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

Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1

Heat-to-light ratio has dropped below useful levels. Supposing there are still content issues, they can be discussed elsewhere. lifebaka++ 02:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well after that copy editing, I introduced 'Bisque' as a background Div style (aid to reading), as this long tortuous discussion kept going off page. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) And I removed it, because that's not normal practice here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC) A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka++ 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC) In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held. For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced. The accounts involved are: User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts. User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog. Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing. That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Wikipedia disputes. User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles. Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi [1], or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keepingbuilding a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) What you said was "This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi." It wasn't true, and it's a plain, straightforward factual statement. You claim that your only motivation is that you've read and and liked some of Morris's work, but by a curious coincidence the description you'vr given of yourself on-Wiki matches up to the self-description of a person who uses the screen nane "Cthu-Lou", who describes himself as a friend of one of the Lawyers in Hell authors, and has actually passed along requests for help from that author on the details of what might well be a "Heroes in Hell" story, and who also has social-network connections with User:UrbanTerrorist. It's also quite peculiar that your first post as Knihi teed off on OrangeMike over his conduct in deletion discussions, even though none of the AFDs you'd posted in as Cthu-Lou involved OM. And as a final note, you stated, above, that someone here has called you an "unethical sockpuppet." Who and where, pray tell? With an appropriate cite. I don't see anyone having done that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Really? Ok. You caught me using inexact language. It wasn't in the very first post. I'm not exactly sure what you think you've accomplished, but clearly I was typing in a rush. In turn, I feel confirmed in not trusting to your good faith. It is quite curious to me you seem so concerned about this OrangeMike person and have yet to link to where I supposedly tossed 'barbs' at him. As for being called an "unethical sockpuppet" what I actually wrote was "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet" -- which is subtly different -- and I can certainly cite that. You. Here. As an "account involved" with "Renewed abuse by a new sock/account of indef-blocked user Harmonia1" I find being included on this list and having to have this conversation as equivalent to "being called some sort of unethical sock puppet," and I stand by that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC) It's not a question of "inexact language." It's that you never made that disclosure, in your first or any other post, so far as I can tell, and you don't cite the post where the "announcement" was purportedly made. As for your claim that I didn't link to your comments regarding OM, the link is there, plain as day in my reply to your first post in this subthread, despite whatever motive you might claim for denying it's there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Well I remember making the post, even if I can no longer find it. Its entirely possible I made it to someone's talk page or somewhere else, like a message. *shrug* There's been a lot of typing around here. I don't think it proves anything substantive one way or another; but I guess you'd have to assume good faith to accept that, which seems in short supply. As for a link to 'barbs' I see a link to my opening post as knihi on a discussion but I don't read anything in there that is a 'barb' -- and, in asking for greater specificity from you, I don't have motives here, other than to categorically refute your blanket characterization of my comments. Which comment, specifically, do you regard as a 'barb' and why? And as for inexact language, I point you to the opening of your very first comment on my user account. It's been established that UrbanTerrorist not Janet Morris claimed to be "keeping a file"; so either you claim to know UrbanTerrorist's gender or you too made a mistake and used inexact language. I'm going with uncorrected mistake. Please note that I am offering you the good faith you consistently fail to offer me. Knihi (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Guys, enough. Lots of heat, no light. lifebaka++ 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Wikipedia articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC) User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Wikipedia disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris. For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels. I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike). Well now, I suggest you double-check all of my edits. I've been on WP since 2004 and while I did work for quite awhile establishing author Michael Z. Williamson's page, I also did quite a few edits on other authors as well. I believe that one of WP's admissions (or perhaps it is desire, I am not certain) is for those who are knowledgeable to make edits, contributions and place cites. I happen to be a fan of science fiction and am very knowledgeable about the author pages I edit. I'm sorry that I don't "branch out" and edit pages I know nothing about but I, unlike others, believe that facts trumpet a consensus. Cordova829 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Principal pages involved: Lawyers in Hell AFD Talk:Heroes in Hell Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here [2], then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation. You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [3]. Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc. Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) l The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President. Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2+2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)? COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Wikipedia policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Wikipedia's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz."[4] That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to [to him] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk) This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate. The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level. I'm not assuming good faith anymore because threatening to write about us, expounding on your credentials, your associations, "knowing a lot of people," and saying that some editors (in general) are idiots in this Wall of text are disruptive and not helpful to your case. Only checkusers can confirm sockpuppets. Also, we can read your edit history just fine, thanks. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Since I disagree I've taken out the Collapse statement. I think that the information on who and what I am is very germane, since I've been accused of being a sock puppet, and I posted this as proof that I'm not a sock puppet. This would be the equivalent of my deciding to Collapse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz complaint so that no one could read it, and no one knew what he was complaining about. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book. Now let's take a look at the situation one step at a time, going back to when this started. Yes, I know everyone involved. I know a hell of a lot of people. If you want to go back to the Six Degrees of Separation theory, I'm two degrees away from George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a lot of other big names. It's not that I'm important. I'm not. Its just that before my body fell apart I used to be the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufacturers catalytic converters and other emission control products, and I spent a lot of time in Ottawa, Washington, and San Francisco, and I know a lot of people in government. You can still find my name on the California Air Resources Board, Industry Canada, West Coast Diesel Collaborative, and Western Regional Air Partnership government body websites, Environmental Defense, Manufacturers of Emissions Controls non-governmental organization websites, and on Forklift Action the Forklift Industry News website even though I've been out of work for nearly three years now. If you check the Diesel Particulate Filter article you will find that I started it and that most of the first 9000 words were contributed by me while I was working for a company that manufactured and sold the devices. If you look at the article on Selective Catalytic Reduction you will notice that I took the original article from 600 words to 3800 words, again while working in the industry. The article once again needs a re-write because some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry tried to come to a consensus rather than understanding the chemical reaction. Yes, I've removed the collapse statement a second time. The information is germane to my claim not to be a sock puppet, and therefore needs to be seen. As I've said several times, it appears that there are two sets of rules. One for the in crowd and one for everyone else. The in crowd can say what they want. They can make any accusations that they want. They can claim that long standing accounts are sock puppets without providing any evidence (as you will notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has provided none above). When one of those accused attempts to provide evidence it is claimed that it isn't germane, and that it doesn't need to be seen. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started. It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted. I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized. I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules, but I didn't know that at the time either. The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Wikipedia editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious. At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Wikipedia, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste. I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Wikipedia article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else. OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so. This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it. When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC) On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Wikipedia, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC) PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part). The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Wikipedia norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena. There is a significant problem here that Wikipedia is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Wikipedia isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here. As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes. Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short. Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't. Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion. Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae. Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Wikipedia can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said: 6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother? 5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC) On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often. As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything. I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion. On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher. I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka++ 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources. As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem. As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this. As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article. As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours. Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it. Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages[5], not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Wikipedia does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Wikipedia, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Wikipedia, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC) TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page [6], and on this page [7] is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea. I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account? I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Hulcys, that thread was already archived (threads on this noticeboard are automatically archived by a bot if no one responds to them in 24 hours). You can find the archived thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppet investigation I just added a new entry to the old Harmonia1 sockpuppet investigation, to initiate a checkuser on Guarddog2 to see if Janet Morris's new account is an extension of Harmonia1. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I woulda, shoulda hoped some of the many rules and procedures here would have injected hard facts like that, vice the wild allegations and beliefs read above BEFORE generating such a MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME built on ignorance of contract law and perhaps a few misunderstood rules. But since I was canvassed to come here from some trivial edit (I don't know the series, though have read Ms. J.C.), let me say that I find it perfectly normal behaviour for writer-associates to be of similar mind about the contract law in dispute. AHEM ... experience will tell. Ahem. There has certainly been a lack of common sense exhibited by the accuser. This is a tempest in a teapot and exactly the sort of spiraling feckless arguments over nothing much that drive good editors away. For the record, iirc each of the people who've self-identified above as writers have books on my shelf. I also recognize them from BAEN circles and related web sites. I trust the accuser will forgive me for reading a top publisher, and for contributing to articles about said associations here. SOME of us try to write about what we know. RECOMMENDATION: Close this discussion if the IP Check doesn't back up the finger pointing and penalize Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for lack of maturity, common sense and far too much poor judgment. He/She clearly has far too much time to snoop for suspect associations to present this matter over a trivial difference. // FrankB 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC) A checkuser is likely to come back as declined for being stale on the master account; it's been over a year. We'll probably only have behavioral evidence to work on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC) And that's why I didn't ask for Checkuser or open a standard SPI to begin with. I pointed out that last year, in a dispute over a subject related to one of Janet Morris's businesses, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with a group of SPAs claiming to be her business associates, engaged in inappropriate editing practices and were indef-blocked. I pointed out that in a current dispute, involving a different business project of Janet Morris, a user self-identifying as Janet Morris, together with users identifying as associates of Janet Morris in that project, appeared to be engaging in the same inappropriate, off-wiki coordinated, editing in concert on a subject where they had COI problems. I also suggested that the user who claimed to be Janet Morris this year was likely to be the same user who claimed to be Janet Morris last year, and therefore appeared to be engaging in block evasion. For all of the caterwauling and invective directed at The Big Bad Wolfowitz, none of the editors involved have made any significant substantive comments about the behavioral issues involved, except to indignantly assert "I am not a sockpuppet," an accusation which I was careful not to make except in the case of the two accounts which both self-identified as Janet Morris. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Apologies Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if my stepping in to assist caused a problem...but can you identify where you stated that Harmonia1 self-identified as Janet Morris? I think I missed that, which was why I was willing to trust Guarddog2's claim that she had never edited Wikipedia before. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC) No complaints about anything either you or Binksternet have done with respect to the SPI, Qwyrxian. It's a complicated situation, and Guarddog2's comments haven't been very transparent. In the course of the SPI last year, one of the accounts identified as a sock of Harmonia1, "Elkoholic", identified herself in an unblock request as the owner of M2 Technologies, referring to it (more than once) as "my company" and providing some details about its operations. "Elkoholic" was identified by Checkuser as a sock/alternate account of Harmonia1. Harmonia1 also described herself on her userpage, saying "User has 60 horses, has written and edited fiction and nonfiction published in a number of languages, and is a defense contractor who provides long range strategic planning and other goods and services to government and industry in the national security area" [8]. This pretty clearly matches up to Janet Morris, and the 60-horse reference particularly matches up to Morris's description of herself in the Equine International profile of her and her husband cited in our Janet Morris article, content and citation added by Harmonia1 [9]. (Harmonia1 also admitted being closely associated with (and denied being) User:Tailertoo, who Guarddog2 acknowledges to be her husband, Chris Morris. Curiously, User:Ubter, who also edited in tandem with Harmonia1 on various Morris-related articles in 2010, also self-identified in this image upload [10] as Chris Morris. It's also interesting to note that while Harmonia1 did very little editing with regard to Heroes in Hell, she edited extensively with regard to a different series written by Morris, The Sacred Band of Stepsons -- a series which, not coincidentally, Morris was just about to publish a new volume in after a two-decade break. That is, to belabor the obvious, the same pattern of editing seen with regard to Heroes in Hell/Lawyers in Hell, and is one of the factors underlying my suspicions of concerted editing on her behalf in the current disputes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) That is quite strong evidence, and thank you for providing it. I've put the question to Guarddog2 on her talk page to explain why her story now (as a completely self-identified Janet Morris) of never editing previously doesn't seem to match the very strong evidence from before that Harmonia1 was also Janet Morris. She did indicate that she'll be out of town for the week, so we may have to wait until next week for her response (if she provides one). Previously, I had thought that it likely that she was involved off-wiki in the previous situation but not actually Harmonia1, but now I'm leaning the other way. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) So we have one editor who previously claimed to be Janet Morris. We have a new editor who claims to be Janet Morris, but claims to not be the previous editor. Neither editor has provided proof of identity. So my suggestion is this; block her per WP:REALNAME until proof is provided. I know that the policy is meant for usernames, but this is still the same situation as our policy because she's using her real name on her user page. I'll leave it up to you, Qwyrxian, since you're the one who has been involved, but this is my recommendation. -- Atama頭 18:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) SUMMARY OF NEVER-ENDING COMPLAINTS This dispute started out by Mr. Wolfowitz using insulting language in the edit history of the Heroes in Hell series page edits. In fact, the very first exchange I had with Mr. Wolfowitz was when I added two sentences to the Heroes in Hell series page which he deleted 45 minutes later with the comment: "skanky promotional." (I do not appreciate being referred to as "skanky" because when I was raised, people spoke to others with civility - especially if they had never met the person). After I rewrote the two sentences to make sure they were completely neutral, he deleted them with the comment "Rv, this is just a naked plug by the book's editor, and has nothing to do with the book's "reception" or any other subject of an encyclopedic nature" [11] in essence accusing me of being Janet Morris. The "edit war" continued when Mr. Wolfowitz attempted to prove that a legal definition could be changed by "consensus" and a huge argument ensued wherein people tried (unsuccessfully) to explain the difference between "first serial" and "reprint" to Mr. Wolfowitz. When it became obvious he was not going to get what he wanted, i.e., a consensus to declare Mr. Silverberg wrote a short story set in a shared universe, BEFORE the shared universe was created, [12] Mr. Wolfowitz decided to start making accusations against everyone who did not agree with him. Mr. Wolfowitz then decided to try to accuse several people of being Janet Morris, except of course, Janet Morris herself, and began a dispute accusing everyone who did not agree with him of all having COIs (all of which were disclosed by the users with no attempt to hide their identities) and of being sockpuppets or "meat puppets" (charming term) of Janet Morris, and all editors of trying to use Wikipedia for "promotional" purposes, from which it must be diligently defended.[13] When that didn't seem to be working, Mr. Wolfowitz dragged up an old accusation of sockpuppetry of a person who is not even involved in this dispute and used that as "evidence" that Janet Morris had opened many accounts over the years (including the Harmonia1 identity) and was doing so again after having been blocked as Harmonia. Unfortunately, the people Mr. Wolfowitz is convinced are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris actually live in different states and countries. In the prior dispute, some did live in the same state and worked on different floors of an office building which was apparently how the vaunted CheckUser system decided they were all the same person.[14] If Mr. Wolfowitz knew anything about word usage, it would be easy to read different posts to know the same person did not write all of them. Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. There was never any "good faith" assumed by Mr. Wolfowitz in the original edits to Heroes in Hell nor any of these disputes; his use of insulting and uncivil language cannot be contested; when anyone brings up something he can't refute, he simply ignores the question and goes off on another tangent of more paranoid accusations. It seems to be fairly clear that Mr. Wolfowitz has no intention of ever letting go of these disputes and if the Checkuser program (which is apparently considered flawed based on results of a Google search, like this [15]) does not uphold his accusations that we are sockpuppets of Ms. Morris, he will, no doubt, find something else to file a dispute about. A time-honored tactic of unscrupulous lawyers: if you don't have a good case, bury them in paper. I don't expect any of Mr. Wolfowitz' friendly editors to agree with anything I have said here. However, it is now part of the record. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC) That WikipediaWatch page is a blog, and anything can be said on it. Also, most of those checkuser concerns deal with a Type II error-- failing to find a sockpuppet when they actually exist, not a Type I Error, saying there's a sockpuppet when there is no actual sockpuppet. Second, your opinion about the other editors being "swayed" by Hullaballoo is ungrounded: Now, Mr. Wolfowitz has filed ANOTHER dispute See: THIS PAGE and gotten other editors (to whom he speaks oh so politely and reasonably, as opposed to the way he speaks to anyone who disagrees with him) to jump on his bandwagon and engage in mutual back-slapping and glad-handing. Neutral, independent editors and administrators have come into this argument on their own, not through canvassing. If anything, it is other editors who agree with your sentiments who have been canvassed by the now-blocked UrbanTerrorist and others. Third, accusations that the sock puppet investigation were not justified do not seem right to me. Guarddog2 stated an association with blocked user Harmonia1. Hullaballoo has also made a convincing argument that Harmonia1 is Guarddog2. Previous confusion over Guarddog2's identity dealt with errors in her own statements about various books and publishing issues, as pointed out by Hullaballoo. Finally, while I agree that Hullaballoo has not always shown good faith, that doesn't mean his arguments or evidence are null and void. They are certainly not paranoid. Again, anything regarding this whole publication debacle needs to be verifiable. If it's publication rights, then a contract would be the definitive document. Barring access to that, we rely on reliable sources, which have been provided en masse in support of Hullaballoo's arguments. I have yet to see sources contradicting his statements regarding publication. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Unrelated wall of text content issue that is already posted here here and here I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC) BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz (identified only by an IP address), by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors (and since this page is not a book/series/entity page, and all quotations are noted with attribution, there should not be a "copyvio" problem): "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article: Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6] You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context. What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph) "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." The second paragraph described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters. The third paragraph - again verbatim: "It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source." ALL EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE SO THIS ISSUE CAN BE PUT TO BED. There is an old saying: "You can't prove a negative." Most of the accusations brought by Mr. Wolfowitz and his fellow editors fall into the category of forcing the accused to prove they did NOT do something - thereby creating an impossible situation: that of "proving" a negative. The earlier example of Mr. Wolfowitz' strangely intense desire to rewrite the Silverberg/Heroes in Hell relationship of 1986, by selective quoting and "creative" editing, highlights the problem that started this entire debate, leading to Ms. Morris creating an account solely for the purpose of attempting to straighten out the obvious misunderstanding of the situation in the dispute pages (as she repeatedly attempted to explain not only here but to various editors on their own talk pages) only to be accused of being someone already blocked from editing WP, and from there the debate degenerated into flying accusations and digging up ancient history to obfuscate the true issue: Did Mr. Silverberg write "Gilgamesh in the Outback" for the series Heroes in Hell or did he write it independently to be printed in Dr. Asimov's wonderful publication, and then "allow" it to be used in Heroes in Hell? That question has now been answered unequivocally. Without that dispute, the rest of these hundreds of thousands of words and unknown number of hours wasted would never have happened. (Yes, we all know the first serial of the story was printed in IASFM(v. 10, no. 6, Jun86 (whole no. 105) Created 1986; Pub.; Reg. 1986-05-08; TX0001821228 and the original was published in Rebels in HellDate of Creation:1985; Date of Publication: 1986-07-01 (both citations from Copyright WebCite queries from story page) two months' later and no one is arguing that. Mr. Silverberg's own description of his creation of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" must take precedence over simple statements of the dates of publication which only delineate the chronological order in which they were published - they do not prove for whom he wrote the story).Hulcys930 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Haven't we had enough walls of text already? Honestly, I think that concern that the term "originally published" also establishes intention of the author is very, very superficial and is largely unimportant to most readers. I doubt most readers will take that interpretation of the phrase. "Originally published" is only intended to signify the order in which the story appeared. Can we just leave it at that? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Before dismissing the above post, please go to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page and see the difference between what Mr. Silverberg reported in his interview and the way Mr. Wolfowitz has characterized the situation on the page.Hulcys930 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Hulcys, a call for more eyes is one thing, but huge amounts of text here aren't going to solve anything. AN/I is a terrible venue for solving content disputes. Besides, the thread at WP:DRN already showed obvious consensus for a compromise. Has is not been implemented? lifebaka++ 13:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC) lifebaka If only that were true. We THOUGHT there had been compromise and consensus until Mr. Wolfowitz revised the Gilgamesh page on August 22 to reflect his own personal wishes rather than the actual history of events. Please read the Gilgamesh page and then Mr. Silverberg's entire statement. The only way to create the fiction stated on the Gilgamesh page is by heavily parsing certain words from Mr. Silverberg and putting them together in a different order with a skewed narrative so as to change the situation entirely. "And selective quotation is a well-known mode of character assassination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)" (emphasis added) I guess it works for history revision too... Hulcys930 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Also, I DID apologize for the length of the above post but refuting statements made using "verifiable" sources in a deliberately misleading manner by highly experienced editors takes some explaining. Hulcys930 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC) This is just a rerun of Hulcys930's phony COI charges against me and other editors. She goes on at length about the misdeeds of The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but never gets around to explaining what they are. I added well-sourced, relevant information. including properly referenced quotations, to a page involved in this dispute. Hulcys can't actually find anything inappropriate in my edits, so she declares that the quotations I presented are "in a different order" from the original. This is not an automatic bad thing, of course; WP articles aren't just paraphrases of their sources, and may present relevant information in a different structure and order. And here it's simply not true; anybody who compares the article to the cited source (reproduced in that wall of text Hulcy is plastering all over WP) can verify this for themselves. Who's being "deliberately misleading"? I'd say it's the editor who's been rather free in throwing uncivil, unsupported personal attacks around while refusing to disclose her own COI regarding the subjects involved in the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Hullaballoo, you're not doing any better in assuming good faith yourself. Both of you, instead of commenting on each other, just find a compromise (as an example, you could say that the story was serialized in Asimov's on <date> and publised in RIH on <date> without giving any other wording on order; as I'm lead to believe both dates are the same month and year, the first published parameter in the infobox doesn't explicitly refer to either, and no one will care, anyway), put it in the article, and move on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC) You know, lifebaka, WP:AGF doesn't require users to paint targets on their backs or otherwise accept abusive treatment. It "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". And Ms Hulcy's repeatedly making wholly groundless accusations against editors who've opposed her in garden-variety content disputes is pretty obvious evidence. She dragged this dispute into the mud with her accusation that "each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz," a complete fabrication that she never provided evidence to actually support."[16] Now she repeats this sliming, with a more insulting accusation and no evidence whatever, and I'm supposed to ignore what's gone before and assume that this time she's acting in good faith. Forget it; that's not what our policy calls for. And note that an SPI, which I wasn't involved in, just closed yesterday and confirmed that Hulcys930 has "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior".[17]] And Ms Hulcy's response to the SPI filing was a new, groundless, uncivil personal attack on me, over an edit I'd made about a week earlier, plastering multiple copies of it all around WP. Your sympathies here a clearly misplaced, and you should rethink what's been going on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I've just now attempted such a compromise by changing the Gilgamesh text to "It was published in Asimov's Science Fiction[3][4] and in Rebels in Hell[5] before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living." If that's not acceptable, I'll walk away; I just thought it might be easier for both to accept - or at least, let pass - a compromise that came from someone else. NebY (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC) That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It's not acceptable to me, and it isn't supported by a genuine consensus. No one disputes the accuracy of the publication history I set forth, which was uncontroversially included in the article for several years. Even Hulcys acknowledges its accuracy -- note above, where even Hulcys agrees that the magazine publication came first, and "no one is arguing [about] that". It's standard practice in Wikipedia, for works of fiction, to identify their first chronological publication. It's not just standard practice in Wikipedia, it's the norm, across the board, for reliable bibliographical works. No one's made any case that there's a good reason, based on encyclopedic principles or Wikipedia policies, for doing anything otherwise in this case. The compromise has already been made, by mentioning Rebels in Hell at all, because it's not standard practice, here or elsewhere, to mention anthologization of already published short fiction, except in the case of things like year's-best volumes, where inclusion is a clear indicator of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challeged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into. I was unaware of the SPI mentioned until I saw it HERE, so, obviously, that had nothing to do with anything I said. (I'm interested to discover I have "a consistent record" of "using anonymous IPs to engage in edit warring-like behavior." A CONSISTENT record? Really? For how long? Did you bother to check MY IP address?) The only notifications sent out (as far as I can tell) were to two IP addresses, neither of which are mine. As far as "using anonymous IPs" I simply copied the information posted on the GITO page by someone with only an IP address because I knew it would be deleted the moment Mr. Wolfowitz saw it, as it contained too much sourced information for him to refute (he removed it in less than 2 minutes). But since no one actually wants to read or hear anything that can't be explained in three sentences or less, I'll close with this: I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams - Off2riorob

Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Off2riorob may have the best of intentions, but his editing pattern as shown here is strange, to say the least. In what is now the latest edit, he terms Fasttimes68, who has been editing since 2007 a "meatpuppet". Some others should take a look (and at the discussion page). -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A careful viewing of the edit history and the discussion, with an eye to a block, or at the least a warning that you're on the verge of a block, for (i) the (as yet) unsupported allegation that one user is a meatpuppet of another, (ii) CIR for (a) your perverse refusal to read footnotes that supply information that you first demanded within the text, and (b) the unilateral demand that for something to be worth mentioning in an article it should be worth mentioning in the "lede" of that article, and (iii) general appearance of would-be ownership of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Well, fasttimes68 doesn't have that many edits, and a good percentage of them are about Stephanie Adams. Off2riorob does a lot of blp policing and is not a huge fan of playmate articles, but his actions seem to be in good faith.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

what the hell is a meatpuppet? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Meatpuppet - a meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

considering that content has been in the article for quite some time, then i can hardly call it disputed. Perhaps you should discuss first before reverting? im still willing to discuss as others probably are. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, something can be in an article for a long time and yet become (or indeed have been) disputed. Removal of misinformation and some other material is fine, even if there's been no dispute. But yes, he should have discussed. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the Bold Revert Discuss cycle properly shows discussion as after the B and after the R. I see nothing out of process. My76Strat (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helpfully pointing toward an explanation of "meatpuppetry", which clearly shows that you are wrong. (I quote: Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. [...]) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, im no ones meatmuppet. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Rob frequently removes info about sexual orientation from BLPs. Possibly a good thing. We need to develop more guidance on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, User:Fasttimes68 has replaced it again - there is a OTRS complaint about this, and its clearly undue to say lesbian, lesbian , lesbian (thrice Dorothy) in a line and a half - but I am loggin of as I have had enough for tonight. Off2riorob (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

see you on the talk page then.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I can see Robs point here. Regardless of the facts (if there are any), there is no way that using the word 'lesbian' three times in the same sentence can be justified. Someone needs to get of their soapbox... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to rewrite it so that the word doesn't appear three times in a line and a half. (I'm also happy to have all the "personal" stuff removed.) AndyTheGrump, here are the facts. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, we should name that section "Lesbian life" :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Fasttimes68 beat me to this, but not at all in a way I'd have done. What is now the current version is mine and I don't think it's bad. Again, I am open to reasoned argument that all this "orientation" nonsense should be cut, and need very little persuasion to have it cut together with other "personal" stuff whose sourcing is much worse. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the main user that is insisting on this lesbian labeling - you added, lesbian lesbian lesbian - the only other personal data is that she is married to a man with a child, do you object to that detail? Off2riorob (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I will admit the usage of the word was heavy. But it doesn't warrant removing the information from the article altogether especially since you were asked to discuss the issue on the talk page. And the meatpuppet calling was a bit over the top as well. -- Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You,(User:Hoary) are the primary contributor to this disputed BLP with multiple OTRS reports - you appear to have got into some kind of six year issue here after early discussion with someone claiming to be the subject or their supporter and it has become personal for you - the subject objects to being portrayed as a lesbian and you war to add, lesbian lesbian lesbian - wiki is not a user ego game to beat the living subjects of its articles. You win, the subject didn't want to be portrayed as a lesbian and you managed to add lesbian lesbian lesbian in a line and a half . Off2riorob (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject doesnt want to be identified as a lesbian anymore, but she did in the past and was an activist for lesbian issues. it is notable in this BLP. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the WP:BLP that supports your "lesbian activist" claim. Off2riorob (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that I'm listed as the first editor. However, if permablocked "Goddessy" were listed with her aliases and IP numbers, and if the other throwaway accounts and movable IPs were lumped together, I wouldn't be number one. There's no "issue". The subject -- of whom I'd never heard until, years ago, I saw a plea for help at AN/I, BLP/N or wherever -- has a history, clearly visible in versions of the talk page that precede their recent blanking, of wanting the article to say just this or that. Now, is her personal life notable or isn't it? If it is, provide readers with what is reliably sourced and do so in a straightforward, unsensational way; if it isn't, pull it all out: orientation, engagement(s), husband, kid, aunt(s), whatever. Or discuss the proposed different treatment: I am open to reasoned argument. When the current little spat is over, I'll happily take her article off my watchlist for a year or longer. And I apologize for my appalling use of the word "lesbian" three times in one and a half lines. (I subsequently fixed this.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the content issue, using an edit summary of "Meatpuppet revert"[18] is inappropriate unless Off2riorob is plannning to file an SPI case to establish that the account is question is an actual WP:MEATPUPPET, the definition of which he does not seem to know correctly.   Will Beback  talk 

I agree. An apology is in order. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim.Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you read the footnotes you would see support. or perhaps you deleted them befoe reading them? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A meatpuppet revert is in this situation and similar ones where two or three users work together against a single good faith user to include disputed content into an article.Meatpuppet reverters should apologize themselves. User Will Beback has got a "hard on" for me at the moment and can't stop chattin to me at every opportunity, sadly I am just not interested, sorry Will. Off2riorob (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoary and I were not working together. However both of us are still confused at your odd commenting inside the article.-Fasttimes68 (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem reply. Regarding, WP:MEATPUPPET, please actually read the link policy. it dos not say what you think it does. What you may be thinking of the essay, WP:TAGTEAM.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a meatpuppet revert is similar to a tasgteam tweak, little difference really. Off2riorob (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• General comment. Off2riorob is one of the few Wikipedia editors who have undertaken the thankless task of trying to clear up all the garbage that has been inserted into BLP articles throughout Wikipedia. His efforts to remove sketchy information are constantly resisted by editors who really should know better. A little more administrative support for his efforts would be very helpful in improving Wikipedia's wretched history regarding its treatment of BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) WP:MEAT states that meatpuppet is a deragtory term. Unless you have any proof that meatpuppetry is going on, then you need to stop with the breach of civility. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility is in the eye of the beholder - one persons civilly issue is another's honest comment. At least the user over the last few years is a single issue account adding disputed content to a BLP article Off2riorob (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to change a policy in the midst of a discussion so as to vacate the other party's point.[19] It's underhanded and manipulative.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is appropriate to have your attention brought to an issue that requires attention and improvement as I did it - I say - whenever is good for improving issues. Off2riorob (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be some pointy logic. Your contributions to the article itself are completely appropriate to me. The problem is your comments to the other editor. Appologize and move on. Don't turn this into a dramafest. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you accused people of being "meatpuppets", which the policy said is a derogatory term. When confronted about it you didn't apologize or offer proof, you simply changed the policy so that it's no longer says that it's a derogatory term. That's gaming the system in a brazen way.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Goddessy.com" is not RS. It is not remotely near RS. It may be SPS at best. The cite given appears to be a compilation of quotes from some RS sources, and lots of stuff from not-remotely-RS sources. The claims do not meet WP:BLP. Off2riorob's edits are both proper and required by WP:BLP "Meatpuppet" may be inapt, but the concept that two users co-ordinate insertion of a non-RS source and contentious claim into a BLP is part and parcel of what is properly being discussed at the ArbCom case on BLPs. When one of them is a user with relatively few edits (say, under 200) then the concept that the newer user knows the older user might actually arise. Heck, an IP with only 300 total contributions might fall in that category. By the way, SPI will never find a "meatpuppet" and is not to be used for such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Fasttimes68 was coordinating insertion of something or other with another user? If so, please name the other user and provide your evidence for this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A subjects website can be used in a BLP if it is not unduly self serving. __Fasttimes68 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob asks above: If she is a notable lesbian activist as you claim I would expect to see some content in her BLP to support that claim. Good point. It has been claimed (notably, by somebody identifying herself as an employee) that she was a "spokesmodel" for LGBT stuff. I never understood the notion of "spokesmodel", and said so in the article's talk page. My interlocutor got quite indignant: being a spokesmodel was pretty significant, she insisted. See this section and the following one in that talk page archive, as well as other stuff there. Now, was she a spokesmodel to a significant extent? I've always doubted this. However, a statement about a given period that was true in 2007 is also true in 2011; or if it's not true in 2011 it also wasn't in 2007 either -- and all in all a look in these recently blanked talk page archives will show you that the biographee has long believed not merely that the article should avoid defamatory material and invasions of privacy (demands with which I'd have no argument at all) but beyond this that she should control what the article says. So the OTRS stuff (to which I am not privy) starts to look like ghost-writing: the biographee badgers well-intentioned editors to do as she says, effectively creating an autobiography. -- Hoary (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) some typos fixed 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So in 2003 she was a lesbian, and in 2009 she's suddenly straight with a husband and child? Something doesn't add up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrariwise - it is very clear what is up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Please see Vita Sackville-West, who had two sons. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting but - dead and incomparable. Off2riorob (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And also bisexual, not lesbian. Real lesbians don't get married to men and have children with them, at least not after they've supposedly come out. Bisexuals might. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions, which might be of interest on some other website. I'm not quite sure which. Perhaps teletubbies. (Was there a problem with Tinky Winky?) Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Lesbians, by definition, do not have sexual relations with men (unless they're getting paid for it). Teletubbies, last time I checked, are fictional characters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a category Category:LGBT parents; see e.g. Ann Bannon. Your "definition" of lesbian, which can be an adjective, is just as odd as Off2riorob's definition of meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, people. (A) Self-identification as being inclined one way and/or the other is one thing, (B) actual "sexual relations" are another. The relationship between (A) and (B) may be an interesting matter for academic or other discussion. But this is not the right place to discuss it, or (B); and let's not get carried away with (A) either. -- Hoary (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus people, how many years will it take before people learn to ignore Bugs's off-topic crap on ANI?

There are two issues here:

1. The content dispute, especially because this is a BLP
2. The meatpuppet comment

The two are orthogonal. The latter could (and should) be resolved right now by Off2riorob apologising to Fasttimes68 for calling him a meatpuppet (that is, a real-life accomplice who tags teams with someone to edit war). The former looks to be heading for an RfC, but in the interests of BLP it would certainly be best for controversial material (specifically sexual orientation, past or present) to be removed from the article until consensus is reached as to whether it's adequately sourced.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring your typical personal attacks, the last part of your statement is on the money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris, your #2 is too narrow. There's an Off2riorob issue. Off2riorob demands (by writing questions directly in article text, and with no edit summaries) that material is made explicit in the article text. When reminded (via edit summaries) that the information is provided in the footnotes, he reverts. We all make mistakes, and if he either sleepily wrote "[[Who?]]" instead of "{{Who}}", or whatever, fine; but he reverts to the mangled state he created. After all that, he deletes. And again. Fine, he could have changed his mind -- but there's no sign of willingness to communicate, or of curiosity about what has so recently been hidden in the talk archives. Plus he writes up a fantasy about Will Beback's sexual attraction to him. Plus he mis-cites a policy page (well, I've probably done that too) but then promptly tampers with the policy page to make it say what he wishes it had said. If the problem is that he is overstretched (and I am being very charitable here), then he should realize this and lay off. And if he doesn't realize it, then he should be told it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That diff [20] should get Off2riorob a little time off from editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I realise that Off2riorob works hard on BLPs, but that diff - combined with changing the policy to suit what he said rather than simply backing down - leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. I agree with Chris Cunningham that there are two separate issues here. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only read this ANI thread, but I don't see anything wrong with what User:Off2riorob has been saying up to this point in this discussion, particularly if it's taken in context. If the editor's incorrectly accusing people of team tagging fine, but the specific term "meat puppet" has a very specific term on wiki and attempting to turn that into a dirty word is fucking ridiculous. If you've got a problem with what's going on then talk about the content, not the words. I don't see any substantiation of anything untoward here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that "meatpuppet" has a very specific meaning here: it is a meaning which is analogous to "sockpuppet", but for third parties. And if you call someone a sockpuppet on here then you'd better have evidence, because doing so otherwise is obnoxious. "meatpuppet" is most certainly not any less pejorative than "sockpuppet". Off2riorob should be advised that if he's currently using "meatpuppet" to mean "anyone engaged in tag-teaming" then he's using it wrongly and should stop doing that before he needlessly offends anyone else. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• - Anyway, I have had a warning note about a couple of points in regard to my contributions last night which I accept were a bit violating - I have just read the meatpuppet description again and I apologize to User:Fasttimes68for referring to him as that - his edit didn't warrant that accusation, I didn't mean it like that anyways.I should likely apologize to Will Beback as well, using "hard on" to describe his actions in a dispute about sexual content was "inappropriate" - Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Thank you. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization as a lesbian

Behavioural issues aside, there seems to be another, more important BLP issue here. There seems to be no dispute that Stephanie Adams declared herself to be a lesbian about 8 years ago. She is in the category "LGBT African Americans". She has since married a man (and reportedly had a child). Although we can speculate as to whether or not she is still a lesbian despite her current circumstances, WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that as far as sexual orientation is concerned, only self identification will suffice for inclusion in categories. There was a similar situation recently with an actor (Luke Evans (actor) who had been openly gay until recently when they were reported to be dating a woman. Much argument followed about whether or not the LGBT category should be retained or removed.

The situation with Adams is much clearer. She has declared herself to be "straight". This 2009 interview was easy for me to find (skip to about the 7 minute mark). Since she has no longer self-identifies as a lesbian, it seems logical that the category should be removed, but this was a cause for much argument in the Luke Evans case. Although this is a content issue, perhaps raising it here will bring fresh eyes to the discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I did ask to remove the cat - "LGBT African Americans" but the request was rejected. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked for the category to be removed, or Adams from the category? As for removing Adams from the category, there is IMO enough RS that she does not consider herself to be a lesbian so she should be removed from the cat. As for keeping the category itself I havent formed an opinion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the gender/sex that a person chooses to have sex with part of an encyclopedia? Would you create a category of people who have sex with animals, like that guy in Australia who married his dog? I've never picked up Britannica and went looking for who is on recorded as being gay that year? Where's the category for heterosexuals in San Francisco, Atlanta, and Greenwich Village if we are talking about minorities. What a strange strange category . . .

Signed,

WTH? Jesus Loves You --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we do have that category: Category:Zoosexuality in culture -- Atama頭 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob cautioned

(multiple edit conflicts) I have cautioned Off2riorob that continuing to misuse the term 'meatpuppet' to describe good-faith editors with whom he has a disagreement is just not on, as is any future attempt to rewrite policy pages to support his position in the middle of a disagreement. I have also advised him that WP:BLPN exists to help resolve these sorts of issues, and that he should seek the assistance of other, neutral editors sooner rather than later should he encounter problems like this in the future. (It is also worth noting that the exemptions to 3RR provided by WP:BLP apply even if one's opponents are editors in good standing; there's no need to invoke accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry if one is – in good faith – clearly and explicitly applying WP:BLP's provisions.)

My caution to Off2riorob is issued without prejudice to either side of the question of the content in the Stephanie Adams article. I hope that the participants in that discussion are able to resolve matters satisfactorily now that there is additional attention on the page. (Speaking as an editor, I think it seems odd and excessive under any circumstances to say 'lesbian' three times in one sentence—regardless of the sources employed.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that someone is a meatpuppet does not automatically imply that they were canvassed for that purpose. I think some people are confusing themselves by forcing such an association. My76Strat (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you're a meat puppet of Off2Riorob just for agreeing with him here. Want fries with that? FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In a sense that is true, but I would not edit war, or indiscriminately rebut an opinion simply to follow his lead. And I prefer a more civil approach in all regards, but am in no position to require it. For those who like to encroach a line, I think it is counterproductive and ill-advised, But Off2riorob knows where that line exist, and has not crossed a threshold. It is a bit patronizing to issue warnings when conduct is in accord. IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you understand what 'meatpuppet' means as the term is used on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After a robust read, I would have to retract the most part of my comment. It seems that solicitation, and response to solicitation is a requisite. My76Strat (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure by what policies Off2riorob often justifies his actions in; or if he means to use the term "meatpuppet" to justify his silencing of criticism or edits he does not like. We are encouraged to go to others for help when faced with a problematic editor or a dispute -- yet this is the sort of thing he discourages. Perhaps Off2riorob sees posting on another established user's talk page for help as meatpuppetry, in which case his definition is very curious indeed. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 and anti-Adams blogging

I was doing some digging into this and found a blog from Fasttimes68 here where he describes Stephanie Adams as a twat. Ironically, in the ten or so minutes from me finding this and deciding to post about it, the blog entry has disappeared, though it does show up in a google searches. The blog was about a lawsuit Adams filed against a different blogger and is titled Stephanie Adams is a twat. Fasttimes68 also just left a note on User talk:Silver seren here linking to yet another extremely anti-Stephanie Adams blog. I don't think someone who is so obviously biased against a subject should be editing an article on her. AniMate 15:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite a policy stating someone with bias cant edit an article. Or try to create a new policy. This is yet another red herring. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

How about WP:NPOV? Since you are clearly biased against the subject, going so far as to create a blog entry calling her a twat, you aren't neutral here. AniMate 15:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll see AniMate's WP:NPOV and raise it with WP:COI. Then I'll trump all of them with WP:CCPOL. I think they're all quite clear-cut. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Help yourself. I am in no way connected to the subject. Never met her, communicated with her.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore there is a difference between neutrallity on a subject vs. neutrality in terms of edits to an article. Edits should be neutral. I think the article reads very neutral at the moment. If you disagree, take it to the talk page.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that with our BLPs, we have to be extremely careful, and since you have expressed strong opinions against this subject elsewhere, why not let other people take care of the article? Wikipedia is a big place. You can find other subjects to work on that you don't consider to be twats. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll mull over your diplomatically worded request :) In any case I'm perfectly happy to let others do the edits and stay on the side in discussion.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastimes68 has 200 edits over a few years here - half of them are focused on Stephanie Adams or discussion related to her. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Methinks I'm catching the scent of fish. The sockeye, perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

DeSPIse him then? FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut it out you guys. Unless there is credible evidence that this is someone sock you shouldn't be making these vague implications. Off2riorob was just warned in the section right above this about calling editors meatpuppets without proof. The same goes for calling or implying with not particularly clever jokes that someone is a sock. AniMate 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting he might be a salmon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy barring individuals with strong opinions from editing articles, however we expect that editors holding such opinions – particular those who have clearly and publicly linked themselves to such opinions – to strive to edit in a manner that is utterly above reproach in its compliance with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's core content policies (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP). We also strongly encourage (though we generally do not compel, in the absence of other difficulties) those editors to make even more use of consensus-building techniques and discussion of changes in advance on article talk pages than they might otherwise consider absolutely necessary. WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are editing strategies that these editors should try to avoid.

Please also bear in mind that holding a strong opinion on a subject does not constitute a conflict of interest (within the general meaning of the term, or within the boundaries of Wikipedia's policy).

Finally, there's a difference between SPI (a sockpuppet investigation) and SPA (a single-purpose account). FuFoFuEd may be making an error in his use of acronyms, but should in any case be much more cautious in making accusations that he is unprepared to support. While I have not specifically evaluated Fasttimes68's editing history, I note that merely having a narrow focus for one's editing is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. It is only when that narrow focus extends to counterproductive conduct (especially advocacy of one sort of another) which interferes with Wikipedia's goals that SPAs are a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

We can ask an editor who conducts off-wiki attacks against a living person to leave that person's WP BLP alone. User:Bill Huffman is an example. He runs an attack site on Derek Smart. ArbCom asked him (not ordered him) to leave the Smart article alone. He has since abandoned that account and started another one (which name is unknown to me), but, as far as I know, is holding to the agreement not to mess with the Smart article. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask Fasttimes not to edit BLPs of people he disparages in his blog. How does it make WP look when it comes out that we allow people who bollock real people on the Internet to edit their BLPs? Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68. I've started a thread at WT:BLP to discuss whether it would make sense to add a paragraph to the BLP policy saying that individuals running attack sites or disparaging blogs on living people should not edit their biographies in Wikipedia. --JN466 23:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a clarification, the issue was volunteering to not make any comments/suggestions on the talk page, not the article itself. I no longer edit the talk page (or anything related to the article). I have never "messed with the Smart article" itself, contrary to Cla68's apparent implication. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you made content suggestions on the Derek Smart article talk page, which other editors then implemented. So, yes, you did "mess" with the Smart article. That's one of the reasons why topic bans usually include article talk pages also, because article talk pages are where content decisions are often made. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's complete this story Cla68, you failed miserably in your attempt to argue to the arbcom that I tried to influence the Derek Smart article in any negative way. You were apparently so desperate to convince the arbcom that I needed some sanction, that you made up the blatant lie that I claimed on the website http://flamewarfollies.com that Mr. Smart had a PhD from Warren National University. Since I edited the WNU article you argued to arbcom that I should be banned from editting that article. [21] I think that this shows that when it comes to at least me, your opinion statements cannot be trusted. Bill Huffman (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Fasttimes should be banned from editing the adams article, because he has some bizarre affectation about it. Trout rob for slight impertinence. The fact that someone is/was a lesbian, however, is not a blp "issue" until this is still the 19th century.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 5:21 am, Today (UTC+1)

Off2riorob's incivility

Off2riorob is a positive force in the community, and I commend Off2riorob for his diligence, but his comments to editors who he has disagreements with are generally very abrasive. I have never known Off2riorob to disagree politely or pleasantly or to make editing a happy affair. While I respect his contributions, his civility is sometimes lacking.

I first encountered this editor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Pei Ling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Seah, where he made such misinformed arguments about WP:NOTABILITY in response to comments that she fulfilled WP:GNG with such remarks as "Tin Pei Ling is not notable because she fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not been elected yet." Off2riorob made such remarks about a now quite prominent Singaporean politician: "This person is currently of minor note - is they win they will be notable, the WP:GNG is for desperate claims She is currently a not notable political candidate." The articles were later speedy kept because they passed WP:GNG with flying colours, and Off2riorob's novel argument was found to be faulty -- contrary to his belief, WP:GNG always supersedes everything else. I have come to the impression that many times, he vigourously opposes something not out of policy, but out of his personal distaste for a topic; which is fine -- he doesn't have to be such a dick while doing so, selectively removing talk page comments.

Off2riorob removed my comment from a talk page where I expressed a concern about the conduct of certain editors with a conflict of interest, especially because I was concerned that articles were being abusively managed by public relations managers or hired editors -- suspicions that continue to have rather strong basis in them. Off2riorob remains unapologetic.

Calling a user that has edited since 2007 a "meatpuppet" is only one of many gaffes that this user has made, who generally does not like to apologise or admit to mistakes. This is disconcerting in an editor. I am so glad that Off2riorob is so motivated to defend WP:BLP, but at the same time he neglects WP:COI -- and seems to reward or defend conflict of interest editing. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that GNG supersedes everything--see WP:EVENT for a counterexample--but otherwise your analysis is spot on. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Myself, I'm wondering if this bio could survive a challenge at AfD. Neither playboy bunnies nor blog editors have fared well there... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Implementing the BLP policy provokes edit warring. Count Iblis (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, censorship was the concern back when it was implemented but people argued that it would be applied reasonably; the policy is now subject to policy creep. Like vandalism, should have a stricter definition of what constitutes a BLP violation; the rest can fall under "content dispute" or "discretionary tastes dispute". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, while we should avoid slander and libel on talk pages, I propose that the standard for discussion pages be set a little less strict than article space, so as not to unreasonably chill discussion. There is something wrong with the current implementation of BLP policy if it leads to users cautioning others against making valid and particularly astute observations. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GNG certainly does not trump everything, indeed it is regularly interpreted or ignored in light of making a good decision. You really are on a crusade against Rob aren't you? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I was one of, if not the first user to draw attention to User:La goutte de pluie's returning contributions and one of the first to suggest/request recall of his Administrator status .. and the subsequent removal of his advanced administrative privileges, I am not expecting any good luck messages from him. If the user wants to communicate to work things out in an attempt to move forward and leave any disputes behind I am open to that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with it. I hold no grudges against User:Strange Passerby (who was far more vocal than you ever were), but you are simply an incivil editor. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Incivility"? He certainly has an odd way with words, yes. Hours before he had made a series of edits to the article and written comments above that speculated about Will BeBack's dick, he'd sent email to me that said in part: I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focussing on such sexual trivia. Well, some people's rhetoric does make much reference to appendages and orifices; I don't much mind that. What I do mind is that, erections or erectile metaphor aside, this allegation of his was and is utterly wrong. It shows that he either didn't read or didn't understand the message that I'd sent him in reply to the one in which he started a short and ultimately unhappy correspondence. (Oh, conceivably he read it and understood it but disbelieved it; but if so then he failed to explain this.) His first message was amicable enough (if hard to understand in places), and I think that my reply was thoughtful and polite. But my effort turned out to have been a waste of my time. In this matter, as elsewhere, I got the impression that Off2riorob doesn't like to read, yet careful reading and thought and discussion are essential to the kind of work that he seems most keen to do. Incivility is less important than incompetence, and I see incompetence, however well intentioned. This is exacerbated by his reluctance to admit that he has goofed. I suggest that he takes a month's break from following up OTRS complaints and that he works on adding sourced, worthwhile (and of course non-titillating) content to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  Heres my full email post to you - all of which you rejected quite strongly in your email reply to me, and then added to the BLP content that multiple users have objected to, your lesbian, lesbian, lesbian sentence. Also as I requested and you refused to support the removal of the BLP-LGBT categorization has also been removed after investigation and wider exposure.

• Hi (User:Hoary), just in private as there is a lot of heat about this bio and I want to keep out of it on wiki.Regarding the subject 1992 playboy interview "I am a lesbian" .. the subject seems to be retracting - can we not allow her to do that? And add something not specifically labeling her but a couple of comments about her support for LGBT issues? It is clearly quite normal for playboy models and such like to be portrayed as whatever sells the most, she clearly is not lesbian now as she's married. Are you open to resolving this in this way? We could remove the lesbian claim and add - In (whenever it was) Adams was a gay rights advocate and appeared on the cover of the Village Voice for Gay Pride Week, in addition to being a guest speaker at The Heritage of Pride NYC Rally for Gay Pride. also if we replace that can we also remove the BLPCat that asserts she is a LGBT African Americans - perhaps it seems likely she never was and it was pure promotion and sales - could you consider these solutions - nothing will be lost to the reader, she is only of limited notability anyways - Rob - Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  As I have already said, I didn't agree with all of the content this first message of yours, but I didn't think it was at all rude. Where I disagreed with it, I did so politely (I believe) and with explanations. If my explanations were inadequate, you didn't bother to ask for an elaboration -- you instead sent a second, less coherent message (within which you incidentally fantasized about my dick), and you then went straight into the article, first demanding information (most of which was already in the footnotes) and then deleting. Yes, yes, one interim version of mine indeed used the word "lesbian" three times in one line and a half; you have already said this, repeatedly, I have already said I regretted it; the recent edit history of the article (which I encourage anyone to examine) makes it clear that I reworded it promptly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a "when" request to the statement in the article that said Adams idnetifed herself as Lesbian - I think the fact that its in the citation is still not a correct position - to assert such without a date in the article text is extremely vague indeed, a simple date of when the subject did that is clearly beneficial to the readers understanding of the timeline, this is especially true in this case where the subject had later in a citation self identified as straight and basically retracted the historic self identification. You also objected to the removal request of the BLP LGBT categorization.(since removed) Your adding lesbian, lesbian, lesbian to a single sentence was imo a backlash to our discussion , something that should not have occured in a BLP. - Do you give permission for me to post your email replies? Also , I assure you, the expression, I don't know why you have a hard on for this content is in no way a fantasy about your dick, its just a quite common English idiom. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After User:Hoary responded to me strongly disagreeing with my request for compromise I sent this reply which includes the comment he posted above, as he has posted a snippet from a comment I think its important to see the snippet in context.

• (my full email reply to him that User:Hoary has posted a snippet from above) - I don't get why you have such a hard on to insist on focusing on such sexual trivia - there are no reports that she has ever had girlfriends of note - never lived with a long term woman - its just silly to insist on including this trivial likely falsehood - in 1992 Adams said she was a lesbian, there are no reports of any relationship but wiki has to keep it because it is important to you, but now she is married to a man with a child sorry but such insistence of demanding crap like this has got to be included is beyond me.

User:Hoary has been the major contributor to the Adams BLP since April 2005 and had imo become "involved" after a series of disputes with the subjects representatives, in a position of keeping the disputed content in the article because the subject objected to it and not wanting the subject to have any "control" over the content. His "backlash" addition of lesbian, lesbian, lesbian and his refusal to remove the LGBT BLPCAT after the subject had self identified as straight is as an example of that "involvement" - Combine User:Hoary's "involvement" and User:Fasttime68's off wikipedia attack blogging against the subject and my attempting to come to the defense of the subjects bio from a neutral uninvolved position... well I get accused of all sorts and I am well used to it with some of the reactions I get when I attempt such work. I am not perfect, but I do apologize when I make mistakes and am all the time evaluating, re assessing in relation to discussion and consensus and updating my positions in regards to policy interpretations. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Subjects should not have any control over the content of their article. That would be called a conflict of interest. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• He apologized. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, great. Lets consider this section closed then. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 topic ban proposal

It is proposed that, based on the discussion above, user Fasttimes68 be banned from editing the Stephanie Adams article, including the talk page. The article is currently undergoing its second AfD.

Support

• Cla68 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you are going to propose this ban, you should at the very least provide some germane supporting evidence and not just cite "see above" which is an unreleated topic. It's just lazy.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) A user with a website saying "so-and-so is a [obscene expression]" is unlikely to be able to edit fairly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Pure speculation on your part. Let the edits speak for themselves.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You've got a source saying "she announced she was no longer homosexual". You've got to be kidding. What did she do, take a "straight pill"? Or are you citing this stuff to try to make a fool of her? (or a tw*t, perhaps?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • If I ever learn of a straight pill being discovered, I'll post about it in your talk page. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That would be interesting info. I was issued mine at conception. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Draco^E 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) By all means, let the edits speak for themselves: user Fasttimes68 hasn't created a single new article since joining the project in 2007. He has a total of 223 live edits (plus 7 deleted ones), and the majority of them are concerned with Stephanie Adams. Time to get a life.
  • Nice ad hominem attack. Maybe you should read up on WP:NPA --Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you dispute the facts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I dont dispute them, however they are completely irrelevant. That and possibly the "get a life" comment borders on a personal attack.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It's just a snippy comment along the lines of "grow up" and such stuff as that. As personal attacks go, it's pretty lame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
        • To demonstrate irrelevancy, perhaps you could explain why you referred to the subject as a "tw*t"? I don't know where you are, but where I come from that would be considered outrageously obscene. What does it mean to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Red Herring. The articles I've not created or the # of edits I've made or the fact that the majority are on this BLP have no merit as to the quality of the edits and discussion. It's funny that your user page says not to feed the trolls, yet all you seem to do here is WP:BAIT--Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
            • You're labeling yourself a troll??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Srsly? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• He's nowhere near as bad of a problem as the endless self-promotion in the archives of that page. He even supports the (marginally wp:notable, IMO) article deleted. He stated that his concerns were with promotion and COI, and if you look in the archives, they are amply justified. The attempt to put an exclusively positive spin on all the activities of that person by OTRS pressure should not be tolerated. Furthermore the demands on what is "positive" seems to vary depending on, shall we say, business circumstances. Now HJ Mitchell is probably going to censor half this post claiming BLP violation, but you get the idea. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• The actions of the editor are not anywhere near justifying a topic ban. It is not against policy to hold mistaken positions, so long as you do not edit tendentiously. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• This is somebody who's been blocked once, over two years ago, and has received a grand total of one warning since. Yes, the warning was for something stunningly asinine, but it was not obviously Adams-related, it was short and simple and perhaps merely a drunken aberration, and it happened months ago. Some aspects of this person's editing are worrisome, but there's nothing banworthy here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Not even close to being justified. Absconded Northerner (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• This proposed ban has no grounding in policy or practice, and is a continuation of a content dispute by other means. Quigley (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Completely unnecessary, and I'm the person who found the blog. AniMate 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• No justification for this at all. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Way too extreme. Opinions off-wiki aside, we judge by the content of the edits, and there is nothing out of line with the edits made so far. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Non-Admin. Opposed, but hopefully following deletion-and-redirect, which seems a likely outcome at AfD, this circus won't recur. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other/threaded comments

I support this but it may become mute if deletion or redirect is supported. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant "moot". Cheers, elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Both work - if it gets deleted/redirected there may be mumbles about the principle/principal, but not so one will hear it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, most of the recent editing that has caused complaints from the User:GODDESSY sock pool was not done by Fasttimes68, but by a VA Comcast IP, 69.143.17.59. Based on editing style, they don't seem to be the same person, but if you have doubts file a SPI, neither are stale. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:GODDESSY / User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day

This is apparently a PR person or group working for Stephanie Adams. [22] They have consistently attempted to insert promotion in the article, have made legal threats [23] and trolling rants on the article's talk page. [24] They have socked for 5 years to evade indef blocks on numerous accounts, most recently in the AfD of that article. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of An-Apple-A-NY-Day. Mind you the want the article kept and WP:OWNED by them. It's time Wikipedia formally rebuked this attempt at subverting its core policies. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is not a pointless excessive by the way. List of Playboy Playmates of 1992, where the SA article is most likely going to be redirected given how the AfD looks, is not a mere list of names. It has paragraphs of text, thus we can expect the persistent problems to overflow to that article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. That this amount of conflict of interest can be tolerated is astonishing. If I had the tools I would have immediately enacted this block. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's worth noting we have banned users for "high conflict of interest" (amongst other things) before; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6#Please review ban, which led to Biochemical Mind (talk · contribs) getting banned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What would this accomplish? The sockmaster seems to create new SPA accounts or changes her ip address to get around editing concerns. For example, after a protection was issued a few weeks ago a couple of freshly created accounts started editing on the subjects talk page. One of the them User: OnlyGodTheFatherKnows just got blocked for being a suspected SP, and I wouldnt be surprised if User:SanMike7 starts chiming in soon.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See WP:UNBAN, [25], WP:LTA. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • So considering the user in question is unlikely to honor the ban, this is more of a public rebuke?--Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• A banned user's edits can be reverted on sight without 3rr applying, and checkusers are more willing to check accounts linked to a banned user. In addition, a community ban requires the community to overturn it and not one individual admin. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Being banned (as opposed to blocked) means we can be more aggressive in terms of acting against their edits. It pretty much means we can shoot first, ask questions later. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Throwing around legal threats like they've done should not be tolerated at all. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Would this ban extend to anyone claiming to represent Goddessey et al? In the AfD page OTRS says that the subject is not performing edits (and presumably the OTRS requests), but rather others representing her and her company. In light of this new information, is it possible to extend the scope of this proposed ban to the subjects representatives as well? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • See WP:MEAT, bullet 3, and WP:DUCK, so it applies to anyone as long as there is reasonable suspicion (behavioral, technical) that they are related. Banning these troublemakers from editing does not prohibit Adam's legitimate representatives from raising concerns through OTRS, but that adds a filter of experienced editors between her real staff and Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of this I Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Thisthat2011 back again

I gave it a few hours of sleep and thought but this has to be nipped at the bud:

Fresh out of a three week India topic ban, it seems User:Thisthat2011 insist in contentiousness and combativeness on India related topics, in this case Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks (and in my talk page). The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban. He feels I was personally attacking him, and that I was uncivil. I don't have a specific proposal in mind, but it is clear to me the topic ban had zero effect on Thisthat2011's behavior, there is no inkling of repentance, remorse, self-reflection or any indication of progress towards a more positive editing behavior. I think a topic ban of greater length, or some other measure that allows him to reconsider and protects editors (like me) with having to deal with potentially disruptive situations. --Cerejota (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say this user is presenting the whole thing in extreme bad faith right from the beginning. I don't know how suddenly he started this whole thing in the first place.

"The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban." Again incorrect. Once the vote is over, I have nothing more to say about that or vote in my absence, other than that the user has an extremely assuming mind. So let me present my side here:

There was a vote on the mentioned page about change in title. The first vote was for including the word 'terrorist' in the title, the second was against it.

In between the gentleman connected other events and put forth an extremely biased question, indicating somehow connection of saffron terror and how I would like it if the word terrorist is added in saffron terror article - this when I could not reply due to a ban. This is an extremely sly behavior according to me. Once the discussion is archived, this mischief stays in archive and no amount of apology could change it.

Not only that was not enough, the user still says that "However, I support neutral titles for both 2006 Malegaon bombings and 2008 Mumbai bombings, but you wanted this article renamed to a non-neutral version." - Now what is that supposed to mean other than anything personal? Does it mean that the user is touchy even to others giving opinion during the vote? Did he really think that connecting random issues will affect votes either way? Even now, he continues how "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." This is baffling to say the least.

So where have I commented after change in title once the second vote was done? Nowhere, notwithstanding of "the solid overturning of an article rename" nomenclature.

Hopefully, some admin would like to point out to the user, as mentioned earlier, that it is better to avoid assuming things about others particularly as a vote is going on, as also in absence of others; that is why I put a message on his page- if he understands this part( which is unclear), its purpose is served notwithstanding comments from User:Sitush against it to block the message going through.

The only thing I still don't understand is his apparent aversion to understand on how unfair his views are still and perhaps his belief that somehow my views expressed during the vote could have tilted the decision in the other way but for mention of saffron terror, and how editors on wikipedia are somehow feel about saffron terror.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 12:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this debate had to be restarted in the first place. TT2011, if it is your intention to impress upon Cerejota's views, or to end the debate with you getting some "higher ground", no, this is not the place. I wish Cerejota had worded his comments more lightly, but such a strong personal attack by TT2011 was totally uncalled for. Lynch7 13:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:IDIDNOTGETMYWAY seems to be TT2011's main issue. I'm deeply concerned that TT2011 does not have ability to work within a collaborative environment, and statements like the above link only go to prove it. There is no excuse for that behaviour, ever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Which also reminds me how the user got away, with all the people watching, for his arbitrary questions and later personal attack, and is served actually "wish"y-washy statements.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 13:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, sometimes editors have to come to good sense and drop the stick. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to settle personal scores. Lynch7 13:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I had also hoped that TT would use his 3-week topic ban to go refine his editing chops on articles about ornithology, or Chilean naval history, or any other topic that strikes his fancy outside of India, where he could edit with less emotion. Instead, he did zero editing other than talk about his topic ban,[26] and post twice at Christian terrorism; incidentally, regarding Hinduism which he had been specifically told was within his topic ban. And the very day his topic ban ended dove back into highly contentious India topics with a personal attack. So far as showing no remorse, one of his next acts was to confront an admin with smugness claiming that people had seen the light in his absence[27], although it's clear from the link he provides that the Talk discussion does not reinforce his point at all. He continues to miss the point, claim some nebulous moral high ground, and express both hostility and self-righteousness. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I do feel I had an incredible measure of restraint in this situation. Any in-artful wording is simply a result of a lack of coffee. However, I would gladly hear from Lynch - and others so inclined - about ways on how to handle situations like these better on the future (I would prefer this we done in my talk page if s/he is comfortable, to keep this thread focused). On this actual case I have little to add, except asking an uninvolved admin to {{archive}} close the thread at Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks, and of course, to stress the need for action in this case. --Cerejota (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How can anyone talk about Hinduism at Christian terrorism? Please be specific. This Christian/Hindu terrorism contentions are not something to be considered lightly. Or are you jut talking? Christian terrorism was not within topic ban, which you are spinning as within.

"dove back into highly contentious India topics with a personal attack" - I disagree, and also would like to know, why he was silent on personal attack on me.

There is no moral high ground expected by me out of this by the way. Let me also know what you editors have in mind.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Salvio made it pretty clear when he said what he said here (I haven't seen the edits in contention, but an edit regarding Hinduism anywhere would most likely be covered in the ban). Lynch7 14:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I literally just posted your edit history above; do you not recall typing the following during your topic ban:

“ ...though I would like to point out tolerance of people could be understood in a part considering that Hinduism is not even recognized as a religion on many European and Islamic countries. Perhaps a guy like Daniel Brannan, Chairman of the Kootenai County Constitution Party, could be exemplary in a USA town for his views(like 'the bestial thing'), regardless of its affects on image of Hinduism. ”

- Revisión de 19:17, 14 Agostu 2011 [28]

You disagree on my characterization of your diving back into controversial India topics right after your ban expired? Did you not dive into 2008 Mumbai attacks that day? Is that not a "controversial" article? Did you not use the phrase "Please keep your filth in your mind before vomiting it out. It stinks."[29]?

This is exactly the sort of coy "Huh? What? What'd I do?" that makes TT so aggravating to deal with. He is terribly fond of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and as denies misbehaviour even when it is blatant and linked/quoted right in front of him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly (now if you'll notice, the debate has already digressed from the Personal attacks thingy, the main point of this whole thread). Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a high-level of tolerance for dickish behavior, in fact, can sometimes be a dick myself (even I try not to), but playing deaf and being unrepentantly dickish makes it difficult to assume good faith, and hence creates a poor editing environment.--Cerejota (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@MV this is not about Hinduism, it is about how some Christians here look down on Hinduism. Without context of Christian terrorism, this looks hollow. Also, I am still not sure when exactly my ban expired, on 22nd/23rd etc and whether I dived on exactly the same day as if it matter. And yes it does stink that the editor has some presumptions while vote is going on and after.

Whatever may be the case, if its in violation of a ban, its a violation of a ban. Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

@User:Cerejota, are you beyond the attitude of "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." yet? This is important.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing necessarily wrong in that comment by Cerejota is there. TT2011 may disagree with the comment if he wishes to do so, but I don't think it amounts to a personal attack, as claimed by TT2011. Lynch7 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TT, pointing out some minor harshness (maybe incivility, definitely not PA, and specifically related to your editing vice you personally) on the part of Cerejota is not going to suddenly pull out a WP:BOOMERANG which will get you out of this and nail Cerejota instead. You were given a topic ban in hopes you would do something constructive and calm down. You did not do any useful editing whasoever during your ban. Instead, you briefly came back in in violation of your ban to post about one American's view of Hinduism (feel free to wikilawyer "Hinduism isn't necessarily Indian, not in my topic ban!!!"). On top of that, your Talk:Christian terrorism post was a horribly clumsy leading question in which you implied that one person's blog is somehow indicative of a widespread anti-Hindu bias, and made vague allegations of Hinduism "not being a religion" in parts of Europe (sounds against EU policies, source?). So fundamentally your act during your ban was to get back into an India-topic, get onto yet another highly controversial article, and then try to stir up trouble with a leading question apropos of little.

Christian terrorism was not in my topic ban is all I can say. That was what discussed there. It is about how some Christian demean Hinduism. I don't know what more to say.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It matters not whether you came to 2008 Mumbai attacks one minute, one day, or three days after your ban ended; that's yet more silly wikilawyering. The point is that rather than be a calm and productive editor following your re-entry, you promptly dove into a highly controversial Talk page, and used very inappropriate language towards Cerejota. And through all this, rather than say, "okay, 'vomit' was a little harsh" you've desparately tried a "he started it" while pointedly ignoring every mention of your own misbehaviour.

Frankly, unless Cerejota clarifies where his stand is, which to me looks like the same as "The difference between you and me is that you support pushing aside neutrality when it puts your side in good light, but want neutrality when it would put your side on a bad light." he stated earlier, this all makes little sense. As it is his statement that "The focus of his displeasure seems to be the solid overturning of an article rename that he disagrees with, and his inability to participate during that process due to the topic ban." is baffling. He still doesn't get what I am saying which is strange, and no one pointed that out to him, is still stranger.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this layout of your misbehaviour as well, as that seems to be your modus. Hopefully it's illustrative to the neutral editors judging this discussion. You are showing little to no interest in Wikipedia other than engaging in fisticuffs on highly controversial India-related topics, and that severely limits any utility you may have to the project. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure natural editors judging this discussion will see that my intention is not about 'changing title of the page', the vote for which is already over. The rest is, according to me, about the user throwing random statements during the vote, and assumptions later. About my inappropriate language, yes it stinks when he slyly asked loaded questions especially that I could not clarify, which he refuses to see as inappropriate and then goes onto personal attacks. That he has avoided to even admit that he did that just because I expressed my views during a vote is even more puzzling. I hope the user gets message and avoids such behavior in future during a vote.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, these replies simply demonstrate why thisthat2011 is such a disruptive and unconstructive presence. The post on Christian terrorism was nothing to do with the topic. Thisthat2011's defence is that "Christian terrorism was not in my topic ban is all I can say. That was what discussed there. It is about how some Christian demean Hinduism." But the post had nothing whatever to do with terrorism. It said that some unspecified European and Islamic countries do not recognise Hinduism as a religion and referred to some utterly obscure American guy who objects to a public statue of Ganesa. Neither of these are "terrorism" by any definition. No evidence what ever was even provided that any European countries do not recognise Hinduism as a religion (what does that even mean? 'Recognise' in what context? Which countries?). The whole post was little more than trolling. Thisthat2011's professions of innocence here and unrelenting argumentativeness merely demonstrate how disingenous he is. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you want to hear exactly? Proof that Hinduism is not recognized as a religion in many European countries? Here is | one, that says "Not many Hindus know it, but Hinduism — the oldest living spiritual tradition in the world going back about 8,000 years — is still listed as a “cult” in all European countries. Their governments refuse to accept it as a legitimate religion. They actively prevent establishment of any Hindu temple in their territories.", etc. etc. - just so that people could get an idea of what could a possibility be. It was an off-track discussion, nothing mainstream. About the 'obscure guy', though there is no proof of any claim to the contrary of whether how many % of American population is tolerant like Indians etc. But I will give you benefit of doubt because this is not the point of discussion here.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just tired of it all. There were at least two offers of guidance in the last ANI report (linked to above by Cerejota), there was some patient explaining by Salvio giuliano (the topic-ban enforcement admin) and there were clear statements that using the three week period to look into other areas of WP activity might be beneficial. It seems that all of this has been ignored, as indeed is the tendency of Thisthat2011 with regard to anything that they do not like. Instead, we have pretty much had a three week hiatus from activity, followed by insults, the start of more tendentiousness, WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, WP:ITISALWAYSTHEFAULTOFANOTHERPERSON, spraying a disaffection across umpteen talk pages etc, all within hours of returning. I am fairly sure that any time now TT2011 is going to start popping up again at articles in which I am involved and I will once again be spending far more time having to deal with the fall-out rather than actually progressing anything that really needs to be done. Mainly because TT2011 clearly has a narrow range of interests & so our paths must soon cross even if only accidentally. So, yes, I am indeed tired of it all.

BTW, TT, don't you think that the blog you link to above is unlikely to satisfy WP:RS? - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Not many Hindus know it, but Hinduism — the oldest living spiritual tradition in the world going back about 8,000 years — is still listed as a “cult” in all European countries." What an utter, utter, load of rubbish. Some nitwit's blog does not constitute evidence of any kind. The statement is not even meaningful. As for the use of the word "cult", there are are of course cults of various gods in Hinduism just as there are cults of various saints in Catholicism, which may be what is leading to the confusion here about the use of the word in this context - wherever this blogger is getting his "information" from. But this is clearly not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. If you read the assertions of the "obscure guy" you will see that he is complaining about the fact that mainstream public view is the opposite of his own. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to take this off topic, but I really doubt any such thing. I've known people who've been to Hindu temples in various European countries. Lynch7 05:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well lets see "Zed informed Pottering that Hindus are not allowed to construct temples anywhere in Europe. The applications to open new temples are kept under processing for a long time and then almost always rejected." etc. is coming from a report as mentioned by the blog. Is it not anti-Hinduism in Europe? It shows how civilized people can be anti-Hindu and then feign ignorance. More on it here, here, g-search-here, here etc. That makes Belgian Govt. extremely intolerant of Hinduism by Indian standards, and therefore extremely right wing Christian state. So who is ignorant of this extremely right wing Christianity in Europe here and blaming others of being ignorant here? Those who are feigning ignorance of intolerance of Europe surely needs to be penalized, no?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Over this discussion, see how tendentious Lynch7 is, how many & what sources he has presented. No one is innocent here, especially passing off religion Hinduism as a "cult" because Christianity religion has sub-branches is anti-Hindu and giving excuses justifying the fact that Hinduism is not recognized as a religion in many European Countries. Isn't it a systemic bias that even educated editors are not aware of this and are trying to justify it or rebutting it and instead calling those who point this out as ignorant?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 16:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This post is further evidence of how difficult it is to maintain any kind of useful dialogue with TT2011. He refers to a petition by one "Rajan Zed" which lists a long set of grievances about planning permission for temples and listing of religions on forms of various kinds. This is supposed to prove the preposterous claim that Hinduism is not recognised as a religion in Europe. Unpacking the confusions here would take pages and pages of explanation and would probably be useless, since TT2011 would just ignore all actual evidence apart from the blog-warriors he reads. This just goes on forever. TT2011 also clearly does not even recognise that this is not the right forum to debate this. He just goes on and on gringing his axe of victimhood unrelentingly. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course ThisThat2011 does not understand what is relevant where. YES ThisThat2011 does not understand the importance of staying "On topic". Does not even understand what is "On topic". But do we need a topic ban to explain that much?!!! And without an explanation, what could a topic ban do?-MangoWong ^ℳ 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read point #2 of the proposal: a volunteer editor or admin in good standing, with significant experience as an editor and in DR, will mentor and help the user work towards a better editing style. It is clear that ThisThat has at least a basic understanding of the English language, so such a mentor will be able, in a period of six months, to teach him what "On Topic" and many other things mean.--Cerejota (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there is very clearly nothing else that can be said or done that has not been said or done before anytime. Beyond any issues discussed here, elsewhere and before, the consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT shown here and elsewhere is proven to be seriously disruptive. I am raising a proposal for community sanctions/ban.--Cerejota (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for community sanctions

In the background of a community consensus that User:Thisthat2011 is failing to accept good faith suggestions on how he can become a productive wikipedia editor, and the disruption of the editing enjoyment of the community these : #The user be blocked indefinitely until he acknowledges the validity of the community's concern with the disruptive nature of his behavior. Once this acknowledgement is made, any uninvolved admin can change the block to a 24 hour block to allow the user to cooldown if less than 24 hours from the initial block have passed. (as per discussion --Cerejota (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC))

1. On the last block expires, the user be topic banned from all Indian, Religion, and Hinduism topics, broadly construed and interpreted, including but not limited to mentions of India or Hinduism in any article even if outside the topic area of India, Religion and Hinduism for a period of 6 months.
2. During this period, a volunteer editor or admin in good standing, with significant experience as an editor and in DR, will mentor and help the user work towards a better editing style, and a more collegial editing behavior. At this mentor's recommendation, and in consultation with the community, the topic ban period can be reduced or extended as seen fit.
3. Any violation of these sanctions can result on any uninvolved admin indef blocking the user.

#The user is reminded that editing in Wikipedia is optional, and he can WP:VANISH if he so wishes, upon request.

Discussion

• Support as proposer--Cerejota (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You make such vile accusations and then take this person to ANI. So hypocritical. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

First instigate someone. Then take them to ANI. Nice tactic.-MangoWong ^ℳ 09:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - TT2011 in an intelligent person, and clearly has some sort of interest in WP. I would be very interested to see that TT can do on topics where he doesn't have massive personal, emotional investment. I would submit that if he either a) goes out and finds some random fight like Serbs vs. Croats or what country should own Nagorno-Karabakh b) disappears until the ban is up and then dives back into Hindutva topics with Personal Attacks, we'd at least know where he stands on constructive editing. Hopefully instead he'll c) find a topic he enjoys that's not full of contention and ill-will, and produces some great articles about, say, Caribbean cuisine or Cajun folklore or what have you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been involved in endless disputes with many people whom you threaten to get blocked. Note: This user has been in disputes with thisthat2011 sincw time immemorial This is some sort of mob lynching. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Several parts of the proposal bother me. Point 1 is both unnecessarily punitive (seeking to extract, by force, a "confession", which, even if you get it, will be hollow anyway) and unnecessary (because if the problem is entirely covered by the topic ban in 2, there's no reason to ban TT from other articles). Also, the latter part of the sentence about the 24 hours cool-down is a definite no-go, given that blocking policy in WP:COOLDOWN specifically tells us not to use blocks for that purpose. On point 3, there's no reason for the mentor to be an admin--many of our best mentors are not. Finally, point 5 is just spiteful--you don't need to explicitly say "We're putting a bunch of restrictions on you--and if you don't like it, you can just go home!" As for the real issue--the 6 month topic ban on Indian articles, I currently withhold judgment, as I feel I need to actually get some context from the article talk in question before providing a fair analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Points well taken. Striking out 5, changing mentoring to "editor or admin", however I am not sure of the block and "confession":

Perhaps I am not explaining myself correctly, but this is my point: There is massive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on - to a person everyone who has seen this case agrees. By definition repeated IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruption. I am not proposing that he admits any "wrongdoing" or "confess" any crime - just that he be indef blocked UNTIL he stops not hearing what he is being told, and acknowledges he is being told this by the community - that is, stops disruptive behavior. And that this block be of a minimum of 24 hours - so if he acknowleges the concerns before 24 hours in the indef, a block is placed that ensures 24 hours of blocking. It is not a "cool down" block, it is a block to prevent disruption by a WP:GAME acknowledgement. If this doesn't address your concerns, what proposal you have? I think that a block, rather than just a ban, is in order because of the disruptive nature of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but have no problem with a shorter block, its just that I believe (incorrectly?) that a shorter block is usually reserved for "in the heat of the moment" cases, not this kind of community sanctions.--Cerejota (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the topic ban, the reason for it being so long is that he just came back from a three week ban, unrepentant, raising issues that happened during the ban (ie holding grudges), and the original proposal when that topic ban happened was for three months and lowered in discussion for three weeks - which have proven clearly insufficient.--Cerejota (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

On the 24 hours part, it's just unnecessary. Assume this proposal is approved--that process will take at least a few days. Why does there have to be a minimum 24 hour block starting from the point of the sanctions passing? It sure looks like you're trying to get in a punitive "you must realize that this is serious so no less than 24 hours block". As for the more general block, the problem is that it doesn't prevent anything, which any block must do. Since the proposal requires that xe work with a mentor, that mentor will be able to find out through the process whether or not TT "hears" the community.

And now that I think about it, I think that the mentoring + banning won't work. It's pretty clear that TT specifically has concerns about India, Hinduism, and related topics. I don't think TT is just here to pick fights; at worst, xe's here to represent a specific POV (though I'm not saying that with conviction--it's just as far as I'm willing to go), and xyr commitment to that POV prevents xyr from editing civilly and neutrally on the topic. I don't see how the mentor can actually determine if the real problem is improving if the mentor can't work on the main problem. I would recommend modifying the topic ban to say, "Thisthat2011 is topic banned from all editing related to India and Hinduism in all namespaces except for conversations directly with xyr mentor in xyr or the mentor's user talk space." That way, TT can say something like "I have a problem with Article X" and the mentor can say, "Okay, how would you handle that problem" and they can dialogue about how to do so (and, if appropriate, the mentor can proxy TT's comments to the article talk page). Note, of course, that all of this is contingent on find a mentor willing to work with TT. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can second that, the idea is to take some action that leads to hopefully positive outcome. I don't have a problem (in fact, find it enjoyable) working with users passionate about a topic as long as they are collegial.--Cerejota (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support. I really don't like it whenever a person has to be topic banned, but in this case, I think its necessary for TT to realize why we are here for. I agree when Qwryxian says: " I don't think TT is just here to pick fights; at worst, xe's here to represent a specific POV". I support Qwryxian's proposal. Lynch7 05:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I gave up trying to reason with him long back in the India talk page. He just keeps repeating his side and forumshops everywhere trying to wear down the editors trying to working work with him. Any mentoring would be futile and a massive waste of time for the mentor involved--Sodabottle (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Before I read this proposal my thoughts were that a topic ban would be appropriate and should include religion as well as Indian or Hinduism related topics, and this one does. A shame but it looks necesssary. Please don't drop the 'religion' part.I'm happy about the rest of the modification proposed by Qwyrxian. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support As per Dougweller, the religion part is significant because it is so inextricably linked to the apparent POV issue and cuts across many boundaries (caste, Christianity, Buddhism, history, politics etc). Finding a mentor might be an issue but I support Qwyrxian's proposal, modified to encompass religion generally rather than Hinduism specifically. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm afraid this comes too soon after the end of his topic ban. The topic ban expired on August 24; this thread was opened on August 25. I just went through all of user:Thisthat2011's edits after his return. While they aren't always the most agreeable in tone, they could easily be seen as the edits of someone who has been champing at the bit for three weeks and needs to blow off a little steam. I feel that user:Thisthat2011 should be given at least a week (of unencumbered editing time) and a few warnings, before any further action. Trips to ANI, so soon after the end of his ban, will only put him on the defensive and bring out the worst. As someone who has been on the receiving end of many of user:Thisthat2011's tiresome conversations, I am frankly a little surprised that so many people have turned up here so quickly to offer their unmeditated support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If it weren't for TT's long, long history of contentiousness, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, TT has uniformly been a fighter for his entire time here. And, importantly, TT has focused his editing exclusively on these India-related issues that he clearly cannot address without dragging in large amounts of POV. Frankly, I find TTs inability to find anything to write about during his 3-week topic ban (other than briefly coming in to break his topic ban) quite telling. I'd just like to see him write about something in a calm and agreeable manner. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a rule somewhere on Wikipedia that states that topic banned editors need to atone for their sins by actively editing articles far afield from the topic of the said ban? Different people atone in different ways. Some do it by staying away. We all understand that he has a less than stellar history, but he has to be evaluated now for the last three weeks, not again for the history before that, for which he has already served his topic ban. I simply don't see enough contentiousness in the edits of the last three weeks to merit a longer topic ban so soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A general one no, but see Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts with agendas for precedent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, he's not a SPA even in the expanded sense of the Scientology Arb case. He's edited History of Mathematics, India, Ganges, etc, ... Besides, India-related articles are hardly as narrow as Scientology-related articles. I say this as someone who has likely had more dealings with him (as an antagonist) than most people voting here. The reason why I am willing to go easy on him is that I'm not sure he has understood what the problem is. A topic ban is not the way to teach him that lesson, as he is likely to disappear (again) for that time and then reappear with essentially the same issues. I notice that he has never been blocked (Thisthat2011 (talk · contribs)). Why don't we block him (for tendentious editing), say, initially for 12 hours at a time, and then gradually increase the duration. I'm guessing, he'll quickly learn a lesson. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the SPA point, although there is little doubt TT has a fairly narrow focus (ie: pushing a Hindu related agenda). However, given their apparent insouciance regarding what is going on here, 12 hour blocks would be pointless. Indeed, a three week block was pointless and countless explanations from people over the last few months have also been pointless. The POV and the tendentiousness are directly related, and unless they can move away from the POV then nothing will be achieved. They would benefit from editing in areas where they do not have the opportunity to express the POV and therefore can have a better chance of learning how this place works overall. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. IMO, Sitush, Qwyrxian, MatthewVanitas are well known for blackballing and then obtaining blocks on anyone who has tried to edit caste related articles. I see them as having done this to a number of users. The present case is also a perfect example. I see no value in what they say about others. They just want to insert S***** S***** S***** S***** in as many articles as possible. They do it by using OR/misrepresentations/synthesis/rubbish sources, etc. and do not want anyone to oppose them. During the previous topic ban proposal, I had tried to ameliorate the situation by suggesting that whether or not a topic ban be applied, an effort be made to explain to ThisThat2011 what the problem is. I had offered to do so myself. The result was that I came under attack from this trio. I had said during that discussion that if things are not explained, the situation is sure to repeat itself. I have tried to explain an issue to ThisThat2011 in the past(it was some other issue), and that issue has not cropped up again. I do not see any value in any topic bans/blocks etc. unless an effort be made to explain what the problem is. My impression is that ThisThat2011 still has no idea about what the problem is, or how it can be solved. I think that the issue can be easily resolved simply by explaining the problem and the solution. Without an explanation, bans etc. are useless.-MangoWong ^ℳ 13:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the "S*****" used by MangoWong above refers to the word "Shudra", which their POV prevents them from typing in full. I guess that says it all. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• It definitely reflects the underlying bias. I don't think it is necessary to blank out "Shudra" when its taught in 6th standard textbooks to 11 year olds. Lynch7 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Being familiar with this word does not necessarily mean that I am biased. Please enlighten me if possible. I do not know of any sixth standard book which says "X caste is S*****". I have no problem if this word be used in an article on (say) "Caste System". Secondly, how does it become justified to insert and reinsert OR/misrepresentations/synthesis/rubbish sources, etc. in numerous articles? And how is it justified to blackball and ban users who oppose all this? And how are topic bans useful when the object of the ban does not even understand what the ban is about?-MangoWong ^ℳ 14:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That you three have been inserting and reinserting this word thousands of times by using OR/misrepresentations/synthesis/rubbish sources, etc. and you continue to want to use it even when it has become irrelevant in present day Indian reality, may also say something about your POV and your level of knowledge on the topic.-MangoWong ^ℳ 14:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A cursory look at TT2001's talk page, India noticeboard and India talk page will show how many people have tried to explain things to him. He has been here for nearly six months now. His actions clearly indicate he is not willing to change and never will.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle, User MangoWong is saying that these chaps have had their own POV, that lead to wasted time etc. but have got away. Ex: on page | on talk Nair, Lede, they have had put some stuff in lede that was not presented well, falsely mentioned and inspite of the article itself and users coming online to say that it is not so presently, did not edit the version. Then I pointed that out so and wordings are changed slightly over time, though not so well yet. In other article talk page on Yadav, | here & | here, a user is told that he could be banned unless he proves substantially that Yadava = Yadav which is also going on for some time! I guess everyone needs some warnings, and some didn't get it, and I could not be blamed for warning these for not 'coming to Wikipedia and do stuff' without first becoming aware of Indian society & varied complexities at all, which is going on since long. Similarly, these users who have come here to point out 'violation of topic ban', had not done so earlier on my talk page but are quick to come here only to point it & bring it here. I am sure the esteemed users coming here to support penalty have missed all this.These are all system bias (inactive/active) according to me, and someone has to be on the wrong end of the stick in a bias; in this case I am (as per me) and so I could point this out.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If that be the case, how come my previous attempt to explain an issue was successful? Maybe folks did not point out the critical points. Maybe they weren't able to see what the difficulty is.-MangoWong ^ℳ 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also unable to understand if the user Cerejota has understood the points I made i.e. not to assume things during voting and later, especially in absence of editors. As also, someone needs to get related discussion deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_Mumbai_attacks#how_would_you_feel_if_we_re-titled.. , may be after decision is made. Doesn't look proper & I guess those who are involved on the topic have already noticed.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is yet more classic TT WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He keeps trying to shift blame back to Cerejota over one brusquely-worded point during a debate long over. Then rather than admit he violated a topic ban, he blames us for not having called him out on it earlier (I for one didn't notice it until this ANI, when I glanced back to see if he'd done anything constructive on non-India topics during his ban, to demonstrate his behaviour in a less-POV environment). So far as MW's allegations on blackballing, and TT's list of articles on which we've "misbehaved" (spending weeks patiently trying to explain NPOV to a POV pusher, before finally warning him for warring), we've gone to ANI multiple times with Sitush, Q, and I consistently being found by uninvolved editors to be neutral parties of stated non-Indian background attempting to clean up the utter mess of POV/COI which floweth over on India caste articles. TT has been a prominent player in slowing down said cleanup through endless demands, and utter deafness to every response. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir MatthewVanitas, did your attempts "to clean up the utter mess of POV/COI which floweth over on India caste articles"? Did you find a lot of POV in these articles and 'TT' is 'slowing down the cleanup'?All the tendentiousness because your work floweth over, and also considering how the view( without any standards presented even when asked) "I'd like to see more non-Indian editors covering India topics, and more Indian editors taking a neutral and unemotional academic look at, say Bolivia-Chile disputes, the decolonisation of Nigeria, and other such topics where their perspective and detachment would be a valuable addition."; it certainly appears that the views are pretty extraordinary.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You did not just warn that user, you guys got the user blocked. You may like to imagine that you are cleaning up articles. But that is not all. You start googling, and pouring S***** S***** S***** S***** all ove the article. And you guys go ahead and paste it even in rank stub grade articles. You guys go to any length to paste this word into articles. For example, here one can see Qwyrixian say [30] "no information is better than bad or uncertain information", then, here one can see Qwyrxian [31] criticizing colonial period sources, then one can see Qwyrxian criticizing some unnamed ed for supporting the use of snippet view in writing articles. But here, [32] one can see the same Qwyrxian put in a colonial source by just looking at the google snippet view!!!! (more examples can be provided)-MangoWong ^ℳ 17:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I myself have taken down misrepresentations and OR stuff conatining S*****. All of it was put in by you guys. Much of it by yourself specifically. Don't deny it.-MangoWong ^ℳ 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

He was not blocked. He was topic banned. He was free to contribute to the encyclopedia's millions of other articles, and thousands of other topic areas, and we do need the editors - and India related topics, whiole very important to any encyclopedia, are just a small part of the entire encyclopedia. Any good faith editor would welcome the opportunity to contribute to the encyclopedia at large, and recognize that perhaps they can't see clearly due to a passionate involvement on a topic. However, I suggest you desist from speaking about other's behavior, and concentrate on what this thread is about. So far you have provided information on the behavior of others, but precious little on ThisThat's behavior, which is what is being discussed. --Cerejota (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, why are you telling others to desist during this, when you yourself are pointing out something about him? Sir, it is great and WP is better with all the quality edits you have been doing, but please don't assume things doing discussions and vote, and then pre-judge. Pre-judging during voting is not too collaborative - just protecting WP's voting environment, where this roller began in the first place.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I did in talk, I apologize for making it seem like I was questioning you as a person - I was questioning your position on the topic, a legitimate issue. Saying that the position you put forward is not neutral, and explaining why this view is held, is precisely how collaboration works - your response should have been to explain your position, not saying that my head was "full of filth" as you did. Not editing in topics you have strong opinions about, and seeking a strong mentor outside of the topics you feel strongly about, might teach you this. In addition, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote, we discuss. That you don't seem to understand this, even after thousands of edits is one of the reasons you need a topic ban. If you were a new user, I wouldn't be calling for this, but you have been here long enough to know better - the community would be doing both you and itself a favor by topic banning and making mentoring a condition for your continued presence. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked.--Cerejota (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, your question of "how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin" is far from being a 'discussion in good faith', especially in my absence. I have already pointed out many times this already, where this all started. 'head was "full of filth"' should be only be taken in that context only that you are assuming it in that sense during a vote/discussion; and could notice how user Tryptofish has said that his "direct observations don't really suggest ... any bad faith", contrary to what many have said so. I think that should rest your doubts, by quoting someone who has interacted. As from my side also, I have acknowledged multiple times your quality edits, on the same topic. Your doubts here seem misplaced, and I am making it a point here to clarify this aspect of discussion.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on oppose alleging blackballing and "cool down" - I generally do not edit India related topics, nor had corresponded with any of the involved here until this. My concern is not even personal attacks. My concern is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If a user is unable to understand and provide a response that acknowledges - even to disagree - what is being said, it is hard to have a collaborative consensus seeking environment. Since the article in question is a GA that has been degrading in quality in part because of behavior like Thisthat's, I am seeking to protect encyclopedic quality. That is why topic bans are worth it, because they force a good faith editor to edit somewhere else they are not prone to misbehave. Its a win-win: the editor gets to contribute to the encyclopedia with quality and learn how to collaborate by working in articles outside the topics he has strong opinions about, the editors in certain topics can move forward in seeking consensus without disruption. I think topic bans are not punishment, no are they intended to "cool down" as an editor above claims. They ar eintended to allow the editor to explore the rest of the wiki and learn about how to relate to other editors in an environment less passionate than the one being banned. ThisThat obviously didn't use his time for topic ban to reflect, but instead used it to hold grudges with the expectation to settle scores once the topic ban was lifted. In this sense, the topic ban failed, and hence must be re-instated for a longer amount of time to allow for longer reflection. It is really that simple. A topic ban eliminates his passion and allows him time to reflect and become a good editor.--Cerejota (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course the topic ban failed. During the discussion of the last topic ban itself I had said that it would fail if the problem is not explained. How could it succeed when TT2011 does not even know what the difficulty is? How does a longer ban substitute the simple need for an explanation of WP:TPG ?-MangoWong ^ℳ 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have been confused by the length of all the multiple threads on this user's behavior, but all of the issues have been explained.

1. Refusal to accept legitimate, civil, disagreements and assessments from other users as per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
2. Refusal to follow the talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG
3. Refusal to accept criticism or opposing views in a civil fashion WP:CIVIL
4. Constantly making real, undebatable, personal attacks and flinging verbal mud around as per WP:NPA
5. Accusing editors of misbehavior while refusing to examine own behavior in an honest manner, as per WP:BOOMERANG
6. Not editing in accordance to the generally accepted principles of bold, revert, discuss.
7. And not following WP:NPOV, WP:AT, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS when editing, which are our primary content policies.

And a few other issues I am not recalling. It has been explained. And it goes back to point #1 in this list.--Cerejota (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is what I was trying to say. Showing links does not do the job. I agree that it can help. It takes effort too. But what happens if one gets a hundred links daily? The previous issue which I had successfully explained to ThisThat2011 was related to copyvio. TT2011 appeared to have dozens of warning signs on the usertalk page and scores of links in them, but still continued to get more warnings for copyvio. TT2011 was close to getting blocked over it. I happened along, and explained what his specific problem was, and the warning signs stopped appearing. What does that mean? Maybe I could get through where topic bans can't? Similar is the case here. I agree that TT2011's words directed at you were too strong and indefensible. I do NOT suggest that they were correct in any way. What I am saying is that, TT2011 needs to be shown some specific points from the WP:TPG. Without reading it, one is sure to get into problems. TPG is about the talk page after all. I think much of the problems which you show in points 1 to 6 is real. I also think that most of them can be solved by going Through the WP:TPG alone. Point 7 would need some separate treatment. I am familiar with this user (to some extent). I was also part of the previous discussion regarding the recently ended topic ban. I am aware that TT2011 was not blocked in that discussion. The user who was blocked (in some other way) is Bill clinton history. This is the user MV was referring to when MV said "POV pusher". Bill was a new user. You can also see Sitush concluding that a new user (making their first edit on WP) is a WP:SPA. Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3#Don't bite the newcomers. And when I object, I am stonewalled. No admitting that it was a violation of WP:BITE. Still I did not bring it to the ANI. I myself had to go through the experience of being asked to go away from WP (as a response to my first ever comment to Sitush). I am saying all this so that you may form your own opinion on how much value should be given to the opinions of this trio. And these are just samples. If you still feel that ThisThat2011's comment is sufficient reason for a topic ban....-MangoWong ^ℳ 18:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reluctant support, perhaps with modifications per Qwyrxian. I've looked carefully at the arguments to the contrary here, but frankly the long diversion immediately above only makes me more inclined to want intervention. I don't edit any India-related articles, but I've encountered Thisthat2011 a lot at Christian terrorism. My direct observations don't really suggest to me any bad faith. Instead, it seems to me to be about competence, from the difficult and unhearing style of discussion, to the user signature, to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Thisthat2011. Thus, I think it would be appropriate to try to reign in the editing that causes heat, as well as to try to improve the editing through constructive mentoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: No adverse (for the user in the docks) decision should be taken when a majority of those supporting the ban are (as is clear from the above discussion), into serious disputes with User_talk:thisthat2011, no decision like a long ban or block should be taken until there is a number of uninvolved users supporting it. I think I have read that there are a hundred thousand active Wikipedians, if you are talking strong action there should be lots of thumbs downs. A coterie shouldn't be allowed to mess a person's hobby. And even then reasons should be stronger than I don't like his signature. 117.195.70.234 (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.195.70.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• The personal attack allegation looks like a boomerang.: The move was about inclusion of the word terrorist, without any mention of religion,[33]. user:Cerejota attacks him how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin, (emphasis mine) user:Thisthat2011, then reacts that it is not about religion - his page title was not about xyz religion attack, but about using the word terrorist, then he reacts to the very provocative comment made by user:Cerejota, by way of a statement in which I find the word Bible, but understand little else. What are we going to do now? Is attacking one person's religious beliefs game and another's taboo?The proposal too was personal attack (later toned down), what action is the community taking against that? If striking off would work in the proposer's case then perhaps user:Thisthat2011 would be eager to strike off his offensive editing. Also user:Cerejota's logic reads that the word terrorist implies a person of a particular religious dispension which is very unfortunate. I think every one should shake hands and withdraw a little wiser.117.195.70.234 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.195.70.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strongly oppose-- This is some sort of mob lynching. MatthewVanitas, Sitush, and Qwyrxian have been having dispute witb Thisthat2011 since long. Nothing that Thisthat did, these three editors have not an iota of understanding of India, but they consider it their God given right to stop anyone present a holistic picture of India. This is becoming some sort of killing all voices of reason. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nameisnotimportant, none of the people you name opened this thread. Many of the people who have commented have had little or no interaction on articles with either myself, Q or MV on articles. The range of articles being discussed in this and the previous ANI report is broad (I for one would steer well away from anything to do with mathematics!). Qwyrxian has actually "watered down" the proposal, and I have broadly supported that watering-down. Like MangoWong below, you seem to think that this is a witch-hunt instigated by three people. It is clearly not so. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Seems overdue. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. One comment, which was not unprovoked, in one day of editing sure makes a topic ban overdue.-MangoWong ^ℳ 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "was not unprovoked"? I don't recall having any disputes with you or him. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong is referring to Cerejota's comment ("how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin"). I fail to see how this is even remotely provocative. It's actually an attempt to get TT to appreciate a point of view he does not share. TT decribed the comment as "filth" inspired - apparently - by reading the Bible! Paul B (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In that comment, Cerejota is assuming that TT2011 is a "Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist"....how would you(emphasis mine) feel. It is a direct personal attack. If that is not a provocation, what is?-MangoWong ^ℳ 03:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are interpreting the word "you" in a specious manner. It is a rhetorical device, made necessary because Cerejota is responding to an individual. There probably is some grammatical construct that could avoid the necessity of using it ("how could we ...", "how could they ..." ?) but it is clear from the context that it is not an accusation. To see it otherwise is to adopt a pedantic position regarding semantics (perhaps no surprise there, then?). OTOH, Thisthat2011's response is indubitably addressed directly at one individual. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in my interpretation of that sentence. Cerejota's comment was a direct and severe personal attack on one person. That comment is assuming that TT2011 is a "Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist".-MangoWong ^ℳ 06:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You should reconsider editing English Wikipedia and edit a Wikipedia of a language you actually comprehend. As explained above, there is no way my comparison of hypothetical titles can be seen as a personal attack, except in some fantasy version of the English language. And I am assuming good faith and thinking you are lacking language comprehension. Less kind people would think you are just trolling and perhaps block you to keep you from disrupting this thread further.--Cerejota (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment does assume that TT2011 is a "Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist". If not, why does it ask TT2011 how it would feel if that phrase be used? How else is TT2011 expected to know how it would feel? And presently you are assuming that I do not understand English and that I may be a troll. Some AGF.-MangoWong ^ℳ 10:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Since my earliest interactions with Thisthat2011 on Tibetan and other Sino-Indian topics, this user has repeatedly demonstrated to me that his purpose on Wikipedia is to grind a Hindu nationalist ax rather than to build an encyclopedia. Qwyrxian's calls for caution are, frankly, too late. While many good editors nonetheless don't join Wikipedia with the purest of intentions, at some point (like after a three-week topic ban) new editors are supposed to acculturate to Wikipedia norms of civility and collaborative editing. The fact that TT2011 is, as of 25 August, still confronting users about "Bible" "filth" and Hindu "heathens" shows that he lacks a basic competency to edit in many respects and needs to be kept here on a tight leash, if at all. Quigley (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The situation could have been improved if the topic ban had also included steps to explain the WP:TPG. Even now, there is no effort to do so, and the only intention seems to be to impose a punitive topic ban.-MangoWong ^ℳ 03:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Given the importance of the issue with signature, I would take it upon myself to get it fixed too, if it be explained what the issue is.-MangoWong ^ℳ 03:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal for sanctions includes a mentor that would explain the TPG and anything else TT2011 might not understand to him. The topic ban, which can be modified if TT2011 shows improvement, is designed to stop further (well-demonstrated) disruption; not to punish. Quigley (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that some general points from the TPG, and a general advice to stay clear of contentious articles is sufficient. Anything more is unjustified.-MangoWong ^ℳ 04:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

'Question: Is anyone actually volunteering to mentor TT2011? If not, that part of the proposal becomes moot, and all we have left is a topic ban of some duration. Regarding the above comments impugning my motives and editing, I'm going to decline to address them for now; if anyone wants to take them up with me, tell me on my talk page, open another section on ANI, etc., but further discussion here takes us away from the main issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• User:Quigley's comments are a vitrolic personal attack: Quigley is a person who by his own statement is involved in content disputes with user:Thisthat2011, he mentions the Bible edit without mentioning the extremely provocative Hindu saffron terrorist edit by user:Cerejota, User:Quigley thus attacks him his purpose on Wikipedia is to grind a Hindu nationalist ax rather than to build an encyclopedia, now if that isn't a personal attack, what is? Now if user:Thisthat2011 calls someone like User:Quigley a X religious thug, why should one sided action be taken against user:Thisthat2011.? 117.195.82.50 (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — 117.195.82.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Are you the same person as 117.195.70.234 or Thisthat2011? Forgive me if I find it implausible that just suddenly, multiple Indian IP users who have never edited before have quickly found their way to ANI and formed strong opinions on this monthslong matter. I'm discussing editor conduct on a noticeboard for editor conduct; this is appropriate, if not coddling discourse for the medium. Thisthat2011, on the other hand, has started provocative discussions about editors' religious preferences on article talk pages, which is a disruption. Your attempt to divert attention from the focus of discussion (User:Thisthat2011's behavior) has been duly noted. Quigley (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

    Another personal attack by user:Quigley: He now accuses user:Thisthat2011 of socking. Let uninvolved editors substantial in number take a look at this case, those with content disputes with user:Thisthat2011 may not be neutral on the issue. 117.195.82.50 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In such a scenario, one sided action against ThisThat2011 is justified by systemic bias. There would be more votes against TT. So, one sided action becomes justified.-MangoWong ^ℳ 06:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Progress for Thisthat2011 and similar personalities (ie, you) starts at acknowledging one's own behavior as a cause for dispute, rather than the imperialist plots of the British Christian anti-Indian conspiracy. Quigley (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

user:Quigley's Attack no 3: Oh this takes the cake! user:Quigley now accuses user:Thisthat2011 of being a member of a gang of conspiracy theorists!!! Please someone invoke wp:TPG. Further in the face of such attacks if user:Thisthat2011 dares even to whimper that could be the end of his Wikipedia love story. 117.195.82.50 (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Quigley, where have I repeatedly demonstrated to you that my purpose on Wikipedia is to grind a Hindu nationalist ax rather than to build an encyclopedia. I do not remember anything beyond the Tibetan discussion, and the discussion was quite lengthy to admit. There were many participants and no one came out with 'flying colors'. By the way, I am not socking, and I don't have any idea about the other IPs so you don't have to spin 'socking' into this, along with 'the British Christian anti-Indian conspiracy' theories. Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the discussion has moved away from TT2011's strong personal attacks. Regardless of what the outcome of this discussion is, TT2011 should be issued a strong warning against further personal attacks, and we should not accept arguments like "Oh, the other guy started it, blame him first". The IP seems (I have little doubt that he's a quacker) to love jumping into conclusions. Despite all of TT2011's shortcomings, it is quite possible that he may have more left in him, and I think Qwryxian's proposal should still hold good. Lynch7 09:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has not moved away from Thisthat2011's personal attacks. These latest accusations against me are simply a continuation of them. First, Cerejota's desire to remove "terrorist" from the title of 2008 Mumbai attacks was a "personal attack". Then, Sitush, Qwyrxian, and MatthewVanitas's noncensorship of the word Shudra was a "personal attack". Now, my uninvolved support for sanctions against Thisthat2011 is a "personal attack". Such an extreme siege mentality is the antithesis of collaborative editing.

I'm not involved in any active disputes with TT2011, though I've watched his soapboxing on the caste and Christian terrorism articles with concern. I'm not Indian or Western; neither Hindu nor Christian. Closest to the "uninvolved editors" which MangoWong says he desires, I represent a viewpoint that TT2011 can't neatly fit into his "Indian vs. Westerner" narrative, and so he has to sic the Poona IPs upon me. It's tragic, and from this discussion I've lost hope that TT2011 can make a net positive contribution here, even with a mentor. Quigley (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attitude is hardcore indophobic. Nothing else.[34]. And are you trying to say that you have never had disputes with TT2011?-MangoWong ^ℳ 04:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not justifying TT's comment. I too see it as undesirable. However, if there was a severe provocation, why should that be ignored? And the last time I interacted with Quigley, Quigley appeared to be criticizing some actions of the WMF and or Sue Gardner, and referring to Indian/non Western eds as "wolves".[35]-MangoWong ^ℳ 10:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per MangoWong and Nameisnotimportant. I have not always agreed with ThisThat2011 and have in fact asked him to drop some of the extreme positions. However he represents viewpoints (often backed by proper sources) that enjoy popular support in India and a subset of those viewpoints may even be majority viewpoints in Indian academia. It might help if he works a bit on his English skills. This is an attempt to get rid of an editor with whom people have had content disputes. Ironically some of these people have very severe WP:COMPETENCE issues. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut has also been topic-banned from India topics for nationalist POV-pushing, which I bring up only in noting that Z. has been identified as having issues rather similar to those of TT, so "birds of a feather" here. So far as "content issues", no this is a matter of TT's behavior, particularly, as mentioned so many times WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which is manifest even here in this thread. Again, TT has aggravated people across a wide variety of topics, and yet the only people coming to his defense are those who've been deeply involved in India POV disputes. So far as viewpoints that "enjoy popular support in India", TT has been frequently contradicted by footnotes by Indian authors, but again turns off his ears and simply blusters rather than debate references. Is there endemic Anglo-American bias on Wikipedia? Yes. However, it is terrible "crying wolf" to invoke endemic bias to support editors who cannot edit civilly. It is a terrible thing to claim "endemic bias" in defense of nationalist chest-thumping, caste glorification, and the like. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO. Zuggernaut is himself/herself a victim of mob lynching. He/She is the best person to know how it feels. no this is a matter of TT's behavior, particularly, as mentioned so many times WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Actually you guys seem to be suffering from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Why else do you fail to see that TT2011 was given a severe provocation? You think only Westerners have feelings?-MangoWong ^ℳ 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I understand that Zuggernaut was topicbanned due to some unneutral wording. Unneutral wording is quite common and can be fixed. It should not have been a reason for a long topic ban. For example, the heading of this whole thread is also non neutral IMO. Would that be a reason for a long topic ban on Cerejota?-MangoWong ^ℳ 07:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FacepalmIf you continue to fail to assume good faith in the wanton way you are doing, I doubt the closing admin in this proposal will take your opinion seriously. Stop trying to poison the well and let this discussion happen. If you think I have done anything wrong, open a report on me, not throw accusations on a thread about someone else.--Cerejota (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that, even if the main heading of this thread be non neutral, it would NOT be a justified reason for a topic ban. Do you think it would be?-MangoWong ^ℳ 08:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. And calling me prejudice etc isn't going to change that, so save the typing. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support the principle I haven't been involved with Thisthat recently (although although I've read through some of the caste discussion due to its appearance on various noticeboards). I did interact with them in the India talkpage. The situation was that Thisthat wanted to change the lead to include the word "Bharat" as an alternative english name, which was fine in itself. However, they wanted to change the article to read something like "India also Bharat" or "India that is Bharat". This was opposed by others due to the strange wording, but they did agree to include in with wording similar to "India, also known as Bharat". Thisthat rejected this, tedentiously (is that a word?) insisting on their particular wording, and the whole thing came to nought. Thisthat now links to the discussion as an example of where his proposal was rejected for bad reasons, even though it was basically agreed to. Although this was a long time ago, from reading over the previous ANI incidents and related talkpage discussion, and the conversation above, it appears little has changed. I don't see any personal attack by Cerejota, they just gave a theoretical comparison, which is perfectly fine, and in my opinion often a very useful thing to use in debates. The arguments given in this ani case by Thisthat and those that support them are devoid of the slightest admission of wrongdoing (or even a mistake), and have descended to the level of accusing other commenters as indophobic, and describing how hurt a failed SPI made them feel. MangoWong says that Thisthat simply doesn't understand some editing guidelines, and that all that is needed is a better explanation. Obviously, this could be quite true. However, policies and editing guidelines have been explained to Thisthat many times, and MangoWong has had months to try and explain these policies to Thisthat if they felt it was necessary. I don't know what's the best solution here, although from above I support Qwyrxian's idea, but something needs to be done. If nothing is done, I predict Thisthat will find themselves back at ANI in the near future, with much less community sympathy. This would be a bad thing for everyone. (Apologies for the TLDR) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

117.195

Nothing to see here. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I fear that the National Internet Backbone of Pune, Maharashtra is in danger of being blocked. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC) ...and potentially lock about 10 million from the Pune district (roughly about half of Australia's population) out of Wikipedia? Why not block individual IPs instead. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Of course the actual number of people from there who actually want to edit the English Wikipedia is significantly less and is further reduced by not blocking those who bother to register an account. So is the whole "10 million" thing really that relevant? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, someone seems to desire blocking of much/most of India. Internet backbone#India.-MangoWong ℳ 04:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I think people will find that FuFoFuEd's comment was intended somewhat wry-ly. It is sometimes frustrating when people who clearly know their way around decide deliberately to edit while logged out (which at least one of these IPs appears to be doing, per their original edit summary).I have a fair idea who the person is from stylistic evidence but it is not my place to out them here. Suffice to say that if I am correct then they have recently had their own problems with civility & were treated accordingly. - Sitush (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I see no reason to block much/most of India. Neither do I see a reason to block the IP either.-MangoWong ℳ 05:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Agree. Unless I am unaware of some policy that the IP is violating. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You are known to connect dots that don't exist so I'm not surprised you are drawing conclusions that in the end buttress your POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Hm. I am known by you for one failed SPI - the only SPI of many that I have filed that failed. You are known to me as a topic-banned editor who has been trying various routes to overturn the ban. Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinion here, and so am I. Take a look at the IP edit summary. Query why one of your coterie is notable by their current absence here. Go figure. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the initial comment in this subsection was a wry one. Perhaps the subtlety is lost on others. - Sitush (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) ...a failed SPI which caused pain to about half a dozen individuals. The initial comment in this section was an irrational threat. Unless someone can show that it is presently reasonable to block much/most of India.-MangoWong ℳ 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, diddums. I apologised. Some of those named were subsequently blocked for various reasons. Look, just drop this bone: there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Sitush, you have come here to point fingers at everyone else repeatedly though you have taken paints to pass off the issue as 'the initial comment ' and its subtlety lost'; while ignoring why you have not quickly warned the user with the same alertness which you are generally fond of. If you are not too neutral, how does your opinions reflect? You yourself have apologized per you on an issue and are trying to get over it while at the same time point fingers at others - this is against AFG that you are violating. This is not discussion on you. Do this routine when it is for you where you endlessly can stretch these opinions. So 'drop the bone'(which is civil as per yourself), stop conspiracy theories like the other guy(whom was also not warned by anyone including yourself on his 'thrown to wolves' nomenclature), stop pretending that your analysis is almost accurate therefore it matters("I have a fair idea who the person is from stylistic evidence but it is not my place to out them here. Suffice to say that if I am correct then"... - this is a bland accusation made just to convince that some banned user is 'almost' the guy as per Sitush for his brilliant analysis) and move on.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 09:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC) That you apologized does not mean that it is sufficient to take away the pain you caused half a dozen people. That most of the others were subsequently blocked for various reasons only shows that you are expert in obtaining blocks on your opponents. just drop this bone That you think I am a dog only shows your severe problems with WP:CIVIL. there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. Whether or not the range is going to be blocked or not, I do look at the initial comment in this thread as a seriously intended threat.-MangoWong ℳ 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Both of you, feel free to open a report here about me. You know how to because you have tried it once. Perhaps you will have more success on this occasion. If you are not prepared to do that then I feel that you should quit the allegations etc. I know from User_talk:MangoWong#Please_file_ANI_against_Cerejota_and_Quigley_for_personal_attacks that you have a strategy to raise all sorts of issues in this thread but, honestly, they are not relevant. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone willing to mentor?

Qwyrxian queried whether anyone might be willing to mentor Thisthat2011 per the proposal but it is lost in the noise above. So, anyone? Of good standing etc as per the proposal, of course. If not then this is likely to become a straightforward topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone tell Kwamikagami to stop moving the pronunciation to the infobox? I would tell him/her but he/she has protected his/her talk page. Objections have been raised to this practise at Template_talk:Infobox_person#Pronunciation?, but yet, he/she continues to make these edits. Thank you. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the last thread I can see about this in the MOS is here, and there is clearly no consensus for moving this to the infobox. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Kwamikagami performing mass changes without consensus" is a recurring theme here, but I fear that raising it here again is unlikely to make any difference. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed disruptive. Kwamikagami edited a MOS page to include an idea that is clearly against current practice, made related controversial additions to fully protected templates and then started using AWB to make changes "per MOS". Along the way, he also removes birth and death dates, claiming this is supported by MOS when the opposite is actually true. Prolog (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The dates are per the MOS, and long have been. The only thing new is that I added support for pronunciations to several templates, support which already existed in others, and made a note of that in the pronunciation MOS, which already suggested moving pronunciation out of the lede to avoid clutter, clutter that numerous editors have complained about. And I haven't "removed" birth and death dates, or if I have, it's an oversight I apologize for. If you show me where I removed any info, I'll fix it.

The talk-page protection, BTW, was due to two editors continuing a POV fight over whether the Zaza are Kurds on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The MOS is clear that birth and death dates should be in the lead sentence (WP:MOSBIO, WP:MOSBD), as is actual practice. By "removed", I meant removed from the lead (unlike pronunciations, they usually are already in the infobox). While I agree that sometimes noting pronunciation in a footnote is a good idea, you should not continue to cite WP:PRON as justification if the words are actually yours and have received little to no acceptance. As your bold changes have gathered more opposition than support, and are unlikely to gain consensus, you should self-revert the remaining edits. Prolog (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that MOS does have some support for your date format, but this has been the case only after these edits that you made a few days ago, so this issue seems similar to the pronunciation moves. Prolog (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A similar experience: Recently I moved five pages from plural to singular like this one [36]. At 11:32, Kwami engages in a talk with me: [37] (IMO the click families should be plural) -- looks OK then, talk is going (here I claimed the MOS: use singular line). But already at 11.26 they have reverted the move, back in to plural. The Talk led to nothing, Kwami did not appear again. The other disputed pages in this set are [38], [39], [40], [41].
If I'm correct, it takes admins tools to revert a move, because one page must be deleted first to free the name. I expressed surprise at Kwami at the thread [42], but did not bring it further until now.
Of course, it is frustrating is that Kwami reverted, and then entered a talk writing imo ... should (discovering that can spoil a day), and that admin tools were used for that. Apart from starting an ANI, what else can I do? I also have distrust in admins preventing such behaviour, even when there seems to be a pattern, as Bobrayner has pointed to above. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not generally take admin tools to revert a move; I've reverted a few myself. It only takes admin tools after the redirect has been edited, like by the silly bot that adds Template:R from alternative spelling or such. Sometimes an editor will edit the redirect after a move, to make it harder to move back when he knows it's controversial (like happened today at My Tam, though he used a non-existent template). Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. As a test, I reverted Alveolar clicks into singular Alveolar click, and it finished as intended. Still, this is not the essence of my post. Kwami reverted before Talking. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:ADMIN - Administrators may be removed by Jimmy Wales, by stewards, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. Jimmy will only desysop for admin is using tools because he's being paid by The Man type situations, stewards will only remove powers if an admin has manifestly run mad or had their account hacked. Which leaves the Arbitration Committee. If you feel that something needs to happen, you will have to start that ball rolling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean ANI has no function in handling this behaviour? -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, she just means ANI can't remove adminship. If there were an actual problem, other solutions could be developed here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

remove adminship? A red herring Elen of the Roads threw in here. Why not discuss Kwami's behavior, as per the OP and my addition? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Wow. This takes the biscuit even for Kwami.

1. Edit a fully protected template to add a new parameter for pronunciation, without discussion.
2. Edit the MoS against significant opposition (to wit: the last discussion prior to July ended with "So... we don't appear to have a consensus yet.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC) ") to support Kwami's position.
3. Immediately edit several hundred articles to match that position citing the MoS. I'm actually being generous here: the edits actually started two hours before he'd edited the MoS to suit himself.
4. Edit war over the template, citing that the parameter in question was being used.

If this were an editor who hadn't had the tools for long, it would be worth a telling off. If this were an editor who didn't have a history of mass edits with questionable consensus, it would be worth a stern talking to. In this case, I really can't see that anyone could suggest this is remotely excusable. If Kwami is pathologically incapable of not using tools (admin or automated) to enforce his personal position above consensus, it's high time both were taken away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Woah, this is an admin making these kind of edits?! Definite misuse of their tools, and I agree, they shouldn't have them in the first place. GiantSnowman 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this disturbing. A simple revert was not the answer. Very disappointing. This admin just doesn't get it? Putting the IPA in the infobox has been deemed controversial, but yet he/she continues. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – I don't see why this is at AN/I. Did anyone try discussing it with Kwami where the discussion is going on at the relevant MOS talk page [[43]]? The only one of the complainers that I see there is Chris Cunningham, and he seems to have a general disagreement about the use of infoboxes, and isn't finding support for his point of view on it. I don't see how this is seen as a big behavioral problem of Kwami; he's at least talking. And anyone who works toward consistency with MOS is going to have "a history of mass edits with questionable consensus." So question it in the right place. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

re Dicklyon: I don't see why this is at AN/I. -- then why talk here at all? It is at ANI because it is a (possible) disruptive behavior by an editor. So rightly here. Which and admin could resolve -- good. Now I'll go read the rest of your post. -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking maybe, but listening? Is there a particular reason why Kwami is still moving the IPA to the infobox (see here) even after reading this thread and the thread on infobox person? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know; you'd have to ask him. There's a conversation open on this, yes? I'm guessing that since nobody responded to his posts of more than a day ago, he didn't see much objection to what he's doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a conversation open at Template talk:Infobox person, where the objection was raised. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Dicklyon, if you think Kwami's behavior is OK beforehand, go ahead (and again: go away from this ANI). Me too could find a talkpage where Kwami wrote a Nice Word (even I myself have made some Good Edits). You know, like Other Stuff Exists. Now why not stay to the topic here: Kwami's behaviour, based on diffs. and questioned with good reason? -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Broad comment: I've had negative interactions with Kwami, but I have to say that I believe his edits are in good faith and reflect a deep knowledge of language and formatting. Asking him for more notice and discussion of proposed changes might be appropriate, but this thread has snowballed, as usual, out of proportion. Tony (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too: I have had good cooperations with Kwami. Still, the OP of this ANI is valid. And I don't see a snowball that big. -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It'sAlwaysLupus

Recently this user changed "Disco-pop" to "Nu-disco" on the Moves Like Jagger article. He used no reliable sources, and he used WP:OR has an explanation. I reverted it. There was no edit war or anything, however I checked his contributions and noticed there were a TON of edits where he had gone into articles and changed Disco to Nu-disco, or British disco, etc, (primarily in the external links section) without any reliable sources. I find this disruptive and I think he needs to go and revert all of his edits, because he used no sources and when I questioned him he used WP:OR. I would have reverted the edits myself but there was A TON. Nicholas (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Before anyone asks, Nicholas already notified IAL.)

I don't see a problem here besides your own issues with the other users. Ironically enough the same user who is accusing the other users of OR pushing and generally disruptive behavior is doing the same things. But I'm no judge here, though. Please note that Wikipedia is not an anarchy and personal attacks such as this one are not tolerated around here. Case closed. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this editor, after this exchange at WQA. I found the exchange somewhat ironic, considering that IAL was very sarcastic and engaged in a borderline personal attack (calling an editor "arrogant"); keep in mind this was at WQA, where IAL was the one creating the request. In addition, IAL seemed very quick to assume the worst from the other editor, taking comments out of context, which is again ironic since the request was complaining about a lack of good faith from the other editor. To their credit, I was treated courteously in the WQA discussion, so I have not been the recipient of this behavior myself. Looking at the history of IAL's user talk page, I see the removal of legitimate notices (AfD nominations, 3RR warnings, etc.) with edit summaries like:

• "i replied on your talk page, i ain't need crap on MAH talk page du"
• "as a joke funny, but i don't want these pranks on my talk page, cats, archiving"
• "your trolling attacks are not welcome, be aware that I'm gonna report you to the Jimbo Wales"
• "-stalking and trolling comment"
• "just getting rid of the garbage"
• "flush"

Needless to say, I don't have a great deal of confidence that this editor is interested in collaborating with other editors. -- Atama頭 07:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama, you would be suprised how friendly and "soft" I can be! ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's all I can say, I didn't even know about this, I wondered why is talk page was blank. Nicholas (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because all of that is old and when someone gives me a warning, I actually take notes and learn from it. You, however, delete the warnings without even acknowledging them and give a sarcastic remark to the editer, and you don't learn from it, you do it again. Nicholas (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will say that an editor is allowed to remove warnings from their own user talk page per WP:BLANKING; the removal is an implicit acknowledgement of the warnings. What aren't allowed, even on an editor's own user talk page, are false accusations of bad behavior. And IAL, I'm guessing that from your user name you're a fan of House (so am I), but you've been acting a bit too much like the good doctor in your communication with others. ;) -- Atama頭 04:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well you know the rules. Your user talk page is your "castle", but apparently someone didn't get the rules. Haha... why, thank you but you know it's nothing personal. :) ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to Administrators: Is request apparently made by a 14-year-old person on the Administrator' noticeboard still considered reliable? I mean Wikipedia is not a playground, you have to accept as a Wikipedian (or as a Bureaucrat, it doesn't matter) the laws of Wikipedia and you simply cannot draw conclusions and revert other users' edits "just because you personally don't like it (topic, genre, etc)" and/or suffering from the anger management issues? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We judge people on their actions, not their age. I wouldn't doubt that we've had admins younger than that. Your "playground" comments are out of line, and you're skimming close to personal attacks again. Do you think it's helpful to go back to last year to dig up dirt on the reporting editor? How about this: knock it off, work on your own poor treatment of other editors, and stop treating people with condescension. And before you ask, I'm in my 30s. -- Atama頭 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's ediTs

Dear all,

There is an ongoing discussion "Autograph as signature in infobox" on which I would like to draw attention. One, there is no consensus on this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_12#Proposal_to_delete_signature_parameter). Two, Off2riorob suggested experimenting with a few autograph inclusion in the articles and based on discussions on talkpages we decide whether to keep the autographs or not. Three, several contributors have already included autographs as signatures. Overlooking them, how can only I be targeted? Four, I am fail to understand that once Johnuniq posted a message on my talkpage, I had stopped posting signatures. Then why did Rob remove all my autographs? Is it also right to ridicule a fellow Wikipedian citing the instance of an Urdu autograph which he does not understand? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have told you - I am under no obligation to search the whole wikipedia removing similar low quality unverified pictures of someones autograph collection taken with a mobile phone. Please present the evidence of "ridicule" - I have imo been quite patient and helpful towards you - linking you to people to help and places to discuss - I actually suggested to you to discuss on talkpages not add your autographs to infoboxs and then discuss - you also failed to discuss on talkpages and have failed to seek consensus and have failed to join in the directed to discussion of the wider issue currently under discussion on wikipedia, but instead have just focused your upset and perceived bias on to me, instead of focusing on the real issue worthy of resolving which is, what, if any, added value are your collection of autographs, the unverified nature of them and the low quality of the vast majority of them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you not lift the off-the-track autograph of Shaz Tamkanat and try to make fun of me? Also, on what basis do you refer "Your king hussain of Jordon"? I am not Jordanian. Thirdly, if you are under no obligation to check others on this issue, then why are you, or maybe Johnuniq (is he your meatpuppet - because his editing and messages go side by side with yours?) only bent on targeting me? Has any one bothered to remove the so called "signature" - just a print of the name in Urdu from the article on Nazeer Akbarabadi. First, there has to be unanimity and a rule on an issue and it should be applicable to all. It should not be that on one issue the rules are different for two editors. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq is my meatpuppet - yea right. Please present a diff to support your claim that "I ridiculed you" - You say, "did you not lift the off-the-track autograph of Shaz Tamkanat and try to make fun of me?" - please present diffs of what you assert is me ridiculing you or making fun of you, - to be honest - you are wasting your own time here - this is the place to report issues requiring immediate administrative action which your issue is not at all - go discuss some more - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

For chrissake, HL, what Off2riorob said referred simply to "your King Hussain" as in "your King Hussain picture", "the picture of King Hussain that you have uploaded" etc. People commonly use such idioms as "your average Joe" (for someone on the street who is not anyone's), "his [the artist's] Jesus Christ has an expression of grief" (meaning the one rendition of Christ), and so on. And, ad absurdum, even if he were going to call you a Jordanian or speculate that you are, that would not in itself be insulting or even callous. Using the same skewed way of yours in reading what he said about "your king Hussain", I could now ask you: what do you have against Jordanians? See my point?

Finally: HL, you are doing yourself little service by flaring up a war on Off2riorob because he has brought into discussion your massive uploads of images that are indeed questionable for a lot of reasons. Instead of informing yourself about existing and quoted wikipedia policies and recommendations, which by now would have enlightened you as to why people keep questioning and reverting your various additions, you repeat the pointless argument "others have done it too" and, frankly, at this point, badgering Off2riorob (to say the least) in an effort to either exhaust or intimidate him. And yes, he is right: it is his privilege to address the one problem he decides to address, not any other potential or real problem; that he doesn't also do this and that is none of our (me and yours) concern, and we thank him for the time he spends cleaning up the mess that has caught his eye. In this case, the mess your edits have left behind.

I assure you that this sort of "defense" of yours is not generally tolerated on wikipedia, as this very project page shows. Please clean up your act, is my advice to you. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Dahn (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You people are not understanding me - all that I want first is there any universally accepted rule (in the Wikipedia). If so, please let me know the link where it is posted. Secondly, if you want to remove my signature-related edits, under that rule, what is the problem in editing similar edits by others? Why people target me alone. Does anybody know how painstakingly I translated all the Program and Schedule information files of Wikimania 2011 into Hindi, some in Urdu, created a separate category of files of Indian Languages which includes some files in Telugu and Malayalam as well. As an online volunteer, I also helped some of the other online contributors with templates and posting problems. At the personal level I have grudge with Rob - even when he reverted my edits. Please understand me and help me in contributing to Wiki Projects with even more dedication and friendly environment. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1) If a "universally accepted rule" is what you're looking for, this is not the place to do it, and opening up several threads to badger Off2riorob is an even worse idea. 2) There isn't necessarily a "universal rule" to cover all the autographs you upladed, but there are several issues that, as you could have picked up from the earlier discussions, do address topical reasons why most if not all your uploads are dubious. For one, you have persistently uploaded them citing yourself as an author - whether this done out of confusion or lassitude, it is simply manipulative; you did not author the samples you photographed, you just authored the photographs. This does not make you a copyright owner, unless there are copyright laws that you cite saying otherwise, and they'll have to be on a case by case basis. Secondly, yes: images do get deleted because they are of poor quality and/or unencycopedic in nature, because wikipedia is not a repository of personal experiments (how's that for a universal rule?). See also Wikipedia:Copyright violations. 3) About the other signatures, several editors have told you already: wikipedia doesn't function under an all-seeing eye, and editors will tackle problems as they see them. There are and, alas, there will always be users who upload images that are in breach of policy, and users who will apply that policy - every bit helps. Again: WP:OTHERSTUFF. 4) Have you asked yourself if other images of signatures aren't indeed kosher under copyright legislation? 5) Again, the issue that was brought up in parallel was about removing the images of signature as a standard entry in the infobox, not about deleting them. This opens up a new series of questions: should we have images of sigs elsewhere in the article? do we even need images of sigs? That means that, even if your own images would be kosher, they will probably be kept, but not used in the article. It is a possible outcome, please please get used to it already. 5) I'm sure we all appreciate your other contributions to the project(s), but you have to learn how to properly assess the work and intentions of your fellow editors. I am frankly sorry that, since you state you are an experienced editor, you are not yet familiarized with basic wikipedia policies, and candid about not understanding their meaning and rationale - it is a wake-up call, if anything.

I hope this settles it. Dahn (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser's edit-warring continues unabated

User:Debresser has twice moved Tachlifa the Palestinian. The second time without responding to my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#New stub: Tachlifa the Palestinian. If he wanted to change the name of this new article, he knows the renaming procedure. (This issue is related to a current DRN, but I feel it is in order to create new pages using the sourced term, as Debresser continues to remove it unsustainably elsewhere, [44].) Chesdovi (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the reaction of admins last time a conflict arose between us, I think it is better I not reply. If any admin is really concerned about what is going on, please see this, this and this. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• How about I block both of you for 24 hours for edit warring. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, because what happenes then is that I should have left Debresser's rename and reported here. Whereupon there would be no case against Debresser as there was no repetetive reverting. I would be advised to take it to talk where the matter would not be resolved and Debresser rename would remain. If I do not revert Debresser's edit, it will stay. Block both of us. It will not stop Debresser enforcing his own preference on each and every relevant article. He is the one who can not stop himself from "fixing" new articles [45], let alone old ones. Chesdovi (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, alternately, you could've brought the issue to a content or dispute resolution noticeboard instead of reverting and waited for someone uninvolved to weigh in their opinion on whether a rename was appropriate and then they could revert. Then, and here is the funny part, had Debresser reverted more uninvolved editors, only he would have been guilty of edit warring instead of both of you. --v/r - TP 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• The two editors, Debresser and Chesdovi, should consider opening a central RfC where all these matters could be resolved. The issue seems to fall between the cracks because it is not quite subject to ARBPIA, and the same dispute keeps popping up on different articles so 3RR may not be broken. The community's patience should not be unlimited. It would not be sudden or unexpected to issue disruptive editing blocks of one week apiece. If either party will agree to make no further reverts on this topic until an RfC is completed I would hold off on a block of that person. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for your refreshing suggestion. I agree to not revert, but ask that I be able to create new articles with the term - there should be nothing wrong with that as the Rfc-DNR will hopefully settle the matter, and either term may be applied from scrath. I also ask that Tachlifa of the West be moved back to its original name. Chesdovi (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are not quite accepting my offer, since you want to create new articles with 'Palestinian' in the title. You'd have to agree to pause on that, but you could make a list of what you want to do and wait until the RfC is over. Tachlifa of the West should also be kept under that title until the decision is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that these guys (Chesdovi, Debresser) were both banned from ANI... FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It was suggested but not formally proposed. Frankly, it's long past time for a general interaction ban if not a complete ban on Palestine-related articles. This is unbelievably tedious. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that WP:ARBPIA was "broadly construed" and included any religious topic of contention? I feel this particular article does fall under ARBPIA and 1RR sanctions apply, so there are sanctions that should be applied to both editors.--Cerejota (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories (2)

Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs) is continuing his conspiracy theory campaign. As noted in a previous AN/I thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories), Mystichumwipe is a proponent of the view that Al Qaeda's crashing planes into the World Trade Center etc. is merely one of a number of "conspiracy theories". After being notified of the discretionary sanctions around 9/11 conspiracy theories, he has generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves, and instead focused on the Conspiracy theory article, where his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories.[46][47][48][49], while arguing at length on the Talk: page. Today he decided to completely re-write the lede of the article, insisting that the term has a "primary meaning" and a "secondary meaning", and that one of the world's foremost experts on conspiracy theories, Michael Barkun, is a proponent of the "secondary meaning".[50] As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe, as part of his larger project of re-habilitating the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He on-going campaign has now driven the article's main contributer to abandon the article. This cannot be good for Wikipedia, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reposted this to the fringe theories noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but the problem hasn't gotten any better. He continues to edit war against multiple editors,[51][52], and on the Talk: page insists that Barkun is a primary source, and that the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with Mystichumwipe. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any indication on the editors talkpage that they have been notified of possible edit warring, nor that it has been explained that it is entirely appropriate for people not involved in the discussion to revert a disputed paragraph/section/lede to the prior version while it is being discussed. Unless those steps are taken, and ignored by the party, there is not a lot admins can do - it remains a content dispute involving someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes. If you are requesting some third party provide those notifications then I, as an uninvolved third party, can certainly do that. Is this sufficient? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand - are you saying that each time someone is edit-warring, they must be warned anew that they are edit-warring before any other action can be taken? He's been warned about 3RR in the past, and even blocked for a month for (among other things) edit-warring. Regardless, please add whatever notices or warnings to his Talk: page you feel are appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They haven't been recently warned on their talkpage, nor blocked, when the two reverts noted by you are under 48hours old. If they have recently been warned elsewhere a link would be appreciated. I shall now warn them, noting that they have already been sanctioned previously for policy violations and thus increasing the likelihood of an extended block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! what can I say? I regard this as such a travesty of what has occurred and what has been written that I am not sure where to begin.

1. So I am apparently "continuing [my] conspiracy theory campaign"? :-0 I thought I was just contributing to pages by explicitly following wiki policy.

2. In my opinion the accusation "He continues to edit war against multiple editors" I regard as a very misleading and biased accusation. I DID twice revert undos that were made without any discussion by people not involved in or contibuting to the discussion who claimed I violated the consensus. That much IS correct. But I requested they engage in discussion as I had reached an agreement with one involved person to actually make changes so that we had something on which to base further discussion. When they edit-warred and undid my reverts I initiated discussion deliberately to avoid an edit-war and have not done anymore undo's. In the discussion pages there were three for and three against. So i don't believe I did do anything against a consensus. Thus the claim that I was going against consensus is debatable as the two people opposed to my view never objected to my edit, someone actually slightly adjusted it, and a day later one of the two editors explicitly gave permission to "do what we will" to the lede so that they have something to discuss.

3. Jayjg has also slightly misrepresented my views in his simplified version of "crashing planes into the WTC" etc., and his version allows for a misunderstanding of my view.

4. And he has misrepresented me again by writing "his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories". In actuality I have just included material backed up by reliable sources, after explaining my reasoning on the talk page, as every editor is entitled to do. I ask you to notice how Jayjg hasn't questioned the accuracy of my sources, but merely attacks his guess regarding my intent.

5. Jayjg wrote: "As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe. " that is not correct. I provided sources for that which Jayjg has either not read or if he has, appears to be practicing a deceit. Its well known the term is being applied differently today, one a broad and neutral usage and one a pejorative usage. All this I have clearly outlined on the discussion page and supported clearly with the sources I provided. I am also not a lone voice as two other people have been in agreement with me and we have expressed our views openly and our reasoning.

6. The accusation that I have forced the main contributor to abandon the page appears to me to be another deceit and deliberate misinformation. That editor has stated that he became frustrated with the discussion, sure. But that was NOT just with me. And he has implied he is leaving as he has other concerns at the moment i.e implying untill he has more time.

7. Whatever, he had clearly been in infringement of wiki policy with his lede (VERIFABILTY) so I need no defence against pointing that out to him and insisting he change it. He left the discussion after being confronted with that infringement by THREE editors (not just me), and because of our continued disagreemenet with the lede which remains based upon that infringement.

8. Regarding:"someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes." What is that referring to? I assume it is to your acceptance without enquiry of Jayjg's misrepresentation of what is going on? I am now forming the opinion that the man has a personal vendetta against me from previous interactions on other pages. This misrepresentation of my views and what has occured at this page appears to be just another episode in that.

9. The accusation that I have' "insisted the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with [myself]" is a blatant deception and distortion of what both of us wrote. I never insisted any such thing. Read the talk page to check for yourself.

10. I did NOT "completely re-write the lede of the article": I only "completely changed" the first sentence of it. Yes, ONE sentence "completely changed". How outrageous of me. (n.b. sarcasm)

11. And then there's this: "while arguing at length on the Talk page". Hmmmm? So now discussing, reasoning and giving examples of wiki policy in support of a suggested change is now also some kind of 'crime'? Yet undoing contributions without discussion and ignoring a clear mandate to make changes is fine and dandy? Yet I am the one Jayjg accusses of edit warring?

How do articles get refined and improved then? And more appropriate to this article and these accusations from Jayjg, is the question. 'how do infringements of wiki policy get corrected then'?

12. "generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves" This again is another guess in apparent attempt to mislead and defame me. He obviously can have no idea of the amount of time at my exposal or why I have not come back to my involvement there recently.

13. Finally, I dispute that I have ever knowingly violated 3RR in the past, or that I have even been blocked for a month. Interestingly I actually was attempted to be blocked, after what I came to suspect was some dirty tricks by Jayjg in a previous dispute with him. He also instigated that attempt at blocking me. But the facts are that that blocking was lifted upon appeal as it was agreed it should never have been applied.

I have previously asked for mediation with Jayjg which led no where and the person who accepted mediation responsibilites did nothing. That person also did nothing in a similar and totally seperate mediation request around the same time complaining of the exact same behaviour of Jayjg that I also complained of.

In conclusion may I ask you what do you suggest I do with my previous complaint and now the ones mentioned above of these current examples of Jayjg's misrpresentation and clear cases of deceit about me? The above I now regard as a clear evidence of at least lack of good faith which was one of my previous complaints against him. But this example has gone way beyond that. What courses of action are open to me to address this? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Mystichumwipe the WP:RS material shows there is a serious problem with how "conspiracy theory" is defined. Thankful one of these WP:RS (Bratich, Jack Z. (2008) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 5-6) actually goes into detail as to what the problem is.

Here are some definitions that conflict with Barkun's:

"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, pg 730)

"Other historians argue that past government lies, particularly in the past half-century, have helped fuel conspiracy theories, by giving Americans reasons to suspect their leaders. (“See, I’m not paranoid, I’m right.”)

So on InfoWars, the Web site of the hypervigilant radio host Alex Jones, a list of “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True” leads from the deceptions of the Gulf of Tonkin and Iran-contra and then moves to accusations of plots by the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve." (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" The New York Times)

Alex Jones list of "Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True" is a problem as mixed in with fully documented conspiracy theories of the Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, Project MKULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, Watergate, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Operation Northwoods, Nayirah (testimony), Iran-Contra Affair, CIA drug trafficking, Business Plot, Project Valkyrie, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Operation Snow White, Operation Gladio, and Black Sox Scandal there are boarder lines such as John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and several often regarded as tin foil hat nonsense such as the New World Order (conspiracy theory).

When you have a list of conspiracy theories that puts Dreyfus Affair, Sicilian Mafia, and Project MKULTRA in the same category as the New World Order (conspiracy theory) you have a problem with trying to say all conspiracy theories are fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this is a content issue, and warrants attention by the fringe theory noticeboard. Phearson (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of self-published sources to Lordship salvation controversy

208.40.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a long history going back to 2009 of adding self-published sources (such as Lou Martuneac, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Xulon Press, 2010) to the Lordship salvation controversy article. After repeated warning on his talk page, he or she continues to add them in. He or she was blocked for edit warring a few days ago, but continues to add Xulon Press books. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved this thread from the archives, still not resolved. StAnselm (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, someone act on this. The anonymous user is still at it. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do I just need to keep on making comments here to avoid this thread being archived? StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Missed it. We have a big problem with editors using self-published sources such as Xulon. Recently I've been trying to remove those when appropriate. Sometimes they are used in good faith, but that doesn't seem the case here. I've semi-protected it for two weeks since it's clear the IP is editwarring and has been blocked. Discuss it on the talk page, we'll see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin Dougweller and user Hrafn

I filed a WQA complaint against user Hrafn for personal attacks on me (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Hrafn). Admin Dougweller's first response, after such examples of attacks against me as "willfully ignorant" and "fanatic" were provided, as well as the location of other attacks on user DonaldRichardSands were provided, was to focus on not being able to find a third set of personal attacks by Hrafn at other articles, rather than focus on the concrete examples already provided. After that, the location of attacks at the Talk archives of another article was provided, as well as an instance of where Hrafn referred to me as an "idiot," Dougweller handled the complaint by leaving the following sympathetic message of practical "advice" on Hrafn's Talk page (see here):

You really need to avoid giving anyone a reason to take you to WQA - I've always felt I get a lot further by trying to be as polite as I can (hard at times) and let the others rave oon. It just gives others ammunition against you. Take the high road, see the error of your ways. Not as satisfying at times of course but it will make you a better Wikipedian and I think more productive at what you are trying to do.

As you can see in the message he left for Hrafn, he personally attacked me and the others who were personally attacked by Hrafn by giving him the advice to "let the others rave oon[sic]." Merriam-Websters gives the following definitions for "rave":

• "to talk irrationally in or as if in delirium"
• "to speak out wildly"
• "to talk with extreme enthusiasm

Dougweller said that he was talking about himself, but that is a a little hard to believe when you read the whole statement in context.

A quick perusal of the history of Hrafn's Talk page shows a cozy mutually-beneficial relationship between the two on WP. For instance, he warned Hrafn of 3RR not with the threat to block, but with the promise to watch a page for him that Hrafn was about to go past 3RR (see here. Hrafn's response: "Thanks." He also said that he'd hate to see Hrafn get drawn into a 3RR case that he might file against another editor for edit warring (see here). Likewise, on Dougweller's Talk page, Hrafn requested that he add certain accounts to a sockpuppet investigation.

It is also worth noting that the personal attacks on me by Hrafn were all related to articles dealing in some way with intelligent design. Besides the close working relationship in general he has with Hrafn, Dougweller himself also works on articles in the scope of creationism, which in WP includes ID articles.

I request that someone not associated with admin Dougweller take action against him for not disharging his duty to evenhandedly deal with WQA complaints and for personally attacking me to the very editor whose case he handled.

I further request that someone not associated with user Hrafn take action against him for personal attacks as outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Hrafn. When I initially posted at WQA, I would have been satisfied with a strong warning to Hrafn. Now that I see that at least two admins look the other way and talk to him as a good ol' buddy, either praising him for his humor in his attacks against other editors as admin Bishonen did here, or sympathetically giving him practical "advice" as Dougweller did, it indicates that the previous opportunities to strongly warn Hrafn have been passed up. The time for warning is over.

Here's the "warning" message posted by admin Bishonen in regards to an AN/I complaint filed against Hrafn (a weak complaint, but one that included many examples of at least incivility by Hrafn):

Please refrain from being funny on Wikipedia. People may spill their coffee all over their keyboards. If you continue to make me laugh, you may be blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Also, in both instances, I ask that admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter.

Thanks. Drrll (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You seriously need to cool down a little. We have this tiny thing called WP:AGF, and we like practicing it. That's what Dougweller did. Just because he didn't whip out the banhammer to help you, it doesn't mean he didn't take you seriously - admins are not there to help you in an editing dispute but to ensure that wikipedia is not disrupted and clean up the messes we editors leave. Given that this apparently long standing, and you make only complaints on his talk page behavior (rather than edit warring or vandalism), if what I have said at WQA is insufficient for you, then I think you have no option but to request a WP:MEDCAB mediation, and if that fails, WP:ARBCOM. If they accept your case, however, be sure there is no WP:BOOMERANG issues, an neither the MEDCAB nor ARBCOM like it when something frivolous reaches them. You must show that Hrafn's behavior is harming the ability of Wikipedia to be improved. --Cerejota (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I just from my own personal standpoint would argue that Hrafn's behavior is harming Wikipedia by making editors like me think twice about sticking around here. My interactions with Hrafn were very similar to those I had with Bello except a little bit less revert and definitely no sock puppetry. He I would argue engages in the exact type of actions that led to this.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This post is TLDR, so I made my own research: Drrll, an editor who appears to be editing in favour of the full scale of American extreme-right biases and beliefs, clashes with Hrafn over Intelligent Design. Drrll reports Hrafn to WQA, accusing him of personal attacks with a number of diffs that prove no such thing when read in context. Drrll is unhappy with the level of support that he or she receives from admins. Shortly after the present report, Viriditas points to what superficially looks like actual, but not ongoing, problematic behaviour by Hrafn in November, at a completely unrelated article.

To go into some detail, Drrll in the first sentence of the present report says: "after such examples of attacks against me as "willfully ignorant" and "fanatic" were provided". The version of this claim at WQA was as follows: "Here he calls me 'willfully ignorant.' Later on, he calls me a 'fanatic' here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ('kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr')."

For "willfully ignorant", the context was as follows: Drrll apparently wanted the biography of an ID supporter to say that anti-darwinists are persecuted, and in that context claimed that the National Center for Science Education, an anti-creationism organisation connected to the AAAS, is not a BLP-quality reliable source for creationist BLPs. Hrafn's comment was in response to a comment by Drrll that ended as follows: "DI may qualify as WP:FRINGE for its positions on science, but it hardly qualifies as extreme. The extremist position in the US is that a God had nothing to do with origins of the universe. I see that you apparently have no intentions of collaborating, taking a 'my way or the highway' approach." At this point, Hrafn's "I see no point in 'collaborating' with wilful ignorance" clearly did not lower the level of the debate, nor was it unprovoked.

As to "fanatic", in the diff Hrafn did not call Drrll a fanatic (although that would have been reasonable, I believe) but quoted Churchill as follows: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." The quotation introduced a satire based on the WP:DEADHORSE theme, which was in response to Drrll's following sentence, which appears to be straight out of the tendentious editing toolbox: "WP:DEADHORSE invocation is a sure sign that instead of refuting my points, you just prefer that I shut up and go away." (As I discovered while writing this, Drrll's comment was in response to my invocation of WP:HORSEMEAT [53].) Hans Adler 04:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I see Ddrrl forgot to mention that my response to him there included "If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead. Right now though I haven't said anything about you although you certainly have said something about me." Or that another editor applauded my advice and called it diplomatic rather than sympathetic (also saying I goofed on something). I can see why Drrll though it referred to him, and perhaps I should have added (not referring to anyone involved in this dispute) and for that carelessness I apologise, but as I said, off-Wiki I've a long record of both trying to take that attitude myself of politeness in the face of both aggression and comments with which I strongly disagree shall we say, and I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote except that the phrasing made it possible for someone to say it was aimed at them (shame about the lack of Good Faith there). And yes, I warned Hrafn of 3RR not with a template but with a friendly warning - at lesat three times in fact. We watch a lot of the same pages. I always try to warn everyone in a dispute no matter what my attitude is towards them, and of course where I'm involved report it rather than act directly. And I don't care who reports possible sock puppets to me, does that really matter? Editors report them to Admins they know, especially if the Admin is involved in an SPI or planning to file one. And when did editors working together in a beneficial relationship become a bad thing? Drrll is calling for 'action' against me - presumably either blocking me or banning me from WQA. Seems a bit drastic and aggressive, although I can see why Drrll would like to have me kept out of any disputes involving him. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot, he asks that "admins with whom I have had content disputes not involve themselves in this matter". This is of course not acceptable. Asking me not to use my tools would be fine, this suggestion would clearly help editors who get into content disputes remove some editors who disagree with them. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Drrll's request for administrative action appears to be based on an assumption of bad faith. This dispute is already under discussion at WQA and I've recommended that interested users make use of the user RfC process if they are interested. This report does seem to be an attempt at forum shopping and as there is nothing actionable, it should be closed. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I had every assumption of good faith toward both Hrafn and Dougweller until they took actions that cast severe doubt on that assumption. Even after Dougweller entered the fray at WQA as an admin and focused on not being able to find all of the complaints against Hrafn, as opposed to focusing in on the many examples he could find, I still assumed good faith on his part. It wasn't until he handled the WQA case with his sympathetic message to Hrafn (without even a warning) and attacked me in the message that I started wondering about his intents. I suppose any posting here reveals that the level of trust in good faith has deteriated with the other individuals. I only came here because of the handling of the WQA complaint by an admin (and he encouraged me to come here himself), so the charge of forum shopping is baseless. Drrll (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• At the beginning of this section, I have been mentioned. I understand Drrll's difficulty with Hrafn. For ten days earlier this month, Hrafn and I have been debating a particular WP article. Hrafn seems to ignore WP civility. I try to take his advice and ignore his demeaning attitude. Does Hrafn harm the WP process? He knows the rules. His counsel is almost always correct. The only thing lacking is WP civility. Hrafn demeans those who frustrate him. In our situation, he eventually withdrew from the fray and is taking a break. Such an action is mature and helpful to the process. When Hrafn becomes involved in an article, the article gets better. If an editor can stomach his incivilities, that editor will be stronger for rising above the personal stuff. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly, there is an element of truth in what you say. In the military, for example, a soldier may be molded into a warrior by such a process. Similarly, a law school student might learn how to best present themselves in court through the scolding of a professor. And in the recent past (no longer true today), a medical resident might put in 36 hours on a shift, a training regimen which has its roots in preparing for attending to wounded soldiers during war, which brings us full circle. Stress can improve learning in some respects, whether it is trial by fire or being hit repeatedly with a clue stick. However, these methods are at odds with the goal of encyclopedia writing. This approach hampers collaboration when we should be seeking to encourage it. Civility is not just a policy of Wikipedia, it is the fuel for collaboration, and if Hrafn can't bear it, then that problem needs to be addressed. The encyclopedia building process, and writing in general, requires not just self-motivation but the intrinsic freedom to create. Hrafn's role, as you describe it, defeats this process. Again, I recommend closing this thread and letting the WQA run its course. There is nothing actionable for an administrator to do here. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor note - Drrll has reworded one of his posts. It now says "I only came here because of the handling of the WQA complaint by an admin (and he encouraged me to come here himself), so the charge of forum shopping is baseless." What I wrote in his response to him saying "Maybe someone needs to take a looksee at your violations of WP:NPA policy and keep you away from a noticeboard where instead of displaying an interest in enforcing policy, you don't mind engaging in some policy-breaking yourself." was " If you want to take me to ANI to get me banned from this board, go ahead." I did not suggest he extend it to any other editors or disputesk, which he has done. Nor of course did I break NPA or take any Administrative action, so I think 'handling' is incorrect. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can see Doug's point, though. I started looking at Drll's list of Hrafn's "personal attacks", and of the first four I looked at, two were really minor, one wasn't really a PA at all, and one would have been a PA except for the fact that Hrafn was actually quoting another editor (Jim62sch) completely. I stopped looking after that. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, that's exactly the kind of experience that I had as well. There is only so many baseless accusations that I will look at in detail before giving up and deciding that the rest is probably just as baseless. Hans Adler 17:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you three view calling someone "willfully ignorant," a "fanatic," and an "idiot," as "minor," I sure feel sorry for the people who cross your paths in real life. Do you use those kind of "minor" words with friends?. And yes, he did call me and another editor "idiots," and was not "actually quoting another editor (Jim62sch) completely." For the benefit of others reading this thread, I'm going to quote the entire thread between Jim62sch & Hrafn and let the reader decide if Hrafn was or was not calling me that:

Be careful, amigo, Missy is trying to provoke "bad behaviour". Soon, either he or Drll will be screaming "edit war". I'm not sure that Hagel's comments much matter other than to prove that he's a nutter.  :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've followed Nagel since his endorsement of Signature in the Cell. He's basically a philosopher of mind having a hissy fit because scientific empiricism keeps encroaching on his freedom to pontificate on the 'Mysteries of Life™' (shades of the Deep Thought scene from Hitchhikers' Guide). It's difficult to see how any mention of him is merited, let alone expanding it. I don't intend to give them an edit war -- but I certainly don't intend to let their ludicrous claims go unchallenged. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot. But, maybe young and impressionable minds won't.

And yeah, sience is a bitch -- I keep hoping that someone will invent a "transporter" and the the uncertainty principle tells me it can't be done and I too throw a hissy fit. Damn.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if we keep letting the opinions of 'idiots' into the article, won't we (i) end up with an idiotic article & (ii) end up looking like idiots ourselves? But then, if we idiot-proof the article I suppose natural selection will tend to mean we'll simply get smarter idiots trying to break into it. ;) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't object to idiocy. At least not today. Maybe tomorrow.  :( •Jim62sch

Drrll (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for proving my point - as you can see, Jim62sch was the one who introduced "idiot" into the conversation ("My thing is that I read his quotes and assign him to the category of idiot."). I think Cerejota summed the main problems up below. And I think this, and the WQA, can be wrapped up now. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as further exploration of all the allegations show strong disagreements but no NPAs. Drrll seems to be seeking to advance his or her position by eliminating effective opposition via bureaucratic means. Hrafn needs to tone it down a little, and give a little less of a fuck but as I said in the WQA, there has not been a single diff given that shows any personal attacks, or shows any pervasive edit warring, and as such, no admin action is needed.

I think WP:BOOMERANG applies. An examination of this discussion and the one at WQA , and of Drrll's editing behavior shows a worrying pattern of disruptive behavior and the meatpuppetry and pile-on of empty accusations (including attacking an admin who has not misused his tools of wrongdoing) are worrying too. Perhaps community action is needed to protect the integrity of the wiki? Perhaps I am over reacting, but I think the idea that we all need to get along and if we don't we need to be blocked or banned is very dangerous, and we need to make sure it is understood that assuming good faith is not optional. --Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Need help to create redirect page with "-".

Resolved

 – Redirect created. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Admins ;

I am merely trying to create a redirect page "Thyroid-S", which is a brand name, and I want to redirect to the general discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiccated_thyroid_extract

But the "-" subtraction sign in the brand name "Thyroid-S" appears to be causing a problem in creating this page. Can someone help me please?

BR Peter G. Thailand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresard (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Atama頭 04:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Melesse on image deletion and threatening language

To whom it may concern,

File:Obamaarab mccain2008.jpg

File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg

I have put up images and I have rationales on them. They are fair use according to wikipedia policy, and I have done everything to comply with wikipedia policy. Now, they are being marked for deletion by User:Melesse. I pointed this administrator to the rationales that I have given, but now I'm getting threats to block me. I want a 3rd party on this, because Meleese has been threatening deletion of 2 images without discussing the rationale.--Screwball23 talk 04:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your removing templates that have a right to be there. It is normal to dispute fair use claims - go discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Both are images of living persons. Per our non-free content policy, these are replaceable by free images of the people involved. Therefore, these are not allowable images to be used. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts have already been stated by Off2riorob and Masem, so I have no further comment. Just saying something now so nobody thinks I'm trying to avoid this discussion. Melesse (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Masem, there are limited circumstances where a non-free image of a living person is allowed. I don't know about the first image, but the second one may just fall under this exception. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, with Gaddafi being heavily sought after for crimes, he likely won't be a public figure that we can readily get a free photo. But I'd also say that until we know if he's actually incarcerated or other status to completely block this, then such a non-free image isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on the talk page of the Gadaffi image re that image only. Having looked at the first image, I can't see that there is a very strong argument for its retention. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why either image should be kept, especially the first one. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. –MuZemike 10:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The first one can only be kept if there is sourced commentary in the article about it. Right now, there is no mention of the incident at all, let alone detailed discussion. The second one is a non-free portrait of a living person, which is only allowed if the subject is provably difficult to locate in public, e.g. J. D. Salinger (well, when he was alive we did use a non-free image on him). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not true - on both counts. Check out File:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg. Jack Kemp has photos of him. I even told Melesse about this, but for some reason, he doesn't have the balls to target something like that, about a VP candidate that never won, but he'll give me a hard time for posting a cover that signifies the weakening of a leader in a 42 yr regime - from an African nation - despite the fact that the Time magazine is published in the United States. There is commentary on the McCain photo too, so that's also a huge crock.--Screwball23 talk 20:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else on this particular image issue. Melesse (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairly Ducky socking editing disruptively

Ieodoiskorean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a rather unconvincing bid to add "Russia" to list of countries where Korean is spoken. It's neither an official language, nor spoken by any significant percentage of the population. He basically immediately stopped editing after that. Today I noticed Travelguidewi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) show up and re-add russia to the list, with obviously and intentionally misleading editing summaries.[54], [55] I'm not sure what the obsession is. But I suspect that a CU would give us rather obvious results, and this kind of intentionally disruptive editing just isn't helpful in the slightest.--Crossmr (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin observation I haven't looked at all his edits, but that one is fairly reasonable, with or without WP:RS "The Association of Koreans of Russia hopes to resettle more than 150,000 Koreans in Primorskiy Kray by 1998.12 This plan ... the population of Koreans in Primorskiy Kray with the goal of setting up an autonomous Korean autonomous zone." It's a sore point with Koreans in Russia that Stalin resettled them to muslim Central Asia and denied them an autonomous zone where they were, happily nestled next to their Korean speaking relatives in Yanbian and the Rajin area. How many of them preserved the language I can't say, but I don't think a decision by Stalin is a good reason for not listing Korean as an language spoken in the CIS, since it is, here and there. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (what is Fairly Ducky?)

150,000 people out of Russia's population is not significant really. We don't list countries there unless the language is official or significant. Otherwise, we might as well list most countries in the world as almost every country in the world has some Koreans living in it. There has to be a threshold for inclusion in that list and 0.07% is unlikely to be it. Fairly Ducky refers to WP:DUCK, it appears to be fairly obvious that Travelguidewi is ieodiskorean. As he's a brand new account and his first edits were to that dispute and he edited it in a misleading and disruptive manner.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

2nd Non-admin observation Crossmr Thanks for the explanation of what Duck means, I suppose that should have been obvious. Well, on the assumption that sockpuppetry is innocent until proven guilty I have notified Ieodoiskorean, as you had already notified Travelguidewi. But I can't say I think it's spectacularly significant that two Korean editors would both want Korean included as one of the languages of the CIS. (Though something totally unrelated, is whether the user name "Socotra Rock is Korean" is appropriate as a Wikipedia user name given that China also claims the rock?) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not always the assumption, it is why we have WP:DUCK and in fact Check users will refuse to run checks in obvious cases. The behaviour itself is enough proof. It would be much less clear if Travelguidewi was an established account, but their first edits to that make it very obvious, not to mention they intentionally used false edit summaries to hide what they were doing.--Crossmr (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer WP:DUCK situation. The edit summaries have the same weird style to them, and the editor is trying to push the same changes. I've blocked the new account as a sockpuppet and warned Ieodoiskorean. -- Atama頭 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

LikeLakers2 - Harassment and persistent WP:TPO vio

Greetings all - this was to start out as a simple WP:TPO issue, but has now blossomed into WP:HARASSMENT and I am afraid I am going to need some intervention here. The first three (TPO1 TPO2 TPO3) "appeared" innocent enough, and the user was advised of WP:TPO here. He then removed my entries on another users talk page TPO4 and TPO5, the 2nd of which was restored by another editor here. He then proceeded to insert his opinions in a discussion on my talk page as a 3rd party, was told to stop, but he persisted. I removed his last comment, which he restored (TPO6). He also continued to ignore my request for him to stop posting to my talk page. Once I removed those (1 2), he still kept posting. I then removed that, which he of course reverted again (TPO7). I am sure that by the time I am done submitting this there will be more to add. As the bulk of this is happening on my own talk page, this has clearly become a harassment issue. Why he took it upon himself to insert his comments as a 3rd party to 2 discussions on it is not known - however it is also completely irrelevant. The scope of this complaint is the TPO vios and their evolution into harassment. My talk page is not the place for him to violate TPO just to try and make a WP:POINT. I look forward to this rampant behaviour of his to stop, and quickly cease the endless violations of WP:TPO. Thanks for your time. Srobak (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does appear both of you are in the wrong here. His edits at the IP's talk page are not TPO violations; your edits at the IP's talk page are TPO violations, however. LikeLakers2 was warned not to engage again at the help desk. He has not edited since. Let's hope he sees that notice and does disengage. You, too, need to disengage from the situation. You both need to stop running around with Twinkle, reverting each other as "vandalism," giving each other warnings, and threatening to go to AIV. either way (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Understand I am not arguing with you on your points - but I want to clarify that 5 of his 7 TPOs were on my talk page, and he was told to stop engaging long before the helpdesk notif. Your claim of my having violated TPO is under dispute (dynamic anonips having "owners") and will be RFC'ed shortly - and is outside the scope of this ANI request. Even if you remove those, we still have 5x TPO vios that stand on their own and the harassment issue. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that I shouldn't have done that now, I am somewhat scared to even edit Wikipedia, let alone reply to this. This is mainly due to the response I got at the Help desk after simply asking for advice.

I was going to put a way longer post, but after seeing what Either way said, I am not sure I want to do so, as I don't want to cause more conflict. I can, however, post my original post text if requested. As I said, I just don't want to cause more of a conflict by doing so here, really. Sorry about the misunderstanding, Srobak. LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Srobak, I found your personal attacks warning to be completely inappropriate. There is not a single personal attack in this edit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't think an anonuser combing through my edits and contacting users who I have warned in the past and lobbying them to lodge complaints against me to be the very epitome of a personal attack? That's unfortunate and I disagree with you - but I will respect your opinion. Srobak (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe you are in the fault here. You clearly instigated this problem by violating WP:BLANKING and WP:DRC. The only messages that an IP cannot remove from their own talk page are messages that it is a shared IP. This entire problem would have been avoided if you had a correct interpretation of WP:Blanking. One final point, I think both users should be trouted for edit warring over an IP's warning. When I was a child, and I would fight with my sister, my mom would always remind one of us to "be the bigger person" and stop. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would accept all trouts, hence the {{troutme}} template on my userpage. (well, on my header templates page, but you get the idea) Also, assuming you meant to put "WP:Blanking" as the link instead of "WP:Blankingn", I have fixed your link for you, Ryan Vesey. (Feel free to put it back if you intended to have the n at the end) LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the change, and was actually making it myself when we edit conflicted. Considering the current discussion, I don't think it was the best move you could've made though Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have left a warning on LikeLakers2's talk page for his behavior at the talk page of Srobak. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't have escalated to this point had User:Srobak just got the point about anon IPs from the beginning and not caused this entire issue.--v/r - TP 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A point which I believe to be up to interpretation and debate and will be bringing to the foreground with an RFC in very short order, once I get all the T's dotted and the I's crossed. The non-removal of anonblock notices sets a great precedent to get the rest of this situation resolved. However - again... that is not the scope of this ANI. I already said above to nix the 2 TPO's on the other users page and to focus on the 5 on mine - which stand on their own as WP:TPO vios. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is how it got started. 76.190.196.103 makes a perhaps misguided but good faith edit to Kenosha Maroons. Srobak "neutrally" reverts it but then decides it's "vandalism" and leaves a 76.190.196.103 a "final warning". Srobak, please answer honestly. Was your decision to use the "vandalism warning" tag based on you seeing all those other warnings on his talk page? Would you have warned me if I had made that edit? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact - yes, that is exactly why it got the warning it did. The IP has a long, demonstrated history of vandalism edits, as well as warns and blocks to go with it, and should have been blocked from editing with unregistered accounts ages ago. No, I would not have issued you a lv-4im had you done the same edit... but likely lv-1 noting non-constructive/not-relevant. Srobak (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're demonstrating a startling lack of understanding of what vandalism is and is not. Giving a final warning for such an obviously good-faith edit is simply egregious. Even a level 1 warning would have been inappropriate. Note that the use of the term "unconstructive" in the warning template is to prevent biting the newcomers, not to justify its use in every situation where an imperfect edit has been made. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have calmed down a lot since this morning. I guess coding templates, like I did here, is probably what I should do from now on when I get mad/scared/etc. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Jm1106 redux

I wasn't sure this thread was fully closed. It was archived by a bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717.

• 14:36, 27 August 2011 MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m (401,211 bytes) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717.)

There were two issues. One was about User:Jm1106's having been blocked. The other issue was the question of the full utility and "in good faith" addition of a seeming somewhat useful but possible commercial link to 40 articles in one fell swoop by Jm1106. A third party editor had re-added the link in the forty articles despite their having been reverted out by an admin just prior to that. There was a question about the supposition of the adds by Jm1106 being "in good faith" and also not to be hasty with a newbie editor's first additions to Wikipedia.

However, it was later raised that there was also a question about the possible relationship of User:Jm1106 and User:Patriotledger and prior reversions and blocking. On August 19 2011, User:Patriotledger had made the exact same link addition to one article, ( Abington, Massachusetts ), and an admin ( User:Alexf ) blocked User:Patriotledger for commercial spam and COI, etc. (From admin Alexf to Patriotledger: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully." and the block and link reversion stands now still. And that was the first and only edit ever by user Patriotledger. See the history of the Abington, Massachusetts article:

• (cur | prev) 11:52, 22 August 2011 Ravenswing (talk | contribs) (16,514 bytes) (Undid revision 446082715 by SchuminWeb I do not, by contrast, believe this to be spam.) (rollback | undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:11, 22 August 2011 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) m (16,407 bytes) (Reverted edits by Jm1106 (talk) to last version by Alexf) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:21, 21 August 2011 Jm1106 (talk | contribs) (16,514 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:20, 21 August 2011 Jm1106 (talk | contribs) (16,513 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:38, 19 August 2011 Alexf (talk | contribs) m (16,407 bytes) (Reverted edits by Patriotledger (talk) to last version by 123JD) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:16, 19 August 2011 Patriotledger (talk | contribs) m (16,514 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)

That was just before the User:Jm1106 incident around August 21/22 2011 (two days later) and when Jm1106 added the same exact link to 40 articles en masse, in alphabetical order, starting with the article on Abington, Massachusetts. These links were reverted out and the user blocked by admin User:SchuminWeb for commercial linkspam.

That's when an argument occurred between editors and admins over it. The upshot was that the links were put back in all 40 articles by User:Ravenswing and the block on Jm1106 was lifted by admin Floquenbeam without any request by Jm1106.

I just wasn't sure it was fully concluded and the User:Jm1106 / User:Patriotledger was fully vetted. And then there's the inconsistent behavior in allowing User:Alexf to revert and block User:Patriotledger, with no community objections, and the other admin, User:SchuminWeb, being challenged for doing the same block and reverts, two days later, to another subsequent new editor User:Jm1106. Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - - -

<... last part of read-only historical discussion -- excerpt follows ...>

- - - - -

As a note, "Answerbook" is not a "local paper" - it's a link to enterprisenews.com/<TownName>, which publishes the AnswerBook. That could very easily be considered advertising. From the paper's about: "The Enterprise is an afternoon daily newspaper published in Brockton, Mass. It is considered a newspaper of record for Brockton and nearby towns in northern Bristol and Plymouth counties, and southern Norfolk County."

So the question becomes why this paper is somehow more trustworthy than other papers, and the simple answer is that it is not. In my community, there are two papers, the major paper and a local weekly nobody reads. I think that this paper is the latter, and its competitor is the major: "The Patriot Ledger has been the South Shore's newspaper since 1837."

Therefore, there is no reason to be linking to it repeatedly for every town it covers (and the editor missed quite a few). There is likely a COI behind this, seeing as how this just came out both on enterprisenews.com and patriotledger.com (the competitor, owned by the same company) not one day ago. This is the very definition of linkspamming. I would imagine that the user won't make any more contributions, as the user has no more to make, having finished spamming the articles in question. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Captain Obvious! statement that not everyone would notice - the user went in alphabetical order through the towns, and by county as well, if I don't miss my guess. They were clearly using a list. This was not good-faith editing by any means, and while perhaps it could have been handled differently, I think the block itself was good. MSJapan (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the block wasn't good. The block notice was the first post to their talk page. We are supposed to discuss/educate/warn new editors first. You could very well be right about their motivations, but you could also be wrong. We shouldn't block if there is any possibility of it being a misguided but good faith editor. In fact, even if it was certain that this was someone affiliated with the website, a block would not have been appropriate until we explained that that isn't what we do here. If the link adding continued after a talk page warning, then a block might be in order. But "good block" doesn't mean "they were probably spamming, so let's block just to be safe". "Good block" means "we tried explaining and it didn't work, now we now they're spamming and unwilling to abide by our policies". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, methodology could have been different, but the end result was likely correct. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it[s a very reasonable procedure for someone to find a source, and use it where it applies. It's a much more effective way of sourcing articles than taking an individual random article and finding a source, then taking another unconnected article, etc. Doing things alphabetically is also a good idea. To the extent we have information on local things, we need to use local sources. I don't necessarily support using them for notability in some topic fields (such as high school sports), but when we're dealing with an article on a town they're usually the best sources. We need to assume some degree of good intent from new users; even if their initial purpose or actions are not what we ideally would want, most of them can learn. Indefinite blocks of users should really be deprecated except for vandalism or repeated copyvio. Adding external links is not in that sort of category. I totally agree with Floquenbeam, but I';m saying it again to make plain how important I think this is. Without new editors, Wikipedia will first stagnate and then die, for none of the present editors will be around forever. The rule that a blocked ed. has to ask themselves is pure BURO. It is very good practice to remove things that would unfairly discourage a new editor. Remove, and apologize also. The statement that an admin considered the "merits" when they admit they just considered the formalities seems confused. The merits are whether the original work was block-worthy. It wasn't. But it's the sort of thing that's blocked here all too often. It's a disgrace, and anyone who has tried to work with new editors is surely aware of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think AGF applies, and I don't think this was a new editor. I noticed the previous edit (before rv) to Abington, Massachusetts was by User:Patriotledger who added the exact same EL Jm1106 did. I think that was what Bugs was referring to earlier by "familiar". Alexf blocked PL for spam (and I'd say an obvious COI, as the Patriot Ledger is the other paper, and the publisher of the link). Therefore, "I have no beak and I must quack"; I would say it was the same user coming back from a different IP. Why else would two "new editors" start with the same edit on the same article two days apart and get the wl correct on the first shot? RFCU, perhaps? Again, it might have been handled differently, but there may have also been some good intuition. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this was believed to be a sock returning in defiance of a ban, either that should be the reason for the block or the user page should be tagged appropriately to note that it is a sock. In that case, there was poor communication here. If this is a new contributor, it's appalling to block without advising them of the problem with their behavior and allowing them to stop. In that case, there was poor communication here. Either way, communication was poor. (And as a matter of principle, I agree with User:DGG. We can't lose sight of how important it is to bring in new contributors.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:MSJapan has made a very key finding and point here in the User:Patriotledger and User:Jm1106 saga. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - - -

< ... end historical read-only excerpt ... >

Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was informed of this discussion by Wikiklrsc. I saw an obvious COI and a username matching a company he was posting about. RBI and moved on. Revisiting the block, I stand by it. Looks like a spammer and a username vio to me. Had not seen and did not know of User:Jm1106. Looks like a sock or block evader. Should a revert and warn be better? Maybe. I usually do that unless there is an obvious groupname issue as I saw in this case. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like reasonable behaviour on the part of both admins. Not to say we can't improve by encouraging people back to make more positive contributions, but that is down to refining the messages more than the basic process. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC).
  

• • I continue to disagree. A new contributor may not realize the rule about usernames,.. They're likely to think that they are making an effort to be honest, by using the name of the group or firm they represent. rqaher than hiding it. (The paid spammer, a true hazard, knows better). Now, I agree with out policy that we don't allow it--I think it's very important in the war against OWNership of articles. But how can we expect a newcomer to use it. And I don't like that bit about returning as a sock either. If a person edits under a group name, and is told they are not allowed to, then they are required to use another name--it's not socking, it's following the rules we tell them to follow. I find it truly incredible that someone should be blamed for it. When I tell such people to change names, I tell them to declare their affiliation--making the same edit of course serves the same purpose, and I cannot see why they should think it wrong. I continue to think it was not promotion. A local newspaper is the proper source for local articles. We should be grateful for people who add these sources, regardless of COI. What would be promotion, would be if they were to add their local newspaper's stories on international events, where we already have major sources. The response in that case would be to tell them what sort of articles they should instead add to.

I recall a year or two ago, we were blocking editors from museums and libraries, for adding links to their holdings. We now have a major Ambassador program to get them to add this material to commons and have it linked to appropriate articles, on as massive a scale as possible. (some of them are still running into what I can only call ignorant and petty-fogging resistance when they add the links, not to mention the deletions for trivial errors in copyright statements that people at commons delight in).

I've learned to tell new editors I speak to or help here who I think can make useful contributions how to work properly and avoid being picked up by the people who think work with a COI is spamming. (I call that attitude spam paranoia, to go with the often co-existing copyright paranoia) Some of them for whatever reason do not learn how to do it properly. And if they are going on improperly and will not stop, yes, i do block them--though I almost never have to, because given the proper advice strongly enough and personally enough, almost all of them either learn or stop. A block is very often a sign that we are not doing our job right. Unless, of course, you think most people who need education are ineducable--and if you think this way, it seem quixotic to be writing an encyclopedia to educate them. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Bokan995

Resolved

 – Indef blocks issued free to socks. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please block this user? They previously had two socks blocked on 24 August per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bokan995/Archive but weren't blocked themselves because they already were (for edit warring). They've now used two more checkuser confirmed socks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bokan995 to edit-war POV material into Medes, and the article was semi'd. However as of this moment they have reverted back to the original account to continue the edit-war. I'd block them myself, but I'm one of two editors that has been rv-ing the material introduced by the socks back out of the article (actually I think I'm on 4RR already, though rv-ing socks probably doesn't count). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. He's apologised on my talk page, but given that this is his second blatant round of sock-puppetry and edits such as today's [56] and earlier [this edit and this edit praising the work of his socks. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Counting his socks he's at R6 now. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Master and all known, named socks blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneak editing by User:JASpencer

On List of Freemasons, JASpencer added an entry on Jonathan Rees today, because Rees was involved with the World News phone hacking scandal. He then immediately reverted it (as the diff shows). This wouldn't be a problem, except he did the same thing with Anders Breivik. In both cases, the edits were made before RS sources established membership, and in Rees' case, JA is using an opinion piece, which is not appropriate per the guidelines for adding listings (we require a RS to establish Lodge, at the very least). It is not appropriate for JASpencer to be making POV edits (he has a history of anti-Masonic POV, largely as the result of his own religious beliefs) and then reverting them, as he is clearly just trying to hide them in the revision history for some reason.

We in the article have never tried to block members from being listed, good or bad, but when it is done to cast aspersion on both subject(s) by claiming membership based on rumor and also by associating individual criminality with the Fraternity at large (as if to say Masonry is "bad" because of one bad member out of hundreds of thousands or that Masonry somehow had something to do with it) is POV and violates BLP.

I would note that JA has never made a non-critical edit wrt Freemasonry-related articles, and the fact that it was done twice pushes this beyond a content dispute (which there isn't, because it was reverted, but if it was reverted, why was it put there in the first place?) - this is now an inappropriate editing pattern bordering on sneak vandalism, and an admin needs to intervene to stop the pattern from continuing. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I discovered this diff, where JA removed a prod from an article he created, thus violating the prod policy, and subverting the process as a result. That article had been one sentence for four years (with one initial edit by JA) until it was prodded for dicdef, and it still remains one sentence today, over a month after the prod was removed by JASpencer. So perhaps a wider inquiry needs to be made into JA's editing rather than just what is Freemasonry-related. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Article creators are allowed to remove prods from their articles. They can't remove speedy deletion templates from articles that they created. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. First part of the statement still stands. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This would put it back into a content dispute. Try talking it out and educating, then try the dispute resolution process. Phearson (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As some of the vetrerans here may recall thave been differences between myself and MSJapan that go back years (in brief, he's a Freemason, I'm a Catholic, and erm that's it). Every now and again he tries to get Administrators to act like Kindergarten Cops and get me banned or disciplined.

On this case: The reason I took out both people after putting them in was that I didn't want the grief. The Brevik one was going to go in at some time any way (although MSJapan was against even listing him, he says he didn't block it so I'll take him at his word). Jonathan Rees was a different case as the sources (two articles in the Guardian and a reference to a parliamentary debate in The Independent) were going to go through strong RS challenges. Yes it would get included in the end but I've got better things to do with my life than this.

I really think that it is better to simply talk about these things, assume good faith, ask what on earth someone's doing if there seems to be an odd pattern and only if that doesn't work to go to ANI.

It really would have saved so much time. And I'm sorry to have wasted yours.

JASpencer (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested CSD G12 of Restitution (theology) it is an unambigous copyvio. I have no idea why it was proded instead of G12's, it is verbatim from source.--Cerejota (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here.

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a track record of dissing American editors [57] [58]. He's about to be topic banned from ITN for such comments (see discussion). It seems that he's now taken his attacks elsewhere [59]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Stop (talk • contribs) 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. This cannot possibly be a serious complaint. I will let the precise words of that post stand as my defence, simply adding that my goal here is always to make Wikipedia a better place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What is certain is that no admin action is required here - this is certainly the wrong venue for such a complaint. Marking resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:OfficialDzire

I'm not sure what OfficialDzire (talk · contribs) is doing. They're uploading new images of Madonna albums covers to replace previous images that were already here, then is tagging the old images as orphaned fair use images. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The user continues to revert the images and list the old ones for orphaned fair use. We had a discussion about listing them on the fair use noticeboard, but even though the user listed them there, they aren't waiting for a discussion to occur. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese - disruptive editing/false edit summary/repeated viol. of AGF

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

Catholics for Choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The behaviors at issue relate to Catholics for Choice (CFC), an article under general sanctions. In a discussion about the inclusion of info about Canadian and Mexican bishops' statements, Roscelese tossed out some pseudo facts and accused me of "just trying to cram the article full of criticism instead of improving it". I refuted her facts point-by-point and reminded her to AGF. Roscelese conceded her bad facts, but in her very next comment implied that I am a "Wikipedia editor acting as [a] free PR agent" for the Catholic bishops. More failure to AGF, but I let it pass.

I'd also identified a statement about Vatican "obstructing consensus" without support. Before removing it I posted to the Talk page. Roscelese responded with no substantive info whatsoever but claimed that there were unnamed sources scattered throughout the article that I should search for. I removed the unsupported statement and restored the Can/Mex bishops' statements.

3 mins. later, Roscelese reverted me, with an edit summary stating, "restore exhaustively sourced statement about Vatican reps blocking consensus (see talk page)." Problem is, she'd provided no sources on the Talk page, exhaustive or otherwise.

Rather than edit war, I took it to Roscalese's talk page and warned her to AGF, to properly source material, and not to put false information in an edit summary. She promptly removed the warning tag from her Talk page and chided me for "wasting her time."

So I took my complaints back to the article's Talk page, and challenged her removal of the Can/Mex bishops statements as disruptive and violative of NPOV, and her restoration of unsourced material with a false edit summary. To the NPOV charge, she replied dismissively, "Oh dear." To the unsourced material charge, she directed me to "ask another editor who agrees with you politically." Both comments here.

Suffice to say, she has no knowledge of my political views, so I posted a 2nd AGF warning on Roscelese's Talk page, which she again promptly removed, directing me to, "no really, get off my talk page."

All this inside about 15 hours. She's a longtime editor who demonstrates contempt not just for other editors but for the community's rules. Cloonmore (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cloonmore was put up to this by a user who was warned that the next time he harassed me at a noticeboard, he would find himself blocked. No comment on the frivolous complaints except to note that, quite apart from the more serious issue, the reporting user might do well to be wary of WP:BOOMERANG when complaining about disruptive editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Still more of the same -- imputing bad faith instead of engaging on the issues. The editor is utterly incorrigible. Cloonmore (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Agathoclea

Hi everyone. User:Agathoclea reverted my deletion of Islamnager, which I had deleted under WP:CSD#G5, as a page created by banned user User:Bogdan Nagachop in violation of their ban. However, after a somewhat lengthy discussion with User:Agathoclea, it seems we have failed to reach an agreement. I ask that the community review my deletion and Agathoclea's restoration of that page, and take action as necessary. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have yesterday restored an edit by a banned user (whose continued ban I recently endorsed myself I might add) as I would have repeated excactly the same edit becoming aware of its need (long story with articles at wrong titles and ambigous titles) The deleting admin was fully correct to delete the edit unchecked because the burden of checking every edit and article creation of a banned user for its validity is too much to ask. On the other hand the the banning policy explictly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. Speedy G5 was created as it is impossible to revert fresh articles as there is no other version to revert to. I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of wikipedia since its inception. I felt that this restoration would be the equivalent to restoring an individual edit as useful in a page history when it was originally correctly mass reverted. Just that In new article creations this option is technically not given. The artice (or redirect) is Islamnager the discussion sofar is at User talk:Fastily#Islamnager where I informed the admin and he disagreed. I have deleted the redirect pending this discussion if banning policy trumps copyright attribution. Agathoclea (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) I have a couple of comments:

• On the other hand the the banning policy explicitly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. -- This statement is wholly supported here.
• I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of wikipedia since its inception. -- This seems to be inconsistent with WP:OWN. Considering that the user was banned, the fact that the user was considered largely disruptive to the project overshadows any concern that their work might not be attributed to them properly. Recreating their material isn't claiming ownership, because no one owns the article content. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't really the correct venue for this discussion - that would be DRV, but were this here I would be prepared to bet that the outcome would be to leave things as they are as the deletion was obviously correct but any user is allowed to restore a G5 deleted edit if they are prepared to take responsibility for the edit in question. Undelete/recreate? Honestly, we need to waste anytime discussing this? Fastily you need to get a sense of proportion... Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)