numerous others of us that it does not apply to - including the numerous editors who !voted (on either side of this) who were not engaged in this situation at all. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to close this subtread, when !votes and comments are still being posted, with policy-based supports (14) and opposes (6). Let the process play out, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The supports and opposes are not policy-based, they are based on subjective evaluations of Ludwigs2's behaviour on the page in question. Almost all these subjective evaluations happen to be aligned with editors' attitudes to the underlying conflict. This makes them essentially worthless. Hans Adler 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder whether at this time of year Hans Adler's usually impeccable logic might not be a little clouded by premature doses of Martinigansl ^{please don't click here if you are a vegetarian}. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: Whether the !votes are policy-based are not is something for the closing admin to evaluate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Therein may lie the objections from some to keeping things open until an uninvolved admin does such. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

18/7/1 (on just count)... soon may be the time to end this? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Too complex, controversial for mob justice. Submit to dispute resolution, WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM. causa sui (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise?

All the participants in the talk page discussion have come here and are basically continuing the same sorts and styles of arguments, it's all just looping. Perhaps I might suggest a compromising position. Someone start an RFC and contact, neutrally mind you, some of the relevant wikiprojects to participate. To prevent a rehash of the talk page, the opposing sides in this debate should state their positions and refrain from substantially trying to sway other participants. Having re-read the discussion, and being totally uninvolved, I can see the arguments of both sides. Run the RCC< don't just talk about it. --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs has been asked, many times, to follow the dispute resolution process if he thinks he has a case to make. This user tried out this argument that WP:NOTCENSORED does not protect the image usage in the article, a view that received little support in March of this year. Now he's back again, twisting a foundation resolution that has no applicability to the situation, an incessant 3-week drumbeat.

Those editors who support hosting a Wikipedia article free of religious censorship have no need to initiate an RfC, as the status quo is just fine. Ludwigs will get no relief and will make no headway in regurgitating the same arguments over and over at the article talk page. The ball is squarely in his court to follow dispute resolution if he will not accept the consensus at the article talk. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. There is no consensus, nor will there ever be. There are two camps each with a large number of adherents. One camp favors no censorship, the other favors censorship as a special case. We hear from new members of the latter group almost daily on the main article's talk page generally representing Muslims around the world. Rklawton (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but there is consensus. Yes, we see periodic posts that inform us Islam forbids such images. Someone replies with the argument that we are not an Islamic project, often linking to the methods by which individuals can respect their own beliefs by hiding the images for themselves, and they move on. But the "remove all images" camp has no policy backed argument, only the complaint that "I am offended". Simple numbers do not create a no-consensus situation. Otherwise, there would be no consensus on the argument that many athletes are "gay" because fans of rival teams often edit to say so. Resolute 13:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If you look at the overall commentary on the talk page, the status quo is generally favoured. There is one single regular editor there (Ludwigs2) who supports censorship on religious grounds, and another (Anthonyhcole) who has attempted in good faith to formulate an RfC proposal. Then there is Hans Adler, who shows up from time to time, accuses editors he disagrees with of bad faith (as he has above in this very discussion) then disappears. Pretty much everyone else supports the current situation. Ludwigs has been advised it is up to him to initiate DR, because the rest of us don't see a need. Instead, he chooses to waste a great deal of time for numerous editors by forcing discussion back into circular arguments. Granted, the rest of us keep responding, though I have tried to step back involvement overall. I won't vote on the topic ban proposal, but I will say this: the problem would disappear if Ludwigs were to be placed under one. The "dispute" is that one-sided. Resolute 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No there are other editors, such as Wiki55. Unfortunately all these named editors persist in making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article, such as (above here) "..."that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE)." by Qwyrxian. For the record (and yet again) the 5 Islamic images come from a period of over 500 years (and we don't have a contemporary one available), include at least 2 Sunni ones (possibly all 5 are actually Sunni) and come from Persia (2), Turkey (2), and Kashmir. A very similar spread, if not wider, to the sort of (almost always Catholic) old master painters we use to illustrate Jesus and other Christian articles, ignoring the many Protestants who still regard these as idolatrous. Some editors have been putting time in over a long period pushing the line that all the images are Persian and Shia, and by implication can therefore be dismissed. There is a considerable intra-Islamic component to this dispute, & its a pity that people who ought to know better, like Hans Adler and Anthonyhcole have accepted this line without much examination. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, would you please link to an instance of me making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blackmane: I'd agree that an RfC would be a good starting point, but even trying to determine the proper language for an RfC becomes a major point of strife. For instance, every RfC approach I've suggested starts from my perception of the problem - that the images have no appreciable value which justifies the offense they cause to our readers - but any such wording is instantly nixed by Tarc, Robert, and Resolute as being against NOTCENSORED. I could start an RfC on my own (and I will if that's what you suggest), but the RfC will most likely devolve into more of the same dispute as the editors opposed to change dispute its validity (in fact, at least a couple of threads currently on the page show exactly that devolution as we've tried to discuss proper wording for the RfC).

As far as I can see, the page is locked down in such a way that any discussion about removing the images is declared to be against policy. I don't know how to get past that obstruction except to keep trying to talk through it. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have posted what I am coming to believe is the only reasonable thing, which will show good faith on the parts of those who wish the images removed and properly adhere to policy uniformly instead of (yet again) special case for this article only. It's on the article's talk page in a new section.[56] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The first item is the "gotcha", i.e. that there's no valid encyclopedic reason to remove the artists' conceptions of Muhammed if you're going to retain artists' conceptions of Jesus, etc. The second item is the "yeh, but" option, which opens a huge can of worms that would abolish the "I don't like it" barrier and turn wikipedia into even more of a free-for-all. So why does anyone think Muslim readers deserve special treatment, while Christian readers can go "freak" themselves? Well, there's no logical reason, so it must be driven by fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the current circumstances, I'm not sure that the recent extensive rewriting of WP:CONSENSUS by Ludwigs2 was timely.[57] It now reads a bit like a personal essay.

• (Off-topic for ANI) In 2002 Yale University Press published the book "Peerless Images: Persian Painting and its Sources" by Eleanor Sims, Boris Marshak and Ernst Grube, academics who have curated the Islamic art collections in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Hermitage, St Petersburg. It contains several images of the Prophet Muhammad. Looking at the book and its detailed commentary, it is hard to understand how images of this sort could be considered uninformative or without educational value. As the New York Times has reported just recently,[58] the Metropolitan Museum of Art has just reopened its Islamic collection after 8 years of remodeling. On display are Persian illuminated manuscripts, including images of the Prophet Muhammad, visible in the NYT link and here on the Museum's own website [59] (the short NYT audio link for "illuminated manuscripts" is interesting). It is also on commons here and has been used several times on fa.wikipedia.org. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (to Bugs) Bingo. I treat EVERY article the same, regardless of my personal beliefs or feelings of offense. And there is not a single mainstream religion or irreligion or spirituality that is not on my WatchList (along with hundreds of sub topic articles).

Thus, all I ask is the same from everyone else - judge every article and article content equally. No more, no less. Which seems to fit with those weird things we have here called policies, guidelines and editing in good faith. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The importance of the Muhammed depictions is actually the same as the importance of the many Jesus images. Whether they look like their subject is not the issue, that's a red herring. What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader. It provides a window on styles of artistic portrayals in various times and places. If that ain't educational, I don't know what is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs: re your "What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader". This is precisely the problem: The followers of Islam do not generally depict their spiritual leader, and when they do it's usually symbolically, as a flame or a veiled figure. full-face images of muhammad are a rarity, mostly restricted to a couple of historical periods. I absolutely agree with your statement, but your statement implies we should remove images of the prophet and use the symbolic forms that Muslims themselves use. --Ludwigs2 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Saw", as in past tense. You're describing the present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not just describing the present, but the most prevalent view, historically and currently. Full-face depictions are not common. It's funny: I even offered a compromise on the talk page where we would create a section specifically about the historical depiction of Muhammad in which to put images of this sort (they would be appropriate there, in a section that discusses the controversy of depictions of the prophet), but that got shot down for some reason I never understood. If we go by standards of common usage, full face images are excluded as a distinct minority style; if we go by conventional ethics full-face images are excluded because they offend people for no gain to the encyclopedia. There's no reason I can think of to keep the images (though I'm open to suggestions), so why are they on the article in the first place? Remember, these are simply works of art - there are no known depictions of what Muhammad actually looked like.--Ludwigs2 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that proposal flies in the face of what has deemed to be the standard (per policy and guideline interpretation) on every other such article on Wikipedia. Thus, what you proposed is not a compromise, but a special case exception. Biographies have images or depictions of their subject (and their subject in historical event settings) prominently placed throughout the article. This article already is chock full of special case exceptions that are not warranted, such as (on the talk pages) the massive disclaimers, the FAQ, the instructions on how not to view the images, the removal of all images of Muhammad in the top 1/3 of the article, the explanations of policy on the talk page and so on. I am against adding one more special case exception. Doing so will eventually lead (as you desire) to there being no images of Muhammad on this or any other article. I would bet good money that if (by some remote chance) all images were removed from this article, that you would move on to the other articles next. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Besides the fact that each time you claim you are willing to travel this road, you still end up on your "remove all, they offend" road instead). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So you keep saying, but (again) I question this reasoning. It all comes back to the simple problem that Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason. As I keep saying, If you show these images have non-trivial value to justify the problems they cause, then obviously they would be protected. However, every time I say that, you decline to show that they have value and instead asset that it's a violation of policy to consider that.

The arguments you've given in your post above break down as follows:

• my proposal - that we use the most common imagery used by muslims - "flies in the face of" policy (not true; that is actually exactly what NPOV asks of us)
• that other articles show images (irrelevant, since other articles do not have to consider a well-known religious proscription)
• that the ability for individuals to censor the images themselves justifies Wikipedia using the images (patently ridiculous)
• that removing images from this article will lead to removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic and nonsensical)
• that I somehow personally desire the removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic, nonsensical, contrary to what I've said in talk, and a bad-faith personal attack to boot)

Really, please… --Ludwigs2 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim that "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" is your personally-held opinion that you repeatedly put there as some sort of immutable fact that us dumb heathens cannot understand. This is really the heart of your problem Ludwigs, and the reason why many are beginning to dismiss your actions as tendentious and disruptive. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh… Tarc:

• it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers. even if we only restrict ourselves to the most fundamentalist groups (the ones most likely to take offense) that's still millions or tens of millions of people
• There are 16 archives of heated debate solely over this issue on the article - really, you made a subpage just to handle the volume of complaints, and that subpage has 16 archives

That's a whoooole lot of evidence, Tarc: How do you justify calling this my 'personally held opinion'? --Ludwigs2 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• "it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers". No it is not. You don't help your case by typing in false statements. It may be that a few current adherents of the religion believe there is such a proscription, but even if there is, it applies to the adherents, not to us. I think a fair number of people have been mislead into thinking there is a broad proscription, and I think they are wrong, but it is not useful to debate how many people (correctly or incorrectly) believe in the proscription, it is only relevant to ask whether a proscription of a religious group has any force on non members of the group. If you answer yes, please explain why, as that conclusion leads to madness.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, we're back to the "religious offense - must honor religious beliefs" rationale. That means WP:IAR is probably soon to follow. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ludwigs, another claim I attacked you? And then another false claim about my actions? I've posted, numerous times, multiple reasons the images have value. Here is a tiny sampling of diffs to prove it.[60][61][62][63][64][65] It is not I who is ignoring anything. And this is exactly the type of thing you do on the article's image talk page. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out that the neutral point of view doesn't argue your claim. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" would be useful if you were also trying to include modern (what you describe as common) images of muhammad but isn't a basis to remove current pictures because they were a significant view of what the islamic community was allowed to do. And since the minority of the religion still believes its acceptable to view pictures (you know that 15% of the billion which also falls into millions and millions of people) it would be purposefully ignoring that POV as well. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, let's look at the phrase again, this time with crystal-clear highlighting; "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" THAT part is your opinion, opinion you keep trying to pass off as fact. That a group of people are offended is fact, yes. That we are including the images in the article "for no real reason" is opinion. Are we settled now? Tarc (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'for no real reason' part is something that is open for discussion - as I keep saying, if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay. However, using policy to prevent wp:Consensus discussion on this issue is the troubling point. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the point; it was open for discussion, and your position was rejected. We don't need to demonstrate what you are asking for. End of story. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay." This isn't the appropriate metric. Do the images cause some problems? Absolutely, they do, as a lot of ill-informed people request removal, and it is a problem dealing with them. But I'm not interested in assessing the value of the images to the encyclopedia and comparing it to the problems caused, I'm interested in the damage that would be caused to the encyclopedia if we sent a message that raising a ruckus is a good way to impose your will. Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated why Wikipedia should pervert its own guideless simply because they are in conflict with someone else's desires. If claiming offense works here, what is to stop a temperance group from insisting that WP not have any articles about alcohol, or a child decency group from insisting that pictures of nudes should be removed. There are all kinds of groups who request removal of blocks of material. We politely decline all such requests (except when the material might be in violation of law). If we grant one groups request, we have to grant all group's request, or you have to explain why this request is unique. I don't think it is unique. SPhilbrickT 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To Ludwigs2: did I need to provide more diffs to my own postings of reasons? Should I have included the numerous times other editors have posited reasons as well? You keep acting like we haven't stated reasons (reasons considered valid all across Wikipedia) - but we have. While perhaps seemingly numerous, the number of diffs above is probably in the 15-20% range of what I could provide to prove we have made such points. C'mon... the page is linked to in this AN/I, you know others are bound to figure out that you are incorrect in repeating your claims that we haven't done such. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This argument belongs elswhere, not at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, how we've tried so many times to point that out to the one who has the biggest issue with this. Even some of those who support some level of image removal have suggested or leaned towards such. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Small note: I've struck RobertMfromLI's name from my earlier post. Only one time did Robert ever imply an RfC wasn't necessary, and he did in fact try to restart the RfC several times. I don't know what made me think that he was one of the people trying to derail process in this case; my apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Brass tacks straw poll

This poll is not an administrator issue. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate venue, but this page is already becoming cluttered with irrelevent issues. Please keep the discussions on this page relevent to issues which need administrators to protect articles/delete articles/block a user. Admin noticeboards are not for general discussions of either policy or content issues. Let me suggest WP:VPP. --Jayron32 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think we should take this opportunity and address the core issue that is gumming up the works here. Dispense with the following question it will likely end this dispute (one way or another); either it will obviate my grounds for wanting to remove the images or it will obviate the sole argument used to retain the images. The question: Granting that NOTCENSORED necessarily protects controversial content which makes an unambiguous contribution to an article, does NOTCENSORED also protect images that have trivial value to the article? In other words, NOTCENSORED clearly protects images of penises or vaginas on their namesake pages, or the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy); does it also protect page decorations, artistic illustrations, unneeded explications, or other material of negligible content value to the article? I will bracket the above question as a policy RfC a bit later, unless someone suggests that's innapropriate. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is again a biased question (just like your similar RfC proposal). You imply as fact that the images have trivial (even emphasized by you) value (and then go into detail about how trivial they are), thus pushing the conversation to summary deletion of all the images. Once again, in my opinion, this is a proposal in bad faith as it directs only one answer since you already established as "fact" that the images are trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The argument hasn't been about protection of trivial images. It has been about images marked trivial. Also this is the incorrect forum for this question since it should be addressed at the village pump. The actual argument that the images are trivial should be occurring at the muhammad page not here. Effectively this is derailing the entire purpose behind this AN/I. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment. (edit conflict) I don't think this covers the issue, Ludwigs2. NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material from deletion, but I don't believe the material in question counts as trivial. The amount of fuss over it certainly indicates that some editors believe it to be non-trivial. --FormerIP (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) FormerIP: if we clear up this issue, then we can actually sit down on the talk page and discuss whether or not the images have trivial value. Right now we cannot even have that discussion, because every time I suggest evaluating the worth of the images with respect to the offense they cause, two or three editors tell me that any such evaluation is against policy. NOTCENSORED is the One Ring on that page; until we clear up this issue the page is stuck. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates up an difficult-to-resolve opportunity for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to attack a perspective non-verbally, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic policy assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support. Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship. --JN466 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does protects trivial material Support, but this doesn't shield against other arguments. All NOTCENSORED requires is that arguments for deletion be framed in formats relevant to an encyclopedia, and religious arguments are not relevant to encyclopedias. We don't keep images because they offend religious groups, but we don't delete them because they do. Images have to be examined from a purely secular perspective.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Irrelevant to this discussion due to bias ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This poll is excessively and unduly biased by stating opinions (trivial worth) as fact wrt images on Muhammad) I posit that this poll, as it is specifically directed at this issue (or grossly in the wrong venue) is biased by implying opinion as fact to imply the only answer is to remove the images at Muhammad as all being (implied as fact above) trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - one should not bias such polls (or RfCs) by using their opinion as fact to ensure one specific POV outcome. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who wants a discussion of NOTCENSORED, I've just started one at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#What WP:NOTCENSORED is not. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

* Notice: I've decided I'm going to copy this RfC over to wp:NOT, and wait for a result to be reached there before re-entering the discussion at talk:Muhammad/Images. that should end the discussion there for for a while (at least as far as I'm concerned). It also likely resolves this thread, though I'll leave that up to you. I'll post the link to the RfC here after I've made it. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is not resolved as long as there is an open question of a possible topic ban for Ludwigs2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

suit yourself - If you want to spend your time trying to find a punishment in a non-current situation, that's your business. Here's the link to the RfC. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs has said on his talk page that for the time being he will stay away from the page, I think this is a good faith proposition and would say that we should give him a chance to make his case in the correct venue before topic banning him. N^oformation ^Talk 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of his comment. Still, this is not his first time on the merry-go-round, when this blows over it's likely he'll exhibit the same behavior elsewhere. AGF is often in conflict with common sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What he said and what he is doing are counter to each other. He has proposed a very biased RfC that basically states the images are worthless, so shouldn't we remove them? He's simply using another venue to get the images removed and ignore countless consensus. Let's see now. RfC last Spring - runs to Village Pump: both RfC and end run fail (him). Proposes RfC this time around, not going the way he wants (removal of ALL images), tries end runs to WQA and ArbCom, disrupts attempts to create an UNBIASED RfC, gets dragged here and uses the distraction to file a BIASED RfC even in light of the fact that the rest of us were trying (through HIS disruptions) to create an unbiased one. (IMHO) This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom declined the case because it was formulated as a request to rule on content (policies). Perhaps a new case request focused on the behavior of the editors involved would be more appropriate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not too sure about that. I'm at over a hundred diffs and counting of bad faith, disruption and more (and I'm not even really trying). Ludwigs cannot come even remotely close, even combining diffs of such stuff for every editor "opposed" to him. Virtually all of the rest of us, on any side of the fence (or even sitting on it) want a resolution to this. Most of us are tired of the dead-horse-ad-infinitum-ad-nauseum responses with a bunch of accusations thrown on top. I'd rather see this resolved than a topic ban. But every good faith effort results in disruption or an end run attempt. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments on ongoing conduct of Ludwigs2

Despite having given assurances that he has reformed, Ludwigs2 has recently continued to ridicule and belittle those editors disagreeing with him. One of the difficulties is that he is being extremely slippery about why he is objecting to the images of Muhammad. It would appear that he believes, for whatever reason, that the courtly images of the Prophet Muhammad produced in illuminated manuscripts of the Ottoman Empire, Persia and elsewhere cause offense to some parts of the international Muslim community for religious reasons. However, when pressed on the subject by Kww, he has accused those repeating this statement of "making up cheap lies". In a conversation on his user talk page with Kww he wrote: [66]

"They are cheap lies. maybe you believe them (in which case they are cheap lies you are telling yourself, rather than cheap lies you're telling to others), but from my perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche, and deal with what I am saying to you as I say it (not filtered through the twists and turns of your own perspective)."

It is an example of Ludwigs2 deliberately misunderstanding other users and switching from one argument to another. Already on User talk:Jimbo wales, he wrote of thise disagreeing with him:[67]

"What's happened here is that some editors have recognized a particular and real threat against the project - censorship by religious groups trying to enforce their particular worldview - and reacted to it in an extreme and uncompromising manner. They are insisting that these images remain on the article solely and precisely because they are offensive - not because they want to offend, mind you, but because they are engrossed in battling censorship and have lost the ability to discriminate censorship from normal editing. Nor is this problem restricted to this article (you can see it play out in multiple areas of the project: fringe articles, political articles, cult-related articles). It's depressing."

These statements are not accurate and are indeed a highly inflammatory way of describing other editors. It creates an impasse for any future discussion. (I personally have not voted in any image discussions but have located commentaries in WP:RS on the historical use of images of the Prophet, written by Islamic scholars from the East and the West.) On the same user talk page, Ludwigs2 later made this personal attack on Tarc, [68]

"Yes, Tarc, and I've been reading this kind of post from you for the same amount of time, and I have to say it hasn't been particularly pleasant. It's just as I said above: all you need is a willing flamingo and a few hedgehogs to fill out your role as the Queen of Hearts. "

These remarks were later redacted by Ludwigs2 after Short Brigade Harvester Boris criticized them.

Ludwigs2's conduct has not reformed and these personal attacks seem completely counterproductive at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am, obviously, fed up with the ad hominem these discussions are steeped in. They make reasonable discussion very difficult. But I would urge editors unfamiliar with this situation to not just rely on spoon-fed quotes in forming a view. The current negative tone of these discussions is set by more than one editor. If you feel like chiming in, at least read through the latest threads at Talk:Muhammad/images. That will give you a good feel for the general behaviour of the Dramatis personæ. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope that Ludwigs2 will get the message sooner rather than later.[69] Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is improving. [70] [71] Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but he seems a wee bit more moderate than in the examples from the past week. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has not stopped.[72] "We can have a decent discussion over whether Wikipedia needs/wants to offend the religious beliefs of all these people, but please stop trying to make the fact that we are offending their religious beliefs 'go away'. That kind of intellectual dishonesty gets in the way of a reasonable discussion." As usual these personal attacks ("intellectual dishonesty") are embedded in a longer discursive screed. Even if Ludwigs2 turned out to be a so-far unidentified world expert on the history of Islamic art (all signs are very much to the contrary), his conduct at the moment seems to be little more than flame-warring. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has the uncanny ability to phrase personal attacks in a way that skirts the direct wording of our WP:NPA policy. The basic construct is: "If you disagree with me (and I know you do, but don't say it in this sentence), then you are part of a despicable group, such as: the KKK / the intellectually dishonest / the Jerry Springer audience / those not using ethical reasoning / those uttering patently idiotic nonsense / etc." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Barely days after his last failed proposal for a case, Ludwigs2 is yet again suggesting an ArbCom case on roughly the same topic.[73] There is nothing ArbCom can do except for topic banning or banning users for disruptive conduct. Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait again? Well we will see if that comes up again. Since ArbCom doesn't deal with content it's a waste but we will see. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What should be taken to Arbcom is the case of Ludwigs2 conduct. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 still seems unaware that he is creating problems by making inflammatory statements.[74] "Honestly, I see this whole extended kerfluffle as a 'teaching moment' for the project, one where (maybe, with luck) we can all get past the kind of pugnacious adolescent snobbery that defines certain controversial articles and develop a more mature, responsible attitude towards the encyclopedia. so far it's rough going, but still" That is not "engaging in discussion". It is a personal attack on other editors that don't happen to agree with him. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For goodness sake, in no way is that a "personal attack." Egads. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite hard to interpret the words "pugnacious adolescent snobbery" as anything other than derogatory. Mathsci (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And I find it hard to see what there is that's either "personal" or "attack[ing]" in ludwigs2's comment. Which surely is the point about a would-be "personal attack." You folk are grasping at straws here. Instead of all this fuss, why not deal with the arguments? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Chzz

Sheesh, that's long.

Forgive me collapsing it.

The arguments on what is/is not 'appropriate' re. certain images on certain pages will go on forever. There's some non-collegiate behaviour on the part of several editors, but that'd be better handled via an RFC/U or whatever. I can't see any admin action as appropriate at this time. If I'm wrong, can someone cut out the tl;dr and just say "X should be blocked for Y and Z". Otherwise, feel free to continue the eternal arguments on the article talks.

ANI is not the right place to discuss content/consensus. Nor is it the right place to discuss vague ongoing concerns with user conduct; if you can present a WP:DIFF/diffs, showing "XE did THIS which was WRONG according to THIS policy, please do so. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have uncollapsed it following discussion on Chzz's talk page. This thread contains a proposal for a topic ban in an area not covered by discretionary sanctions, thus the topic ban requires community consensus, and cannot be enacted by a single admin. Also, conduct diffs have been provided in the discussion above, e.g. in this subsection. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators [...] Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. - thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What is contained here and here should be enough to judge whether a sanction is warranted or not, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the conduct by Ludwigs2 breaches any policies or guidelines - that's the key point here. The discussions re those images will no doubt go on forever, and of course anyone disrespecting prior consensus might present problems; however here/now, I see no evidence of that.  Chzz  ►  06:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of WP:CIVIL? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, per Tarc above. I stopped at 142 diffs (and only posted a tiny portion of them). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Community Topic bans should indeed be discussed at WP:AN, not at ANI (here), according to the letter of the policy on community bans. But it wasn't me who started it here. If an admin deems it necessary, I have no objection to the thread being moved to WP:AN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The general practice has been that if a topic ban discussion arises from an ANI thread, it's left on ANI, but one started here from scratch should be moved to AN, where topic ban discussions are generally held. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Query

Is it reasonable to say

Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted.

An then on the sub page:

• If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration.
• If you have come here to protest against how people are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here. That is not new either.

I understand that people don't wish to rehash the same arguments again and again, however consensus does change (See GNAA AfDs for example), and singling out this issue as one that shall never be discussed seems both counter to Wiki-philosophy and likely to be effective only in stopping more thoughtful folk from discussing the issues. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

I fully empathise with the sentiment motivating those diktats but also have deep qualms about the way it's expressed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rich, I never saw local consensus on this particular issue to matter in even the slightest. CENSOR has been very clear on this for quite some time. No "should not" adhere to religious... - a specific "will not". Thus, it's a matter of incorrect venue. No local consensus is going to suddenly change things to "hey, other than on the article of Muhammad, we act secularly". Thus, if you note, in that same infobox, it is noted where the proper place is to propose policy changes. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note, I think that box was hashed out during a few other non-secular concessions that never should have happened (till policy was changed to allow such - which it still hasn't been). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. 1) directs image discussions to the sub-page as it tends to overwhelm discussion on the main talk page. 2) seeks to weed out the insipid "remove the images they offend me!!!" messages from IPs and WP:SPAs.

Summation "Bring image-related discussions to the sub-page but don't waste our time with rote removal demands, come here with something intelligent to say". Tarc (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted :)) Of course it's not reasonable to say that. Basically, we are telling people, If you want to post about this, don't do it here, but "over there", and "over there" we say, If you want to post about this, don't do it here. This reminds me of certain customer service phone conversations I've had the pleasure of having, where each department says their hands are tied, and swears it's the other department that's responsible for fixing the problem. --JN466 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayen, that is so very not true. Though a particular editor DID make such a claim, that claim was a boldface lie. That editor did use the correct venue (Village Pump), made the proposal, it was deemed the proper place, it was !voted on, and simply put, he lost and then made up that ridiculous claim. Village Pump, or RfC then (with enough support) Village Pump. Worked before, working now. But not the article's talk page, where we cannot change policy. Don't believe everything you read - I didnt, and thus checked it out to find that the correct venues (as noted in the warning box on that talk page) do indeed work properly. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The only comment i have read on this issue is what Rich wrote above, and the wordings he quotes are correct. I had never really registered them, until he pointed it out. It seems quite extraordinary to me. There is even a STOP! sign in Arabic (and a "Don't feed the trolls" message assigning everyone wishing to complain to that category). --JN466 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but it is out of context, as it does not include the rest of the message that follows with instructions on where to address such concerns: "Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)." (both are linked on original). Thus, it is all covered with the proper way to deal with things. Let's say we wanted to blatantly ignore copyvio for the article on John Doe - would we (a) simply do so (or demand it done) or (b) suggest a policy change? What would be the correct venue for dealing with the needed policy change? (a) the article's talk page, or (b) Village Pump? While the snippet above doesn't accurately portray the whole meaning of that box, I'd posit that going to that page and reading it will indeed show that the box does address everything, including pointing people to the correct venue, where such issues (including for that article) have been properly addressed in the past, all sans "no, go back there" as a response. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc has it right. The message isn't intended to stop all discussion (the MB of text we've spent on it over the last few weeks should make that patently obvious), but to point out that messages like "Please remove the images, they offend me" will not be given much consideration. To the present day, even after all of these discussions on at least a half dozen forums, I would suggest that that remains the consensus view. Resolute 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The key word here is "protest". If someone wants to mount a reasoned argument that amounts to something more than a slogan rooted, then there would be grounds for discussion. But if it is mere "protest", then it's fine to let people know that it's not likely to go anywhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: that's a nice rationalization, but in practice that's not the way it works. Every discussion, no matter how reasonable or reasoned, is designated as an unjustified protest and dismissed/attacked on those grounds. Look at what happened to me: I'm an intelligent, reasonable individual, with a decent policy argument to make, and all I got for my efforts was endless endless amounts of circular reasoning and a bunch of editors hounding me through ANI like a dog. Anyone without my (formidable) intellectual resources could not have endured the page at all, so a claim that 'reasoned arguments' might be successful is pure fantasy. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, if nothing else your snide edit summary rather confirms what Ludwigs2 is saying. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, it confirms nothing of the sort. This entire mess was precipitated by and is continued by one tendentious, disruptive editor; Ludwigs. I am simply amazed that someone has the balls to come to ANI and write shit like "thank goodness I'm such a genius or these wiki-bullies (his POV, not reality) would've done in a mere mortal long ago". It is beyond ludicrous. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And now I'm called the "fan club" in another snide edit summary, while Robert's also trying a similar tack. My goodness, you guys are, well, "smug" to pick a word you've invoked recently. Ugh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry Tarc, one day our intellectual resources will be as formidable. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@ jbmurray: I heartily agree with your edit summary: "enough of the snideness and smugness, please". However, we might not agree about who is being snide and/or smug. Bielle (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We might indeed. Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I've never previously (to my knowledge) interacted with any of these editors. I've never commented on any of the articles at issue. And I'm not part of the dog's breakfasts that are the thread on the subpage of the Mohammed page and the thread on Jimmy Wales's talk page. All I do is I make a couple of brief comments on ANI and then on the RFC, and first I find myself frankly badgered on my talk page, and now I discover I'm labelled the "fan club." Please. This is extraordinarily unbecoming conduct, and directed against someone who's barely involved--indeed, who's about as uninvolved as could be, short of sitting in a cave somewhere. It's all extraordinarily unseemly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

jb - it was my mistake for posting anything here. I just happened to notice the comment and responded to it thoughtlessly. sorry for the fallout; I'll leave now. --Ludwigs2 02:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes jbmurray, sorry that because you thought I was asking questions in bad faith (though the recent uninteruppted discussions on that images talk page would speak otherwise) that I was badgering you - especially because your initial and continued belief I am acting in bad faith created a situation where you ignored my most important question. While I didn't expect you to have a high opinion of me, I also didnt expect you to jump to an opinion about someone you hadn't interacted with. Some of the barnstars here[75] are exactly because I will go well above and beyond to help someone present their opinion as best as possible, no matter how much I disagree with them. As this would have (before I deleted it when he was blocked - but surely you can check it and his talk pages out yourself).[76] Or my efforts with Bad edits r dumb. Or changing things on Homophobia that I know are correct (to something more "watered down"), but are not supportable by the sources available in a way that matches Wikipedia's standards.

I wanted honest opinions - you wanted to find fault in me asking. Is that my fault? Or is it yours for, without knowing me (or the depth of this situation), deciding what you thought of me and my reasons for asking? I suspect it is not my fault. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert, you are being disingenuous. I answered any questions you had. It's not my fault you didn't like the answers. My conclusion that you have not been arguing in good faith is based on my own interactions with you, and your reports to me of interactions with others. You may well have earned barnstars and gone marvellous things for the project in other areas, I have no doubt. May you continue to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please bury this dead horse in a deep, dark hole

At this point it is just being used by Ludwigs to troll...yes, troll, in the fullest "intentionally posting to provoke a reaction" sense of the word. Sorry if that rubs someone the wrong way, but there's no other explanation for "anyone without my (formidable) intellectual resources.... Chzz looked into it all earlier but didn't find anything actionable at the time, perhaps that'll change after this, perhaps not. Others have weighed in that topic bans need to go to WP:AN. We've long passed the point where this is going to reach anything meaningful here, so a call to the proverbial "uninvolved admin" to make the next call. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Most fully support - with a note to the uninvolved admin that much of the earlier conversations that precipitated this are now in the Muhammad/Images talk page archive. Reading that page (not the archive) now will not show the entire story from beginning to end. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed, agreed. Those who brought this to ANI clearly haven't found the agreement they had hoped. There is no consensus on a topic ban. Time to close this down. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  How about we leave determination of consensus to the admin who's masochistic enough to try and take this on? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  I removed murray's archive, as he has made himself quite involved at this point. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just an observation, but in almost 6 1/2 years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've noticed that editors who provoke strong feelings from other editors – pro and con – generating multiple threads of this size and polarity on the noticeboards, tend to, eventually, be indef blocked or even community banned. That's not a recommendation or a desire, simply a statement of probability based on empirical observation. Ludwigs2 might want to take that into account and moderate his behavior if he wishes to avoid that end result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This needs to run until resolved one way or another. If this behavior is considered acceptable then I will more than happily loosen up my own strict interpretations to the rules. I tend to go through everything I edit at least once to ensure that it meets the letter and intent of policies so that would make it much easier for me. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I know, I'm uninvolved in this. I will wait at least 24 hours for any objections, but if there are no serious objections, i will read and close this sometime after 24 hours from now. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd prefer, as preventative measures are on the table, that an uninvolved admin does the final evaluation and close - whatever the results are. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am an admin. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Epilogue: Light in our darkness

Changing the subject of the thread to something more positive, on User talk:Jimbo Wales I noticed that Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and I have agreed that it would be a good idea to use an image of the Night Journey in the section of Muhammad devoted to his depiction, with an improved text to accompany it. I would be quite happy to help creating that improved text (multiple good sources are already available) and to help selecting which of the images is appropriate. As I said there and on Talk:Muhammad/Images, I don't see any reason to keep the same number of images. The statements of Jayen466 and Anthonyhcole were short and direct: I was happy when I found them. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate block of Joe Circus

Jayjg has blocked Joe Circus for civility and harassment while in a debate with him on Circumcision. Whether the block was warranted or not Jayjg should not be the one blocking Joe per WP:INVOLVED. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with imposing a hard and fast rule. Some cases are so obvious, I wouldn't want an admin to waste our time here. Rklawton (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say this particular case clearly warranted a short block [77][78] Rklawton (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say this comes under the "any reasonable admin would probably have done the same thing" exception.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not saying that a block wouldn't have been warranted, although I wasn't seeing anything major. It is disturbing that it was done by an involved admin. This could have been handled much better.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• There could have been a tidier way of implementing the block, but it was still warranted. Note that there is also an SPI case for Joe Circus too. From a general technical perspective, it seems quite likely that he's been abusing multiple accounts since the block. WilliamH (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Other admins who should have been called on to implement the block in such a case, so it does not have the appearance in any sense of an admin using the buttons to win in content disputes or other disagreements. Edison (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. WilliamH (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a content dispute, that was extended trolling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Sarek. Just to be clear, I didn't block him for "civility" (or incivility, for that matter), and I wasn't "in a debate with him on Circumcision". Gary, please make more accurate statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Obvious troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't had any content disputes with that editor, and his actions are part of an off-wikipedia harrassment campaign against a longstanding Wikipedia editor. Those who wish to know more can e-mail me for the details. Since his block, he has socked in various ways. If he continues this harrassment if and when he returns, I intend to block him for a month. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable as a trolling block. The user is able to discuss and realize his issues on his talkpage - Checkuser although not conclusive , talks about proxies and possible/likely connections to multiple accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've blocked California Mom, Aussie1947 and EditTalk indefinitely, check the SPI case for my comments. From my perspective, I'm willing to say: yep, Joe Circus is abusing multiple accounts. Off-wiki-gal is worth keeping an eye on too. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If the OP's posting here is what triggered the ISP, then the OP should be awarded an honorary boomerang. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's abusing multiple accounts, then we should extend his block. Rklawton (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The SPI was filed a day before this. Other than being punitive, I don't see what extending the block will do - if anything, it'd act as even more reason to continue socking. But if the disruptive behaviour (including socking) continues after the block expires, he will definitely be sanctioned accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have made no objection to the block, only that Jayjg pulled the trigger. Anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see Jayjg arguing with Joe all over the page and then the block. It looks bad and should have been handled by an uninvolved admin through normal channels. Jayjg is quite heavy handed with newcomers coming to the page and tends to wp:bite them if he disagrees with their viewpoint. I hope this moderates his behavior in the future. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see Jayjg arguing with Joe all over the page and then the block"? Seriously? Actually, anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see me responding to exactly one post of his. That's it, nothing more. In the future, please make more truthful statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand behind what I have stated. Your perception of reality is incorrect. Whether you responded to Joe or his socks or he responded to you is still interaction and yes it is all over the page. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, can you please provide WP:DIFFs of Jayjg arguing with Joe all over Talk:Circumcision? He addresses Joe once, while you constantly argue with him. If anyone is too involved, it's you. If you really approve of the block, why does it matter that it was Jayjg who made it, other than your content dispute with him? You are not here because you think Jayjg is too involved, but because you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Joe's socks after he was already blocked now retroactively makes me involved? Please don't be ridiculous. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the constant barrage of POV-pushing socks on that subject, it's not surprising that Jay has little patience with them. Viewed in isolation, it might have been better to hand it off to another admin. But how often does he need to go through that same process? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that someone who considers circumcision as somehow "mutilation" on the same order as so-called female "circumcision", and who honestly thinks that there's "nothing funny" about circumcision, is taking the subject way too seriously and personally, and would probably be best off to stay away from the topic altogether. FYI, here's a joke recorded by Leo Rosten, ca. 1960: "It is said that the rabbis get the salaries, and the mohels get the tips." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure Bugs, I remember you, and while you and I don't see eye to eye, you always make me laugh :) Garycompugeek (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Califoria-Mom (talk · contribs) earlier this evening, as well as the open proxy that was being used. It is my opinion that Joe Circus has been abusing open proxies to disrupt Talk:Circumcision (compare with California Mom (talk · contribs)). As such, I believe that the following accounts belong to Joe Circus:

• AmusedAussie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 1947aussie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Off-wiki-gal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Offwikigal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• California Mom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Califoria-Mom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As such, I support an indefinite block of Joe Circus due to the blatant disruption. –MuZemike 08:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably safe to assume that 193.105.134.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same user, per this edit. (Could someone deal with the image file on Commons, please?) Jakew (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hello. I am not an admin. As such, I hope I am allowed to comment here. Anyways, The way you all are discussing this would make pirates' toes curl and the Gestapo proud. If an involved admin enacts a block on an individual editor, they should immediately lose their admin status. Seriously. No questions asked. Has anyone ever considered why a police officer can not also be judge, jury and executioner? "Well, I am after all a cop, so I shot him because I was sure a judge would have sentenced him to death..." Certain folks in this discussion need to take a long look at themselves and ask "what has happened in my past to make me like this?"Turqoise127 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can post here. After all this is the wiki that anyone can edit! But seriously comparing this to the Gestapo is a little bit much. He blocked an obvious troll. He didn't try to kill all of the Jews.--Adam in MO Talk 07:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You should also review WP:INVOLVED. Even if I were involved with this editor (and I wasn't), this block was a straighforward action with which even the editor's most ardent defenders have no issue (they just have an issue with me, which in reality isn't related to this action). Moreover, the blocking offense was on-going personal attacks on a Wikipedia editor (not me), part of an off-Wikipedia campaign of harassment, and nothing else. And just to be very clear, and to repeat what I stated above, if Joe Circus continues these attacks on that editor when and if he returns, I will block him again for a month, if some other admin doesn't beat me to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Turqoise. Your missing the point Adam, there's absolutely no reason that another uninvolved admin could have implemented disciplinary action. Jayjg watches the page and frequently comments on talk:circumcision and for that reason alone should never exercise authority there unless no one else is able. You most certainly were involved Jayjg. Your continued denials only illustrate your inability to admit you were wrong and take responsibility for your actions. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your claims about my involvement above have turned out to be false, and most experienced editors here disagree with you that the block was inappropriate (see, for example, this comment by Ian.thomson). In fact, as you've stated, you yourself don't object to the block, just to me. Your involvement here has everything to do with your WP:SPA advocacy on Circumcision-related topics, and nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriateness of this action. I am therefore going to give your opinions on this matter they weight they deserve, which is exactly none. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg,

You write >(they just have an issue with me, which in reality isn't related to this action).<

Please take these suggestions in the I hope friendly spirit with which they are offered:

1. Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, the "issue" that these other Wikipedia editors have with you may not be unconnected to the perception of apparently going against the spirit, rather than the legal letter, of WP:INVOLVED, for example.
2. Another suggestion would be that as an Admin perhaps you should ease out of the habit of calling other users liars/untruthful/dishonest when they see things that are different from your view of things, as in the example of your perception of "untruthfulness" in Gary above. Having been invited to check the Talk:Circumcision page on ANI above, then yes one could at a pinch legally count only one direct incident of you with that particular now blocked user, however the overall picture is of you in the middle being sarcastic and waving the stick at other users left, right and centre. Particularly I'm wondering what to make of Now there's no way of backing down from your real motivation, no way of disguising your bad faith, and no way of avoiding sanctions if you continue. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC) To my eyes, from any admin, that doesn't read like a model of a appropriate non-WP:INVOLVED threat of "sanction"
3. A third suggestion might be to just voluntarily take a holiday from admin tools for 3 months, and try to develop a more neutral participant attitude with other editors?

Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

PS having just seen the new line above "I am therefore going to give your opinions on this matter they weight they deserve, which is exactly none. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)" this kind of underlines the 3 suggestions above. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi. Just because you've had lengthy content disputes with me at various articles (e.g. Yeshu), that's no reason to consistently follow me around and insist that in any dispute I am doing something wrong, regardless of the details. Your more recent and clearly inappropriate interactions with me (e.g. Talk:Ger toshav#Ger toshav is not the same as ger v-toshav, Talk:Ger toshav#Re "stop playing games" please see version before half of article deleted, Talk:Messianic Judaism#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again) indicate that you are simply unable to be neutral when it comes to me, and that your suggestions are not actually offered in a "friendly spirit". The last of those discussions makes it quite clear that whenever I have a dispute with another editor, you invariably ignore the facts of the case, and instead claim, imply, or insinuate that I am somehow to blame, despite the fact that (as you can see in the latter discussion) no other outside editor there agrees with you in any way. I think a far more helpful suggestion would be for you to just take a voluntary 3 month holiday from following me around and taking the side of whoever happens to disagree with me, and during that time try to develop a more neutral participant attitude towards me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, well, I'm sorry but please note that you did invite "anyone". And also note that "follow me around" would require use of a time machine on my part to follow you to pages you have not been, to "follow you around" in advance of your appearances. Whatever, the above suggestions were offered in good faith, you are free to note other's views of what constitutes the spirit of WP:INVOLVED and the other points, or not. So be it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't see Jayjg inviting "anyone" to do anything here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a pattern where, almost any tim there is an AN/I discussion involving Jayjg, In icto oculy intrudes to make some sort of attack or threat against Jayjg, without actually contributing to the discussion. Is this stalking? Is it time for an RfC on In icto oculi's stalking obsession with Jayjg? As for this thread: given the unanimity that this user should have been blocked and blocked wuickly, and the lack of evidence that Jayjg meets the standard of an involved admin, it seems to me that this issue has been resolved and can be closed. WP is ten years old which means that by this pooint we have a great many sysops who have edited a wide variety of articles over many years. It is important that a sysop not use her tools in the course of an edit conflict with another user, but in this case it is clear that Jayjg was acting as anyo other sysop would have acted, and no question that this was part of an edit conflict with this user. Let's be cleare about what an actual abuse of sysop powers is, and lets not muddy the waters. Did Jayjg use sysob tools to resolve a personal dispute with another editor? No. That is precisely why everyone else agrees that the block was fully justified. So, end of discussion Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Well I don't know what to think now. I hadn't looked at the page. I saw this here, "anyone" was invited to look and comment, I did. More fool me. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone cares enough to dig up some diffs illustrating what Slrubenstein says above, the above replies have convinced me to support any proposed interaction ban that prevents In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) from jumping into issues in order to score one off Jayjg. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Johuniq, I ran into this behavior at Talk:Messianic Judaism. Jayjg started an RFC regarding another editor and material he kept deleting that had multiple reliable sources. In ictu oculi used the RFC not to respond to the issue, but instead to attack Jayjg and make vague accusations that Jayjg was probably to blame in some way. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If people really think the block was unjustified just because the wrong admin issued the block, then how about another uninvolved admin unblock and then immediately reblock Joe Circus, if that will make everybody happy? I'll even do that if necessary. –MuZemike 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As of a couple of hours ago, Joe Circus has been reblocked for 2 weeks by a patrolling admin at the SPI case. WilliamH (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• A gutsy and 100% justified block - when someone uses multiple accounts on a highly controversial topic in order to try to manipulate the debate ought to be blocked, perhaps a permablock is in order. To require some other admin other than the discoverer of the deceit to do the block is just a formality that wastes time and continues the circus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Sitush

• Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have requested User Sitush for many days that his edits on Ajmer Singh, Ballu, Dalel Singh, List of Ror have been very disruptive. I requested him to ask for citations and references instead of deleting stuff. He seems to operate as if he WP:OWN these pages and would not listen to any suggestion.

My requests on his talk page: [[79]]

[[80]]

[[81]]

[[82]]

Finally I gave up and reverted his edits. Just to give couple of examples of his opacity: This website [83] gives the total points scored by Ajmer Singh and all other Indian players. It also gives the total points scored by Indian team. This website is already sourced in the article. Yet he puts citation requests for who scored the second highest points from Indian team when the data is already available on the fiba website as I have pointed to him many times. [[84]]

Since he refuses to read the FIBA website I can conclude he just wants to act as a boss and put material that suits his POV. Similarly the FIBA website gives the score of Indian team in each game and one could add up the scores of all games and find the percentage points scored by Ajmer yet Sitush refuses to do that.

Then on Ballu page I wanted to add two sources: 1) the location of the stadium which was constructed in Ballu's honor in his native village Kaul Village. The second link (before I could add the second link Sitush had deleted the addition of my first reference. See here: [[85]]) I wanted to add was from [rorbhoomi.com] which lists all villages where rors live. Here the second link is also deleted by Sitush [[86]].

On Dalel Singh page I added a link from Indian Volley Ball Federation page (which is [87]). If you see the entry 17 it mentions that Dalel Singh Ror (notice the last name) won the Arjuna Award and Sitush deletes this here [[88]].

It is very difficult for Sitush to see reason. He behaves as if he WP:OWN these articles and has no patience to listen to what others are saying. Please advise what to do. Ror Is King (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I did ask for citations. I deleted POV, BLP vios and copyvios. I am astounded that someone who can find their way to ANI, come up with a load of diffs and knows about WP:OWN is not familiar with WP:BLP, WP:CITE, WP:COPYRIGHT etc. Anyway, I've fixed the copyvio myself now, though personally I am not keen on quotations in leads. The rest, I've just done pretty much the same as prior to the revert of my edits from a few days ago.

I had asked at User_talk:Drmies for someone to review what I have done, just before this report was posted. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have citation requests for ajmer scored a third of India's points? Do you believe FIBA website is wrong or have you not read it? Why are you creating busy work for others when they have already provided citations? What is the reason for this edit of yours [[89]] Ror Is King (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've played basketball in my time, and at a quite reasonable level. The idea that someone scores that number of points without assistance from their team-mates is beyond my comprehension, but I am AGF'ing that it may be correct ... if a source can be found. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you saying "if a source can be found"? Have you not found the data on the FIBA website that I gave a link to? What does your having played basketball "at a quite reasonable level" got anything to do with your ability to parse the FIBA website? Ror Is King (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

My point was that "single-handedly" seems dubious, writing as someone who has played against Alton Byrd etc in the UK (he ran rings round me, big oaf that I was). It doesn't matter now: I've removed the phrase, on the grounds of reasonableness, & jiggled the citation around etc. However, I do think that you may need to revisit the Five Pillars. If you can find a reliable source for the single-handed bit then feel free to reinstate it, but that is a content issue and not usually a matter for this forum. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if single handedly is dubious by all means delete it. Why are you throwing out the baby with the bath tub? You are putting citation tags on : "who was the second best scorer of Indian team at the Moscow olympics" and "did Ajmer score a third of India's points" here [90]. What is the rationale for this since FIBA website (already linked in the article) does give both the data points. Ror Is King (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are aids for improvement of articles. I know that you pretty much removed them all without addressing the issues raised by them, but subsequent to my reinstatement of the things I have been able to resolve some of the tagged issues & I think that Drmies has come up with some stuff also. In one case, it just entailed me jiggling the phrasing about & moving the citation; in another case, it meant getting the name from the source & linking it to the WP article about that person. Valid tagging is, erm, valid. Indeed, you explicitly asked me to tag. Something as simple as correctly positioning a citation, or usefully expanding content rather than requiring the reader to refer to the source, is always A Good Thing. You could have sorted the issues out, as I did when I got a moment, but instead chose blindly to revert even after asking me to tag the issues. You cannot have it both ways. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question. When this FIBA website [91], which is already given as a reference in ajmer singh article, how are your tags "who was the second best scorer of Indian team at the Moscow olympics" and "did Ajmer score a third of India's points" here [92] valid? Ror Is King (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have explained why. Now please drop this stick.- Sitush (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You have not. Either you

* did not read the citation provided [[93]

* or you chose to ignore what is given in the FIBA link since it gives the name of the second best scorer of Indian team and the total points India scored which can let you calculate Ajmer Singh's percentage. Since you put tags here [[94]] how is this adhering to wikipedia policy?

You don't read the sources provided, you delete ad nausuem when others try to edit and you bully others. I am afraid you will have to answer this question about your lack of reading (deliberately?) the FIBA link since it clearly smacks of WP:OWN as only what you deem fit, even if it is bogus citations, will remain on the Ajmer Singh Page. And no one dare take these bogus citations out because if they do then you and perhaps your friends can shoot them down. Are you fostering healthy editing atmosphere at Wikipedia or do you have some kind of agenda which lets you ignore valid references? Ror Is King (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sitush did indeed drop me a line. I decided to look at Balwant Singh Sagwal before seeing what the complaint was this time. The plaintiff's work on that article consists of [Balwant Singh Sagwal this], which is a really bad edit of course (POV, praise, no sources, etc.); this, which adds an unreliable source; and this, which is even worse--and the reference in the edit summary to "Sitush's childish edits" is, besides an insult, downright silly (I'm trying to phrase it nicely) since it reintroduced such redundancies as "Ballu was a tall, ungainly youth from the beginning" and his "hands and feet were enormous in size" (my italics). Now, terrible writing is not by itself damning, unfortunately, but if you combine that with the combative attitude and the speed with which they found their way to ANI, one wonders--who was this editor before they were this editor? Perhaps the editor can have a look at WP:BOOMERANG. In the meantime, let's move on and leave this disruptive complaint and its author be. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Few clarifications. I did not create any of these pages in question. Second I am surprised to see that you are not seeing that Sitush is not letting anyone edit these pages. If he has a problem with some evidence does he point out the problem and discuss on the talk page? Thus far I see blind reverts of citation. See the FIBA example on Ajmer Singh wikipage. Can he be requested to discuss the edits on the talk page and not be disruptive because it just feels he owns these pages.

Regarding Ballu have you thought about why would Kaul Village name a stadium after Ballu (the location of which is shown here [95]) and why would Kaul Village which is populated by rors name this stadium after Ballu if he was not of their own? BTW here is another reference which I wanted to add but could not because Sitush would delete all my edits. This is the website of rors. Here are their office bearers: [96]. On this website they list their sportsmen here: [97]. You will notice all sportsmen under discussion are listed here: Ajmer SIngh, Ballu, Dalel Singh, Manoj Kumar the boxer. Ror Is King (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not thought about that. Why should I? What I've been doing is going through the newspapers (mainly The Hindu) to see where Ballu's name pops up and what I can add to the article. What you bring to the table is nothing but some websites that simply don't count as reliable sources. As for Sitush not letting you edit--well, it's pretty clear that your edits are not improving the article. That's not ownership, that's just following the guidelines and improving articles. You're free to do whatever you like on your own website, but this is an encyclopedia, which regards WP:RS as pretty important. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please point out what is wrong with this [98] as a reference? Did you understand the argument about Dalel SIngh? His caste is listed on the Indian Volleyball federation page and yet Sitush deletes it. Are you a friend of his that you only find a fault in me? Ror Is King (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• For real? Well, it's a website called "Rorraja" which proclaims the greatness of the Ror community and is run by the "ROR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION", whatever that may be. The section you're pointing to is called "Our Outstanding Sportsmen". In other words, there is nothing here to suggest that there is anything reliable or independent about this website. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a registered organization with Govt of India. You can read about it here:

• [[99]].
• The office bearers are professors from reputed institutions, scientists and professionals.

If you feel or are isinuating that the sole purpose of this website is to obfuscate the workings of wikipedia by giving wrong caste information for Dalel Singh, Ajmer Singh, Ballu and Manoj Kumar then I guess you know something that I don't.

Lastly do look at this [[100]] the list of rors before Sitush's hackjob. On this page if you see the list of politicians [[101]] and compare [[102]] you will see there is an overlap but not a match. Similar thing you will see on the sportsmen page. Caste is not recorded in Indian hospitals on the birth certificates so those will be useless for you. The way I see it you have to defend your friend Sitush at any cost and accept his bullying behavior towards other editors. Whether he exhibits WP:OWN on these articles is of no concern to you. Ror Is King (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my eyesight is going, but what that page (the volleyball assoc. one) appears to list is his home village. This is not sufficient to verify his caste, as you have been told before. In any event, this is a content dispute and should be dealt with on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Your claims that it is a behavioural issue are clearly misguided. But I would say that, wouldn't I? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are reading. I have repeated earlier that his name is given on line 17 as Dalel Singh Ror. Though you keep deleting his being a ror from the page. It is a behavioral issue as you have not even answered the question on the FIBA article posted above. Ror Is King (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Ha! "This time". Indeed. Sitush/ANI, night/day. I am doing something wrong. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. My penny's worth – I've been active on a number of India-related articles as part of the November Guild of Copy Editor's drive, and a lot of them have many of the issues highlighted in the link Drmies posted above. These articles often contain a truly diabolical standard of writing. Perhaps RiK would do well to concentrate on fixing his own issues instead of dragging other editors before ANI. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper

A dispute has popped up at the dispute resolution noticeboard (thread link) involving SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) and Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), among other users. The disputes themselves can be found here and here. As part of the DRN post, Serge Woodzing requested an interaction ban between himself and Pieter Kuiper. I have been involved in informal mediation between these two users before on Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years, and so I am familiar with the issues involved; I thought that Serge's request was reasonable, and so I have forwarded it here. The disputes between these two users have appeared on ANI many times before, as can be seen from these ANI threads: [103][104][105] (also see that last link for links to six more). Recently, Pieter has also voluntarily agreed to an interaction ban with Serge on commons.[106]

At the previous ANI discussions there wasn't any consensus for an interaction ban, and it was felt that there were also problems with Serge's edits that Pieter was legitimately correcting. I think that the issues this time round are much the same, and that there are legitimate concerns with the content involved. However, both users are also showing well-worn patterns of behaviour with respect to each other, with Pieter being pointy/abrasive regarding Serge's edits, and Serge being defensive and asking Pieter to leave him alone, coupled with pleas to outside editors. I see no changes in these interaction patterns despite various reasoned attempts to get them to cooperate with each other over the years, and I don't think either editor is capable of being neutral in interactions with the other. Because of this, I think some sort of interaction ban is warranted just to prevent further drama. I would like opinions from the community about whether, and what kind, of restrictions may be necessary. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

They've clashed at Commons also.[107] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on some earlier SW-PK disputes.[108][109] My suggestion is that SW branch out for a while into topics that PK hasn't shown interest in. 1RR for each of them towards the other's edits might help, with encouragement to discuss issues civilly. Some informal mentoring for SW might also help. I'm not sure I can get behind an interaction since SW has done some rather poor editing in areas where not many editors other than PK have the knowledge to notice the errors. We might instead have to consider a topic restriction against SW, if lesser approaches don't decrease the hostilities. However, that view is based on diffs that I looked at almost a year ago, so maybe things have changed since then. 69.111.194.36 (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never actually needed to "branch out for a while into topics that PK hasn't shown interest in" (though I appreciate the idea in principle), simply because I never seek him out, stalk him, check on what he's up to or edit anything that he is involved in without my being there first. Never. Ever.

He has very often gotten involved in topics that I already have shown interest in. Kuiper's history on enWP shows that one of his his main interests is trying to police me, and the way he has stalked me to try to do so shows the same abrasive, vindictive behavior he has shown on Commons. He is the one that is usually found wrong here (as statistics will show) and his main objective is to bug me and start fights, not to contribute in a valuable manner to enWP.

Accusations against me of "rather poor editing" cannot be substantiated in fact, and Kuiper has no expertise whatsoever in the areas where I usually work, such as Swedish history. I do. If enWP doesn't want to appreciate that, it would be sad for me and for WP. Please note that I am the one requesting this, not Kuiper, just like the one that was negotiated with him on Commons, where it was documemnted how he stalks and bugs other editors too. He always has a personal, not a helpfully informational, agenda.

I make a lot of mistakes, like we all do, and as I said at Commons, I am always very interested in all civil, constructrive help in correcting them. I am not interested, though, in being hounded by Kuiper for several more years, or in agreeing to his being given free reign to add more things like the huge penis image to articles about people like Queen Sophia Magdalena of Sweden to slur her reputation posthumously, as I see it, in an article where the image isn't that relevant to her life story.

I try very hard to edit in a neutral and balanced manner and to add valuable info, but I have added a few personal-name exonyms at times which I knew of as factual, but in a very few caess was not able to source properly. If it can be shown that I have done any other "poor editing" than that, or that I have ever stalked anyone or been sarcastic and rude to anyone who has been civil to me, please show me those errors, so that I may mend my ways!

The ban on Commons had the prerequisite that Kuiper, if he sees that I have made any mistakes that need correcting, could inform another neutral editor to deal with that rather than acting on it himself. Excellent solution. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I would love to have a mentor. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I also like the mentoring + 1RR suggestion. This might be too much to ask, but I don't suppose we have any Swedish-speaking mentors willing to take this on? I don't think speaking Swedish is essential to the task by any means, but it would help in a few areas such as sourcing, and in the two editors' dealings on the Swedish Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What is "1RR"? And could we please have a natural English-speaking mentor rather than a Swede, as the questions are more often about the English language than about matters Swedish? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found "1RR". Since PK always reverts me first, whereas I never revert him first, it seems he'd be free to bug me, but I'd be hampered in trying to correct it. Am I wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: of course it can be important at times that an English editor understand a short passus of Swedish in order to be able to decide something. I always try to provide computer generated translations when necessary, through websites generally available, and have never found them too unclear or faulty. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1RR means that you are only allowed to revert the other's edits once in every 24-hour period on a given article. Adding content is not a revert - unless it is content that the other editor has removed at some point in the past. So if you added some new content, then Pieter could revert you one time (he then reaches 1RR), then you could revert his reversion (you then reach 1RR), but neither of you could revert any more until 24 hours is up. Of course, it would be better to just take it to the talk page without reverting, and find a consensus there; but 1RR allows you the freedom to revert when you absolutely have to, while still keeping things tightly controlled. With consensus here we could also change the time period for any 1RR rule, from one revert every 24 hours to, say, one revert every week. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! 24 hrs fine with me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A note: SergeWoodzing claims to have expertise in Swedish history. He feels that enwp should appreciate him and his expertise. But he does not offer any credentials. Just rhetoric. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kuiper does not disclose here that long ago he received a list of 500+ valuable and rare historical biographies and other books, the vast majority being academic work, a private collection that I have daily access to when needed to try to provide reliable sources. Shall I post it here again? I also usually have access to Sweden's National Library as I stay only a few blocks from there when in Stockholm, where I usually am, and I have done quite bit of research there to find good references for WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Jacob Truedson Demitz collection! But there are more people with a few meters worth of books on history. Access to books does not imply expertise. As an example: Demitz is a retired hotel manager, with Swedish royalty as a hobby. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the so-called "huge penis image" is a cartoon that was drawn in 1770,[110] it apparently has at least some historical notability, and it's still in the article. According to the talk page there was a big debate on Swedish Wikipedia about whether to include it in the sv.wp article, and consensus was to include it. I don't have an opinion on that point, other than that its inclusion or non-inclusion is a legitimate editorial question (i.e. its original inclusion wasn't vandalism or anything like that). I'm not aware of PK having had much involvement in that particular decision (he got into the en.wp talkpage discussion later), though I made no attempt to check on sv.wp and may have missed stuff elsewhere. By my examination here (Dec 2010), SW had at that time concentrated in a fairly narrow range of topics (almost all related to European royals), thus my suggestion that he explore some other areas for a while. 69.111.194.36 (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if I just quit, rather than "explore some other areas for a while" where I have less knowledge and less ready access to reliable sources, not to mention less interest? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I think the voluntary interaction ban solution found on commons might work well for us here as well. We could have a similar stipulation that if Pieter finds anything wrong with Serge's edits he can make those issues known to a third party, who can then bring up the issue with Serge. So, Pieter, would you be willing to submit to a voluntary restriction like this? I would be willing to act as the go-between if you want, but if you would rather it be someone else then I quite understand. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 06:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not see why I should. Woodzing has developed an allergy against me. But I have done nothing wrong. I have now caught him misrepresenting the position of Svanberg. Woodzing does not like to be exposed like that. He should not escape scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The rationale for for restricting interactions between you and Serge has little, if anything, to do with the actual content involved. It is to do with the interactions themselves, which tend to become very hostile, and turn into time sinks for other editors who have to deal with them. This is not about letting Serge "escape scrutiny", which is why both I and the IP above have proposed restrictions where you would still be able to voice your concerns indirectly. This is about keeping Wikipedia a cooperative and collegial environment so that people can get on with building an encyclopaedia.

You may not think there is anything wrong with comments like this one which Serge pointed out above, but in my opinion this kind of comment only sours the atmosphere and prevents people from getting real work done. I am guessing that there is a constructive message somewhere behind that edit that could be used to benefit the encyclopaedia; however, I'm afraid that that message got lost, because your comment comes across as accusatory and inflammatory. Ideally, the way we would deal with this is for you to simply point out any problems with Serge's edits in a nice way, to keep the conversation calm and avoid making him defensive. However, at this stage, I think any interaction between you would probably be taken in bad faith by the other, hence the suggestion of restricting your interactions somehow. It would be great to have your cooperation so that we can settle this in the most amicable way possible. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In my world, words like these are inflammatory when they are done a minute after edit warring. Look, I show restraint. I could use words that are a lot stronger than what I did about Woodzing misrepresenting the position of Svanberg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone get Kuiper to refrain from making false, insulting accusations like that here too? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal voluntary mandatory interaction ban as otherwise specified as per by Mr. Stradivarius above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support some kind of interaction ban. Either these two get a room, or they are made to stop bitching up the drama boards. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• After briefly looking over this thread, I would support an interaction ban between the two. It seems that they cannot work together without arguing - an interaction ban would probably benefit both of them, as well as Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support a mandatory interaction ban, as the user that forwarded the request here. I also recommend that the users be allowed to communicate via a trusted third party/third parties as happened on commons, with the proviso that this privilege be taken away if it is abused. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about editing by Arcillaroja at Central Europe and Eastern Europe

Arcillaroja (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
Central Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eastern Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Now a user's sentiments are his private affair, but if they happen to disrupt a set of articles, it's no longer private. This one's been going on for 3 years straight simply because it goes on in peripheral articles (Eastern Europe, Central Europe) few seem to care about. Both my requests for Third Opinion were ignored. I also put a series of warning templates on his talkpage over several weeks, which he ignored. Other editors (Montessquieu, ValenShephard etc.) were exhausted by this guy's tenacity, and they receded.

Background: so Arcillaroja grinds his axe for years; he engaged in bitter disputes with other editors long before I entered these articles. I have reason to believe that his editing is guided by racism against Central/Eastern Europeans. In some talk pages, he seems to justify this by implying that racism against ethnic Central/Eastern Europeans are present in certain groups in Western Europe. Which is an obvious fact, as the events of 1941-44 would tell you.

-- He deleted this info from the lede twice just today: [111]. Let's see what exactly he deleted: "A prevailing regional self-definition appears to draw the line between Eastern and Central Europe at the Eastern borders of Romania: those West of this border generally self-define as Central Europeans, while those East of this border as Eastern Europeans."
Who on earth would delete such a harmless but informative and relevant line? To put it another way, he deleted the self-definition of Central/Eastern Europeans while leaving some pointed and rather patronizing Western definitions in place. I'm just kinda waiting when he will delete this deadpan-neutral line from the article too (a matter of time): "Eastern Europe, home of the bulk of world Jewry until the 1940's, is the birthplace of Hasidic Judaism, Litvak Judaism and several Orthodox churches." Then we might be close to adding anti-semitism to his rap sheet as well.

-- Another line he deleted, this time from Central Europe, is [112]. Which is: "The historic term, denoting both a cultural area and a geopolitical region, came back into fashion by the end of the Cold War, which had divided Europe politically into East and West..." How is this line offensive or redundant to anyone in this particular article? Beats me.

-- He keeps placing the systemic bias tag on Central Europe ([113]), which is hysterical for 2 reasons.
1: That particular article is so far from being systematically biased as it can get. As already discussed on its talk page, the article presents 8 to 11 disparate points of views on the definition of Central Europe. Many of these definitions come from Western European historians and encyclopedias, the rest from Central European experts. Arcillaroja is, however, discontent. His "unbiased" dream article would appear to be the equivalent of a patronizing diatribe from a certain 1940's Western POV where actual Central/Eastern European voices of self-definition are totally absent (from their own article).
2: It is actually him who keeps introducing systemic bias to the Eastern and Central Europe articles. Again, he keeps deleting context-relevant self-definitions by the Central/Eastern European ethnic groups ([114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] etc. etc.), sometimes replacing them with pure nonsense ([120] [121]), or what could be described as judgmental Cold War-era Western opinions.

While his English is not good, still be prepared that he will want to manipulate you when he appears here: inevitably, he will cast me as some kinda die-hard local activist/vandal. Uh huh. I've been here for nearly 7 years, helping rewrite a bunch of articles from scratch. I've also been a member of WP:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which is relevant here.

Anyway, in a perfect Wikipedia, an admin with a BA/MA in European History or International Relations would come and deal justice in minutes, as the case is clear to anyone with some grasp on the subject: a racist user is doctoring some ethnic articles under the guise of improving them. But seeing how Arcillaroja's tendentious activity has been ignored for years, I wonder if anything will happen at all. Imagine the collective admin uproar if he happened to be some far-right Canadian patriot who would target, say, the Illinois article, doctoring it systematically so that it makes Illinois folks appear to be degenerate pushovers with no voice of their own.
Thanks for reading. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing WP:RFC/U, based on the above ... (and Illinois folks are "degenerate pushovers with no voice of their own", signed, a far-right Canadian patriot :-) </sarcasm> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not seeing WP:RFC/U at this time as the user in question will ignore it based on witnessing his conduct thus far. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly are you asking for? I'd say dispute resolution is the venue for you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I can do that, but it seems to be a 'lite' approach, seeing this user's drive, anger, energy, beliefs etc... What I'm asking for is direct admin intervention, either by asking him to stop his ways, or whatever else. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note for Arcillaroja here telling him that the WP:DIGWUREN sanctions exist. But the above discussion is hardly complete enough to justify any admin action yet. This is the first time he's ever been mentioned at an admin board. All that your evidence shows is that he sometimes argues very tenaciously on talk pages and some of his reasoning is unusual. Over three years he has made 104 edits at Eastern Europe. If Gregorik believes that Arcillaroja's editing there is improper, give us some more persuasive diffs. If you can't find any blatant examples of ethnic bias, I suggest starting with the content issues. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment on one of the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I lack the time and desire to dig through 3 years of his activity for additional diffs. I think I've presented hard evidence of ethnic bias. I mean he keeps deleting the very definitions and self-definitions of Central/Eastern European identity from the Central and Eastern Europe articles which are supposed to be the primary definitions in these cultural/ethnic articles. What remains is some skewed, secondary Cold War definitions that should only be mentioned in passing. Is there a way to protect these articles from this kind of tendentious disruption? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The most you could argue is that he's illogical, not that he is biased. Please don't extrapolate so far from the evidence you presented. Blatant ethnic warriors usually make outlandish statements that can be quoted as diffs. If you don't have time to do more digging into the record, this may be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't close just yet, please. Waiting for additional remarks. In the meantime, imagine that what if in an article titled Definition of being American someone deletes all the primary definitions and replaces them with a paragraph called "Definition of being American according to unsympathetic non-Americans". That's what's going on in these 2 articles. Racism and bias is sometimes not in-your-face but it's still present. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Arcillaroja would be more persuasive than your summaries of what you believe his thinking is. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Arcillaroja is smarter and more subtle than that. But don't close yet. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to say some words in my defense. Firstly I want to make very clear that accusing me of being a racist is something that I personally take as offensive and a very serious accusation. I reject such accusations and would like to ask Gregorik to soothe the general tone on these boards. Eastern Europe and Central Europe are ongoing topics of debate. I think it is also very difficult to provide neutrality for such political articles. As I have explained before in the talk pages of these articles, there are different opinions on what these geopolitical terms refer to. These articles are very polemic, in that they include or exclude countries arbitrarily depending on who writes a certain paper. I personally don't have the knowledge to say conclusively what is the right definition and I doubt that there is someone that would take such a chance. But I do know this: Trying to change an article with unsupported claims is not what wikipedia is about. These are examples of what Greogorik edits:

"A prevailing regional self-definition appears to draw the line between Eastern and Central Europe at..." or "One Western definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural..." A prevailing regional self-definition? From who? Where are the sources? is this presented in the article as a fact or as an opinion? Why is it in the lede?

These type of edits are rather constant in Gregorik's misbehavior. Sometimes, he adds an opinion, and then one or several online resources that do not support the claim made or that are very poor in regards to their neutrality. Gregorik thinks that trying to be as neutral as possible is the same thing as having a conservative agenda. And he thinks of himself as a very progressive editor. And not only thinks it, he simply adds it to the article. No sources, no discussion... He just does it because he is worth it. Example:

"The following countries are still being labeled Eastern European by "conservative" commentators (in the former geopolitical sense, due to their Communist past) and as Central European by "progressives" and..."

I think adding these words (conservative and progressive) to the lead is not very neutral either. And to finish, I would like to underline the fact that Gregorik is a Hungarian editor. And Hungary is a country which is directly discussed in these articles. In my opinion, the matter in itself is too close to the personal background of this editor and that affects his work on the topic.

Please, Gregorik, before making such accusations, bring hard evidence. That I'm a racist, and anti-semitic (!?!?), right winger, double your age (I certainly don't hope so!), with poor English (in that is not bookish and intricate enough, you mean?), ect, ect, ect is quite offensive... And requesting hard measures from admins against me because we don't agree is not very friendly either.

I hope that I have explained my position clearly. If I made any edit which was not in accordance with wikipedia's rules, then I more that willing to discuss them and I welcome any third opinions or other ideas. Arcillaroja (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm as friendly as they get, Arcillaroja. In this case, I'm not even pursuing this further (as I lack the time and desire as said earlier). So no worries, I won't take it to RFC/UserConduct. I've written ALL I wanted on this subject. And I stand corrected: you're not anti-semitic (though I never said that, please read it carefully), and your English is fine. I suggest that we leave this thread open for another 24 hours for additional admin comments, if any, and then close it. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK Arcillaroja (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment There are not many of Arcillaroja's edits to look at. On the main article Europe, very occasionally we get disputes about the use of the terms Western Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Europe which have ambiguities depending on context. By contrast Europe is a stable article and most disruption has been from sockpuppets of returning banned users. This is not the case on the less watched articles just listed, which are much less stable. A superficial glance at the edits of Arcillaroja does not suggest POV-pushing; his editing has been in line with consensos on Europe. However, edits like these by Gregorik, who I understand self-identifies as Hungarian, are problematic. [122] (edit summary: "Give it up, you sad loser, sorry!") [123] (a revert: "My apologies to Arcillaroja") I can recognize quite disruptive edits on Western Europe by Rejedef (talk · contribs), who self-identifies as Polish, whose suggested changes to Europe have not been accepted by any other users. Similar edits on Western Europe were reverted by Arcillaroja and other users. On Eastern Europe it is also Gregorik's edit summaries that are problematic. Just recently with two reverts: [124] ("too funny!") [125] ("still the entertainer"). The edit summaries of Arcillaroja seem fine.[126] Arcillaroja has only made 314 article edits in his 3 1/2 years on wikipedia, which makes this request look a bit odd. I would not be surprised if a more detailed analysis revealed more problems with Gregorik's editing; but nothing probably that warrants anything more than a mild warning to avoid giving the appearance of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. The inflammatory phrasing of this request does not help. I have not looked at article talk page comments. Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hanging the hangman, as it happens on ANI all the time. Thanks for the input, Mathsci. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's called WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing unexpected though. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now looked at Talk:Eastern Europe. Gregorik's editing there seems a little like POV-pushing. I don't see any problems with the edits of Arcillaroja. I also looked at Talk:Central Europe. There the extremly disruptive editors were Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked three times under AE, and socks of Stubes99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is also a recent content dispute between Gregorik and Arcillaroja about definitions and sources. Gregorik's last comment yesterday verges on a personal attack:[127] "When it all adds up, are you a valuable contributor to the Central Europe and Eastern Europe articles, or a troll with an axe to grind?" The rest of this edit by Gregorik seems confrontational and unhelpful. For the article Europe, the 1997 book of Lewis and Wigen, "The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography", was an invaluable source for questions of this type; it addresses this particular point on pages 60-62.[128] Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a book I'll probably read, as the blurb says it "bravely exposes the ethnocentrism at the heart of geography". But your own sweeping judgments are unhelpful. Don't expect that 3 pages in a book (not even written by Central Europeans!) will cover the deep issue of Central/Eastern European identity. Anyway, I've already closed the case with Arcillaroja above. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be more careful what you write, particularly here. The diff above is a personal attack by you; and so far no evidence has been found of any "thinly disguised racism". The book I mentioned is published by University of California Press and is a WP:RS. If you are objecting to it because it is not written by authors from Eastern Europe or Central Europe, that could create problems for you under WP:DIGWUREN. Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it cannot create problems for me. The cultlike system of WP rules creeps me out (so I remain a WikiSloth), but I'm in no real danger of gross violation. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On a previous occasion in July 2008 another user objected to a book on Chechen culture written by Johanna Nichols from the University of California, Berkeley for the same reasons you gave. That was Log in, log out (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Read my line again please. I was questioning your odd suggestion that 3 pages from any book would solve this century-old issue, not questioning the Holy RS. Please take it to my talkpage if there's anything else. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The book I referred to is written by experts; I selected three pages as an example. On the other hand, you have not been using any kind of comparable source: indeed your method of editing, using dictionaries etc, looks like classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, where you have a pre-formed point of view which you are going to "prove" by cherrypicking isolated statements from sources. You write here that this is "a century-old problem". Wikipedia, however, is about transferring and paraphrasing information from WP:RS into content in articles. Please do not use it as a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:FORUM for airing your own personal views on national identity in Hungary or anywhere else. Continuing to do so, for example by tendentiously pushing a point of view on article talk pages, could result in a report at WP:AE and a topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Don't expect us casual WP:WikiSloths to observe other WP rules than WP:DGAF and WP:Ignore all dramas on the long run. We're still invaluable here, because we think outside the box. I for one have been here for almost 7 years without a single ban. If we're banned, we shrug. 2. Develop a sense of humour. Especially as an admin. Creepy admins == Bad for WP. 3. Close this thread please. Thank you, Mathsci. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gregorik keeps POV-pushing [[129]] and acting childishly. It is disappointing. it seems that he only gives validity to the opinions that are favorably to his views. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved: Seems OK now. Please keep an eye on it, if you get a spare moment. Thanks to the admins who pitched in. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged. If an admin or two could clean up the backlog, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Backlog remains and getting worse. AIV reports going back some 5 hours. Kinda pointless to have an AIV page with no one to check it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We're working on it (I've already declined three). We don't get paid for this, you know, and the only beers I get are virtual. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a block on User:Curb Chain for intentional disruption.

User:Curb Chain has removed redirects from List of important publications in biology claiming there has been no consensus to rename the article Bibliography of biology which just went through a proper RM [130] which was closed in favor of the move. This unilateral action on Curb Chain’s part is intentionally designed to cause disruption and contention with other editors interested in moving on with this project. He has no interest in improving or contributing to these articles. This is not the first time Curb Chain has unilaterally and without discussion moved articles to cause disruption. [131]. In addition, and a primary reason that I am definitely not uninvolved in this is his unilateral and un-discussed move of a draft project page from my user space into the mainspace without consulting me. [132] Although the project survived the move, it was disruptive to a group of editors attempting to build consensus in a measured way.

I believe this most recent unilateral move on Curb Chain’s part is intentionally designed to cause disruption to editors and the project because he has lost AfDs and other discussions related to these types of articles. I believe he should be blocked for at least 7 days based on this latest action and the action reverted by an Admin to prevent the inevitable edit warring and endless, unproductive discussion that will ensue if this latest unilateral action is ignored. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion as you discussed was a move back of the bibliography to [[]].

I replaced the version of List of important publications in biology before it was redirect without discussion. These are two separate matters. Redirecting the article without discussion when it was moved from the article incubator is effectively deleting the article.

The above claims of moving pages to cause disruption is unfounded.

Moving your userpage when you invited me to join the project was because I felt that it was ready to go public and it's a minor point; if you felt that it was not ready to go public you could have engaged in dialogue instead of retaliating with this report.Curb Chain (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the redirect was actually a copy-and-paste move. I have undone it. That's all I'll do at this point, as I am also completely involved here. LadyofShalott 13:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Talk:List of important publications in biology should be reverted as well.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, any report that from the start says "person X needs to be blocked" is typically not going to lead to one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that User:Curb Chain deserves a block, but he certainly needs to recognize that he is curbing attempts to build consensus in a measured way, as Mike Cline put it. There is no difference between a list of publications and a bibliography, except title. Only one should exist and that has been determined for now. There is no need for consistency while consensus develops. Curb should slow down, and I suggest leave discussion on these lists for a while to people who understand the science literature. His actions are certainly bordering on disruption, but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he recognizes the consensus that has developed. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I too have tried to give Curb the benefit of the doubt - but having just lost one RfC for Bibliography of biology, he has now begun [[133]] that is both confusing and seems to be trying to undercut the decision. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He's now opened an RfC at that page that does not sound to me at all neutrally worded and seems to be conflating multiple things. LadyofShalott 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, it wasn't quite an edit conflict, but I realized that RM had said almost the same thing I did right after I clicked save. LadyofShalott 03:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I missed it, no one notified CC of this discussion until now - I just did. LadyofShalott 03:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• CC has initiated related discussion at my talk page. LadyofShalott 03:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made a separate request for termination of this new RfC. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think that Curb Chain intends to cause disruption. For a while he was actually contributing to some of the science bibliographies, although many of his contributions were misguided. For example, in this edit he removed Origin of Species from Bibliography of biology on the grounds that it was "unreferenced material"! The List of publications in sociology also met a strange fate in his hands, ending up as a stub in incubator space (see also RHaworth's "fleshing out" comment). As for his administrative efforts like the spate of AfD's he initiated and the recent mess over article names, they seem to be the actions of someone who gets an idea in his head about what is right and cannot understand the nuances of the issue. More than one editor has tried to steer him in a more constructive direction (here is my effort), but our suggestions fall on deaf ears. All of this, plus his increasingly incoherent statements in response to all the objections, adds up to a pattern of incompetence, not malice. I don't support a block on him, but I do wish that there was some way of getting through to him. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reporting Halaqah

Hi there.

Halaqah who is disrupting African related articles especially Serer related articles have been warned before. In one of their latest edits, they placed the wrong tag on the Isoko people article:[134] eventhough there are inline citations in the article and the article is marked as a stub.

Whilst patrolling, I removed the template and told them they used the wrong tag, placed it in the wrong section and the article itself is a stub [135]. They undid my edits and started to be uncivil again [136].

I undid their edit for the last time and gave them a warning on the edit summary [137].

I also followed it by giving them a warning on their talk page [138].

They undid my edit again [139] and removed the warning I had posted on their talk page and called me an idiot [140].

They have now started again attacking all Serer related articles that I have edited as well as articles I have been discussing as you can see for yourself on their contributions [141].

Tamsier (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot block him I am not an Administrator.

Tamsier (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why you are not an admin. User Tamsier has a Loooooooong history of problems here on wikipedia.[142] +[143] so i find it strange they are "Warning" me. LOL. One of them is using wikipedia for ethnic propaganda (they were warned by several editors and blocked). They clash with so many editors and have so much civil problems. Take for example the Stupid woman comment here [144] Strange that they would cite me for editing wikipedia on Serer topics. Is that what you call attacking- I call it editing. Are any of the edits vandalism? - no. Are any of the edits against policy?-no. Abusing Admin notice board to discuss edits you do not like is pointless. Such debates should happen in the correct places. I got angry at the posting on my page as have other editors [145]. They also have a history of using these spaces to complain see [146]. Please see some more of their rants against other editors. [147] and [148]. The list is longer. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing is stupid. An unreferenced tag is not appropriate, but a refimprove tag is, and I have added it. No admin action is needed here. LadyofShalott 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for your decision, but is Halaqah going to be punished for what he is doing to all Serer related articles as well? For example placing inappropriate tags on Serer religion, etc. which has the least amount of excessing infor compared to other religious articles. He is also inviting other editors on the Almoravid dynasty talk page where I was discussing to Serer medieval history to present [149]Their contribution history I have pasted above. I think this problem is much bigger.

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we do not punish people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct the problem is much bigger Tamsier. Cool down and look at your legacy. I am starting to worry about your health. Even when I show you the problem you spend all day on a talk page complaining about Islamic conspiracies.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMARANG, Tamsier's behavior here includes:

• Socking to weigh in AFDs about articles he created: investigation, sock username says it all, Refusing to admit that they've been caught red handed

• Slandering other editors, Battleground attitudes: "As a contributor to this article, you are partly responsible for the poor quality in it...rectify your poor input...this entire garbage you call an article" (excerpt from a long diatribe attacking another editor who, at the time, never contributed to the article in question, aside from one minor edit in August) attacking two other editors simply for giving their opinion on article talk page, You did that out of spite...I tried to educate you (again attacking the same editor)
• starting a pointless RFC to prove a point, the summary he gave implicitly accuses others of racism "Because for some they could not phantom how a Black African Animist tribe could defeat and killed Abu Bakr." (an example of bad faith as what he states in the RFC is completely false)
• Finally have a read at this article that he's recently created which gives an idea of the ethnic boasting motives of this editor. Also, take look at his block log --Tachfin (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment was inapropirate and I have removed it. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Tamsier has even nominated the Islam article for speedy deletion [150] and edit warred over it! [151] He also nominated a user page for speedy [152]; attacked the admin in an unblock request calling them "people like you always cowar to the muslims" add that to socking and various PA. I've seen editors indefed for far less, we've been so far very indulgent with him and refrained from responding to his personal attacks and focused on discussing content...Frankly he should consider himself lucky. Tachfin (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Compliments to the Lady and the others who have attempted to make sense of the mess made by the plaintiff. Both editors, BTW, have a block log to be proud of, and them staying away from each other would be a good thing. It seems to me that especially Tamsier needs to be on a short leash given this, besides a host of edits that prove little more than that the editor has a POV and a slight competence issue in editing Wikipedia.Drmies (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You know Drmies, Every single thing I was blocked for i was vindicated for all those issues ultimately wikipedia got changed esp useless categories in living bios. This is not the case with this editor. Not to mention I was here since 2006. This editor I think would be best removed from wikipedia and if it continues I will have no shortage of supporters to do so. It must end. It is not just me vs. Him. It is him vs. Wikipedia editors. What really is silly is I warned him about drawing attention to himself (per that Boomerang thingie. If you want to push a racist pov on wikipedia best to do so quietly. Now people are crawling all over his edits and well i am vindicated again, cuz all the evidence is in his editing. Talk about an agenda. Even when you try to help him he/she isnt happy and turns on you the next day.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Be very careful how you present your case. Although the article may have developed in time through the efforts of other editors to match your expectation, it does not excuse your combative attitude. By suggesting you have supporters may violate WP:MEAT and if you drum up support, that violates WP:CANVASS. Just a word of warning. --Blackmane (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ismail Ljekperic

Ffkks, though final warned, keeps deleting AfD tag. Probable recreation of autobio (compare with Ljekperic).— Racconish^Tk 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

24 hour block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Racconish, I guess you knew this was going to happen. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

IP abuse

The IPs 89.204.152.52, 82.113.103.164, and 82.113.122.167 have been blanking user (talk) pages, mainly targeting Ihardlythinkso, Nepenthes, and Cloveapple, at the rate of several a minute in the past hour; can something be done about this? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked a couple of em. Someone smarter than me should figure out what's going on here and what should be done. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It may be related to a chess article dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.204.136.55 shows that that IP was editing a chess article and if I remember correctly chess is User:Ihardlythinkso's main editing area. I was only targeted after reverting vandalism to Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Cloveapple (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A rangeblock would be easy, in my opinion, since we need only a /24 for the first IP, and a /23 for the second two.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not still going on, is it? Drmies (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The vandalism stopped about 18:10 UTC from both ranges. I don't see any rangeblocks. Maybe the anons lost interest. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Let's wait a bit.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes - The Safety Council of Northwest Ohio

Can another administrator please have a look at The Safety Council of Northwest Ohio and the cycle of reverts occurring there? I believe i am to involved right now to continue handling this one myself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is sounding like either puppetry or a flood of SPA's now - if you look at the page history, you'll see four new accounts, all repeatedly inserting the same information, and then exiting stage left. Here's a list:

• Rausperk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Jane.burichin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Coxel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Alschaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

Could somebody check into this please? Note: I will notify all the users shortly. Notified. WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Opened a WP:SPI case on it - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rausperk. I equally managed to wander into WP:3RR territory, as Sarek quite rightly pointed out. Won't happen again :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed - they are all socks. All now blocked, and any underlying IPs which were also being used for editing Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yourname, again

Yourname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as 168.144.159.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As of now, the IP has placed a personal attack on the talk page of Sjones2 (talk · contribs). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page privs need to be removed from this IP. Doc talk 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note - The IP is continually inserting a bogus threat and being reverted by multiple editors. Please semi the page now. Doc talk 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I second this.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Inserted a second edit in between in order to make it harder for reverts to occur.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Now we have 209.141.61.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of that, seems I reverted just as the user was reblocked with talk page access disabled. :D LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected User talk:Sjones2 and deleted all of the IPs' talk pages. He does not want to kill himself; he is just doing that to get attention. For other admins in the future, immediately revoke talk page access upon blocking. –MuZemike 23:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And another IP has appeared: 74.117.208.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Oh, dear! Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I put them on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname--1966batfan (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What a horror show. Please do the same for this IP: revoke talk page and delete the talkpage - it's the same thing. Doc talk 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• And now 68.233.235.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems this guy's going everywhere just disrupt our beloved Wikipedia. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he's just being childish. Kids these days just have to prove their ignorance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like we'll be throwing out a couple of range blocks: 66.85.173.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Also looks like there may be some open proxies involved. One of the blocks is registered to NOC4Hosts, which IIRC got tagged as a botnet farm a couple of years ago. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban of Yourname

I'm surprised that this guy has not been banned yet. Let's just formalize it here. The abuse is just unacceptable and will give us more justification for rolling back (right now the only one is the elastic clause that says it can be used to prevent widespread disruption, as is here).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This should be forwarded to WP:LTA--1966batfan (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be a great compliment to that.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a disruptive editor with no intention of benefiting Wikipedia. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support full site ban to reduce the disruption by that user. I've been involved in this mess ever since I tried to stop him and has been persistently uncooperative. He has been vandalizing my pages as revenge for the SPI, and has caused more than enough trouble. I think an WP:LTA report should be filled out per the concerns by 1966batfan. Also, if those attacks are not called harassment, what else would it be called? With that said, it's really game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If that isn't enough, we may give him a global ban, which has been applied to only one other user before (this one).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Somebody needs to get over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname and approve CU for 6 sock reports I filed. This user should be kicked off the numero uno online encyclopedia.--1966batfan (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like an implicit support !vote.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Where are ban reports filed?--1966batfan (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Here or WP:AN.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above comments and the fact that this is a troll. Doc talk 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  But... are we 100% positive that these IPs are Yourname? Doc talk 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  If they aren't they must be very good impersonators.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very obviously needs to be banned. Calabe1992 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oh and I forgot this customary !vote. Support ban as proposer.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support given the history here, yes. Necessary; especially with the proxy-hopping. There is a very strong indication it is all the same people, if you look at DoDo Bird Brain (talk · contribs) who is blocked as a sock of Yourname - and the IP edits are clearly the same person as that. I hope people will note what MuZemike wrote, above: other admins in the future, immediately revoke talk page access upon blocking.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Lots of heat, no light, and socks. Bad. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately the socks are all factory seconds (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing productive will ever come out of this editor. HurricaneFan25 13:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

Any new dirt on Yourname?--1966batfan (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The CU requests are still pending. Calabe1992 03:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the SPI, there is nothing else CU can do. –MuZemike 03:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that there's a real possibility of global blockage and rangeblocks of those IPs because they're part of a known botnet.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh sheesh... 216.24.206.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Next 66.85.173.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Doc talk 04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Please read CIDR notation if you don't understand. –MuZemike 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(I know CIDR notation by heart). The ranges don't have to include more than one of these IPs.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• 209.141.60.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ... and another on batfan's page. --McDoobAU93 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

When we use the term range blocks we mean blocks that cover more than 1 IP (I mean yes you probably can go for a /32 block but it would be pretty pointless). The term for single ip blocks tends to be just an ip block.©Geni 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that at least some of these IPs are in known botnet ranges. Blocking those ranges might be helpful.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If they weren't so spread out, that wouldn't be much of a problem, but that is not the case. On a more positive note, I do have one /23 range locked down (though I don't know if that will do any good). –MuZemike 04:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who says we need to do it in one range? I admit though that the ranges of each are large (the last one mentioned would required a /19 for full coverage). All we can do is wait and see.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, no talk page access should be allowed in the /23 you blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not possible in the current MediaWiki software. However, we won't post any on that range, and I assure that. –MuZemike 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• In any case though, I think we have enough consensus to declare this guy officially banned from editing Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't declare consensus for a community ban yet, but I doubt it will change. Effective rangeblocks look unfeasible. So: revert the vandalism and trolling ASAP. Block, with talk page access removed. Rinse, lather, repeat. Hopefully they will get tired. Doc talk 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• One more: 66.23.233.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). HurricaneFan25 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been other ip problems as well. As well as this guy infesting wikipedia, we could have a Meat problem as well. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• And 91.118.93.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). HurricaneFan25 18:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Editwarring On Stanton.jpg

EEkster insists to delete File:Stanton.jpg, and continues to editwar on the picture, even though it is a U.S. Government picture. Please end this editwar before things get out of hand. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll presume you're referring to Eeekster, who is known for examining uploaded images and verifying their status and permissions for usability on Wikipedia. If so, I'd suggest you listen to any advice they offer, rather than repeatedly removing the correctly-placed notices regarding image licensing. Doing so just might let you avoid hoisting yourself on your own petard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A CU on the filing editor would probably be the simplest path to resolving this problem. Looie496 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To what end? There have only been two editors working with that file: BusyBlacksmith and Eeekster. Looking at Contribution histories, I don't see any indication of non-constructive editing. The WP:CHECKUSER tools can't be used for fishing. As to the issue at hand, it looks to me like a content dispute, one that's generating a bit more heat than needed. My 2p is that this should have been handled on the file Talk page, or on that of one of the users involved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I already tossed it to PUF for discussion and with that I'm done with the file. Eeekster (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the image seems to have come from [153] where the attribution is to the subject. CIreland (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't "insist" on deleting anything. But I do insist on leaving the delete tag until the problems are resolved. That's standard procedure. Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged for speedy under WP:CSD#F4, as of now the image has no license at all. Kelly ^hi! 01:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a U.S. government photo, and as such, it fails the wikipedia "fair use" rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Initially the image had a PD-text license tag. As this is clearly invalid for a photograph I removed it and put up an F4. Eeekster (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, WP:CSD#F11 is probably more appropriate, since the uploader does assert a US Government license. I'll change it. Kelly ^hi! 01:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would a city official have a photo taken by a U.S. government photographer? Not that it couldn't happen, but it seems odd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. It does seem to be the most appropriate speedy tag, though. Kelly ^hi! 04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "no evidence of permission" seems to apply. The OP asserts it's a US government photo, but he presents no evidence to that effect. In fact, it appears to be a state photo, and as we recall from the Loughner situation, Arizona's state photos are not public domain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

History merge of Rometty articles is needed

I'm not sure if I am in the right place;according to WP:RFAA, since this is about a "redirect or page move issue" I should take it to WP:ANB. When I went there, the page notice says "If your post is about a specific problem you have..." and points me here. I don't know if my predicament is an "incident", but I'll assume this is the right place.

My issue is this: Eustress (t · c · b · p · d · m · r), after creating Ginni Rometty a few weeks ago, realized that I and others had been editing Virginia M. Rometty since 2008. Since he felt the article should be called Ginni Rometty, he (apologies in advance if I am guessing wrong about the gender) should have set aside the Ginni Rometty he had just created, moved Virginia M. Rometty to Ginni Rometty, then apply any changes he wanted after that. Instead, he turned three years of edit history into a single edit, and turned Virginia M. Rometty, the original article, into a redirect. Setting aside the open question (discussed here) as to whether the WP:COMMONNAME in this case should be Ginni Rometty, I feel it is incumbent upon Eustress to either do the history merge, or if as he says WP:INVOLVED is a issue, should help another admin do the merge. I used {{db-histmerge}} to request that the situation be rectified, but Anthony Appleyard declined, due to the intervening changes. I asked at Talk:Ginni Rometty if he would be willing to help with the merge, waited a week then asked him again to reply; I learned he thinks I've been disruptive (see User talk:Eustress and/or User talk:Eustress/Archive 2) and has chosen not to indicate whether he would help with the history merge.

I contend that given the minor number and limited scope of the intervening changes that editors other than Eustress have made to Ginni Rometty even at this point (see [154] & [155] and [156]), and given that Eustress, an admin confronted with this version of Ginni Rometty and this version of Virginia M. Rometty, should not have turned three years of edit history into a single edit, the right thing is for Eustress to do or help with the history merge. Thanks. 67.101.5.149 (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, ANI volunteers. Here are the facts:

• I created Ginni Rometty and, with the help of others, significantly expanded it.
• When we learned Virginia M. Rometty existed, I merged it into Ginni Rometty per WP:COMMONNAME. (It was my editorial mistake for not having spotted the Virginia article at the outset -- for that I have already apologized (diff).)
• Anon requested the histories of the two articles be merged, and an uninvolved admin (User:Anthony Appleyard) declined the request (diff) per WP:Parallel histories.
• Anon has been pushing me to overturn Anthony's decision (WP:Wheel war), when I am also an involved editor in the article (WP:INVOLVED)
• I instructed anon twice (diff 1, diff 2) to reach out to uninvolved admin Anthony for clarification regarding the decision, which he has failed to do

Hence, since anon has failed to seek understanding from the uninvolved admin and continues to insist that I take administrative action when I am involved, I feel anon is being disruptive and that this issue has been inappropriately escalated to ANI. Even so, it's here, and I trust the community's judgment on the matter. Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 13:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page Ginni Rometty started at "21:52, 25 October 2011‎ Eustress (talk | contribs | block)‎ (1,005 bytes) (Create as stub)"; after that Virginia M. Rometty was edited 4 more times. User:Eustress seems to have cut-and-pasted the text of page Virginia M. Rometty into page Ginni Rometty gradually over 7 edits of page Ginni Rometty around 05:00, 26 October 2011, not a total tidy single cut-and-paste that could have been histmerged easily. Regrettably, this is one of those untidy cases where all we can do it to put a history note in its talk page explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Who R you?

Pretty gross civility violation here by Who R you? (talk · contribs), who remains unrepentant after receiving friendly advice. Not the first time – his talk page is littered with incivilities, and he is polluting the atmosphere with his flaming at WT:UE. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no call for that, or for this either for that matter. I've issued a warning but given just what little I've seen of his behavior would have no problem with a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• He posted yet another blatant personal attack just a few moments ago. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• This hot off the presses. I suppose you could count me as part of the "scum [that is] always around to abuse the process and whine and complain how they aren't treated nicely by the people they're fucking over". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• It's part of a broader problem; there's plenty more like this Apparently I'm pulling a "slimy scumbag trick" by alluding to a source; Who R U is quite sure that sources don't exist and I'm making it up, although they carefully avoid calling me a liar. I've since explicitly linked to a source; but I'm sure we'll get another bad-faith TL;DR rant on that thread and in many others. Also, creating that wikiproject was just an attempted end-run around all those people who disagree with Who at the proper page; Who has a mission to remove diacritics, and mere consensus cannot be allowed to stand in the way of that mission. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• For another example, anybody who takes the time to read through the epic comments here will find an abundance of bad faith and sniping at other editors - for instance "P.S. Did they not even try to make the word lé to make it appear more foreign? Incroyable, ces enfants stupides!". bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the non-scum and also a non-admin, I think temporary ban from all discussions involving English language might circumvent this, as the English language discussions seems to be the trigger of these outbursts. Then again, saying that probably makes me scum. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I love this rant. In the very same paragraph where he complains of people "abusing process", he insists that the solution to the likely deletion of his project is to find an admin willing to restore to user space... in abuse of process. Less concerning than his incivility (which to me are merely the ramblings of a zealot) is various comments about how it is better to let him keep his project rather than force them to rely on email, etc. Such comments have a very WP:EEML feel to them, and are of a far greater concern to this project than Who R's inability to handle dissenting viewpoints. Resolute 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is plain ridiculous. Talks about people abusing the system and wasting peoples time all the while he is attempting to do both. But you are right that does sound like a similar case to the WP:EEML. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there may have been some kind of offsite coordination in the diacriticals controversy in the past, although the attempt at creating a pov-pushing project is at least open to all viewers (but participation is limited to those who agree with Who R U). However, offsite coordination is very hard to prove (it's all very well suspecting it, but I've only actually uncovered it once, on Astrology). I'm curious as to how a couple of people on that side of the debate found and joined the wikiproject so soon - at first glance I didn't see any talkpage notification (which would have been canvassing anyway). Perhaps it's mere coincidence, and there are people who check the directory of wikiprojects every day for interesting new projects to join... bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who R you? (talk · contribs) has also used more "conventional" canvassing; see this and this for example. Just by reading the RMs one gets the impression that the community's position on many moves is evenly split, or swinging towards removal of diacriticals; but in reality, one side is very good at "getting out the vote". bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, it looks like there's not much good faith on either side [157] [158]. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, tempers are fraying on both sides, and I fear it may become a vicious circle. I would argue that the diff you present is not an ideal response to this rant, but it's certainly understandable: "Apparently living in Czechoslovakia has left you out of touch with the real world... Regardless of your inability to comprehend... scum are always around to abuse the process and whine and complain how they aren't treated nicely by the people they're fucking over..." - and there are many other diffs with a similar tone. Even if Who R you's canvassing and manipulation and mendacious misinterpretation of policy were to stop instantly, it is almost impossible for other editors to have a reasoned and civil discussion amid so many angry comments. Even hitherto calm editors can get sucked into the maelstrom. bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The civility at Talk:pregnancy is descending further as in these edits by User:Dreadstar [159] [160] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked. Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the page history, and especially considering that Dreadstar is an administrator, I am in agreement that Dreadstar's behavior was inappropriate. I support Risker's block. --Elonka 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur also. Calling people names is never appropriate, neither is using heated language designed to denigrate or enflame other users involved in a discussion. Administrators especially should know better. Repeatedly calling someone a "liar" does nothing to move a dispute towards resolution; it is unseemly for any user and doubly so for an administrator who is often expected themselves to make decisions regarding the behavior of others. --Jayron32 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Regrettable situation. Why was he blocked for a week? He's never been blocked before and I would have thought that it would have been for a lesser time period.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • If he requests an unblock and indicates that he has no intention of calling people liars anymore, the block could be lifted, and I would also support that. Alas, his first edit post-block was this, which is to repeat the same offense which got them blocked; do you suspect, based on that, that Dreadstar would stop calling people liars if it was a shorter block? --Jayron32 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I've been following the situation, and am in agreement with Jayron32. I too had questions about why a 1-week block was necessary, but upon a more detailed review, I support it. It's worth noting that at Talk:Pregnancy, Dreadstar attempted to close a discussion in which they were involved, used the "liar" language multiple times, then reacted to the block with a {{retired}} template, and (possibly) coming back in as an anon to post the same on their userpage (I see that the anon is now blocked as well). There appears to be more going on here than a simple case of one-time namecalling, so the 1-week block seems to be a reasonable course of action at this point. --Elonka 06:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole lot more going on here than you can see in a few hours of reading. An editor, also an admin, manipulated process multiple times to achieve his desired outcome, and further at times was not honest about the things he had said or aspects of the RfC. While an image in an article is not a big issue in my mind , honesty and manipulation are. Do not drag through the mud of implication an admin-Dreadstar who had no blocks, and who most of the time was exemplary in how he dealt with other editors, in his helpfulness and kindness, and lets not start creating a narrative around an editor based on assumptions gleaned from a long, convoluted RfC which followed on the heels of reams of discussion on an almost identical RfC. Further, actually the accusation had nothing to do with James beliefs, it had to do with an editor saying he hadn't done something when he clearly had. I didn't intend to get into this, but really, some of this goes too far.(olive (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

That may or may not mean anything, how can any of us tell if you don't present evidence and provide diffs as to your reading of the situation? That can be done without calling anyone a liar, n'est ce pas? The core issue is whether one does the effective thing in ending disputes of this nature (presenting evidence to neutral parties for review) or one does the harmful thing (resorts to namecalling and personal attacks). This situation actually highlights the problem with trying to resolve disputes by calling people liars: Let's say, purely hypothetically, (and I don't say that this is reality, merely a supposition for the sake of making a point) that Dreadstar's position in this dispute is the right one; that is Wikipedia would have been better off had Dreadstar's position been the one that prevailed. By calling the other party in the dispute a liar, what Dreadstar has done it ruined the opportunity for Wikipedia to benefit because it now makes it harder for the right thing to be done. Had he handled this the proper way, the correct side of the dispute would have prevailed. This is why civility matters; Not just for its own sake, but because when people defending the proper outcome act incivilly, it harms Wikipedia in that such incivility prevents Wikipedia from enacting the proper outcomes. In simpler terms; If you are right and incivil, the right thing never gets done because the incivility gets in the way. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules, it has to do with human nature: people don't like to agree with rude people, even if they are correct. --Jayron32 19:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, block is wrong. Someone who lies is a liar; if Dreadstar can show it, then he can say it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No, calling someone a liar does not act to move a discussion towards resolution. Even if it can be demonstrated that someone said something which it turns out was inaccurate, the act of namecalling is not, of itself, a productive means to move forward. He doesn't get to call people names no matter what he can "prove". Comment on the contributions, not the editor... --Jayron32 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • Hmmm. Assuming that he can, I'd give him the chance to prove it. Our policy on incivility clearly labels lying as uncivil. We call people sock puppets which is effectively calling them liars. It is only name-calling if it is untrue and gratuitous. If he can not prove it then that is another matter. Let's hear his evidence.
        ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • No, it would still be namecalling, and still be a bad way to resolve a dispute. Look, I have children, ergo I have fucked in my life (at least twice). That doesn't mean you get to call me a fucker. Same situation here. Even if it turns out that an inaccurate statement was made, and even if it was made intentionally, you don't get to call people names. There are ways to proceed which reduce tensions and gain consensus, and calling someone else a liar is not it. --Jayron32 06:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I would respectfully disagree, Seb. I would think that if Dreadstar were correct, the proper method is to come here, bring diffs demonstrating the issue, and ask for extra eyes to help the problem. Baldly calling someone a liar is neither appropriate nor helpful. I believe that there are enough ways to demonstrate issues with a given editors edits without being inflammatory. If Dreadstar has evidence of prevarication when it comes to wiki editing, bringing the appropriate diffs will almost certainly bring the "wrath of ANI" down on the editor in question. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • He was advised to point out that the user was "repeatedly incorrect". Is that now coded language for "liar," and will a future instance of saying that someone was "repeatedly incorrect" lead to a block? I just want to know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't act obtuse. If you find a statement is incorrect, provide diffs or evidence which show the statement is incorrect. Don't call people names, and ideally don't comment on people, comment on actions. Why is that hard to understand? --Jayron32 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Seb, I would say that there is a difference between coming to ANI and saying "We are having an issue with editor X. Please look at the following diffs in which editor X has violated the following wiki principles…" and saying (anywhere) "I say editor X is a liar". Even if someone first said A and then B, it is possible that they changed their mind. Focusing on the content (the violations) and not the editor (the violator) is pretty much always preferable, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • • • "you have been repeatedly incorrect" is commenting on the person (as is "(you) don't be obtuse", by the way). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Seb, I've never called you "obtuse". Please check the attribution of the edits (they are coming in fast and furious, I know ). Yes, "you have been repeatedly incorrect" comments on the editor as well, but it is still less inflammatory than saying "you are a liar", and asking for an impartial third opinion, and bringing supporting documentation, is better, at least in my opinion, than unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • • • There's a significant difference between saying that someone is making incorrect statements, while giving evidence to prove it, and calling someone a liar without any evidence. I support this block. WP:CIVIL is a key behavior policy.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: The block is for making personal attacks, not for violating the civility policy. Risker (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The section heading is "Civility", so I made an assumption. I tend to think of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as being so closely aligned that they mostly cover the same ground. Either way, calling someone a liar repeatedly is outside of community norms.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So one can personally attack another civilly? Interesting... --Jayron32 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I am pointing out that the block was under WP:NPA, a more stringent and clearcut policy than WP:CIVIL. Risker (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You see my point now, Jayron? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen and understand your point all along. I disagree with it. Merely because I see your point doesn't mean I think it is correct. --Jayron32 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know that. This is where I have problems with this civility-blocking anyways. I don't see "liar" as an attack, esp. not when it's potentially true. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dreadstar should not have used the words "liar" and some form of block/warning was in order. Risker's block, however, seems precipitous; she has subsequently expressed her bemusement at Dreadstar's sudden retirement. Underlying this episode and the report here by Doc James (without informing Dreadstar), there were (and still are) unresolved issues concerning the legitimacy and timing of the present RfC on Talk:pregnancy in the wake of the very recently closed previous RfC. I would not be surprised if this results in an ArbCom case (for conduct and procedural reasons, not because of actual issues involving images). Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you see "bemusement", Mathsci. I am saddened that Dreadstar has opted to retire. To me the key issue was Dreadstar calling Jmh649 a liar because he believes that Jmh649 has a different opinion than Jmh649 professes. It is a straw man argument, to start with, as it has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issue at dispute; what Jmh649 believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the position that each editor takes, and the policy-based reasons for their position. One can misinterpret policy, but one cannot "lie" about it. Risker (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You wrote on your talk page, "Nonetheless, I know that Dreadstar has done a lot of positive work in the project, and I am saddened that he feels he needs to leave." I took that juxtaposition of phrases to represent bemusement; I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I have not condoned the use of the word "liar", but thanks for this further clarification. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me from the original comment that Risker is saying they feel their blocking Dreadstar was justified but are saddened that Dreadstar decided to leave as they had done a lot of positive work for the project. I don't see how that's bemusement. Im fact, I think it's fairly common admins feel their blocking was justified but are saddened if the person blocked decided to leave whether as a direct result, or as a contributing reason, except perhaps when the person blocked is the sort of person a lot of people were hoping would just leave rather then continue down a path likely to lead to an indefinite block or even a community ban.Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• He had never been blocked, wasn't given a warning and wasn't advised of this thread. This doesn't seem right.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh that happens here sometimes... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• According to the policy on personal attacks, particularly What is a personal attack, an accusation isn't necessarily an attack. An attack may be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users."
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bearean, given that Dreadstar accused Jmh649 of lying about his own (Jmh649's) personal beliefs, and he did it not once but twice, I don't think there's much here to be "proved". Risker (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• A one week block for civility, hmmmm... that may be unprecedented, but its now a precedent, so everybody play nice of you'll have a week off to think about your naughtiness....LOL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Even though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking an established contributor for a whole week just because he called someone a liar. Yes, it was quite rude, and Dreadstar should have known better. But still, it's a very lengthy period for something that strikes me as relatively mild. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that per above, the block was for violating NPA not civility. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but making personal attacks is a form of incivility. I don't think it really matters which policy is cited. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well not everything incivil is a personal attack. Arguably all personal attacks are incivil, but there is a reason why we have a seperate policy against personal attack. Related examples, making a legal threat is arguably always incivil as well as is outing, harassment and death threats. There's IMO a good reason we would nearly always say on ANI someone was guilty of one of those rather then simply being rude or guilty of incivility (and death threats isn't even a seperate policy), it helps to be specific on what the problem was. (I mean if you want to push it, edit warring, vandalism, basically anything blockable could be considered incivil, it would be rather confusing if all we ever talked about were people being rude or incivil.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request early termination of RfC

Having just proposed a rename of Bibliography of biology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and had the decision go against him, Curb Chain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started a new one. The wording of this new request is unclear, but he seems to be trying to dial back the clock so as to undercut the recent decision. This RfC has no constructive purpose and I request an early termination. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See also some of the background in this earlier ANI discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The WP:RM issue is different from this one. As the RfC explains, List of important publications in biology was moved unilaterally to Bibliography of biology. I want to gather consensus in a procedural manner that List of important publications in biology should be redirected to Bibliography of biology as this is effectively deleting an article.

Note none of the other articles in this serisseries (List of important publications in science) are named in this way. For the sake of consistency, I believe all the articles should have a consistent name.Curb Chain (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. The wording of his RFC is unclear having confused myself and others(RockMagnetist and Jowa fan) as to exactly what he was proposing. According to User:Bduke at the RFC several editors have been attempting to slow down Curb's attempts to rename "List of" articles into "Bibliography of" articles without any support from any other editors for an RFC at this point.AerobicFox (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For further context, this also came up at List of publications in physics a few days ago. Relevant threads that I was involved with are at WT:PHYS#Bibliography of physics, Talk:List of important publications in physics#Move, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies#Outside comment on page moves. Quite a number of "List of publications in.." pages were renamed to "Bibliography of.." without prior discussion. This appears to have been done in good faith, but it also appears to have been done more-or-less unilaterally (WikiProject Bibliographies is only a few weeks old, and had about three active participants at the time I was interacting with them). I'd suggested at the time that they start an RFC on changing the naming convention for such articles. I have not followed up to see whether or not they did that. Per my post on the WT:WikiProject Bibliographies page, I feel that "List of..." is more consistent with the guidelines given at WP:LIST, but if a project-wide RFC declares otherwise, it isn't worth arguing about. My concern is that no such RFC had been attempted at the time the mass-renaming took place. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The issues are getting a bit confused here. Curb Chain did rename a block of lists to bibliographies, without our knowledge or support, but the current RfC is an effort to undercut a consensus to keep Bibliography of biology as it is. The steps recommended by Christopher Thomas would be appropriate if we actually intended a block rename of articles, but no one besides Curb Chain ever contemplated that. Our main goal is to improve the lists. We think that "Bibliography of ..." is a better name for them, but we intended to make the change, with consensus, one article at a time. Finally, the decision for the previous RfC on the name of Bibliography of biology was labelled "no consensus", but really there was a consensus - among everyone but Curb Chain - to keep the name. However, that is all background and is already being discussed in a separate ANI. The purpose of this ANI is to terminate an inappropriate RfC. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment and chronology As regards WikiProject Bibliographies, User:Curb Chain was invited to be a participant by me on Oct 31 here. Since that invitation, he has not participated in the project, other than defending his actions re some unilateral moves on the project talk page. I personally don’t consider Curb Chain as having any productive association with the Bibliography project.

• On Sept 23, 2011, the article List of important publications in biology was nominated for deletion.
• On Sept 30, 2011, Curb Chain made the following deletion vote in that AfD: Delete I can't see how this we could ever define "important" as in the sense of "landmark". So many things fall within the continuum of important and unimportant.
• Sept 30, 2011 List of important publications in biology was deleted per discussion at the Afd
• On Oct 1, 2011, Curb Chain nominated List of Important publications in medicine for deletion based on the precedent set in the biology AfD. His arguments throughout this AfD were based on the contention that important could not be defined. Several other similar lists were nominated with the same rationale at the same time. Most of those AfDs resulted in a Keep decision.
• On Oct 4, 2011 I contributed to the AfD with a Keep position suggesting the List of be renamed Bibliography of This suggestion resulted in several other editors showing some interest in that convention.
• On Oct 7, 2011 I began drafting the project WikiProject Bibliographies to see if we could begin to bring some better advice and stability to these types of lists. That effort went on behind the scenes in collaboration with a few other editors, as the draft project page developed. User:RockMagnetist was one of those editors.
• On Oct 29, Admin User:King of Hearts moved the deleted List of important publications in biology out of the incubator into the mainspace [at the request of RockMagnetist?] for the expressed purpose of using the list as a test bed for the draft advice in the draft bibliography project.
• On Oct 31, RockMagnetist made an improper cut and paste move to Bibliography of biology. He asked me to fix the redirects and history, which I did on Oct 31.
• On Nov 2, in this discussion, Curb Chain began alluding to the need to move all such List of important … articles to Bibliography of …. At the time, no one within the Bibliography project that I can tell was ever contemplating that in the short term.
• On Nov 2, User:Curb Chain began making unilateral moves of these articles and brought down the criticism of several other editors on the Bibliography project, a project whose participants had nothing to do with Curb’s unilateral actions moves.
• On Nov 2, Curb Chain also unilaterally, and without any discussion with me or warning, moved the draft WikiProject Bibliographies out of my user space and into the Wikimedia space. I did not move it back as it was complete enough at that point to survive in the Wikipedia space.
• Over the next few days, several editors advised Curb Chain on his talk page and article talk page to slow down and stop making , unilateral and disruptive moves.
• On Nov 6, Curb initiated a WP:RM on Bibliography of biology to move it back to the List of title. That discussion was closed on Nov 13 with no consensus to move.
• On Nov 14, Curb removed redirects from the List of important publications in biology claiming those redirects amounted to deleting the article with that title and that deletion was done without consensus. (He was apparently ignoring the consensus at the RM and the AfD of the same name, or he does not understand the consequences of deletion and renaming on redirect as such)
• On Nov 15, Curb initiated the RFC under discussion here.

Desired outcome, as an editor and an Admin I’d like to see two outcomes here. 1) I trust someone will explain to Curb Chain why his actions between Sept 30 and today have been disruptive to the project. 2) That the RFC underdiscussion is closed as soon as practical. 3) I trust that whoever closes this discussion will not associate Curb’s actions with either the intentions of or actions of the WikiProject Bibliographies. There are currently over 450 articles in WP that can be classified as bibliographies. Their article titles are all over the map. The project has never promoted or even suggested wholesale renaming on any grounds, and I believe for the most part wants any renaming to be done when necessary through the measured RM process. The project's sole purpose is to improve the quality of this type of list within WP. Whether Curb’s actions are intentionally designed to bring discredit to the project and its participants can’t be determined, but I certainly would like to see his actions as outlined above disassociated with the intentions of the project. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we are dealing with deliberate disruption or competence issues, but patience is wearing thin on my end, and I've had less direct dealings with Curb Chain than several other of the involved editors have. His actions are disruptive, whether intentionally so or not. LadyofShalott 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins

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.

No admin action necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

User Bwilkins made a couple of statements which I believe to be untrue. So I asked him a couple of times to give me a link to a diff that proves what he says is right. Again and again he refuses to back up his claims, but instead he claims something even more unlikely to be true. This is becoming a pattern, and I want it to stop now.

I met BWilkins for the first time while I was explaining another admin he was making a mistake. BWilkins showed up out of the blue at his talkpage with some (bad) advice for that admin. A WP:ANI thread was opened, and BWilkins commented there too.

The full WP:ANI thread can be read here. In this thread BWilkins...:

• ...claims I declined to follow a policy (even though no one asked me to follow a policy, no such policy exists, WP:ES does not state that the editsummary should contain nothing but info about the edit and I did not even decline to follow standard practice)
• ...acts like WP:SIG and WP:ES are policies (in reality WP:ES is an information page and WP:SIG is a guideline)
• ...acts like WP:SIG requires me to put my signature after my post scriptum. (He makes up a new rule that defies all logic, claims it is a policy, and says that if I decline to follow that rule that it needs to be "escalated" which means yet another useless discussion at WP:ANI)
• ...is very condescending "As adults, we accept constructive criticism, adjust our behaviour, and move on with life...don't lash out at people who try to help you." (Nota bene: Of course I did not lash out at "people who tried to help me"; I did not lash out and the only person who tried to actually help me was Nigel and I had not yet responded to him. At that point the other 2 people were just wasting my time because they lacked knowledge about Wikipedia)
• ...used the editsummary: "are we being trolled?" (violating WP:NPA)

The WP:ANI thread was demotivating and a waste of time, but in the end the admin who started it sort of understood the situation and apologized to me.

I left BWilkins a message on his talkpage.

---

He reverts the message on his talkpage using the editsummary: "Personally, I never accused anyone of WP:SOCK...this kind of childishness is not permitted." (violating WP:NPA for the second time).

---

As a response to his editsummary I edit my message. I strikethrough the part about WP:SOCK and inform him he is violating WP:NPA. Unfortunatly user Tide rolls reverts me, I am not sure if he noticed the message had changed but whatever.

---

I wait a bit and then ask BWilkins: "Unfortunatly we still have some unfinished business. What do you propose we do about this situation?"

---

He replies: "I'm not sure what you're talking about. You continue to claim that I accused you of being a WP:SOCK, which I have never done. Now you're threatening me. Do not continue down this route."

---

I respond: "What??? You wrote: "Now you're threatening me". Are you serious? Can you please link me to the edit where I've threatened you? Did you make it up again? I live thousands of kilometers away, how can I possibly be a threat to you? Intercontinental ballistic missiles?

About the sock thing, well, I think we found something we can agree on, you did not accuse me of being a sock. But now you claim that I continue to claim that you accused me of being a WP:SOCK. Maybe my memory is failing me, but as far as I know I never said you accused me of being a sock. You wrote: "On the subject of his possible sockpuppetry ... additionally problematic.". Can you please link me to the edit(s) where I said you accused me of being a sock?"

---

He removes our conversation from his talkpage again and uses "now becoming WP:HARASS ... like a school bully waiting around my locker." as an editsummary (violating WP:NPA for the third time).

---

I want BWilkins to provide proof for his claims or (preferably) stop typing this kind of nonsense. Tovalu (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's natural to feel stung by the words of others from time to time. Key issue: Is he stopping you from editing what you want to edit? If so, what edits of yours is he interfering with? If not, then just drop it and focus on your own editing contributions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I am quite sure that if I made similar claims about an admin without proof I would be blocked. I used to be a very active editor (80k+ edits), but I lost all motivation, and now I've returned I get this kind of treatment. Maybe I need to try again at some point in the future, and hope to have more luck, or quit Wikipedia for good. Tovalu (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this one's going to end well. (munching popcorn) Doc talk 07:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My sarcasm-detector almost exploded while reading your comment. I replied on my talkpage too BTW. Tovalu (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For your first post to his talk page, you can't very well trout him, repeatedly ask "Did you make it up?", and advise him to STFU in a really pointy way. Do you actually expect rational dialogue with this approach? Doc talk 07:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I expected a rational dialogue in the beginning, but after a bit of getting to know him I had to ask "Did you make it up?" over and over again. The STFU is not my, but his advice. Its a quote from his userpage, hence the quotation marks. Tovalu (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would he make... "it" up? What would he have to gain? And what do you specifically want to happen as a result of this report? Doc talk 08:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what anyone would have to gain from, for example, forcing me to put my signature after my post scriptum. Maybe he can explain that to us. I wish Bwilkins took the time to read it, and maybe reply to my questions, because I do not understand his POV. I actually did check my contribs to see if I could find what he was talking about, with no luck. Tovalu (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He'll respond here, I'm positive. Please do not lose your faith in humanity in the meantime - I'm sure this can all be worked out. Doc talk 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If he wants to, we can probably work this out in a couple of minutes. If you do not believe me, read how I communicated with the other admin at that last WP:ANI. Tovalu (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who, Boing? Maybe you eventually communicated well with him: but not at first... Doc talk 08:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

True. Having an admin interfere with your work because they do not know or understand the rules while you are trying to do some actual work to improve the encyclopaedia is extremely annoying. My initial reaction was {{retired}}. Until now BWilkins communicated very badly, maybe it will improve drastically when he realizes he made a couple mistakes. Tovalu (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Bwilkins does not know/understand the rules and has bad communication skills to boot. This is a problem indeed. Doc talk 09:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins does lack knowledge/understanding of at least some of the rules. Do you want me to provide a proof? I did not say he has bad communication skills, I think he is skilled enough to work this out in a couple of minutes if he wants to. But I do think he communicated very badly until now. Tovalu (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but remember: he doesn't have to even respond here, technically. If he wants to give you the "cold shoulder", completely ignore you and not interfere with your editing whatsoever, you'd be best advised to just drop this. You cannot force him to talk to you even for a "few minutes". Judging by how long you've dragged this out, a few minutes wouldn't be good enough if you didn't hear what you wanted. JMHO Doc talk 09:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I know he does not have to respond here, there is no way anyone could force him to respond obviously. But maybe he realizes I really don't understand him. One day I tell him about a policy and a guideline and a information page, hoping he learns something. The next day he talks about the guideline WP:ES. Tovalu (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. If he promises to never interfere with my editing again, that would be great. But understanding each other is even better of course.

@Tovalu: Wikipedia is not the place to achieve vindication for some possible slight—please drop it. I had a quick look at the archived ANI discussion and it seems that there are examples where silly edit summaries have been used (please do not do that). The discussion shows that BWilkins mentioned "possible sockpuppetry" in relation to this post where you said "I have used more than one account and in total I have done well over 80k edits on Wikipedia"—given that, the comment of "possible sockpuppetry" is completely in accord with normal practice here, and the correct response would be to provide a brief and unemotional explanation. Further, what BWilkins said about signatures going at the end of comments is (obviously) correct, and claiming that it's only a guideline is a misunderstanding of how things work at Wikipedia. I won't go on with the other points you raised because it is clear that the whole report is completely misguided. As a favor to you, someone might close this discussion before people start considering whether continuing a long debate about ephemera is sufficiently disruptive to warrant action. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit disappointing to see all that ABF and tl;dr misinformedness in one comment. If you are unwilling to spend some time reading, why write a comment? If what BWilkins said about signatures going at the end of comments is (obviously) correct why don't you edit the article Postscript? The debate about P.S. has nothing to do with its status as a information page, not a guideline, it has to do with the fact post scriptum is Latin and translates to "written after". Do I have to repeat everything here because you are unwilling to read it elsewhere? Tovalu (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. And of course no one ever claimed there were never any silly editsummaries, but you would have to actually put the effort in to read if you wanted to understand the situation. P.P.S. If you wanted to understand the part of the conversation about sockpuppets that would require reading too. Feel free to comment again when you are done reading.

I've seen enough. Draw your own conclusions, folks :> Doc talk 10:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Faith in humanity lost. Thanks Johnuniq, you've just saved me a lot of work. Tovalu (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Folks, hope you don't mind a comment from me, the "other admin". I think all we have seen here is a series of over-reactions, which admittedly started with mine. My comments on Tovalu's Talk page and my taking it to ANI were heavy-handed, after I'd misunderstood a response - I'd read it as a refusal to consider my request, which I later came to see it wasn't. And I think it is very easy for misunderstandings to build upon misunderstandings and lead to things escalating in ways that would not usually happen with any of the participants. I do still think those edit summaries were inappropriate, and we have arrived at an amicable outcome that could have been achieved better - there were some ABF mistakes (including mine), but I think they were simply that, mistakes, and nobody meant any harm. I don't see any possibility of any admin action coming from this, and I really think the best thing to do now is for all participants to just let this drop. (PS: I'm also not offended by the WP:DICK comment, btw - with hindsight, it wasn't entirely inaccurate ;-) ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, and if I may be forgiven for misquoting Monty Python...

  "How do you plead?"

  "Guilty, your honour, but humanity is to blame"

  "That's OK, we'll be charging them as well"

  -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  "Wink wink! Nudge nudge! Say no more! Say no more!" Doc talk 10:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  Always Look On The Bright Side of Life. Tovalu out. Tovalu (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Problematic behaviour

I am reporting KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for problematic behavior, repeated violation of WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I understand that this is a new user but I have tried everything and assumed good faith. The problematic article is Michael the Brave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• As it can be seen from the talk page, I have tried to explain several times why the changes this user wants to introduce are not appropriate: [161]; [162]; [163]; [164].
• All responses were confusing (3 km long and not refuting the central point) and in almost all of his comments derogatory remarks and personal attacks. Ex: [165] and in all previous links.
• I have tried to inform this user of all the problems on his talk page (since it is a new user): [166]; [167]; [168]; [169] but this only aggravated the problem..
• I have talked about this problem with another editor on my talk page also and easily reached an agreement [170].
• I have talked to an administrator [171] but no solution has been provided.
• Also I don`t want this to be a bad faith accusation, but since I saw the IP address of this user and the articles he edited, I am wondering if this user is connected to User:Stubes99 since his IP address has been 84.0.xxx.xxx, 84.1.xxx.xxx and 84.2.xxx.xxx. [172]; [173].

The point is that all this edit warring and the removal of referenced text before is not a big problem but the fact that he refuses to respect the WP:SOURCE and the need to "correct" this article to reflect (I quote) facts has no direct connection to my personal opinion, since these were facts long before I was born :) and to tell the "truth" which he isn`t giving up. [174]. Adrian (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dear" Adrian,

you're wrong again, since my registration is really has no connection to any other account banned in the past or so, if the "firm" will ban me, don't worry, my next username will be KIENGIR2. Furthermore, I will nor repeat myself. Anyone, who deals with a little bit history, can easily understand my claim an understand THE PROBLEM (after you, it had to told unfortunately 40km long more times, but still you don't get it). Facts are facts. The claimed changes are obvious. If the page remains so, itt will mislead users. If you "reinforce" a falsity with an unreliable source, it can't be taken as a good aim. If you pretend you are a victim and you identify the other who wants only correct mistakes cannot be held longer, it is also not a good aim. You can't provide reliable and valid (contemporary) source, because it not exist. The page also admits this fact in a later section, thus the page is self-controversial, etc. I am sure, Wikipedia policies were (is being) formed) to serve the "good". Thus Wikipedia can only thank me I do so many effort to have a truthful, valid encyclopedia. Otherwise I think something is wrong, if evidential facts are denied. The agreement you made with an other editor was a good beginning, but you applied it only one, instead to correct the all three statements. This debate has elementary importance if can we present anything that has no (contemporary) source (using the the designation "Romanian" in an anachronistic way), or stating an union (as well a false designation used by a more hundred year later histography and having only a formal meaning by it's own desired interpretation, but never had a LEGAL form) although it haven't been accomplished the time then. This is an announcement for every user, editor, administrator, in order to emphasize the importance we can only STATE something (if it's not indicated as an other view or theory or equal) if it is correspondent with the contemporary EVIDENCE and since no counter-evidence or any proof exist that would prove it wrong (impossible). Consider could someone state "three Iraqi lands made an union in 4000 BC", altough the "Iraqi" is anachronistic, the term "Iraqi" is missing and never been used in contemporary evidence, they haven't made an union (and missing as well from contemporary evidence), but i.e. a millenia later someone would interpret the leadership of Sumerian lands as the precursor of modern Iraq, and most of it's national and other international works would refer and use this concept and would consistently citate it. If we are no in a joke site, it cannot be afford. Thank You for (hopefully) understanding it.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Kiengir ... I haven't looked at the rest, but did you honestly just suggest that if the community either WP:BLOCK or WP:BANS you, that you will intentionally and willfully WP:EVADE a validly-imposed block? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The really regrettable thing here is that at least some of the content-related points Kiengir has been making appear to have a certain amount of merit. If he would only assume good faith and work collaboratively with others (as opposed to being confrontational, condescending, and paranoid), he could make valuable contributions here. A sad waste of talent. It looks like we may have to manage as best we can without his assistance. — Richwales (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Resolved

Could another admin please review these diffs (note that another editor subsequently moved them from my user page to my talk page), along with the edit summary on this diff, and decide if it's a legal threat? I think the user is claiming that he has filed suit against me in the Supreme Court of India. There's a possibility that the user is actually referring to something in the content of Murder of Jessica Lall, where the disputed edit took place, though if that's what Mamtapolicedhody (talk · contribs) meant, then xe is claiming to be one of the litigants in the case itself, placing this under COI...in any event I'm involved on the article and in reverting this specific editor, so I'll decline to take action myself.

I'm kind of excited if the user really did file a lawsuit against me in India, given that I've never even been there. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is the second - it reads like he/she is a litigant, or somehow connected to the trial. The quoted date "25-2-2010" implies that they are not threatening you with legal action, or it would have some recent date. Syrthiss (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's my view as well ... which means a whack of WP:OR and WP:COI ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is bored, try and edit that article - it's making my eyes bleed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just skimmed right past the date. That doesn't seem like a COI edit. Well, I still disagree with the edit, but that's a content dispute, which I'll take (tomorrow, when I'm sure I have all of my reading comp skills working) to the article or the editor's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The user went back in time and sued you :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Abusive IP Edits: IP 190.46.108.141

• 190.46.108.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[175] "You dopy little fuck", "just stop being a retard, and I'll stop treating you like one" not to mention the little diatribe entitle "Cunts". Has already been blocked a week for incivility and edit warring. [176] Is now edit warring to keep his "cunts" diatribe in place. Also such gems as "You were, and remain, a fucking idiot, You're a despicable liar.". Could someone please block this guy, does not make any attempt whatsoever to discuss, just responds with abuse. I have tried to discuss his edits but I don't believe I should have to put up with this anymore. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) [177] Diff of AN/I notice as he habitually removes warnings. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Possibly a dynamic IP, so we might need to consider other action if they continue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Has previously edited from at least two other Chilean ranges. Probably best to semi the talk page as well if he continues. Black Kite (t) 13:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a range block is going to be necessary, he is already threatening to sock with a different IP address [178]. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Could this guy be related to User:Yourname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusyBlacksmith (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Louis Bacon

Louis Bacon has been edited by a new account User:Lbninternational. The user seems to be trying to insert material critical of Mr. Bacon. This appears to be a username violation. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that Mr. Bacon, a very wealthy man, won a judgment a few months back in a London court that calls on the Wikimedia Foundation, the Denver Post and WordPress to reveal the identities of anonymous persons who attacked him online. Given the legal and public relations implications, I think that administrative attention is called for here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case, legal action may be taken here. We would need someone to trace whoever this is and arrest them. Should we call the FBI? BusyBlacksmith (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but:

• The article's sources suggest that the Foundation doesn't feel it must comply with a court order from another country.
• Also, I have no idea what that court order said, but it's possible that it was about discovering the identities of previous pseudonymous editors of the article, rather than disclosing the identity of every future editor.

So, I don't think we have a legal storm on our hands just yet, although all BLPs deserve sensitive treatment. Anyway, the new editor is persistently adding a relatively solid source - and any text they're adding doesn't seem particularly ranty - so I think this is a new editor keen to work within wikipedia's rules, so it's possible for us to turn this round into something positive. bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the FBI ought to be called or that anyone should be arrested, BusyBlacksmith, or that we have a "legal storm" on our hands, Bobrayner. I don't know why my report was taken that way. If the new editor goes on to be a productive user, then that is all well and good. But I think that the username is problematic, and that it is worthy of note that the subject of the article has sued our parent organization. If administrators don't feel that this is worthy of passing on to the Wikimedia legal team, then so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone in the jurisdiction of the court order (the UK} should be very careful what they add to that article. Also as there is a legal judgment on the article , returning to to semi protection would be a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Block joker

Patrick Dempsey (Holocaust) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Chesdovi (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A little more info, please? Theres nothing we can do if theres no charges you have brought against him. I, for one, don't see anything wrong. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[179] and [180]. Maybe a warning instead. I was worried with his Holocaust jokes, taking into account his username. Chesdovi (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Curious multiple account attack on CueCat

Over the past couple of months, there has been a round of attempts to whitewash the marketing disaster that was the CueCat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), featuring a series of WP:SPAs editing it and a couple of related articles. My impression is that this is all related to some real-world project of one J. Hutton Pulitzer, who, as J. Jovan Philyaw, was the inventor of the device. He was also he host of Net Talk Live!, which is being edited by some of the same people editing CueCat and which is presently at AFD [[181]]. All of these edits appear aimed at rehabilitating his reputation.

The cast of characters is as follows:

• Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited CueCat, created Net Talk Live!, and made both attempts to create an article on Pulitzer
• Proofplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) eventually blocked for spamming
• Factiod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also blocked, first for edit warring and then for talk page abuse
• Technoratti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about to hit that WP:3RR wall

While there is some difference of style among them it is hard not to conclude that they are all either sockpuppets or in some sort of collusion. There is a counterinsurgency effort on the part of several editors (I'm only somewhat peripherally involved, having caught this in the articles for creation phase) who are expending a great deal of what ought to be unnecessary effort keeping these articles in order. Possibly this should have been taken to one of the other noticeboards, but in particular the connection between User:Ran kurosawa and the others only shows up in the editing targets, not in style. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just requested full protection for the article to see if that gets everything moved to the talk page, as well as giving editors the chance to investigate the possibility of sockpuppetry. --McDoobAU93 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is worth a trip to WP:SPI.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, and more are likely to show up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the "counterinsurgency effort", I think that Mangoe has it pretty much right. An earlier sockpuppet investigation of two of these editors found no evidence, but checkuser WilliamH put forward meatpuppetry as the best theory. Proofplus and Technoratti have the interesting quirk of calling Wikipedia articles "records" (unusual) and use of CAPS for emphasis (more common, of course). All are SPAs and repeatedly try to use unreliable blogs and the like as references. It seems pretty clear to me that all these accounts are "on assignment", as it were, to enhance the reputation of J. Jovan Philyaw AKA J. Hutton Pulitzer, and his inventions and other ventures. Just yesterday, two of these editors tried to use a Baja California tourism blog as a "reliable source" regarding technology and patent rights. The source that blog cited? Another blog controlled by Philyaw/Pulitzer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an SPI case needs to happen but I've also semi-protected the page since it appears to be mostly new user accounts. I doubt a SPI will stop them, but it will shed light on whether or not this is an organized effort or a single person.--v/r - TP 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Unnessecary deletion of redirects

Drmies(talk, contribs), has deleted two redirects that I have created, "Etlon John" and "Niktia Kruschev", stating that they are implausible. I believe that they iplausible typos, and request that they be recreated. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem User: IP 190.46.108.141

• 98.149.131.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user intentionally removes content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining why such changes were made. I reverted the edits a few times (along with others that spotted his unconstructive changes), and warned him/her after the fact happened. (S)he continues to remove content, to the point where it's getting out of hand. Originally, (s)he added false/misleading info (11/5/2011 @16:30).

November 15, 2011 @ 02:20 [182]

November 15, 2011 @ 02:17 [183]

November 13, 2011 @ 00:06 [184]

November 12, 2011 @ 23:51 [185]

November 12, 2011 @ 23:45 [186]

November 11, 2011 @ 00:08 [187]

November 10, 2011 @ 02:26 [188]

November 5, 2011 @ 23:43 [189]

November 5, 2011 @ 16:37 [190]

November 5, 2011 @ 16:30 [191]

(Good Faith) Any Reason why this person is doing this? BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for deleting my talkpage

I don't want to save my talk page, it is painful for me.When I am unwelcome here,and threatened by admins like User:EdJohnston there is no reason for existance of my talkings too, it is very painful for me.--Orartu (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Onm the subject of your talkpage, simply blank it yourself or place a speedy deletion tag on it. As for this user that you claim to have harrassed you, discussion will take place. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk pages do not get deleted. You can, however, take BusyBlacksmith's advice and simply blank it.--v/r - TP 19:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)