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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Please look

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

This is getting out of hand; it should be clear at this stage that no admin action is likely to be taken and this is not the place to clutter up with content dispute. Conduct for the most part seems fine for those being complained about here. For the "opposition" - there seems to be a tenditious/POV/editwarring/civility problem with some of the editors needing to be addressed, however without specifics there is no much admin action to be taken. In terms of the specific content here... per WP:NOTCENSORED, if Shudra offends modern sensibilities then that is no reason to scrub reference of it from the histories, we do not rewrite history. You will note, for example, African American discusses the moniker "negro" in several places, and even notes it in the lead as a historical name for that group of people. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Extended content

Allegations of misconduct on Kurmi (an Indian caste) User:Sitush has broken the 3RR [1][2][3][4]. But I have an admin warning me about edit warring on my talk page User talk:MangoWong. The admin who warned me has also reverted my edit,[5] which was to put a cn tag in the infobox on a claim which has been disputed for long. I do not see why a cn tag is not needed in an infobox(as claimed by the admin who reverted me and warned me), and why the admin would see a necessity to revert a cn tag. Could I request some fresh eyes here. Please also take a look at talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected.-MangoWong (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) As explained in the edit summary, a citation is not needed in an infobox or lead if it is summarising or quoting something that is cited in the body of the article. And Sitush is not guilty of 3RR, as they are four different edits he has reverted (if they're different edits, it's not even edit-warring, and he clearly explained the reasons why they were all inappropriate). Also, they are changes that have long been disputed on the Talk page and consensus is firmly against them, with nobody yet having been able to produce sources. I'm afraid we have yet another caste warrior here who just won't listen when we explain our policies on sourcing and consensus - I've tried explaining it all on the article Talk page, but as usual that gets nowhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Uh, without examining the merits, but just on a technicality on first reading - is too a 3RR vio if there are more than 3 reverts. The policy is quite clear on "whether the same or different material each time" "on a single page". I've never particularly agreed with the brightness of that brightline rule, since I believe in defending the wiki, but my reading disagrees with yours. I did a 7RR once and came out OK due to the BLP shelter, and again, I;m not arguing the case. Your statement strikes me as odd though. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Outside comment. I don't see any 3RR violation in the article history; if there are 4 reverts, if I'm reading the article history right, they aren't within 24 hours. And I don't see removing edits that are against an expressed talk page consensus as, in most cases, edit warring. But I don't agree that 3RR wouldn't apply "as they are four different edits he has reverted." The 3RR policy says pretty clearly: whether involving the same or different material each time [it] counts as a revert. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, yes, fair point, my mistake - but the repeated attempts to make clear anti-consensus changes without discussion and without providing sources is pretty close to vandalism -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) PS: The warning I gave was for repeating the same anti-consensus edit after having had it reverted once -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Not just a caste warrior but one of a group of editors who have recently been tendentious across numerous India-related articles, eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna, Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Exceptions_to_national_varieties_of_English, Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni. There might be a boomerang to be caught here. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Is it any surprise that folks with whom I have a dispute describe me as "caste warrior". I am hoping for fresh eyes here. And I also completely dispute the claims that citations are unnecessary in lead and infobox. Anyway, let's wait for some time?-MangoWong (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Individual cases of the need for citations are decided by consensus. So if you dispute it, which is your right, then you should discuss it on the Talk page and not edit war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I do not see any point in discussing content issues with you. I also don't see why you would intervene by saying what needs a cite and what doesn't. You had claimed here that the lead and infobox do not need citations, that's why I had to dispute your claim here only. Can we wait for fresh eyes?-MangoWong (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) You are well aware that there are plenty of eyes on the article. There is a sort of debate brewing regarding whether the infobox would be better removed entirely, and certainly there is some agreement for removal of the specific field you refer to. However, while it exists it remains the case that the issue is cited in the body of the article and has been discussed at length on the talk page. Adding a cite to the infobox (which you could actually have done yourself instead of requesting one) is mere duplication and clutter. None of this is relevant to ANI. It is a content dispute issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) @MangoWong: Two of us opined in the edit summaries that duplicated cites were not needed, and I also explained my view on your Talk page. Now, the place to discuss content and citation of a specific article is on that article's Talk page - and if you refuse to discuss it there and seek consensus then you simply get no say in the matter. And no, you can't just keep getting your own word in and telling me to shut up and wait for someone else to come along - if you misrepresent what I have said and done and you make accusations against me, I will reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I will surely discuss the content issue at the article talk page. But violation of 3RR and undue admin intervention are legitimate matters for this noticeboard. Being one of the accused parties, you don't get to close this thread. Please note you may have a COI here. I request fresh eyes. You are not it.-MangoWong (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC) What are you talking about? I haven't closed the thread, and I'm not stopping anyone else commenting on the 3RR accusation - in fact, don't you remember that I specifically suggested you should complain here if you had any issues with my conduct? Yes, of course it needs someone else to judge this, and I'm not for a moment trying to do it myself - but that does not mean I cannot defend myself against your complaints, and part of that was my explaining why I gave you that warning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I have notified user:Sitush at his talk page that I have reported him. He is confident that my report will fail. User talk:Sitush. I have also notified the admin who placed a warning on my talkpage and who also reverted my cn tag.-MangoWong (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC) This incident is regarding article Kurmi.-MangoWong (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The page is about Kurmi, a Hindu Jati. As such the article lacks sufficient religious understanding of Hinduism regarding the Jati. As already discussed, the varna system is not ironclad(unlike racism, where race can not be changed by religion), though several references that indicate approval of the Kshatriya status of Kurmis(from reliable sources) has been ignored. This acknowledgement is completely absent on the page, which is also against the 'generally recognized Shudra status' understanding too, & therefore disputed. Comparing with pages like Catholic Church or Protestantism, it can be said that there should be no such aversion to religious sources and these shouldn't be ignored by giving excuses like "ancient"/"mythological"/"unreliable"/etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The above from Thisthat2011 is completely irrelevant to this forum, as indeed it was irrelevant in several other places where s/he tried to gain attention. This is exactly the sort of peppering of multiple forums that has been going on. The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) It is very relevant, considering that we are discussing notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' here as disputed. When in Hinduism at many places Kurmis are regarded as Kshatriya explicitly. The notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' does not hold true. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC) But that's a content issue. And you know where content issues get discussed, don't you? You certainly should, because you've been told often enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Let's not try to explain content issues here. The main issue here is the 3RR vio by Sitush, (which Boing! said Zebedee claims is not even an edit war and did not even warn Sitush about, while he should have been blocked. And Boing! said Zebedee not only warned me for one revert, but also reverted) and undue admin interference by Boing! said Zebedee in content related editorial matters.-MangoWong (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC) You're just mistaken, MangoWong. 3RR means no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The first revert occurred at 09:36 July 21 (UTC). The 24 hour mark from that first revert would have been at 09:36 July 22 (UTC), correct? Very simple. But the 4th revert didn't occur until 16:07 July 22 (UTC), almost 7 hours later than the 24 hour mark from the first revert. In other words, the 3RR limit was reached in that 24 hour period (and Sitush even acknowledged that in the edit summary of the 3rd revert), but was not breached. If you're asking for a block because the bright-line of 3RR was crossed, you either weren't aware that it had to be done in the same 24 hour period or simply misread the times that were logged with the edits. Either way you are mistaken. I don't see anything actionable, B!sZ made a good summation above as to what's going on, and I agree that all that needs to be addressed now is the dispute about content in the article, which isn't done here. -- Atama頭 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) The 3RR is a non-issue. I found your comment on my talk page that reporting me here was a "morale boost" rather disturbing. Quite simply, aside from what BsZ has already said, the fourth revert was well over 24 hours after the first and I had already given warning on the article talk page that the changes being made were disruptive. You ignored that and umpteen other notices etc, which is why BsZ was right to jump in at your talk page and explain yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I have to say, although I really do try to assume good faith, I really am starting to see what looks a lot like deliberate pushing at the boundaries, seeking to pressurise the people working on these articles, to trying to pounce on us for alleged procedural failures - while steadfastly refusing to discuss the actual desired content changes and provide reliable sources. If anyone has reliable sources, all they have to do is provide them and get a consensus and that will be sorted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Atama. Thanks for your time and for clarifying my mistake to me. I agree that your interpretation of this being a non vio of 3RR is correct. I apologize to Sitush and Boing! said Zebedee for my misinterpretation of events/timestamps in this regard. However, I have one more important issue here. Do you think it is proper for Boing! said Zebedee to give no warning to Sitush while he performs three reverts within a 24 hour period. But places a warning on my talk page as soon as I make one revert (putting up a cn tag) and also makes me a revert warrior and also goes on to call me a "caste warrior" and what not, and expects me to provide sources for some abstract material which I have never desired to put up. He also claims that sourcing is unnecessary in the lead and infobox and has also reverted my edit even when it was explained in the edit summary and was only a (citation needed) tag. And is also now claiming on my talk page that I should discuss things before making edits. And has generally tried to poison the well against me without showing any wrongdoing on my part. Besides this mitake in reading timestamps, could he show how my edits are wrong (for the tirade which he has put up against me). He is also offering to support me if I discuss things first. Why should he participate in ed discussions? Why should I want his support in these discussions? Is he not behaving in an undue manner and taking an undue interest in content issues and is he not giving some appearance of showing partiality? I have also tried to explain some of the issues with him on the article talk page talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could take a look at that thread....I would ialso be grateful if you may keep a general eye on Hindu caste articles. I desperately feel they are in need of fresh eyes. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I gave you the warning (which I was not an automatic templated one, and I didn't think it was unfriendly) after you'd made the same change *twice*. Have a look at WP:BRD. It's an essay, but it is meant to supplement policy, and explains pretty well the way to avoid edit warring. By all means make a Bold change (the B), but if someone Reverts it (the R), don't do it again, because that's the start of edit warring (and that's what I was warning about - I didn't want you to end up blocked for edit warring). Instead, you should do the D - Discuss. Whether a {{cn}} tag is or is not appropriate is a question for Talk page discussion, not for ANI, but you wouldn't take it there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC) A Question (ec) I'd like to ask for some feedback on one point, if I may. My contention is that my actions (in protecting Kurmi earlier after IPs once again made anti-consensus changes, in reverting the start of an edit war, etc) were procedural, and that acting as an admin to enforce a consensus decided by other people is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED - I wasn't acting to protect my preferred version, but the version hammered out (quite traumatically) by lengthy discussion and source-based consensus on the Talk page. I also contend that I have taken part in none of the actual content discussions, only in procedural discussions, and I have no idea myself what the classifications of the various castes should be. I'd appreciate your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Counting this [6], you have personally reverted my edits twice. However, you have self-reverted. And the first edit which you reverted was a citation tag. You say it is somehow unnecessary. Why? Why do you interfere in these matters? You have also put up a message regarding this edit on my talk page, claiming that I should discuss before removing sourced content. Why? I think it is not part of your admin functions.-MangoWong (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) See above - trying to make the same edit twice, after being reverted once (not by me), is a procedural issue and it is perfectly proper for an admin to take action to head it off - but please note that I did not actually take any admin actions in response to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I'll see if I can address both of you at once. For MangoWong, I wouldn't have warned Sitush either after that third edit, because Sitush made it obvious in the edit summary that he knew he was at 3RR. As to what B!sZ left on your user talk page, I don't see it as a warning at all. B!sZ reverted you and then left a note on your user talk page that you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is exactly what people should do to avoid an edit war. It seemed to be more of an appeal than a warning. A warning typically cites a policy or guideline you're breaking, or cites what actions can be taken against you for taking a particular action. I see the note on your user talk page as just a request to bring the issue to the talk page to avoid an edit war and it was appropriate. Now, as to whether or not B!sZ became involved by acting in the role of an editor rather than an administrator... That's a bit of a grey area. I do believe that the intention wasn't to try to change the article to a preferred version. But at the same time, I don't see that it's an administrator's role to enforce consensus, at least not in that manner. WP:CONADMIN explains how administrators get involved in consensus disputes, and our role is to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and otherwise try to keep things from getting out of hand. But trying to maintain the content of an article to reflect a local consensus seems to me the role of an editor, not an administrator. Admins who choose to get involved in that way have to take off the admin hat, and I think that in this case, B!sZ did make himself involved (if inadvertently). Since that wasn't his intention, he self-reverted before further edits were made, and I think that is a gesture that clearly shows his intention to not be involved. Any further administrator actions should be appropriate as long as he continues to maintain neutrality in regards to article content. Anyway, those are just observations from an outside admin, anyone can feel free to disagree with me. -- Atama頭 22:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, appreciate your thoughts. Any further thoughts regarding my semi-protection of the article to prevent IPs (who are probably blocked editors) repeating the same anti-consensus edits that have been going on for months? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) (That had nothing to do with the MangoWong edits, btw - it happened earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)) Any advice about how to "deal with" (poor phrasing) tendentious commenting on the talk page would also be appreciated, especially since it often also gets moved onto other pages. - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks Atama for looking up my complaint and for your excellent and patient explanations. I certainly think that it should help in improving the situation. I again apologize to Boing! said Zebedee if I have been intemperate or rash or hurt his/her feelings in any way. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, no worries about feelings, I've been in this kind of business long enough to be immune to such considerations. But I'm happy to apologise for going a step too far with the reversions - I should not have done that last one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 1) Semi-protection or other admin actions seem okay as long as you maintain that you're only acting as an administrator at the article. My advice though, and this is just personal advice (and may not even be good advice) would be that if too many people are uncomfortable with your acting as an administrator that you step back and ask someone else to do it. On the other hand, sometimes editors use WP:INVOLVED like a bludgeon to drive off a disagreeable admin, or play games (like insulting an admin then claiming any further actions are retaliation for the insult). I don't see anything like that happening here (MangoWong's questions about the matter are reasonable) but it can and does happen (I see it too often on ANI actually) so it can be a fine line between trying to be civil and fair, and giving in to an aggressive editor. I do think it's a good thing for an admin to keep an eye on things at that article while the dispute is ongoing, to keep the peace, and you have an interest in doing it, so I'd encourage you to continue. 2) Tendentious comments can be a trial because when people play WP:IDONTHEARTHAT or refuse to drop the stick nothing can get done. So just try to compromise, be patient and civil, and if you just can't get anywhere try various tools shown at WP:DR. Content disputes can drag on for months if people are completely opposed to one another and there is no real black-and-white answer. I wish I had a magic trick that would solve everything but I don't think such a thing exists (if it did then maybe I could get back into mediation again without having to give up hours of my schedule). 3) MangoWong, you're very welcome and I hope that you and everyone else at the article can find a peaceful solution to the conflict. -- Atama頭 22:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I appreciate those thoughts too. On this and other related articles, over the past few months there have been a lot of people making apparently coordinated attacks on everyone involved and trying to turn them into caste-glorification articles, with a lot of socks and meats, a good few of whom are now blocked (though I'm certainly not accusing MangoWong of being one of them). That's the only reason I became involved, to try to protect the editors working there from abuse. It's hard to steer a clear path between doing that, and leaving myself open to "involved" accusations, especially as very few admins want to work with these article disputes. Anyway, your advice will help me, so thanks again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, indeed, thank you. One final query if I may, Atama. You refer above to situations where there is no black-and-white answer. What about when there is a B&W answer (as in, no sources being found for the other POV or sources being found for it but which are not reliable etc) ? This is at the heart of some recent tendentiousness. Should such a situation be taken to DR and, if so, how does one judge when to do it? - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Is there anyone who has had a dispute with you and you have not described them as "tendentious"/"troll" etc. about a dozen and a score times. Why do you imagine you yourself are free from these characteristics?-MangoWong (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC) For me, "black and white" is a situation where we have a clear policy that is being violated and the policy needs to be enforced. WP:V is a policy but enforcing it isn't easy, neither is WP:UNDUE. In the most extreme cases, a person who insists on including unverifiable information can be accused of violating WP:OR, and a person who habitually does so can be blocked. But usually it's a case where people disagree on whether or not sources are reliable, in which case they can ask for help at WP:RSN or just try to find some way to agree. WP:POVN is another place where you might be able to ask for help. In the absolute worst cases, where multiple people disagree, an RFC can't come to a conclusion, and mediation is tried and fails, you could end up at ArbCom. And that's never good. ArbCom doesn't help people make content decisions, ArbCom for the most part hands out bans and blocks, or discretionary sanctions, and some people aren't going to be happy. At times it's necessary but try as best you can to avoid going that far. Tendentiousness on Wikipedia has a particular definition, and there are signs when an editor is being tendentious. If someone is following that pattern of behavior, they should be encouraged to change, otherwise they may face sanctions if they continue. If they aren't following that pattern, it's best to avoid using that terminology. -- Atama頭 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I had read WP:TE and am not the only person to have pointed it out to this particular group of contributors. The NPOVN report is what caused the artiel to become fully protected for a week and, frankly, it has achieved nothing. I do realise that a week is not a long time but during it all that happened was mostly repetitive, irrelevant argument for a completely unsustainable POV (at least, unsustainable in the Wikipedia context). Almost as soon as the protection came off, IPs jumped in to make non-consensual edits, and then some registered users did the same. Then we ended up here. I will have a think about how to take this forward. Your comments are much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) At the risk of sounding self-righteous, those of us involved in caste cleanup are seeing about 95% completely WP-inappropriate editing opposing us, and about 5% opposition which is both evidently well-meaning and following WP procedure. Setting aside specifics of individual content disputes, I tend to feel like I'm working hard to give a full story and I'm against human waves of (generally inexperienced and unwilling to learn) editors who are hellbent-for-leather to erase anything "negative" from an article, particularly the term Shudra. In the entire six months or so I've been covering that specific angle, at not a single point has an ANI, POV, or WPINDIA consensus come back to say "stop doing what you're doing" or even "modify what you're doing". Instead all we've gotten is neutral admins saying "keep up the good work." Behaviour-wise, we've had a few "don't get tetchy" or "don't fall into a revert war", but nobody outside the argument has ever told us "stop writing Shudra, stop questioning Kshatriya claims." Imagine that happening for 20 articles in a row, and every single time seeing the exact same arguments, ad hominem "you don't understand India!!!", veiled legal threats, and every single time an abject refusal to actually deal with sources that actually say Shudra. I'm not being cute here, it's pretty much the exact same argument in each article, but with different people. At this point, either I and Sitush and the others are due for a massive admin action to target out blatant malfeasance all over India topics... or we're actually doing the right thing in the face of all kinds of emotional opposition. Again, I haven't seen a single editor who didn't appear to be emotionally involved take issue with these trends in caste article cleanups, so as far as I'm concerned we're on the right track. That's exactly why I'm glad whenever an ANI comes up, because aside from extremely small procedural slips from time to time, we are genuinely working hard to ensure caste articles are not used for caste glorification, or to whitewash the not-so-pretty side of history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I think MatthewVanitas has summed up the whole situation very well there. If we were to believe every unsourced or poorly sourced claim that castes are not Shudra but Kshatriya, we'd have to end up concluding that everyone in India was a warrior or a king, and there was nobody doing all the ordinary jobs. I have no idea which castes were what, and what proportion of castes are Shudra, but the logical conclusion of the totality of the claims the editors here are facing is clearly ludicrous -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I hate to say it, but that's generally what ArbCom is meant to fix. If consistently disruptive behavior comes from multiple people at articles that are related to a particular subject, ArbCom can hand down a discretionary sanction that says that anyone who repeats that behavior at those articles can be blocked by administrators if they persist after warnings. WP:AE is set up to assist with such enforcement. It's a long road to get there though, as I said they generally won't accept a case unless (1) all other options are exhausted (see WP:DR for a list of other options), (2) there is sufficient disruption that a remedy needs to be brought, and (3) they feel that they actually can do something to help. If all 3 of those prerequisites aren't met, it's unlikely that ArbCom will accept the case. -- Atama頭 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. This is particularly worrying where nobody seems to know what s***** means or why it is inhuman and have no clue why or how this is a sensitive topic. NPOV is OK with me, but I do not think it should be allowed to become a cover for asserting inhuman descriptions to what are humans.-MangoWong (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) And there ^ is the unsustainable POV again. Wikipedia is not censored. The present group have been informed of that (with the link), had it explained to them etc on umpteen occasions. It does not matter what the law of India says and it does not matter if the term offends particular individuals. It was and remains a widely used term and until recently was even so in India itself. The present deprecation of the term is made clear in the article, although it is noted on the talk page that in fact the Indian government seems still to use the term itself even though apparently it is banned. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. Counterpoint: two eds who have no emotional investment in this particularly sensitive topic. As noted above, it is significant that nobody with a self-declared detachment from the topic is on the anti-us "side". I hate to use the term "side", but that is unfortunately kind of what it's been the last few months. One of us gets to an article, sees a bunch of inflated claims to being "kings and warriors" and descent from Hindu gods, we do five minutes of gBook searches of actua academics, and lo and behold its a caste of bricklayers or oil pressers or chartered accountants or what have you. We find sources that say "claim to be Kshatriya warriors descended from God XYZ", so we duly note that legend/belief, add details on how the Fooian caste was registered in British censuses as Shudra and by the modern Indian government as "Backwards", and then out of the woodwork come literally dozens of new-regs, SPAs, IPs, and to be fair a handful of more experienced editors, and we're simply bombarded with endless posts of "YOU ARE WRONG THEY ARE WARRIORS NOT SHUDRA!!!! CORRECT YOUR GRIEVOUS ERROR OR I WILL CONTACT THE FOOIAN DEFENSE SOCIETY FOR LEGAL ACTION!!!" We ask for cites, we provide more of our own cites, we suggest POV/ANI/DR to every person who accuses us of horribly bias and malfeasance, we refer people to WP:INDIA, we link them to gBooks and WP:N and WP:V and every other applicable policy, but the arguments just go on, and on, and on, and on. Not every single caste article, but I bet I can't go more than a few days of caste-cleanup without inadvertently hitting a "land mine" of dissent. There have been a very few cases of running across concientious editors who grasp that they can't exclude things and that it's in everyone's best interest just to be straight-up (see the recent history of Reddy), but that is by far in the minority. I used to be able to get a lot of work done on all kinds of topics, but now the vast majority of my WP-time is in circular arguments about caste and getting accused of everything from being a Brahmin to a Muslim to a racist to (literally) a paid editor working to defame and libel the Fooian caste or what have you. So you understand why I've been a little sensitive about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC) It makes no logic IMO whether or not it is sustainable/unsustainable. And like everything else, IMO "WP is not censored" too has its limits. We won't go about writing that people of X state in Ajekika are vermin, jiljsi people are vermin, sauggfu people are vermin. Would we? It is also interesting that you acknowledge that you do your "research" (not your word) on GBooks. And my concerns about two eds overbearing influence on a whole topic stand.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC) If your position runs contrary to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and you cannot cause a change in those then your position on the POV is unsustainable here. I doubt that many university press publications etc say that "Ajekika are vermin", but there are plenty of reliable sources such as those which say that Kurmi are or were Shudra. It is/was a ritual "rank" in Hinduism: that is a fact and although I am not aware of any censorship limits to WP articles, this issue certainly would not fall into any such exceptions because the term is being used in an appropriate place and with an appropriate note for balance. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC) My concerns would cover a lot of articles besides Kurmi. But presently the India noticeboard has been declared out of bounds for any discussion. I do not see a better place than that to go about holding the discussion on this issue in a centralized way. I did not say that there is a source to say "Ajekika are vermin". I would have thought that it was clear that is was only a hypothetical example. Whether my position is in keeping or contrary to WP policy is not for you alone to determine. As Atama has been indicating, we may have a long way to go if we take an uncompromising stance. There certainly are proper and improper ways to apply the censorship policy. It is not a license to say obscene things. Is it? It should not also become a license to say obscene things about the "other". Should it? And how do you know that this word falls under the category of obscene/non obscene when you would not seem to have grasped its meaning? And I still find it interesting that you do not say anything when I note that you do your "research" on Gbooks. And my concern that two eds should be allowed to exercise an overbearing influence on a whole topic also remains.-MangoWong (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I am aware that your concerns extend well beyond Kurmi and indeed cover a swathe of India-related content, not even just caste/community articles. I was also aware that your vermin comment was hypothetical. Turning to your main point, I am afraid that you still seem not to be understanding. Wikipedia does indeed contain a lot of subject matter that various groups would consider to be obscene. There are articles on religion, on sex, on genocide etc which often give rise to some people wishing that the project was indeed censored. But it is not, or at least not in the way that you wish it to be. If something satisfies the standard requirements of WP:V, WP:RS etc and is not WP:FRINGE then it is valid content. One of the great things about having absolutely no connection to India is that I can see the wood for the trees and sometimes I feel that there is a massive COI issue here and perhaps some people would gain from doing a little work in an area from which they are equally detached: much can be learned from doing so. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC) My concerns could take me to any article which I could expect myself to understand and improve. I do know that we have numerous articles which say obscene things. But still. There are encyclopedic needs which may have validity. But beyond the point of encyclopedic needs, when something begins to become license for malicious material, we have to put the foot down. Whether my/your point be correct or not cannot be determined here. There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content. Whether what you want to do / are doing would be in keeping with these policies may also be debatable. I know why you bring up COI. I have known for some time that you want folks from my demographic pattern only to be prevented from editing articles related to them. Get that policy in place first. And I certainly would not go about editing articles about things like Haiku or calligraphy unless I knew something about them. Even if I did, I would not start dominating "History of Madagascar" on the basis of my Gbooks research. Maybe I could see through the spelling or check the references (to some extent) etc. But beyond that is not wise.-MangoWong (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Please retract your comment about me wanting to prevent people from your demographic ... etc. Or show me the diff. It is another gross slur from you. - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Sitush has not said that Indians should not edit India articles; I said that people who cannot edit a topic close to them but are overall well-intentioned, like some editors we've encountered in these caste articles, should be required to edit topics emotionally unconnected to them until they learn neutrality. I also said that it would be a very positive development if more non-Indians (like myself and Sitush) would work on India articles so that the "Fooian caste" article would not be 90% Fooians, 7% their enemy Gooians, and a few bewildered foreigners like me attempting to apply WP policies to the chaos. You fixate on gBooks: what of it? That's a place to find a lot of books in a searchable format. How on Earth does using gBooks negatively impact my credibility? Should I instead be pulling 19th century Gujarati history off the top of my head? You say There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content; well, let's not be coy, explain to us which policies say "even if the Kurmi were Shudra, you shouldn't say it because it's not a nice word." I'd further argue that any visceral distaste for the term that you and others evince appears to be a somewhat modern trait, perhaps a result of the Indian government/society's stringent efforts to erase caste awareness in hopes of smoothing over long-standing grudges? I have had other editors literally tell me that I can't say X or Y about a caste (despite copious footnotes) because riots are caused over lesser arguments. I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) How did this degenerate into discussion on behavior of the page when I was explicitly told "But that's a content issue.". Who is playing smart here? Please focus on the topic and don't run off to unrelated propaganda. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) TT, once again: ANI is about behaviour, articles Talk pages are for content, WP:INDIA is for either calling attention (in a neutral way) to ongoing discussions on articles, or for discussing overarching issues bigger than individual editors (ANI for that) or individual articles (at their own pages). For anyone unfamiliar with TT's discussion habits, see Talk:Kurmi. His are the sort of endless circular arguments which have been taking up vast amounts of our time, and we dare not simply drop out of the arguments since he'll lambast us for not replying to him (even if it's the same issue we've already answered him on 5 times and already addressed 20 times earlier on the page). I'm confident that a neutral editor reading Talk:Kurmi would agree that "tendentious" may well apply to his behaviour there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Your comments are in direct contrast to what User:Sitush("The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution") & Boing! said Zebedee("But that's a content issue") mentioned. You can't have different standards at different places. Anyways, I mentioned already that I had presented reliable sources regarding recognition of Hindu Kshatriya status to Kurmis in many regions and at different times, which was ignored completely. These content from reliable sources are ignored repeatedly. If ANI is about behavior, it is also not about lambasting others after rhetoric and assumptions of behavior by 'neutral editors'. I can put a dozen assumptions, too which I thankfully don't. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (od)(1)Zeedee was wrong about 3R as pointed out by two editors above (2)Zeedee by his own admission was actively editing and then using admin tools in an article which should not be done, he should not use admin tools in an article he is involved. (3)Zeedee is wrong about citations in the lead, Manual of Style (lead section) The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." (4)He uses words like caste warriors, which are highly racist.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC) sub-section Yogesh Khandke named party's statement::(1)Sitush: above dropped an intimation on my talk page that brought me here. (2)Sitush has called me a tendentious editor above, (linked diffs involving me), which cuts both ways. (3)(a)Actually he hounded me and reached Sudheendra Kulkarni, by his own admission, he played tag, and got along a friend of his along. (b)On Kurmi he thinks that he has taken a copyright on facts, and he puts his head in the sand, which is a pity (c)The GangaxGanges dispute is going to be a classic long running play, I think, the wp:Article titles bit was just a small act. What about that Sitush?? Isn't bringing that up puerile? (3)Earlier he brought a sock investigation against me, just because we had a content dispute. (4)Admins: let us not discuss content, look at behaviour. Though because hanging a sock requires a machine, I came out of it unscathed, I am not so sure with humans, as Sitush rightly pointed out, user:Zuggernaut, was put in the freezer, when his RfC, bomeranged. (6)I wanted to discuss Sitush's behaviour on the India notice board, as a third party input before dispute resolution, but wasn't allowed to. I will provide diffs of each sentence, if anybody wishes. The problem is bigger than Sitush, he actually is much more benign than the other guys. (7)Today's a busy day for me and can't hang on. I just hope no action is taken without all parties given a decent hearing. (8)I had suggested a non-controversial way of dealing with caste see my Kurmi sandbox (9)Another thing mentioned above is that 3RR is ok if it is predeclared this came from an admin, is that a policy?? (10)On the Gandhi move argument someone just said that Indian editing is a plague hit on Wikipedia, what are you doing about that?? Or am I wasting my time here, just like someone said on the Gandhi page or in the context "Gandhi fight for justice was great becuuse he had to content with British police, British judges, British jury and British government" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I am the other member of the alleged team. I invite everyone to read Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni#Overlinking for one of the most ridiculous conversations in which I have participated ever. If there is anything remiss in my behavior, please, please trout me, or do whatever seems appropriate. LadyofShalott 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I am sorry LadyofShalott, I have nothing against you, nor do I have an axe to grind against Sitush, see this short thing on Sudheendra Kulkarni, comes across as ridiculous to you, perhaps because you know that there would be no confusion regarding Indian and Indian, why dont you folks follow the same logic with the Kurmi page, well we can have ghits and books and other things but that makes one only as good as a blind man of Indostan, no one above says "sacrifice Wikipedia principles", but why do you assume plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals and the like?? Sitush/ and I had said the same thing to Zeedee, MangoWango is right with the Madagascar example, Sitush that prevents one from making mistakes like Other Backward Caste on Kurmi page, or implicating Kulkarni on his page. You were careless about a BLP, which is a display of incompetent editing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Words like plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals are indeed reflected as uncivilized expression, regardless of who it is directed at. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I hope no one minds my dropping by. Just a friendly hello and a few observations. I am the one who is being quoted above about Gandhi. I do see a pattern when dealing with India related articles. India is a nation with more than 5000 years of history. It's highly complex and to understand it deep knowledge of topics is required. Just as I won't go on editing topics on rocket science, anyone who writes on this topics does need an understanding of issues at hand. I am sure that everyone involved here is trying to help wiki. There are some limitations due to knowledge and if someone more knowledgeable than us is speaking on topics then it's good to listen with open mind. I am very sad to see Gandhi termed as Racist due to his so called caste related ideas'. What can be far from truth. Gandhi was not assassinated by Godsey, I am seeing it happen now. The same is happening here. People are termed 'caste warriors' and what not. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Frankly, a lot of this "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" is pure red herring in my opinion. When I've written extensively on rather complicated but not unpalatable Indian topics, even caste issues like dress/cuisine/political-history, nobody bats an eye at the quality of my research. But yet when I have explicit academic references saying "Among the Shudra castes of this region are the Fooians", and a dozen other refs with similar or even more explicit statements, and I add and cite it, all of a sudden come the protests and "you don't understand India." Notice nobody objects to any "positive" material I add; never posts saying "Whoa, you called the Fooian caste major landowners who were very influential in Raj politics; you don't understand India!" Not that understanding India isn't important, but I think I'm doing a pretty solid job of summarising reliable secondary sources, and any slip-ups we make can of course be corrected by folks who notice a discrepancy ("hey, you wrote that the Fooians are vegetarian, but note [cite] that they also eat fish"). However, the massive POV issues which cause any "negative" content to be met with rage are far more troubling than a few non-Indian editors being slavish to gBooks resources because they're not long-term India hands. So far as "rocket science": this isn't rocket science. Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere, and it's not like it's so complex that very basic historical statements can't be made from secondary sources. We've also been hearing the last few weeks accusations that we "don't understand what Shudra means", despite the fact that I'm actually doing cleanup on the Varna (Hinduism) and similar articles. And some of the editors here like to hammer the cuteness, so when we don't respond to that we get reams of "OMG!!! Did you see how he's tongue-tied when I said he doesn't even know what Shudra even means!?!?!" If by "don't know what it means" you mean "don't have a personal squeamishness about a historical term that prevents one from looking at it academically", sure feel free to call it that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Considering how "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" could be a red harring, one should also consider assumptions like "more neutral than Indians", and "Indians should rather edit something else" the same. As far as I can see, on the topic Kurmi there is an emphasis on how Kurmis have went about for Kshatriya status, more than how Kurmis are considered Kshatriya etc., regardless of reliable sources. As far as "Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere", kindly let us know what other places(& all other places) that show a marked resemblance in history like the Indian history? That you don't know something and therefore later learn it might as well is no excuse to keep on editing pages and then learn by mistake/debate/RFC/ANI etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Dear Fellow Contributor, A lot what we know today about ancient India is due to great travellers such as Fa Hien, who were foreigners. I have no qualms about anyone. Great historians from different times have written freely about India. India as we know today is due to everyone who came there and mixed in that melting pot. These historians wrote from what they saw and based on their knowledge. Just because pediatrics and gynecology both deal with human body it doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other. I just checked your contributions and I am happy to see your contributions across hundreds of topics. I am slightly concerned as these topics are on so many unrelated fields. I welcome you to visit India. I am sure you may already have. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas, if you want to perform experiments like these to find out whether what you say is correct or not, I would suggest that it is preferable that you invent your own human beings and do your experiments on them only. As for the limitations of GBooks, I think this is not the place to discuss it.-MangoWong (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC) No MV what was manifest on the Kurmi talk page, and later when my castexclass edit was reverted was sheer lack of competence.[7] The repeated reversions appear before the diff. And he had a friendly admin. Ugh.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Please do not accuse someone of incompetence without checking around first. For example, I know that caste/class are interchangeable words in the context which you refer to. The govt of India use both, the articles at WP use both. I did say on the talk page that if you really, really wanted one word rather than the other than that was fine by me. It didn't mean that I was going to change it myself. You are making another false accusation about my contributions, just as you have done above with regards to my contributions on the Sudheendra Kulkarni article. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC) All talk and no diffs makes Jack a hot air balloon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The diff you requested. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I can't see any false accusations there.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC) No, but you never can, can you? Even when it stares you in the face, you find some absolutely ridiculous way to twist things. In recent days you have argued untenable points with BsZ about trivial stuff, with Salvio, with LadyofShallot, with me, MatthewVanitas and umpteen others. But you are never wrong, are you? You "win" (as you seem to see it) because you wear good contributors down. That is not what this place is supposed to be about. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC) You win Sitush. If that makes you feel better. Also [[8]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC) And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Honestly, I need to find a way to get a hold on all of this disruptive activity, and I will sooner or later. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Sitush, I agree that you seriously need to find some way to get your conspiracy theories out of your head. I have located the coordinators of these persistent attacks. If we keep inserting oceans of distasteful lies (please see my edit summaries in the diffs and see what its about)[9] and absurdities[10] and outrageously sick baseless falsities [11] in our articles, we are the ones who are coordinating those attacks. We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles. We tell lies and people object. And we also have a strong resistance to attempts to take our lies. (Please see the other edits around the diffs). So, why should these attacks not continue? So, who else is coordinating these attacks?-MangoWong (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC) The strong resistance to attempts to take down lies[12] still continues [13], even after this piece has been identified as a lie. The article has now been protected by Boing! said Zebedee.[14] And I have a thread on my talk page titled "Edit warring notice". I don't see why I should get such a section heading for performing one revert and for trying to tag a line which is a lie IMO. Is it wrong to try to take down what look like blatant lies, even when they are unsourced?-MangoWong (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Dear Sitush, I do sympathize with you. Let me check what this link means. I will get back on this in a few minutes or may be more. The text is in someother language that I don't understand. Let's see what google translate comes up with. Hang on tight soldier. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC) OK. Google isn't of much help. It detects it as something else, but I do get the point raised there. I would have to give some points to the cleverness of that person whose post you pointed above. To test your knowledge about that topic, the person wrote something in Malyalam. You have no idea what those lines mean. But it does bring the same thought that these editors have been trying to communicate. Knowledge of a topic is important. Being neutral is what we must strive for, but it does require an understanding of the topic. I can see the same concers are being raised over and over again. I do hope that you do keep on contributing and try to be more accomodative. As Atama pointed out earlier admin MUST not get into content dispute. If that's what you wanted to point out earlier about the admins involved in this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) "Cleverness"? You think it's cute that IPs insult people in a language that don't know, and sagely opine that it highlights the supposedly vital point that we are not Indian? If anything, the example you cite shows that the people who "know about the subject" are often more interested in lambasting and arguing than making actual WP-relevant points. Again, I submit that any disadvantage arising from our non-Indianness is, per the vast evidence from many Talk pages, far outweighed by our neutrality on issues which evidently push many contributors into the realm of emotion vice fact. We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles - I don't care if 10,000 Indian IPs come in and object; if they don't bring in sources to support A, and can't contradict B, than B stays in. Being Indian gives them no intrinsic authority on the subject. For example, if there were a controversial and heavily-cited paragraph in Vietnam War and tons of self-declared American editors insisted on removing comments which reflected negatively on American's participation, would you say "oh, they must know more about American history, I must be wrong" or would you say "they are clearly refusing to face uncomfortable historical facts and thus are resorting to edit warring and ad hominem atacks" ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) If that paragraph had a potential to cause harm, I would object to that paragraph. And I have also provided some diffs in my above comment. I have no reason to think that the material in those articles is properly referenced.-MangoWong (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong is right in his comments. Guys here are trying to grope an elephant, and making a poor pie out of it. That is the consensus. Across a wide spectrum. Remarkable. Lack of competence. The C word. Ad hominem - Caste warriors, Hindu nationalists, pov warriors, plague, don't listen to them?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I am sorry for the late response; as the talk page was huge, it took me hours to go through. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Dear MatthewVanitas, I hear you. If by being neutral you mean fair and nonpartisan, then it's OK. It shouldn't be an excuse for ignorance or prejudice. I agree that what stays in wiki should be based on facts.It seems that you and Sitush have got fixated over the term Shudra. I saw the discussion over 'OBC' and 'they are considered Shudra' - OBC is category created by the GOI( Government of India). There is another category Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(SC/ST). The castes that were so called 'Shudra' are part of SC/ST category. For the list of castes that fall under the SC/ST category, check the GOI site - www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf . I don't see Kurmis there. Yes, there is no denial that Casteism existed in India, and still there is caste based politics, but in our zeal to show this ugly face, we must not wrongly categorize castes. This wrong categorization can be the reason you may be facing thousands of people who are opposing you. The castes that fall under OBC list are not Shudra. OBC list is based on certain economic factors, but none being the historic Shudra categorization. I would advice you not to insist on the term Shudra, and to change it to SC/ST. That would be more appropriate. GOI has reservations for SC/ST category, and it has various other programs to uplift SC/ST. Let me know if you want to know more about what India is doing for the SC/ST. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Disclaimer - I personally have no interest to call anyone Shudra. The term was used to show the difference between SC/ST and OBC. This is exactly the kind of logic that Sitush and MatthewVanitas have been working hard against. There are multiple, reliable, good quality sources indicating that Kurmi were classified as Shudra. Furthermore, your analysis that since Kurmi don't appear on one GOI list of SC/ST necessarily means they have never been classified as Shudra is your analysis (which Wikipedia calls original research). Kurmi, by the way, is one of the most balanced I've seen so far--it not only states that they're historically/academically classified as Shudra, but also what the GOI classifies them as, and adds in their own claims of Kshatriya status. What GOI says is not the be all and end all of anything. For example, if the US government tomorrow decided that all native Americans, regardless of tribe, should be called "Aboriginal Americans", that would not cause us (Wikipedia) to suddenly change all of our articles to that term and erase everything that's been said by thousands of reliable sources using other names. I've been lightly involved in a number of these articles, and so far have held off saying anything here because Sitush and MV have been saying it so well...but this is, in fact the problem. I want to add, though, that this is not any sort of criticism of you (Nameisnotimportant)--this is to point out that on many of these articles, people simply don't understand how Wikipedia decides what information to include, what is important, what verification means....And that wouldn't even be a problem, because educating new users is an important part of what all of us "experienced" editors do. The problem is really twofold: a number of editors, despite receiving this instruction, essentially stay in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and continuing making unsourced assertions; the other problem is that it seems like every few days, another "new" editor comes by with the same concerns, same arguments, etc., and its very hard to change things, especially when the number of people trying to enforce WP:NPOV and WP:V is so low. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Explain the term 'historically' and 'experienced'? Let's not get into what American Govt does, we will deal with it when that happens. From your long talk I hardly find thing that adds any value. GOI list includes any caste that was SC/ST. If you don't understand that, then it will help you to do some search on this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC) And if you don't understand why your point about GOI isn't relevant, then please read/re-read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, which are our core policies which all articles must follow--not just what one government says or how one editor/group of editors interprets a specific government source. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC) I don't get this, here you are talking about WP:OR and WP:V as our core policies. I think according to WP:V, any claim which is challanged should have an inline citation. I understand that this applies to the whole article. But on the Kurmi talk page, you are trying to explain to me why the cn tag was unnecessary in the infobox. Isn't there some contradiction in the concerns which you show here and what you say there?Talk:Kurmi#Fully protected. I have been describing the infobox material as false for quite some time now. And you don't think it even needs a cn tag, let alone a ref. You say that a ref can be provided to satisfy me, as if I am a stubborn kid adamant on some silly thing. Should it not need a cite after I challanged it and called it false. What is the problem if I put up a cite tag? Why should it be taken down and why would you defend the taking down of cite tag? I think according to WP:V, it should have had a cite tag and what you are saying is against WP:V. If your understanding of WP:V be poor, how could you explain things to newbies?-MangoWong (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)And looking at some of your previous comments at talk:Kurmi, I too had the impression that you say you say some quite stupefying and irrelevant things.-MangoWong (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article. If the Fooian caste has 45,000 people, we don't need to put the same footnote everywhere "45,000" is mentioned; we would footnote it under "Demographics" where we go into more detail as to which census, any caveats, etc. But in the lede and infobox we wouldn't have to redundantly cite it. How many times have you been told this exact thing? This is, again, why the word "tendentious" has appeared. How can it not be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for us to have "C is true [footnote]" and then you go on and on that the same page has "C is true" without a footnote? This is about as bad as the (many) other editors who post "WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE???" on the Talk page despite having four footnotes appended to the very sentence they question. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC) "MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article." I fail to hear it because I fail to find the policy which says that. I interpret WP:V to mean that anything which is challanged or likely to be challanged needs a cite. Show me the policy which would say that info in the lead and infobox need no cite even when challanged, and you can easily have me hear it. Until then....And just having four footnotes appended to a sentence does not mean it can't be challanged. If all the footnotes are bad, the challange is valid and the sentence may need a reconsideration, despite fourteen footnotes.-MangoWong (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, but you don't challenge that by adding a "citation needed" template next to citations (like you did earlier today), as that doesn't even make sense. Instead, you discuss those specific citations on the talk page, and, if necessary, take them to the reliable sources noticeboard to determine what to do. Regarding the lead/infobox/body problem, how can you say "This statement is challenged" if it is accurately and well supported by reliable sources, just located at a different place in the article? However, because this is contentious, I think we've (almost) come to an agreement at the article talk page to duplicate the sources wherever they are needed; Sitush has kindly provided 15 sources with quotations, at least some of which are clearly good, meet WP:RS, and verify what the article states; let's discuss on the talk page which we will choose. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Your first point, MW, is wikilawyering, and you know it. It is utterly specious argument. If the stuff is cited in a relevant section then it does not need citing in another section or in the infobox. Forget policy: it is plain common sense. Your second point is valid but is why consensus kicks in. _ Sitush (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I think a cn tag is a good way of signifying a challange and I believe it is against established norms of WP to take down cite tags without providing proper citations or reaching an agreement on talk. Its not my fault. And what would be the great problem if it remained? There are some benefits actually and I had explained them on the talk page. Why did you have to make it an issue at all? Only to prevent others from getting a toe in? If challanged, everything needs a cite. That's the policy. Saying anything against this is against WP:V, one of WP's core policies. It is nice that we have quotes on the talk page now. And acting in good faith according to policy is not wikilawyering. Quit the accusationavalanche and ad hominems. It was a valid request. And we don't forget policy. Common sense is good, but if I had been convinced that the material was accurate. You don't see me going into articles and putting up 50 tags among 25 sentences. Do you? I would just take down bad looking material, easily if it is OR, with some logical looking explanation if the ref looks bad.-MangoWong (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) No, if something is cited in the main text, and you disagree with that citation, you challenge it there and on the talk page. You don't sprinkle cn tags in other parts of the article. This is simply standard Wikipedia practice. LadyofShalott 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Misbehavior in a dark part of WP I think I should explain what I see as the problem. The area is very dark. Yesterday, I was trying to put back the tags on the statement which I consider to be a lie. [15] [16] [17] And I get two warnings. [18]. Unfairly IMO. All my attempts to put up the tags have been reverted. [19][20][21][22]. The strong resistence to having anyone else except a particular group of eds edit the article continues. I would not mind my edits being reverted if there be some mistake or some good reason for a revert. But I could see nogood reasons only. What is the difficulty if a cn tag would stay. People seem to be misinterpreting policy, telling me repeatedly that lead need not have cites, infobox need not have cites…. How could they misinterpret wp:V Even when they seem to be well aware of most WP policies. Sitush suddenly started claiming that I had agreed to something on baseless grounds, even when I did not. [23] And even launched a tirade on me for disagreeing with what I did not agree in the first place [24] calling me vexatious, and what not, for no reason at all. All I am trying to do is take down some misleading info. But….people capable of sophisticated levels of thinking are saying and doing illogical things. I couldn’t help getting the feeling that people want to “contain” me and “other”s. [25][26] I feel that the atmosphere around the caste articles is not conducive to editing by “other”s. All this happened while this ANI is on. When it cloeses…. The situation is sure to deteriorate rapidly Either some fresh hands are going to take charge there… or the situation will continue… to remain dark. Some folks just can’t seem to talk to me without mentioning “Block” and “boomerang” (intimidation tactics?) or without giving a warning (attempts to discredit and demoralize?) veiled or otherwise. Here is another example of a warning avalanche, much of it undue IMO[27]. The expected or possible results of warningavalance are explained in the lower parts of this thread. The need for fresh hands becomes even more apparent that these goings on are even penetrating the blogosphere. I would not have introduced this here but Boing! Said Zebedee has been telling me that it has already been here. I don’t know whether this is important or not.-MangoWong (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Link to the blog post containing a personal attack removed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) MW, you insist on passive-aggressive measures like {cn}ing "Shudra" in the infobox when the statement is clearly referenced in the lede, and to humour you I pointlessly duplicated that footnote to the infobox. I do note as well that the word "Kshatriya", also in the infobox, is unfootnoted but you don't mind that since your "side" keeps pushing and pushing that term and working for the elimination of the term "Shudra". This is not, as TT2011 keeps implying, a case of "two sides behaving equally badly", this is a case of one "side" attempting to show all angles of an argument, and the other "side" endlessly repeating points, wikilawyering, tying up huge swaths of multiple Talk pages, and for what? Literally the only thing I'm seeing you and company do on caste pages is fight to remove anything "negative" while championing legend-based Kshatriya claims. This is exactly the kind of caste-glorification that Wiki needs to be shedding the light of academic discourse on, not promoting. And to top if off, you and company accuse others of anti-Indian bias, of ignorance of India, etc. Can you imagine how terrible Wikipedia would be if only Lutherans edited Lutheran, only Serbians edited Serbia, only Greens edited Green Party? You simply refuse to believe that anyone outside can bring neutrality, and rather than bring your personal familiarity to complement our neutrality, you attack and degrade while contributing almost no content. Your position is well-explained by your phrase which I consider to be a lie; you don't say "I'm not convinced on this Shudra issue, I'd like to see more data." You know, I just glanced at Talk:Kurmi and did Ctrl-F to find each time your name came up, and practically every single post you've made there is simply complaining, accusing, and just generally dragging down the discourse. I would encourage any uninvolved person reading this to do the same, and by MWs contributions there you shall know him. I'm working hard to improve caste coverage, including near-total rewrites of Kayatha, Kurmi, Kunbi, Dhangar, Ahir, Yadav and dozens of smaller articles, and now huge amounts of my time are being taken up responding to emotional accusations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Agree with MatthewVanitas MV has brought out a very important and dark phase of history, in which people and whole communities were banished for something as simple as converting to another faith. For marrying outside the sects. I wish the debate could be as simple as calling Salmon a fish. This is bit more complicated. I would prefer to compare this to writing evolution of mankind, which went through different phases. Somewhere in between we were apes and somewhere we were tadpoles in the primordial earth. To sum it all, it isn't good to term shudra based on just gbboks powered scholars. If you want a neutral assessment, then people should stop searching with terms 'Kurmi Shudra' in gbooks. I am sure you get my point. Context is everything, just as Sitush said on Kurmi talk page. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It seems to me that ANI is a nice place for playing the victim. There is a widespread consensus that the infobox doesn't necessarily require citations--I just pulled a random FA, Webley Revolver, and look at that infobox--nothing. If cn tags are applied selectively, as they seem to be here, then there's something rotten. Many of these articles indeed are in a dark part of Wikipedia, where the light of WP:V and WP:NPOV doesn't always shine very brightly. Indeed, this is taking up way too much time, and for what? Drmies (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong, propagating a personal attack, as you have in reposting the blog link above despite various messages on various pages that you frequentd to point out that (a) it has been dealt with here before, & (b) it is incorrect, is not going to assist your already weak cause. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I won't even use the term "dark" here since POV-pushers will no doubt attempt to trick someone into using it and then accuse of racism/orientalism/systemic-bias, etc. But I do agree that Indian social issues suffer from a particularly extreme form of POV pushing. I sympathise to a degree that caste issues underly long-standing socio-economic grievances, and that people have been harmed or killed in such disputes in the real world even in modern times. I also sympathise that there may be "common knowledge" which is simply difficult to properly cite due to insufficient scanned documents online, language issues, academic bias/disinterest/failings. However, the solution to that is emphatically not to let people cite www.mycasteisawesome.com or add completely uncited cruft, nor is it setting a positive precedent to let editors like the above purge articles of their choice of any "negative" material, dump in poorly-sourced claims to milleniae of clear lineage and sharing bloodlines with gods. And rewarding them by backing down when they cry bias, orientalism, ignorance, discrimination, etc. will just encourage such behaviour. The last thing we need is a How-To guide on Orkut saying "if anyone removes claims that our caste is an ancient line of warriors and kings, make sure you accuse them of the following and they'll back down..." All we're dealing with his is a small but extremely vocal number of editors, several of whom do just about nothing but attack people on Talk pages. These editors are not like other editors, Indian and otherwise, who write and edit dozens of non-controversial articles and then just stumble across a land-mine, these are people who edit with an agenda. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Note, since MangoWong keeps propagating a personal attack despite multiple warnings, I've just blocked them for 24 hours. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I see the same thing: By repeating that the entire world is against me as everyone is engaged in an off-wiki thing. By stating that Indian social issues are an example of extreme POV may look like the same attempt of playing the victim. Sometimes a little knowledge is very dangerous, and gravest injuries are made with best intentions. Who has got so much time to indulge in such things? I hope we are all trying to get involved in an engaging discussion. Your talk above may give an impression of having some sort of anti-india bias. I know that's not what you may have intended. I am happy to help if you need some help on India. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) As Drmies says, ANI is indeed a nice place for playing the victim - it's also a place where you can easily get hit by a boomerang. I'd invite anyone with an interest to have a look over Talk:Kurmi and decide for yourself who's trying to build a properly sourced and well written article and who's trying to protect those trying to do so, and who's disruptively throwing accusations around (including suggesting that I'm not fit to undertake admin work there because I've been accused by some liar on a blog of accepting bribes), wikilawyering at every possible opportunity, trying to whitewash the article of anything considered "negative", decrying content he doesn't like as "lies" despite multiple reliable sources, and openly advertising his agenda ("I may still object as long as a single instance of that word remains"). You can then decide if any admin or community action is needed, and if so, against whom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I just read that blog. Wow. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yep, it's people who write and propagate that kind of venom that we're up against on these caste articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The hilarious thing (among many) about the blog is that users (as I recall, not even just MW) try to use it as an example of why I and others shouldn't be given "free reign" to spread our "ignorance" on Wikipedia. So evidently the argument is that our editing per WP procedure is directly responsible for one banned editor with his tail between his legs putting a bunch of silliness on a blog (is it even getting any hits?), and thus we should desist editing because we're therefore hurting WP's credibility. I do note that the last is a popular line from those who are stopped from POV pushing: "I'm just trying to correct the lies and YOU are perpetuating them! This is $%*$)@*#)(! and that's why nobody believes anything on Wikipedia and it's stupid and dumb!!!" In any case, Drmies, you see the kind of folks we're dealing with here. And as noted, the blogger was involved with the huge knock-down drag-out at Nair, so probably totally unrelated to the current group of folks getting upset generally about Deccan (West-Central India) issues. Wherever we go to purge out caste-cruft and demand proper citations, we'll hit suchlike landmines of interested parties who rally to "defend" a caste from "attacks". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Addendum @ BsZ 18:22 and others: the fact that we run across suchlike people in multiple unrelated places on this topic indicates to me that, if we're serious about cleaning up caste articles (many of which get 4k, 10k, 15k hits per month, so not huge but big) then we need a coordinated method to prevent us being dragged down by every "land mine" of POV defenders we hit. We simply cannot afford to repeat what happened at Nair in 38 other pockets throughout India, as it took up massive amounts of time from serious editors who would otherwise be knocking out dozens of 1-para articles with cites per day, working on a GA, etc. We're burning hours and hours per week doing literally nothing but arguing circles as at Talk:Kurmi with people who have an abundantly clear aim to give one narrow depiction of a group, and whose "contribution" seems to almost never extend to actually writing a paragraph and putting in decent footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, that's a major part of the problem, that it's not just the same people at each article. The first bunch I encountered when I started trying to help have mostly been blocked, which was relatively easy because their personal attacks, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry, were severe and blatant. But at the next article it will be different people (while we still have to keep our eyes peeled on articles we've moved on from), and they're getting less directly offensive and more wikilawyerish, and engaging in what seems like a war of attrition against people genuinely trying to get these articles into decent well-sourced shape - and the possibility that there is some off-wiki coordination going on has been raised by a few people. So I think the usual DR process is not really going to work - partly because it will take ages for each one and drastically slow things down, and partly because as soon as we get sanctions on one problematic editor or group, new ones will pop up and start all the way back at the beginning again. If anyone can suggest a good way to get some sort of protection in place for a generic set of articles against certain types of behavior by unspecified editors, I'm all ears - but if not, more admin eyes on the affected articles would be very much appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Not true, BsZ : I hope you are not worried if more people are engaging in a healthy discussion. This should be seen as a victory for Wikipedia that it is successful in attracting more users. If something so crucial is being discussed we are bound to attract a lot of interest. I hope you are not overly worried about not being able to prevent users from engaging in a fruitful discussion. Blocking may not work and it may give an indication of some sort of exerting control. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Nameisnotimportant- this is not healthy or fruitful discussion. These people are just ruining the reputation of all indian editors in wikipedia - they are demanding special treatment because they are indians and are creating the image we are some sort of prima-donnas who whine, sock, troll and attack when we dont get our way. I am very happy someone got blocked finally for peddling that disgusting offwiki attack site all over wikipedia. Blocking and banning is the way to respond to any editor (irrespective of any ethnicity or nationality) who behaves in such a disgusting way. There are hundreds of Indian editors in en wiki and other indian language wikis, who are quietly going about building encyclopedias. Actions of these few who have an agenda (which is primarily concerned with glorifying their caste/group), is making all of us look like caste warrior douchebags. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Sodabottle, that's what I have been saying all along. Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord! I have my full sympathies with you that you think this way. I hope you do see the core issue. Let's consider a hypothetical situation:- Someone does a search in google with 'tamil terrorist' and comes up with hundreds of articles that specify Tamils are terrorists. you will be surprised how many books you will find such references. Let me know if you want a count, google came with actually 14,300 results. Surprised? Anyways, the main point is context and knowledge of the issue are most important. I can find other ingenious searches 'Madurai dirty', 'Kasab is Indian', or anything under the sun that is very dear to someone. I am not sure how you will feel, but I will definitely we feeling very upset about that. The MO here seems simple, the angry guys are blocked as they are too passionate and as such blurt something that goes against any of the WP principles. Anons are blocked along with their IP and that too 'indefinitely'. When some rational people refer to relaible sources, the sources are termed unreliable. People have gone to lenghts to tarnish the image of Great Kings such as Shivaji. Anyone who objects to such a claim is termed POV pusher or a sock farm, and if nothing else can be proven, they are definitely meat proxies. Sometimes the 'ducks quack' or else 'something is definitely wrong, i will get to the bottom of it' . I think we must leave such childish attitude at home. This is wiki, and it needs mature peole. Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment. I spent the entire weekend to get to the bottom of this and I can clearly see that everything that tells otherwise was discounted as unreliable. Such actions do lead people to think that something is definitely wrong. If by voicing real concerns to right people the entire band of editors from India come in bad light, then I would doubt the point in having forums to raise voice. The year is 2011 and not 19th century, and we all live in free socities. I am very happy to see that you are very passionate about topics, and are equally passionate about things such as Kasab. I hope you understand the core issue these guys are trying to address. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord! - Instead of being condescending to people who actually do work here to improve india related articles, why not work to improve some. Go ahead and maintain some caste related articles for a few months, you will know what goes on here. People who have been blocked and thrown out have been done so for the right reasons - operating sock farms, personal attacks, operating offwiki attack sites or publicising them here are against wikipedia rules. Any editor (irrespective of nationality or ethnicity) who socks or trolls should and will be blocked. This is exactly the attitude that is wrong here - "we are indians, our feelings are hurt, so we need special treatment". This is not maturity, this is pure childishness. I know exactly what these guys are trying to do - i have seen a hundred editors in different subjects do this exactly. But only these guys are trying to hide behind the whole Indian vs non-Indian thing. If reliable sources say "madurai is dirty", (or tomorrow it is established by reliable sources that Kasab is indeed indian or all Tamils are indeed terrorists) i have no qualms in adding it to the relevant articles. I can and do leave behind my personal preferences, "my upset feelings" when i edit wikipedia. My likes and dislikes have no role to play in adding content to wikipedia. If you feel you cannot abide by seeing anything negative added to a subject that is "dear to you" wikipedia is not the place for you. You are asking "Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment." - i have given you the answer above. Hundreds of indian editors including me work here and in other Indian language wikiprojects abiding by the rules. We dont go around complaining about our hurt feelings and asking for special treatment. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC) That's exactly the thing these guys have been trying to bring forth - why the special treatment for some people. Now, to know who has been running from pillar to post crying wolf. That's no secret. Anyways, your opinion is already clear when you say glorifying their caste. Now how many examples do you want about the complaints these guys have brought forth? About the Kurmi article it is crystal clear the way things are painted. OK tell me the difference between created and traced? Once you answer, I will show something interesting. MW shouldn't have created the title as 'dark side of wiki'. I don't support it. But don't get side tracked by the personal attack angle, let's look at other things he pointed out. They look very valid to me. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If you want to discuss sourcing etc for a specific article then take it to the talk page for that article. OTOH, if you are still discussing alleged misconduct then feel free to continue here. And on that basis, please could you let us know what other things MangoWong pointed out "look very valid to me". Let's at least get this discussion on some sort of logical path. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Misconduct, alleged as you say, was the reason these guys came to ANI. Somehow, I thought that you were very clear that nothing will happen here. I may be assuming things, but why did you happen to feel that way? I am not interested in being labelled 'caste warrior' or plague, etc that's what is holding me back. I hope you and MVanitas will understand. Shivaji was and is a Demi-God in India. What was the reason someone wanted to pull his glorifications. I hope it wasn't due to some google powered search. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I think the problem is well represented by the term "demi-god". Shivaji was a human being, and it would be completely inappropriate for WP to treat him as other than one. It would be inappropriate to make an article defaming him, and it is inapporpriate to have an article glorifying him. Shivaji should discuss his life and acts, perceptions and depictions of him, etc. It should be an article where both people who like and dislike him, or don't care either way, would read it and consider it informative. I would assume your angle is "nobody on WP should question his Kshatriya status", is that right? If so, there's simply no way we can just call him Kshatriya and be neutral. There is plentiful academic argument out there that he was from a pastoral jati, and then declared Kshatriya in order to crown him. If you're not happy with the full story being discussed, there's really not much we can do to help you. All kinds of political figure biographies may include facts that their biggest fans might not enjoy, but it would be horribly condescending to say "Indians just can't handle the truth, so let's treat their heroes with kid gloves." And for that matter, it's not that no Indians question Shivaji's legend, it's just that the minority of Indians heavily emotionally invested in him are apparently prepared to riot and file legal claims over the issue, but that is of no interest to us here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I will talk to both of you, gentlemen, one at a time. Sitush: a) When I specified created and traced, how come Kurmi is the first thing that came to your mind? I haven't even specified that it is related to Kurmi. So, did someone do a mischief there on Kurmi using the term? b) You have mentioned yourself as Cantabrigian? I think you will know the difference between the terms? What is the difference, Sitush? c) General Question for my curiosity: Can I use something similar on my page, not this title? Is there a verification process, or can anyone use such titles on their own Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Nameisnotimportant, I didn't say that your comment related to Kurmi. I sought clarification & pointed out that if it related to sourcing of an article then the correct venue is not here but on the talk page to that article. I still cannot fathom what your original point was nor to what the new one you raise is referring. Consequently, right now I cannot respond further, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC) If it is wrong for WP to refer to one human as demigod, how is it right for WP to refer to millions upon millions of humans as sub-humans?-MangoWong (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Leave the emotive stuff off here, MangoWong. Forget your politico-socio-whatever agenda: if something is WP:V, WP:RS etc and not WP:Fringe or WP:Undue etc then it is eligible, period. If you cannot handle this then it is probably best not to contribute to those particular article areas because you are bringing a trainload of baggage with you. If you think shudra = subhuman then what on earth are the dalits? - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Ad hominems are not meaningful replies. They probably mean you don't have a credible reply. I don't think that coming to WP means stop being humane. Dalit is a completely humane word. If you agree to replace S***** with "Dalit", we have a nice solution there.-MangoWong (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Suggest it there, then. Not here. I can guarantee you what the response will be, right now: "prove it". - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas: Completely agree. The question is still open? I hope the source of such knowledge about Shivaji wasn't cherry picked google powered search. Please, please, tell me. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Sitush: I hope that by your last statement you are trying to prevent MW from asking you to prove something. I know that may not be your intention, but it seems like that. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) I cannot understand your logic, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) They simply don't know how to make a wise choice. How can they be expected to do something that they never learned to do?-MangoWong (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC) ... and I don't understand ^ this one at all but it seems like MW is tarring a group (which group, with what, and why for is anyone's guess). Are you two having some sort of private conversation in a public place? Look, I am a bloke, ergo, I do not do hints very well. If someone asks me to mow the lawn, I will mow it; if someone says that the grass is long, I probably will not make the connection. Either say what you want to say clear and loud, or forget the cryptic comments. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) We have a good option there. Take it.-MangoWong (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Name, I've noted you've made several mentions of "cherry-picked google searches". First off, I'm not using random Geocities articles off Google, I'm using GoogleBooks, which is no different from going to a library and just opening a lot of books about a subject, except it happens to be infinitely faster. So far as "cherrypicking", yes, I do run searches for "kurmi shudra", but I also run searches for "kurmi kshatriya", etc. And I do note that the sort of people who complain about Kshatriya status tend to post gBooks links with "kurmi+kshatriya" in the code, and then often fail to address the extensive Shudra sources we provide. So far as Shivaji: can you honestly tell me that you are unaware of a legitimate scholarly argument that Shivaji was declared Kshatriya for political reasons, vice sudden really good research coincidentally discovering that he was Kshatriya "all along"? If you're seriously unfamiliar, I suggest you read up on the subject, no offense at all meant, it'd probably be really interesting to you. Do you have any reason why we should not explore that angle other than upsetting some Marathas? To both Name and MW, and this part is just my general impression of the situation so nothing authoritative: it's appearing to me that a lot of the people shouting at me/others about ignorance, mistreating castes, etc. are themselves perpetuating the evils of the caste system. If every caste that had some Shudra heritage stood up and said "yes, I had ancestors that were oil-pressers or whatever, but it's time to move beyond that, admit that my ancestors were oppressed and that these past evils need to be made up for through education and economic opportunities", that would be a positive step. Instead, frankly, what we have is editors running about going "oh no! The Fooians weren't ever icky, icky Shudra!!! How dare you!!!" Treating "Shudra" as a dirty word is just perpetuating the belief that manual labour is shameful, and that this shame carries generation after generation. This may be my American bias, but in my country people take pride in saying "my grandfather worked in a coal mine, and my father worked in a steel mill, but they encouraged me to study hard and now I'm a doctor." If we encourage people to deny the past out of embarassment, we just legitimise the same prejudices that caused people to be hurt for eons in the first place. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC) That means "NO". They won't even explore the chance of an agreement.-MangoWong (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC) And they won't even seem to understand the trouble with using GBooks. They seem to think that doing a search for "Kshatriya+Kurmi" could overcome the problems with doing a search for "S*****+Kurmi".-MangoWong (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) OK. To appease your ways of right and wrong, these races should accept all that you are saying. To disapprove and to discount the facts that Yadavs brought forth to prove their Kshatriya lineage, someone went to great lengths to tarnish the image of historians such as James Tod. Who would do that? Who would start on a half-witted attempt to distort a great scottish historian? James Tod's fault: James Tod mentions Yadavs as Kshatriya. I would think someone who wants to misrepresent the facts, ignoring any other facts. Section "Reputation" was added, adding citations which don't have any links. Purpose: to show any source that wrote Yadavs as Kshatriyas as unreliable. So much for your sense of right and wrong. Why can't you accept that you just can't se anything else except what you think is right. I can go and remove that section as there are no citations that prove that point. But I will leave it to the gentleman who did it to have the honour. If there is any admin who is looking at this page, I will invite you to look as James Tod. Look at the section 'Reputation'. Talk page gets even more interesting. So much for your quest to bring the truth out. I am doing a lot of research on what all has been done. I will add more here on ya'all quest of 'bringing out' the Indian history. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC) That was jaw dropping!!!! Here's a diff of the pre Sitush version [28], and here's the current version. [29]. So NPOV.-MangoWong (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, it is NPOV. Good work I did there, even if I do say so myself :) - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC) That means "NO". They won't even explore the chance of an agreement. Agreement on what? Calling Shivaji a demigod and censoring any mention of the official legend maybe not being exactly accurate? Agreement on taking at face value the legendary claims of a given caste and not at all bringing up the academically-discussed issue that they might not be the descendants of Vedic kings and gods? I literally do not understand what you want us to agree on other than "don't use the word Shudra because it's nasty" and "we should take group claims at face value." The latter is, incidentally, why people love to quote Tod: he had no interest in really digging into origin stories, so an editor can quote Tod as though he were an actual academic verifying that everything the Rajputs told him was true, as opposed to an adventurer who wrote down cool stories. And they won't even seem to understand the trouble with using GBooks. By all means, enlighten us. What is the problem with using gBooks? That the results you find don't match what you hoped to find? I do note that one quite a few Kshatriya vs. Shudra arguments, the only pro-Kshatriya links seem to find are Tod-style non-experts, sources which mention that a group claims Kshatriya status (which we are happy to note in every article where applicable), and the occasional source which uses the term with no context or claim of looking into the varna issue because their work simply isn't about varna (in which case their use of the term "Kurmi Kshatriya" doesn't mean "yes, I looked into it and the Kurmi are indeed Kshatriya." There are just about no groups in India that can be called "Kshatriya" without some extensive explanation as to how they claim to be called that, and the controversies involved. I got involved with this in the first place because dozens (if not hundreds) of articles were happy to put Kshatriya in the lede, in the first paragraph, or even the first sentence, and 90% of the time it's simply nowhere near that clear or definitive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC) About Shivaji, if there is so much complaint of 'demogod status' etc., why are no efforts made to clarify 'Kshatriya' status also. The reference clearly mentions not only Kshatriya line, but also of opinion that Shivaji was fit to be a 'Chhatrapati' for subdueing Badshahis and for his vast army. This part is left out ignorantly in all the e-melee of loose talk on Wikipedia against who is what and why, and otherwise. About Kshatriya status, the situation is the same. In spite of links that clarify the social Kshatriya status in Hinduism, the efforts are more on clarifying Shudra status, the realpolitic and so on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC) About the propaganda of "There are just about no groups in India that can be called "Kshatriya" without some extensive explanation as to how they claim to be called that, and the controversies involved.", I think this does not look too neutral from Wikipedia point of view. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Those are pure content points, Thisthat. Take them to the relevant article or to the India project pages. This page is for incidents. honestly, this thread could run and run here and we'll not advance the stuff you keep referring to by one iota. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC) If these are content points, why are these raised here in the first place? Why is this loose talk? Please don't make ANI some kind of personal message board. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) @Sitush, why is your behavior completely different at this discussion /Talk:Thomas_the_Apostle#Blatant_anti-Hindu_POV_on_this_page death of Thomas the Apostle? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Dragging this back to behaviour issues: I don't at all feel that we're excluding Kshatriya info from these articles. We're adding Shudra issues that were completely absent, but it's not like we're challenging clearly-cited and contextualised Kshatriya info. In fact, I was the one who fleshed out the huge "varna politics" section in Kurmi which documents their Kshatriya legal claims. Again, I just think these accusations of misbehaviour are misguided, and those opposed are showing no interest in actually evening out K/S coverage, they're just desperate to remove "Shudra". If you want better Kshatriya coverage, get some references and add it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas, the agreement would have been about swapping the word “S*****” with “Dalit”. I was expecting to shake on it. It would have been a good solution. You could have kept noting whatever historical social injustice, or caste origin issues you can think up, and few would have objected. You would not have had any need to fight all your life on one cyber issue, and WP would not have any need to keep those articles locked etc. But how can you agree to any solution? You have no way of knowing that it would be a good solution. And if you agree, you will have nothing else to do. There would be no newbies who do not know anything about encyclopedic writing, and whom you can swat daily so as to give you your daily adrenaline rush. Anybody who knew anything about the subject would have readily agreed to the above solution, but how can you? And why do you assume that I am trying to press Kshatriya claims. I have no interest in pressing any Kshatriya claims or whatever claims. I have been saying clearly that I am opposed to using S***** only because it refers to what are humans, as sub-humans. It is an inhuman thing to do and is unnecessary too. That's all. Crystal? There are numerous troubles with using GBooks. It would take pages to explain. For starters, how do you even know that you need to search for “Kurmi+Shudra”? How do you know how much focus this point needs? Without reading the books thoroughly, how do you know what the book says, or is about? How would you know that your quote is not a grotesque misrepresentation? Without knowing anything about the academic field, without engaging in any meaningful discussion/dispute with anyone else other than your own group of likeminded folks, how would you know which sources are better, and for which point? Besides that, using Gbooks, it may even be possible to turn Jesus into a Muslim and Mohammed into a Christian and also provide a proof for 2+2=5. Having 5-10 sources for things like that would not make them fit for inclusion. Searching for “jesus+father+son”, you might get a million results saying Jesus was the son of God/Joseph/someone else. How would you know which ones are important? How would you know whether the point is a debate or not, or whether the debate needs mention or not? If we do not know how to make that choice, we would only be creating problems for ourselves. You have to know something about the subject to understand that much. If there is no shortcoming in using Gbooks, and in writing articles without having any familiarity with the subject, look around on WP. Which other topic continually gets hundreds of people claiming “You know nothing about this subject”. Why does no other topic face this same criticism continually. You may recall that I could sense that much even in my very first interaction with you. How could I see that much already? If you do not give up your silly ways, this is a criticism which will keep haunting you continually. The criticism is correct enough. Only that you have no way of realizing it, unless you visit India, spend some time here, and get some firsthand info on the subject. The criticism that your familiarity with the issue is zero is not overcome by having two other guys say the same thing. (0+0+0=0). And that some other folks appreciated you also does not change anything. (0+0+0+0+0+0+……….=0). And your claim that in order to accept some caste as Kshatriya, academics need to verify that they are direct descendants of some God, is beyond ridiculous. To do that, one would have to establish the existence of God first. Don’t just say that that there are hardly any Kshatriyas in India. Go to any street in a town/city/village in Rajasthan/Bihar/U.P. etc. and see for yourself. Either do that, or stop fighting around those articles.-MangoWong (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Sure you have to be careful with using GBooks - or with using libraries, or with using books, or any source. That's why we have policies such as WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (which by the way means that you can't use your personal experience to add information). There is no way that we are going to tell editors that to edit articles on India they have to have spent some time in India or be academic experts on the subject. But this is becoming a content debate and needs to be closed, I see no need for Administrative action here. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Report of Vandalism

Resolved

 – See below. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people is constantly vandalised by IP users. -- 7D HMS (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to report this at WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, page was protected by User:Favonian ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)) --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

Hello folks. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar. Anyway, yesterday, I stumbled across the article at Gay Niggers Association of America while reading up on the old Scientology ArbCom case, and noticed it seemed a little - biased. As such, I drive-by-tagged it (apologies), and after the tag was removed, attempted to make a few changes myself. I made one (admittedly incomplete) content edit, trying to swing the article back to a more neutral state. Another user, LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again. So, I looked through the edit history and associated contributions, as one does. I noted that LiteralKa almost exclusively edits articles related to GNAA et al., and so I Googled the username. Not at all to my surprise, 'LiteralKa' is 'Director of Public Relations' for the GNAA group. I didn't think that LiteralKa's editing of the article was in the least bit appropriate, so I dropped him a note about COI. LiteralKa and I had a brief talk page discussion, and we left the matter at that. However, I also had a quick look at his contributions, and spotted a few AFDs LiteralKa had been involved in, as well as a history of 'owning' the GNAA and related articles. I'm going to make the following claims, therefore:

• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) is the Director of Public Relations at GNAA.
• Therefore, LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with regards to the GNAA and related organisations, and is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect.
• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has recently created some particularly pointy AFDs, both of which have the acronym 'GNAA':

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry
• I wanted to close these as 'disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point', but I think it'd be best to let them run. There's also Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, which LiteralKa has shown an interest in.

• There seem to be a host of SPAs, meatpuppets and potential GNAA members who edit GNAA articles, for example:

• Prozak (talk · contribs)
• 24.57.119.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• TrollHistorian (talk · contribs)
• NPrice (talk · contribs)
• Murdox (talk · contribs)

In short, then, I'm asking what we can do about this. Ideally, I'd like to get editors with a COI, like LiteralKa, to leave the GNAA article alone so that sensible, uninvolved folk can work on it. Some sort of topic ban? Community-endorsed? The Cavalry (Message me) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ban all forever. Don't forget snaphat (talk · contribs). See also this after I opposed the recreation of the GNAA article in February.  Diego  talk  22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That LiteralKa is associated with GNAA is not at all news to anyone who spends time at #wikipedia-en, where LiteralKa is a regular. As far as IRC members go, he has recently ranged from mildly constructive to mildly disruptive, but has previously had a history of being banned from that channel and socking to get around that ban, and spent a few days as the single most disruptive troll that I've seen in IRC space in the time I've spent there, which is nearly a year.

What does this mean for actual Wikipedia? It means that LiteralKa has proven that he has access to effective proxy services and is more than willing to sock. I would not be surprised to find that those SPIs are his sockpuppets, although it is likely that they are untraceable. At the very least, Murdox is also on IRC from time to time, so the two are either socks or meats. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the logical extension of that argument is that everyone on Wikipedia is secretly a sockpuppet of one dude with a lot of time and proxies. This is less of a matter of Wikipedia Administration and more of a witchhunt. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you just accused snaphat (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet when all he has done is vote against one of your articles. LiteralKa (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The vote is perfectly fine, and I'll leave it clear to you: I did not know of the existence of an article on mixed-breed dogs at the time I created the quiltro article, so I created it, believing it was some kind of "different" race when it is not. Snaphat's vote there is perfectly fine, yours is too; however, it is obvious you both are part of that so-called, racist organization I won't bother to spell.  Diego  talk  04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you're going to have to provide evidence that he is a member of the Gay Nigger Association of America before throwing accusations around. We've been over this before. LiteralKa (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple, user that edits very, very sparsely from 2005 votes in an AfD shortly after the director of public relations of the troll organization votes, too. Since there are no public records of who the members of the organizations are, I have no more proof than this.  Diego  talk  05:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, that is the flimsiest argument I have seen from you yet. Why would that have anything to do with the GNAA except for the fact that I happened to vote a little before him? If that's what you see as justification for banning, I sincerely hope that you never get the power to ban here. You should notify someone when you're accusing them on ANI, BTW. You're grasping at straws here, Diego. Give it a rest. LiteralKa (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and because you wouldn't notify him, I did. LiteralKa (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not related to GNAA. I didn't know it existed until the accusation. It is actually pretty clear who I am if you google my username. I'm not making an attempt to hide this information. snaphat (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore conflicts of interest exist everywhere because every single Wikipedia editor is involved with some other organization or interest, and they frequently edit topics of that nature. It's total hypocrisy for you to single out some who may be fans of the GNAA. death metal maniac (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note above user is User:Prozak. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say the AfDs should be procedurally closed. The ones that need deleting can be restarted with a nominator who isn't being obviously pointy. The AfDs weren't started in good faith, we should do the equivalent of order a mistrial. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would let the AfDs run. If the subjects were obviously notable, then speedy close would be reasonable, but they're not. Also, even if the nominations are pointy, the nomination statements themselves are reasonable in pointing out the deficiencies of the articles.. I don't see the point in policy-wonking this for the sake of it. Obviously if there is a sock issue on the AfD that needs to be sorted, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, the yearly GNAA infestation <yawn>. SOP as follows:

  Congratulate them on another successful op. Then nuke from orbit, salt the earth, close any procedures or related procedures started by GNAA puppets, Checkuser the bad guys, Get steward cover if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) it's the only way to be sure!

• Blocks all round, then? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They're not here to help build an encyclopedia. They're here for giggles. So yes, blocks all around. Let them get their kicks somewhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Get rid of the problem; yes.  Diego  talk  23:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. You're not assuming good faith on *ANY* of these accounts, and this really seems like a campaign against anyone who's commented in an anything-less-than-negative light on a GNAA-related article. I don't feel I've done anything wrong, and while I cannot account for other users, what's mentioned here hardly seems to warrant a permanent ban. If you look at past votes, they are clearly two-sided, and those who "lost" are now just trying to execute a vendetta against those who "won". Many of the accounts that have been listed are legitimate editors who edit on a number of subjects, and have participated in GNAA votes... Light-editing does not make a user a SPA or sockpuppet. nprice (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh! I didn't realize this was a topic ban, and after a discussion on IRC, not everyone who's put in their input seems aware of that either. If we do this, we should at least do it by each "suspected" user account, based on its own merits. You can't just do a blanket-ban on a group of people you've arbitrarily grouped together because of a perceived connection. Each user should have the right to contest any actions done to their account, by their own merits. What's happened here is that a list of editors has been compiled who have legitimate edits, but few enough of them that SPA can be cited the moment they do something pro-GNAA. In the last DrV, there were plenty of "keep deleted" votes from accounts with the same status. If this happens, the moment any sort of block is placed, a certain editor who's pretty vehemently commented in this "incident", and HIS group are going to take advantage of the situation they've orchestrated to get the GNAA article VfD'd again. nprice (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • One more comment - if you block any supposedly pro-GNAA people from editing, as well as their detractors, who does that *LEAVE* to actually edit the article? Admittedly, it is very polarizing, and this would just arbitrarily unbalance things one way or another. nprice (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It leaves neutral editors to edit it, who edit for a hobby, rather than for a cause. Some people are interested in organisations like this without being a part of them - I studied sociology at university, as well as computer science, so I actually find it rather enthralling. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It also leaves the multitude of editors who are forever biased against GNAA as a result of the many deletion debates. You know this. LiteralKa (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "[literalka] is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect." I'd like to see evidence of this instead of accusations being thrown around. I have attempted to follow the COI guideline to the best of my ability. "LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" I'd also like to see evidence of how I made it pro GNAA. As for trollhistorian (talk · contribs), he hasn't edited since 2007, calling into question the amount of research that Cavalry actually did. LiteralKa (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're the PR man from GNAA. Editing in the interests of public relations is frowned upon. Why don't you follow Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance, for example? Why do you consistently remove the 'COI' tage from the article, rather than waiting for a neutral editor to come along? It's all a bit fishy, if you ask me, and you're damned close to being blocked for being a single-purpose account. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have been editing for years across a wide variety of subjects. I find such accusations baseless, offensive, and childish. Coming from an arbitrator, no less. I removed the COI tag because no specific issue was taken with the article, aside from "LiteralKa edited it" (see WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits (mainly no. 6).) Additionally, you're going to have to prove that I'm "editing in the interests of public relations," instead of just claiming that I am. I have worked to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article. LiteralKa (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• IDGI Firstly, the implication that TheCavalry has "never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar." is a pretty false statement considering that's he's commented upon it multiple times in the IRC. Secondly, I'd like to further understand why I'm not a "sensible" editor considering that outside of attempting to reboot the GNAA article in my own userspace (which earned me a quickly overturned block) I've never made anything approaching unsensible edits on-wiki. That said, I don't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of wikipedia's version of due process and most of my knowledge of wikipedia's various bureaucratic branches comes from being referred to them continually. I understand ignorantia juris non excusat, but I'd appreciate it if you made it a little clearer what I'm being accused of. TIA. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• NB: If anyone feels I closed this inappropriately, feel free to open it again. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see this section closed by an administrator, considering the seriousness of the charges you brought. Closing because there is "too much drama here" is bogus; what did you expect? You can't just open up a huge can of worms and then just say "Nevermind!" FYI, I am a totally disinterested party who has never edited or even read the article in question and has never had any dealings whatsoever with any of the parties involved, nor do I particulary care about the outcome of this incident, except that it be resolved properly and competently. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problem with someone who originally brought an issue to ANI deciding to withdraw it, whether they're an admin or not. Sometimes one realizes that a particular issue is generating a great deal of noise, and not enough signal to bother with. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine if that's the case here, but in the meantime, if Cavalry wants to close out what he opened, far be it from me to stand in his way. (Sidenote, I'm using the pronoun "he" in the non-gender-specific manner.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry is an admin. LiteralKa (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and have been since 2007, so I thought it perfectly acceptable to close it myself - but I digress. I think we all dislike it when this becomes a drama-board, and the last thing I want to invoke is drama. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly tempted to close the AfDs summarily, as their intent is intentionally disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really disruptive to put articles that were created with the clear intention of "diluting" the GNAA disambig page up for deletion? I figured I would leave it up to the community to decide if they were notable for this very reason. LiteralKa (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say that yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate "dilution". The other articles, whether their subjects are notable or not (and that's still arguable...elsewhere), all bear legitimately-named organizations which just happen to bear the same initials. I'm not an attorney, but this strikes me as a prime example of scenes á faire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Created by the same editor during one of many GNAA arguments, one of which was mentioned in an academic paper once and another had nothing but passing mentions in sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I took a quick look at the histories of these articles and was going to snappishly post a response to LiteralKa along the lines of "these articles have nothing to do with the 'GNAA' controversy; they were created in 2005." But I looked a little deeper (after noticing that both articles on completely unrelated topics were created around the same time by the same user), and I now see the point LiteralKa is making. (Geez, I hadn't realized that GNAA has been a topic of discussion here since 2005!) I still think it would be better if these AfDs hadn't been created or had been created by someone else, but for what it is worth, I now see a somewhat greater substance to them than I might have initially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we please start assuming good faith on my GNAA-related edits now instead of just assuming the worst? I try to follow the rules as closely as possible when editing related pages. Also, I created {{GNAA History}} so that people could read up on the GNAA-Wikipedia relationship in as much detail as possible. LiteralKa (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to be fair to you. In fairness to me and others, you didn't make this point anywhere that I've noticed either in the AfDs or in this discussion, though it is one strongly in your favor insofar as the issue of intent is concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That was because the point was made already by someone else. (In hindsight, though, I probably should have been clearer in the nominations for each.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I have a hard time assuming good faith based on the comments contained in the very diff you link above. And I'm still going to have to hold by my earlier comment: because the articles at AfD appear to name valid, albeit arguably notable, organizations or entities that just happen to bear the same initials as yours, you will have the WP:BURDEN of showing the articles were created specifically for (to use a marketing term) brand dilution. And having said that, I'll now step back and watch. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As LiteralKa has noted, those claims are also my own, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon my shoulders as well. The fact that many find the GNAA distasteful isn't a secret, and years ago, those who found it distasteful sought to push the Gay Nigger Association of America to the back of the bus disambiguation page. One of these users was Astronautics (formerly known as Silsor). On December 7, 2004, Astronautics expanded the disambiguation page with three entries that didn't have articles at the time. On April 2, 2005, an anon removed the articleless entries from the page, and Astronautics's immediate reaction was to create articles on the Guilford Native American Association and the Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry in order to ensure that entries couldn't be removed from the page ever again. Astronautics then decided to belittle the Gay Nigger Association of America by having it listed last: [30]. Astronautics even tried to push GNAA as an acronym for the Great North Air Ambulance Service. Another user involved in similar activities was Brian0918. Brian0918 supported the idea of listing disambiguation page's entries by their perceived significance. When the tables turned on him, he pointedly added an articleless entry listed alphabetically over Gay Nigger and made an equally pointy comment: "alright, then, alphabetical order is fine." When Sam Hocevar removed those articleless entries, Brian0918 took a page out of Astronautics's book and created a Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica article. Those articles weren't created out of good faith; they were created solely to belittle the GNAA on a disambiguation page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the most flattering description I've recently heard of Wikipedia is "the place people go to win bar bets", and that Wikipedia itself won't allow Wikipedia articles to be used as reliable sources, I'm fairly well convinced that no one is going to take ANY article found on Wikipedia as God's Own Truth™, so an argument regarding irreparable harm to ANY of the article topics under consideration here is, in my mind, laughable at best. And now that I've said all that, here's what I see as the acid test for this case. Are the editors in question willing to accept a keep outcome on any or all of the AfDs in question? And what, if any, would the overall effect be on GNAA, other than having to share space on a disambiguation page? Yes, this is a serious question, and I'd appreciate a serious answer. And on a sidenote, I'd like to thank Michaeldsuarez for taking the time to lay out a clear, concise argument supporting his position...even though there are some who won't agree with it, it's a refreshing change from the dramatics I've seen lately on various noticeboards. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to address the issue of OWNership, I'm pretty sure that I have abstained from editing the GNAA article as much as I used to once it passed the deletion review (ie. entered mainspace.) Before that, my intention was (and still is) to help develop a genuinely acceptable Wikipedia article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As an experienced editor entirely uninvolved with any disputes about the other GNAA, I think that this tempest-in-a-teapot is exceptionally unfair to the Guilford Native American Association. This is a solid, worthy organization that has existed for decades, and reasonable people may well disagree about its notability by Wikipedia standards. However, the Guilford group has done nothing that justifies its online reputation being dragged into this "inside baseball" dispute on Wikipedia. It is unjust and distasteful. They've had an article here for 5-1/2 years. Consider the impact on uninvolved people who stumble into this debate while looking for information about a group that was founded 25 years before Wikipedia was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the view stats, I'd reckon that doesn't happen much, if at all. LiteralKa (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So, if its only three parents of Native American kids with problems, rather than 20, that's OK with you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how one of them is me, and the other two are related to the page deletion, yes. LiteralKa (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google reports that there are an average of 36 searches per month for "guilford native american association". Our article shows up at the top of that search. The potential for collateral embarrassment to this group is real.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The "collateral embarrassment" you mention would be made no worse: its "relationship" to the GNAA would be no more apparent than it already is. LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you then agree the converse is also true...the existence of the Guilford Native American Association, and hence its article, causes no "collateral embarrassment" to GNAA? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'd like it to be known that I am not any way related to GNAA. I simply voted once on some article AfD of diegos. Since it is very easy to look up who I am, so there is absolutely no reason why this accusation should have occurred in the first place. What can be done about this? snaphat (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree here. I don't see that you're a part of GNAA in the same way as LiteralKa, and it's LiteralKa's conduct I have an issue with in any case - everyone else seems tangentially related, and I'm not 'anti-' or 'pro-' GNAA. The only reason I've issued a block so far is that NPrice (talk · contribs) turned out to be a reincarnation of a blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks you! I'm not concerned with what is going on here beyond making sure I don't wrongfully get banned or sanctions against me as I've done nothing wrong. snaphat (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry, can you please provide diffs of LiteralKa's alleged meddling in the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's revisions after your own revisions appears fine to me, and LiteralKa provide clear edit summaries. Can you please back your "[LiteralKa] stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" comment? Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not specific edits, because the edits themselves are individually small and apparently harmless - but they add up to have a cumulative effect. I find it amazing that he's removing COI tags added by neutral editors - and bizarrely citing Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits as a reason for doing so. Ask yourself this: Why is the Head of PR, and the 'Head of Wikipedia editing' (easily accessible through Google searches, seeing as 'LiteralKa' is the username he uses all over the internet, for everything), for GNAA, editing the article at all? This is a man who wrote - just four months ago - Jimmy "Babyrapist" Wales... convicted sex offenders known on Wikipedia as "Sysops"... forcefully ejaculating into MuZemike's pedophile mouth.... And let's not forget the wonderful quote that The Wikimedia Foundation refused to return our requests for comment. Saying only that "those dumb niggers" do not "deserve a fucking article". The man who wrote this is apparently an editor without a COI? Would we allow this from the Head of PR for any other organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a COI to me. Given his background, LiteralKa should not be editing the article at all. snaphat (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When LiteralKa removed that COI tag, there hasn't been any discussion about COI since the previous discussion on COI and neutrality concerns was settled several days earlier. Cavalry didn't make any attempt to re-initiate that discussion, and there wasn't any answer to my call for evidence. Silver_seren also noted the lack of further discussion. There isn't anyone who takes anything say on the GNAA website at face value. It's unlikely that anything said on that website will harm the Wikipedians mentioned. LiteralKa uses the GNAA website in the same way I use Encyclpedia Dramatica: To be funny and entertain visitors. LiteralKa didn't use those press releases to out anyone. Should we ban anyone who mocks Wikipedia on Encyclopedia Dramatica or the Wikipedia Review? Only one thing matters here: How does LiteralKa influence the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's offsite activity doesn't have any effect on that article, so that activity is irrelevant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I disagree, and I do not have to cite specific edits, because the conflict of interest is plainly obvious. Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article. This isn't about WR, or ED - bringing those sites in is a fallacious argument, and a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue with drama. The only thing that matters here is: should the Head of PR of an organisation be the main editor of the article for that organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article"? I'm seeing a revision by you from July 8, 2011. You added the COI tag on July 14, 2011, and that talk page I had mentioned had only ended the day before. As the PR Head, LiteralKa has the best motivation to keep the article neutral and free of crud from those who despise the group. Why don't you point out how LiteralKa made the article less than neutral? Can you? You haven't done so so far. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're talking about allowing PR reps to be the main editors for articles because you think they're neutral? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to concur with ChaseMe: this is incredibly peculiar reasoning on MichaelD's part. PR heads, by definition, want to shape coverage of their subject to fit their own agenda, which is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If PR people were truly neutral, we wouldn't have 1/4 the number of UAA reports we get. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I have to counter Michaeldsuarez' argument. As the self-styled PR man for GNAA, how can LiteralKa not have a COI when editing the GNAA article? I will stipulate that WP:COI specifically states that a voluntarily-disclosed conflict of interest should not be used as a weapon against the editor. However, WP:COI is also quite clear that an editor should avoid making changes to an article unless it helps the project as a whole, and given both the size and the heat emanating from this discussion, I can't see any help to the project as a whole. In fact, based on what I'm seeing, his editing is damaging not only the GNAA article (due to inherent bias) but several other articles as well, simply because the names of the articles have the unmitigated bad fortune to create acronyms of "GNAA". Add to that the comments from the GNAA Web site quoted above, and to me it adds up to a fairly damning case, very little of which is circumstantial. And before I go any farther, I'm also going to stipulate that I do NOT have a dog in this hunt. I have no association with GNAA (in any of the incarnations under discussion...hells, in at least two cases I couldn't even pass the physical!), I have not edited any of the articles, and I have not participated in any of the AfD discussions. My focus here is to examine the core issue and see if there's any sort of mutually-agreeable solution that won't wind up involving significant admin (or higher) action. Sadly, I fear it may be too late for that last, but that won't stop me from giving it a go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI - "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." LiteralKa (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The COI template doesn't mention citations, and I can tell you right now that #6 doesn't apply in the case you're talking about. If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit, and you shouldn't be making it at all. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The way COI works is this way... If an editor has a COI but complies with all policies and guidelines, and other editors do not object to their edits, then we allow their editing of the main space of the article (we even encourage it, really). If, however, the editor is being disruptive (either through conflicts with all other editors or violating policies and guidelines), then that editor can be blocked or banned. If we can verify either through technical or behavioral means that sockpuppetry has been occurring, that seems to me a valid reason to do both in this case. -- Atama頭 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got no prior involvement with this article, but having read through this thread, I'll just add that LiteralKa seems to have a pretty transparent COI regarding this article, and as such should (at the very least) publicly make that clear; and preferably should avoid making any edits to the GNAA article at all. Minor edits are OK but not if they're controversial (and if someone reverts them, that's a clear sign that they are). Robofish (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This recent edit by LiteralKa is non-neutral and the edit summary does not accurately describe it.[31] Given the history and the ongoing problems, I think that LiteralKa and Murdox, listed as GNAA president,[32] should not be editing the article directly, nor should they be involved in AFDs related to GNAA. It would be sufficient for them to use talk pages to suggest edits.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that something is "non-neutral." It's another to say why. LiteralKa (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry but my ADHD makes it very hard to follow the thread of a huge discussion like this without losing track of the argument. Could someone point out to me specifically which edits on the GNAA article are non-neutral or controversial, and why I need to be blocked from editing the GNAA article? My vague understanding of COI is that it doesn't apply if the edits aren't controversial. Murdox (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're editing an article about a group of which you're the president then you should really become familiar with the relevant guideline. WP:COI.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep avoiding the issue of citing specific edits and saying how they're POV? LiteralKa (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I've violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. In fact, I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but I don't see why this means I should be blocked from making edits to the page I feel are appropriate? By all means, if you could cite specific edits or lines of policy it would help me understand your position more. TIA. Murdox (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit removed text illustrating the perception of the organization's name as racist, it removed (sourced) information about the group's antagonism toward blogs and Wikipedia, and another mention of the intentionally offensive nature of the organization's name. Either you're being disingenuous about the slant you're trying to put in the article, or unable to recognize it, either of which is a very valid reason to ban you from further involvement in editing the article. -- Atama頭 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The "racism" was discussed later in the article. Same with the antagonism bit. Is there a problem with removing redundant material all of a sudden? LiteralKa (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that's true. The article does more-or-less cover it anyway. At the very least, it looks like a POV edit on the surface, and the edit summary was pretty vague (explaining that it was removing redundant statements would have been better). So I can see why Will might consider that a biased edit but I suppose it isn't. -- Atama頭 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In hindsight, a better edit summary probably would have helped. LiteralKa (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion, decision

I think the consensus above (among neutral editors) is that LiteralKa and Murdox - and any other editors who hold positions within the GNAA - should not edit GNAA-related articles, except to remove blatant vandalism or post requested edits on the talk page. The problems with their involvement in editing the GNAA article is plainly apparent. To that end, and to clarify exactly what the problems are, I'd like to propose that: "LiteralKa and Murdox are banned from editing articles related to the GNAA, except to remove blatant vandalism, remove BLP policy violations, or fix spelling and grammar errors. All other edits should be requested using the {{Request edit}} template. I think that this is more than fair, and is in line with current community views on this level of COI editing. It also allows LiteralKa and Murdox to focus on improving other topics, while still allowing them to contribute to the article in question. I'd appreciate the viewpoint of neutral editors on this - ie those not pro- or anti-GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NB: Someone also suggested a full topic-ban, but I'm not sure if that's a bit harsh. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We're struggling to get neutral editors involved, so I've mentioned this proposal to a few people who have commented above - but no-one who is openly anti-GNAA. I've also contacted Lugurr, who might come over from simple to comment. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support topic ban based on inherent WP:COI of editors in question. Their editing history, commentary here at ANI, and AfD nominations of articles bearing names that can contract to the same acronym (whether or not those articles meet WP:GNG), demonstrate to me their inability to remain neutral when dealing with GNAA. I would therefore suggest adding a "broadly construed" qualifier to the topic. The GNAA article itself, along with those nominated at AfD, will stand or fall on their own merits; my concern is the maintenance of the Wikipedia project as a whole, and allowing editors with a clear and demonstrated COI to continue down the path they've selected does more harm than good. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   In my defense, I would like to point out I have never ever ever put an article up for AfD at any point of my wikipedia tenure. I feel heavily that I'm being put in the same basket as LiteralKa despite an essentially spotless on-wiki record. Murdox (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Murdox, you're a single purpose account. Every single one of your edits has been GNAA-related - that's not exactly a spotless record seeing as you run the organisation. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm editing something I feel I can write for wikipedia about instead of doing what I usually do which is edit small gramatical errors and dead links as an IP. Murdox (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   No, but it's not a spotless record. Why not edit about things that aren't GNAA-related - 4chan, or LOIC, or the quite excellent tech-rapper Dan Bull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   I don't actually know much about any of those subjects except I think running LOIC and/or DDOS is illegal or something? I dunno. Murdox (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Could you explain why not banning me from AfD/DRV would be a bad thing? It's not a vote, after all. I'd just be adding my two cents. LiteralKa (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

2. I would Support restricting the editors to non-controversial editing of the articles, as outlined at WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and as proposed above by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. I don't support a full topic ban because I don't see that evidence of actual disruption has been shown, in spite of the close affiliation of the editors to the organization. I support the restriction to non-controversial editing because our guideline suggests it anyway, and because other editors have objected so strongly, but not because of any actual behavioral problems that I've seen thus far from LiteralKa and Murdox. -- Atama頭 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, obviously, as nominator. I'd be in favour of a 'broadly construed', perhaps, but I feel that these editors could really help with hacker culture style articles, and I don't want to prevent them from doing so. I don't have a problem with them being involved on the talk pages, or in AFDs, because their comments there won't have a direct impact on GNAA-related articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, clear COI violations. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   If they're "clear" how come I have yet to see any edits cited? LiteralKa (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   The 2 deletion nominations are clearly listed at the beginning of the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   And this relates to me directly editing the article how? LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   It's not an article ban, it's a topic ban. In this case the topic includes articles that share the same acronym. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Including Gay Nigger Association of America! LiteralKa (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

5. Support something or other, maybe not the full topic-ban, but come on, I've come across the PR agents for an organization/person complaining at the BLPN about their edits being undone, the username is blatantly COI and, in general, it results in a speedy delete for the article in question and a permanent block for the user, so what's going on here? Personally, I find GNAA funny like 4chan or all of the other stuff that says "fuck you authority, control , Big Browzer and so on" but this is really OTT COI. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   The Pope clearly has a COI editing articles about Catholicism, the bush, you are beating about it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Good thing the pope doesn't have an account! LiteralKa (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Stop being such a gay nigger and take it like a man. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Please do not engage in personal attacks. LiteralKa (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Then don't set yourself up for them; not that I necessarily endorse it, but are you really surprised someone would say that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, do please stop engaging in personal attacks. It is not only hypocritical, but against policy. Simply put- it suggests much about the neutrality of the voter and doesn't strengthen supporting sides arguments in the least. snaphat (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, please shut up, if anyone could point out where the personal attack took place that would be useful, as contributors to Wikipedia, I assume that most of you do not take Wikipedian to be a personal attack, so saying 'stop being such a gay nigger' to someone who is the PR guy for the Gay Nigger Association of America can hardly be construed as a personal attack. Thanks but really this devolves into wiki-stupidity and pointiness. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Again, please no personal attacks. snaphat (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Again, stop talking through your hat and repeating yourself, there is no personal attack. (Unless you want there to be one). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Captain Screebo, you name called LiteralKa and told me to shut-up. I saw the warning on your talk page and the discussion on LiteralKa's talk page. I know that The Cavalry is already aware of the initial comment and such. snaphat (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Support; had this been raised at WP:COIN on any other issue (i.e. a company), there wouldn't even be a question. Perhaps these users should shadow Orangemike and see how he handles articles where he feels he has a conflict of interest; his way of dealing with it doesn't create this kind of drama, or indeed any at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Support only for LiteralKa. I took an extensive look through the article history for this year and see nothing Murdox has done wrong with regard to editing the article. However, LiteralKa is a bit of a different story. On the article, the only thing I see wrong was that he removed the COI tags. However, his deletion nominations for other GNAA acronym articles are why I am supporting this- those appear to be motivated by COI. If the latter hadn't been done, I would not support this decision. I would like however to voice my concern that anti-gnaa editors could try to have a field day with the article. I, myself, would rather he be allowed to edit the GNAA article and simply not allowed to AfD or edit other GNAA acronym articles. snaphat (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
8. Support only for LiteralKa; on the condition that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry can provide a neutral administrator or editor to protect the article. Although this looked like an interpersonal dispute at first, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has since shown me more instances than just the AfD of blatantly COI-inappropriate editing: edit-warring, COI tag-removal, POV edits; more breaches of trust than I can excuse. Although LiteralKa's edits are not inappropriate outside of the context of COI (indeed they can look pretty good; as I said in my erstwhile oppose vote, for a long time I did not know that they had a COI), they are inappropriate in the framework of COI good practice. As for Murdox, I know that he edits a lot on GNAA and little else, but these seem to be non-controversial cleanup edits, which I have a hard time supporting a ban for. Quigley (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Support, as the conflict of interest at hand is too great a conflict of interest. I'm also in favor of bringing in neutral administrators to enforce this. (I also support the deletion of the article, but I can't imagine a sufficient amount do. This is a joke and not worth our time.) hare j 01:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
10. Support full-ban as there is no way for Mr. Kaiser and Murdox to be a net positive to the encyclopedia; there's nothing to do in their defence.  Diego  talk  01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    You have been trolled relentlessly by the GNAA in the past, and thus are by no means a neutral and unbiased editor, especially considering the position you're taking in this discussion. Murdox (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    He's still entitled to his opinion, Murdox, as are you. The Cavalry (Message me) 02:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    Just trying to point out the possible WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    There is no COI because I'm not affiliated to any racist organization, AFAIK. You, OTOH, are affiliated to the GNAA; and no, I haven't been trolled relentlessly, and anyway, how would you know that? Oh, right... :-)  Diego  talk  05:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

11. Support - based on the proposer's reasoning, and the precedents that have been applied to thousands of other editors with COI over the years. I am particularly unconvinced by Murdox' reasoning for not actually contributing anything to this project outside of the very area where COI is the strongest. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
12. Support only for LiteralKi, as Murdox' edits haven't been very detrimental. Perhaps Murdox can get a warning and a directive towards our COI guidelines. LiteralKi's COI is problematic, as evidenced by The Cavalry, so a topic ban is the common-sense solution. ThemFromSpace 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
13. Support only for LiteralKa. The sanctions seem perfectly reasonable, and just what we would expect from any other editor with a conflict of interest. However, I am willing to give Murdox the benefit of the doubt as their contributions seem to be within the COI guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose you people are just looking to cause trouble. I see nothing wrong with what these editors have done with the article. They have kept a NPOV and cited all information added to the article. If we went around preventing anyone who had anything to do with a certain topic from editing, there would be nothing on this site. Kids in the sandbox (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - Struck, as user is linked by checkuser to hundreds of abusive sockpuppets. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose unless "adding citations to uncited statements" is added and "GNAA-related articles is defined as Gay Nigger Association of America, and Goatse Security." Additionally, as neither DRV or AfD is a vote, there is no harm in specifically banning participation in them. (Perhaps banning us from nominations only?) Why don't we ban all Wikipedians from editing Wikipedia while we're at it? LiteralKa (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose I've made this point before, but I've specifically endeavoured on the GNAA article to keep WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, or WP:COPYVIO. I've taken a somewhat "hands off" approach to editing the GNAA article since it made the move to mainspace but by all means I don't feel WP:COI applies to me when I've already consistently shown that I can edit the article sensibly, uncontroversially, and without bias. A topic ban doesn't quite seem to follow the spirit of WP:COI. Murdox (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose I've watched developments on the GNAA article for a long time without knowing that LiteralKa or Murdox were connected to the organization, largely because their contributions to that article were not outwardly partisan or promotional. In fact, they are exemplars of what Wikipedians should be, in that they cited every statement, strictly adhered to NPOV, and calmly addressed the concerns of fanatical anti-GNAA people on the talkpage. Apparently there is some bad blood between old-time Wikipedians and the GNAA, and as a result, many Wikipedians tend to assume the worst in every action from these two users (such as their AfDs of obviously anti-GNAA articles created in bad faith). However, to uninvolved editors like me, looking at the presumed evidence with no prejudice against these two users, I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban. These editors, probably because of their outside involvement with the organization, are the only editors who would edit an article on such an unpopular group constructively. As long as they strictly adhere to WP:V and WP:RS as they have been doing so far, LiteralKa and Murdox's presence on GNAA articles is crucial to maintaining NPOV against the legions of users who would like nothing more than to have the articles deleted. See support rationale. Quigley (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Quigley, would you feel better if we nominated some uninvolved admins/editors to protect the article? There are several editors who'd happily volunteer and have talked to me about it privately, some of them are those who originally improved the article. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   That wasn't his concern: "I see no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   I'd still like his input as one of only two neutral editors who voted 'oppose'. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Two things. One: that's not the only "neutral editor." Two: it still won't change his opinion that I am "[an] exemplar of what Wikipedians should be" and that he "see[s] no egregious violations of COI policy or anything else that would warrant this proposed ban." LiteralKa (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   All other things being equal, to have non-COI editors is better than to have COI editors, so your suggestion is good on the face of it. But to gain my support for a ban on those two, I need to see specific diffs of serious disruption resulting from the COI; ideally a pattern of disregard for the points at WP:AVOIDCOI. Quigley (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   @the Cavalry: Out of curiosity, who's the other "neutral editor"? You claim that there are only two. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose – Those in favor of the topic ban have neglected to provide specific diffs or evidence of wrongdoing. Instead of answering my questions, the Cavalry and others decided to focus all of their attention on one of my more tangential comments: [33], [34]. I've provided straight answers. When can I expect straight answers in return? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose The Cavalry has a clear agenda here, this is not for the benefit of the wiki. incog (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose. For fuck's sake, I used to be an admin here, I have tens of thousands of edits on several Wikipedias, including this one, yet I got banned from IRC for being “associated with the GNAA”. Will whoever is in charge of that ridiculous crusade please stop and start doing constructive stuff? Will I be also banned from editing Debian-related articles because I was project leader some time ago and my edits could be biased? Seriously, fuck the bureaucratic bullshit I need to cope with everyday. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Sam, this isn't an anti-GNAA discussion - it's a 'person X has a COI and refuses to accept so' discussion. I'd vote keep in an AfD, I just don't want PR people removing COI tags from the article. What I've suggested above is actually less strict than the COI guideline asks them to do. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Yes this is an anti-GNAA discussion, regardless of the original intent. Several of those GNAA acronym articles were created or protected by an admin who had a grudge against GNAA and probably me (he accused me of cheating at the Wikipedia chess championship, so fuck him, too). AfD'ing them is just attempting to clean up the polluted namespace, yet it is used as an argument to show a CoI. LiteralKa probably has every reason to care about the GNAA article's high quality and because it's such a hot topic no one else will probably dare touch the article. What is suggested here is simply to get rid of the people who care enough to research good material for the article, because most of the others were bullied out of it (need I remind you that there was a long “no GNAA-related discussion” policy on `#wikipedia-en` and several ops would ban on sight?). 2 months from now Diego, who of course has no CoI here, or other people, such as the ones who believe I should be banned from `#wikipedia-en` just because I’m “related” to those people, will AfD it. I'm not saying there is premeditation, but there will certainly be causality. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose Can someone explain to me where edits from either LiteralKa or Murdox have been BAD to Wikipedia in any sort of way. This is seeming more and more of personal opinion rather than an actual violation of WP:COI. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Changing my view to a support based on these comments, and per Quigley's notes in the Support area. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Trying to delete Wikipedia content solely because it shares an acronym with your organization is about as blatant a violation of WP:COI as you can get. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Well, let's see. One of them is going to get merged, and the other kept. I'd say that I improved the encyclopedia through those. LiteralKa (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Just because your abusive behavior wasn't completely successful doesn't mean it wasn't abusive behavior. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge your COI makes me more certain that a topic ban is appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

   Let's see, one of the AfDs was completely legitimate and valid. The other was in questionable territory, namely due to a severe lack of significant coverage, which the AfD fixed. LiteralKa (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The AfDs could be completely legitimate and still constitute a conflict of interests. If you have something to gain from the articles being deleted, you should have asked someone else to nominate them. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   The AfDs don't fall under WP:COI, so I don't see what you're getting at. LiteralKa (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs." The warning signs have been presented and I believe they are convincing. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I should also add that WP:AVOIDCOI, point two, is pretty clear. Just because they're not in your industry, it doesn't mean you're not competing for the trademark 'GNAA' initials. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose for Murdox I cannot find anything he did wrong at all. Is there anything? It doesn't seem fair to me to lump them together. snaphat (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose There has yet to be any clear examples of a violation of WP:COI. Just because a user has a COI doesn't mean that they are not allowed to edit the article they are affiliated with. It just means that they are only able to make certain types of changes to the article and not to add material that advocates and promotes the subject. There is no evidence that either of the users in question have done such a thing, so this topic ban proposal is entirely fruitless and just plain vindictive. Silverseren^C 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Let me also note that the proposal seems to be some sort of attempt to restate the COI policy so that there can be more active punishment for any mistake in regards to the article. It is entirely redundant and, again, pointless. Silverseren^C 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   SS: Just so you've got a better explanation of what exactly ires me here, it's listed at User talk:Quigley#As requested re:GNAA. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   Just FYI, I've added my two cents and rebuttal to CMLITC's points on that page. I understand you didn't want to clutter up the discussion page, but is there any reason you couldn't have made those points within this thread directly to Quigley? Murdox (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

   I supplied them to his talk page, rather than here, because originally they were directed as a response to Quigley's questioning. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Could we identify an edit (aside from removing the COI tags, I won't do that again) that inserted POV? The only edit that people had problems with was explained and accepted as NPOV. LiteralKa (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the above comment to a comments section, rather than cluttering up the straw poll. In short, you are focussing too much on individual edits, and the individual edits aren't the problem: it's the fact that you have a COI. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I can't speak on LiteralKa's behalf, but I've shown straight up that I don't have a conflict of interest. Murdox (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to take your assertion that the President of X does not have a conflict of interest when editing an article about X. It is an unusual assertion. The Cavalry (Message me) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The very thrust of WP:COI is that the specific affiliation does not matter, it's the user's conduct on-wiki. Quigley put it much more eloquently than I ever could, but the fact of the matter is that I would only have a Conflict of Interest if I put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards Wikipedia. I believe my behaviour on-wiki shows that: No, I have not put promoting the GNAA above contributing towards wikipedia. After all, I hardly have to worry about being "fired" from GNAA if I don't promote them on Wikipedia. :) Murdox (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you're mistaken: How do you know you don't have an unconscious bias? Several uninvolved editors have pointed this out to you, especially that your editing pattern displays a clear COI - but you're not quite getting the hang of it. Ignore the wording of the policy, for a moment, and think: If we can't trust the anti-GNAA members to edit the article without bias - even when they are editing for the sole benefit of Wikipedia - how can we trust you? The Cavalry (Message me) 19:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a really unusual case for me, and I deal with a lot of COI cases. Generally, when we deal with COI issues, one of two things are happening. Either an editor has a COI, but is still able to edit productively, and nobody objects. Or, the editor has a COI, and is causing disruption, and people object. This is a case where an editor has a very strong COI (the president of the organization no less) but no actual disruption has been shown, and yet a number of people are still objecting to it. I'm not sure I've ever seen this before. I think that a fair compromise here is the one proposed above, that editors with a COI be asked to restrict themselves to uncontroversial edits. Technically, anyone can be banned from anything as long as a community consensus is found for doing so. WP:BAN says that it must, or should be in response to repeated disruption (it's difficult to tell which) but we can possibly infer that multiple people saying "please stop editing due to your COI", and the editors continuing anyway, could be considered disruptive. This is a weird grey area for me. -- Atama頭 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why can't we let anti-GNAA editors edit the article if their edits are by all means NPOV and intend on improving Wikipedia? Quality and bias are measurable quantities in Wikipedian terms. Furthermore, my "editing pattern" is an incredibly vague term. I'd like to see which uninvolved editors have specifically taken issue with my edits and behaviour, and not lumped me in with LiteralKa's behaviour on-wiki. In regards to what Atama is saying, I understand it's a weird situation. However, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with what amounts to putting community consensus over actively improving Wikipedia. It would be much easier for me to understand where the oppose votes were coming from if I'd made grandiose, self-publicising claims on the article but the fact of the matter is I've utterly strived to play by Wikipedia's rules on this article because it's obviously an area which generates heated emotions. I'm willing to take into consideration other people's points of view, but I'm not willing to consent to a community-imposed ban for playing by the rules. Murdox (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

This account has been canvassing this discussion off-wiki. Could whoever is running the account please not canvass their supporters? This isn't a vote. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any canvassing. Could you link to a specific tweet? LiteralKa (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're reaching here. I don't see how a link to the New York Times or nads.org is canvassing? LiteralKa (talk)

Just here, July 26th at 1:31am. Links to shortcode ending in cPpM724, which links directly to this discussion. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!" LiteralKa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Then check the main account? The Cavalry (Message me) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Still no. LiteralKa (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Check harder please. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And this fails WP:CANVASS how? (eg. since when does posting a raw URL on the Internet violate any policy.) LiteralKa (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you conidered that it's a spambot account, simply reguritating random webpages? GiantSnowman 20:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry until or unless a bunch of meatpuppets show up out of nowhere to support with their brand new accounts. But if that does happen it would only serve to hurt the GNAA in this case, so I think it's worth mentioning here so that LiteralKa can prevent it from happening, if it's at all possible. -- Atama頭 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We've already had MeepSheep show up, and the GNAA article has started up on SimpleWiki in the last few hours, under a new user (no prior experience with wikis, judging by contributions) called 'Lugurr'. I'm also a little confused as to how the Tweet disappeared so quickly... The Cavalry (Message me) 21:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And you attribute... a tweet to a sockpuppetteer noticing something controversial on a large, public noticeboard and a guy deciding to create a cross-wiki article? LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lugurr isn't creating a cross-wiki article, he's just active on simple. You're saying that you don't know how the article on GNAA on simplewiki has started, that it's just a coincidence? The Cavalry (Message me) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that far-fetched considering the recent controversy over this. LiteralKa (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The controversy is just on-wiki though. I'm trying to work out where/how Lugurr was notified of this discussion. He says it was ED, but I can't for the life of me find where on ED it was. I've just asked him if he recognises your username: if he does, then he's probably found it off ED, 4chan, or the like. If he doesn't, then I'm stumped. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And why would he recognize my nickname if you are concerned about a "Gary Niger" canvassing? Do I smell bad faith? LiteralKa (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination) as a disruptive nomination. Anyone who would like to re-nominate it for a good faith AfD should feel free to do so after a reasonable interval. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry, there seems clear consensus for a merge to Space Interferometry Mission and I've closed it according, choosing to disregard any possible incorrect motivation for nomination in order to deal with the article appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User ClaudioSantos (again), personal attacks

Disruptive user ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making numerous personal attacks against other editors, likening them to "buffoons" and "donkies". When reproached for this, he simply claims, in broken English, that this is how people interact in Spanish (namely, with insulting epithets and pejorative metaphors).

I quote him here:

"Your last comment is what we call here "un ladrón bufón" (a burglar playing also as a buffoon)." [35]

"[In referring to another editor] We say "un burro hablando de orejas ("a donky speaking about ears")." [36]

I will not go into his extensive history of disruption, right from when he was an IP-hopping editor. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You state he's using multiple accounts. Have you opened a sockpuppetry investigation? That seems to me the next logical step to take. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, AFAIK he is only using the ClaudioSantos account now. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if he's socking or not? Uncivil editor is uncivil. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So this didn't go to WP:WQA...why, exactly? That seems a much more apropos venue for the issue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because of exasperation with this user. He started off editing as an IP on Action T4 and reduce the pace to a shambles, despite the repeated intervention of admin TeaDrinker, who could not control him. He posted messages in ALL CAPS AND BOLD again and again on the Talk page, claiming that wikipedia was conspiring to murder people. Eventually he registered an account, which was blocked, and now another account, ClaudioSantos. As ClaudioSantos he is engaged in numerous edit wars on euthanasia-related pages, for instance:

1. Trying to insert the word "murder" onto Dr Jack Kevorkian's page
2. Trying to put an Infobox Criminal on Kevorkian's page
3. Trying to delete nearly all of the content on the pages Suicide bag and Exit International
4. Trying to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism "euthanasia" to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia.
5. Etc etc .. too much to go into here.

Bottom line is that this is a highly disruptive, bafflegab-generating, intensely POV editor who is harming the project in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. His egregious insults were the final straw. So I guess this is more, in the end, than an etiquette issue, and I should have said so in the beginning. This is really an extension of a previous incident on this noticeboard → here A search for "claudiosantos" on this board raises several other incidents on this editor, lodged by other editors (not me). Jabbsworth (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See also his list Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jabbsworth, who reported me here becasue alleged PA, he is currently being involved in a WP:WQA as another user feels Jabbsworth has been personally attacking him[37]. Few days ago Jabbsworth was unblocked after being permanently blocked due 6-sockpuppets. His 6 sockpuppets has also a long record of edit wars. Just one day after being unblocked Jabbsworth got another block due edit warring. I have also felt rude his comments remarking the users' religion[38][[39] and language[40][41]. And more than one user expresively asked to stop that sort of comments. It seems that as he is against my position on euthanasia then he encourages other users to report me to the ANI. Ironically the above user who complaint about Jabbsworth rude behaviour was in the past encouraged by Jabbsworth to report me to the ANI to get a block for me ate the euhtanasia articles. For my comments: the above comments were clearly explained in the respective talk page of that article, those are spanish expressions, adages, proverbs used to explain certain situations, and I expressively said that I was not referring to the users but to the situation, precisely "a donkey speaking about ears" is a proverb used when someone accuses or remarks faults allegedely commited by another people while he himself is commiting those faults, it is like a donkey speaking about other's ears. I do not know what is the respective english expresion. But after all I know why Jabbsworth did intrud in a conversation between me and another user just to encourage the other user to report me to the ANI because of my proverbs. Look my last editions on Euthanasia or in Richard Jenne and in the respective talk pages, to realize what are my real edits, all well sourced and all my efforts to argue in the dispute resolution there using reliable, verifiable references, etc (See for example this or this). For a change, it seems Jabbsworht is just trying to resolve the dispute through eliminating me out of the field. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. My own etiquette case involves a user who cannot produce any evidence of a PA, other than that I quoted his misspelled word with a (sic) next to it,
2. My recent unblock and puppet case involved me using multiple accounts to try to avoid persistent wikistalking and even real life stalking, and the evidence was accepted by Arbcom, so do not raise it again.
3. I have made no rude comments on anyone's religion, merely highlighted that some of the POV edits on euthanasia are coming from the religiously motivated (which everyone knows is true),
4. Likening people to "buffoons" and "donkeys" is not excused by claiming cultural differences. Perhaps, since you are a native Spanish speaker, you should take your insults to the Spanish version of wikipedia where nobody will take exception? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct link to that earlier IP-case mentioned is this one. It is a case out of 2009, so I have no idea what is the worth of it in 2011.

Secondly, Jabbsworth a.k.a. Ratel a.k.a. TickleMeister has a particular disrespect for people who's first language is not English. Referring to other peoples spelling mistakes is extremely annoying and, to my opinion, a PA. By the way: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Jabbsworth. There Jabbsworth disruptive and annoying style of editing is discussed. No matter what happens, he claims to be the innocent victim and the other guys is the bad boy.

Thirdly: it is just a content dispute. To my opinion ClaudioSantos is strongly against euthanasia, while Jabbsworth is strongly in favour of it (to the extent sometimes that he is promoting it).

In my opinion, the only way to solve this dispute is giving a topic ban to euthanasia related articles to both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos. (And I would accept one too, if necessary) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment above comes from someone who believes I am "promoting" a non-profit by adding the number of staff and names of key directors to the organisation's infobox on the organisation's wikipage. Is this a sane viewpoint? You do the math, dear reader! Jabbsworth (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is adding this picture neutral or a provocation? I take it as a provocation and POV-pushing... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You Jabssworth subtracted to the equation that NotBW is also reverting your attempts to publish in wikipedia parts of a manual to commit suicide, which is one of the well known purpose of that organization: to teach how to commit suicide. And NotBW not solely warned that is not the purpose of wikipedia to teach how to commit suicide, but he also (plus) warned that it also could bring adverse legal consequences for wikimedia foundation, because assisting suicide is against the law in most of the United States including Florida. Perhaps readers know more than subtract. Notice that NotBW never suggested that Jabbsworth's point of view was insane or illegal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Three month topic ban proposal

Note: This proposal has now passed the bare minimum 48 hr discussion period and may be closed by any uninvolved administrator who believes there is a consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for community consideration:

Jabbsworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed, and banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, for a period of three months. Any checkuser-verified sockpuppetry used to evade the ban by those users during the ban period will result in a six-month editing block on that user. Either user may make minimal reports to uninvolved administrators should they observe a topic ban violation by the other party that is not responded to, 24 hrs after the violation and in absence of any administrator reaction, but may not discuss it further after notifying of the diff and the applicable ban.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic and interaction bans based on observed exchanges between editors both at WP:ANI and on the Euthanasia talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree unless the ban specifically relates to Euthanasia and its subpages (ie Voluntary euthanasia, Non-voluntary euthanasia etc). This is, in fact, a proposal I put to ClaudioSantos myself, suggesting to him that we only make arguments on the Talk pages diff. Of course, he declined. But do not extend the ban, for me at least, to articles I have defended with consensus support, such as Jack Kevorkian, which ClaudioSantos has tried to vandalise by calling the man a "murderer" and changing his Medical Infobox to a Criminal Infobox, etc. For heavens sake, don't punish someone who is defending the Project from this sort of rubbish! Likewise, don't ban me from pages like Suicide bag, because this page is now under attack by an editor with a grudge against me (Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) who is trying to have it reduced to a stub on specious grounds. And at least leave access to all Talk pages. Thanks. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If he's not editing on the topic, there's nothing to have to defend (and others editing in consensus can do usual work on it). The proposed ban includes talk pages as both you and ClaudioSantos have had aggressive head-butting sessions on those. It's just better for both of you to step away from the topic and each other, and work on something else for a while. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok George, if that's what you want. I'm only trying to improve the euthanasia space, which has been sorely neglected and recently messed up by people with political or religious axes to grind. But there are a few good editors getting involved now too, so let them at it! Please consider topic banning Night of the Big Wind too please, as he's been fanning flames from the get-go, and he has invited one above as well when he said Claudio and I should be banned, "and I would accept one too, if necessary". That's an admission that he's been heavily involved in the disruption. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen much disruption involving Night of the Big Wind, but if others feel he should be included then the case can be presented. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A ban will not change that it was a jury who condemned Jack Kevorkian as a murderer so I was just editing the thing based on reliable sources. And be aware also that you Jabbsworth publicly attempt to pressume and publish my alleged religion, my country of location, as you have done repeatedly is a sort of WP:OUTING and WP:HARASSMENT. You Jabbsworth were already warned here. Your double standars are proverbial as I have noticed with my proverbs but also was noted by NotBW -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please calm down and discuss constructively here, ClaudioSantos. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the NY Times link in Claudio's post. -- JN466 05:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• strong support A classic tracert more or less confirmed my suspicion that you might have a conflict of interest in the whole Euthanasia-sector and Exit International. But is still only a suspicion. To me it seems a reasonable solution to the users disruptive contributing/interactions in the Euthanasia and related topic area. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. Okay, we're going to have to give you a chance to reword that there, because I just read that comment as saying that an entire country has COI and shouldn't be editing certain pages. That's an inappropriate remark to make. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • This better? (after 3x bwc) Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Although Jabbsworth is not bound to publish his private information, does not should he let the community clearly know if he has a relationship with Exit International as it could constitute a COI given his clearly strong and biased engagement in that article and in Suicide bag which is also related to that organization?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to comply. I have absolutely no relationship to Exit International (a non-profit, BTW). I am guilty of owning a copy of The Peaceful Pill Handbook though, and like the vast majority of people, I support the concept of voluntary euthanasia, because I've seen people dying in agony, despite painkillers and hospice palliative care. I have no desire to force my religion down other people's throats, forcing them to die an undignified and horrific death because my god or ideology dictates it. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at any rate you are trying to force your POV on euthanasia here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• But first, would either Night of the Big Wind or ClaudioSantos do Wiki a favour and go to Jack Kevorkian and fix the claim that at least 17 patients who suicided "could have lived indefinitely". Might be OK for a newspaper to say people can live indefinitely, but Wiki hopefully has better scholarship than to perpetuate such an absurd statement. Moriori (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It was not NotBW neither me who added that sentence to that article. But at any rate, if eternal life is your concern may you should read that sentence literally. As "living idefinitely" strictly does not mean "living forever", but precisely: an undefined time. I now have to wonder if killing is precisely defining life's lenght. Whatever. You Moriori perhaps should also find absurd the wide spreaded slogan: "right to die", as if someone could be forced to live forever. Should it be rewritten "right to not live indefinitely"?. Whatever again. What I certainly have to write here is that the "right to live" is also a quite absurd statement that -nevertheless- had to be included into the law, precisely because people are indeed being killed. For example, in the German Weimar Constitution, there was not explicity a "right to live". But this apparently natural and self-evident right had to be included after WWII in the German Constituion and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because of the 60 million of murders, included those commited by doctors under the guise of euthanasia during the Nazi regime. Perhaps it should be noticed here that also the informed consent binding medical doctors, was also not a gift from the good doctors, but it was included into the law because of the indeed coercively medical practices in the nazi europe, but also at other places like the forced sterilizations in the United States. Excuse my non-indefinitely long response. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - CS seems to be edit warring again already on the Jack Kevorkian page. Let's end the disruption. Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Edit warring? For restoring a quote trimed by Jabbsworth just because a medical chief was critic to Kevorkian? In a paragraph with balanced pros and cons? A paragraph that was accepted by consensus with NotBW?. You must be joking or are you biased yourself? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You are up for a three month topic ban on the articles, and in the middle of that you've made the same edit three times [42] [43] [44] in less than two hours, reverting two other editors. Regardless of the content, that's edit warring. If it's that important, the best thing for both of you to do is to just leave it for some other editors who's not about to be topic banned. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, half of Kevorkian's "Legacy" subsection is occupied by a scathing comment from a man who runs the palliative care unit in a Catholic hospital. It should have been completely removed because it is nothing more than mean-spirited sniping, and has naught to do with his legacy, but I left some of it in to satisfy Claudio. That was not good enough for him. It's his all or nothing, take no prisoners approach that's making editing anywhere in his vicinity toxic. What's the Spanish word for "compromise"? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have read it properly, Jabbsworth. In fact the guy said plain: I like the way he stirred up the debat, but his methods were wrong. Then you should not chop away half of it. Page protection is requested to stop another of your editwars, but at least that is better then the page protection you have requested on Suicide bag to protect your own edits from evil guys. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Full Support I've protected three articles fully for 2 weeks because of the two and edit warring. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Ask admin to be fair in order to be constructive Hey George, above you asked me to be calm. But I think it is absolutely not constructive that Jabbsworth have been referring publicly to my personal info, my "religious agenda", my "incomprehensible grammar", my "tenuous grasp of English", my "broken english", my "poor reading comprehension", and just here above referring to my edits as "vandalism", "rubish", etc.; and I am not the only user concerned (he said "grudge", "insane point of view", "bloody minded" referring to NotBW, etc.). In more than one opportunity I have complained about these disruptive provocations to you George, but I have got no response at all. So I also find far from being constructive that again and again you solely ask me to calm down, but again and again you let that sort of things pass, without not even a shy demand adressed to Jabbsworth about his disruptive, provocative and rude behaviour to the oher users. It seems a clew of certain sort of bias from you. If you would at least attempted to stop that sort of comments perhaps I would not had to publish mine nor to defend myself from those PA's. To get an objective panorama you also should have read my edits during the last days. For example you should take a look of Talk:Euthanasia and talk:Richard Jenne, wher I have been just providing sources and arguments, thus making strong efforts to argue and avoiding Jabbswroth provocations. While Jabbsworth again and again was solely "replaying" my comments with provocations and nothing else. So be fair to be constructive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Disagree: I propose a complete ban for Jabbsworth. He needs and interaction ban with everybody here. It is proverbial Jabbsworth ability to hunt wars and disrupt users. Jabbsworth is now also engaged in a clear war not only against me but also against another user, just because Jabbsworth attempts to force by any mean his pro euthanasia agenda and attempts to eliminate any obstacle including opposite users. Take a look on his last comments to NotBW and his warring edits on the respective articles. For me is clear that Jabbsworht is now provoking and attacking NotBW. Just a couple of examples: Jabbsworth is expressivelly telling to NotBW to "stay away from the articles I (Jabbswroth) have created"[45], and Jabbsworth uses his usual provocative PAs, such as referring to NotBW as "risible","pathetic","pointless", etc.[46]. I found Jabbsworth very agressive against the people. Jabbsworth deserves a ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're cherry picking comments off talk pages, out of context, which is typical. Anyone interested enough in this subsection is advised to look at the edit histories and talk pages of Suicide bag and Exit International to see how User:ClaudioSantos and User:Night of the Big Wind are tag-teaming to revert and destroy perfectly good articles, mainly because I am trying to expand them. They have added no data to these articles, merely tried to remove information (cited to RSes). This kind of battleground activity should be strongly discouraged. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Jabbswroth you think that you are the victim here. You Jabbsworth in two weeks got involved in two wars with two different users (and NotBW used to be your wikifriend who you encouraged to ask for a topic ban against me!). And anybody can take a look into your pass accounts (Ratel, OzOke, TwikleMeister, etc.). It is proverbial how you get involved in similar wars against other users in the past, same modus operandi: stressing and disparing user with PA's, references to his grammar, edit warring, in order to put them out of your way. Yes Jabbsworth of course you believe that you are the reasonable guy as well as you also think that "nazi euthanasia started with reasonable premises" as the first murder was commited against a boy "born blind, ill and idiot" (sic!). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't just think I am the victim here, I'm sure of it! Jabbsworth (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, therefore so few minutes later you disqualified another user's (Hemshaw) comment tagging it as "ridiculous" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To both of you (J and CS) -

At this point, you're both behaving disruptively both here and elsewhere. Again - please calm down and knock it off while this is being discussed. You're both approaching the normal blockable point for disruption.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please George for the sake of objectivity, show me clearly where did I allegdely edited disruptively at AFD Richard Jenne or here, and why it is understood as disruption. I have kept very cautious at AFD Richard Jenne referring solely to arguments. And here, I do not understand if you mean that notifying PAs and provocations here is a disruption, while it is the legitime and appropiate place to do so, precisely to avoid reply PAs and provocation elsewhere. Am I wrong? What should I do if the provocatioons and PAs continue? Should I keep silence? Is it drisputive to ask this? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the list would be the majority of edits you made responding to or interacting with Jabbsworth. Pretty much every response you've done in the last several days. If you think you're being reasonable in the way you are handling this, you are missing something fundamental about assessing your own behavior, and your competence to keep editing Wikipedia at all is in question.

Please stop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite easy and quite unfair to accuse someone saying "the majority" because "yes". If you think you're being unbiased, fair and reasonable in the way you are handling and judging this, you are missing something fundamental. Therefore I will voluntarily ban me of any further interaction with you George. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation: block Jabbsworth for block evasion and other abusive sockpuppetry, temporary topic ban for others

While Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) was deemed to have had a legitimate reason for sockpuppetry on his second case involving TickleMeister (talk · contribs), it begs the question of the account ever having been legitimate at all. As the account was created less than 48 hours after Ratel was blocked for sockpuppetry, the TickleMeister account was always a block-evading sockpuppet, never eligible for any unblock on the basis of additional future sockpuppetry.

Even the first TickleMeister sockpuppetry case rings of habitual abusive sockpuppetry. A new account AllYrBaseRbelongUs (talk · contribs) was created on July 27, 2010. The following day, TickleMeister tried to negotiate his departure in exchange for an improper external link. I suggest that there is sufficient evidence of abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion to block Jabbsworth (talk · contribs) at the minimum. I am unsure if this is a matter for more stringent action.

As for any other editors who have engaged in edit warring on Euthenasia-related articles during this maelstrom, they should be encouraged to accept a voluntary topic ban of sufficient duration to allow tempers to cool. (The 90 day period seems to be a good ballpark figure.) Should the relevant editors accept the topic ban, page protection should be reviewed.Novangelis (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had behind the scenes negotiations with Arbcom on this issue, and some serious stalking issues are involved, unrelated to any of the articles under discussion. You are not privy to what was discussed, so your call for a ban is completely ill-advised. Nor is it part of the current discussion either. I believe you have written to admin Georgewilliamherbert by email in an effort to lobby to get me banned because of your long history of wp:OWN at aspartame and related articles. I have deliberately kept away from aspartame and aspartame controversy because of the hostile atmosphere there, which does not allow any editing that is not favorable to a product with which some editors have intense hidden COI issues (which I raised here at ANI, see log). In fact, so much well sourced data was excluded from those articles that all the excluded data had to be moved to another wiki, namely SourceWatch, see aspartame. Readers please note, almost all data on that linked page was excluded by user Novangelis from the wikipedia page. IMO your input here amounts to wikistalking and harassment. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your baiting me will not work. I seriously doubt that ArbCom ever approved your creating the TickleMeister account two days after you were blocked for sockpuppetry in a !vote as Ratel/Unit5. If I'm wrong, ArbCom can correct me.Novangelis (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not meant to bait you. I'm defending myself with the truth. Let others see what you have done at the aspartame articles, and look at the screeds of excluded data, and decide themselves. If the cap fits, wear it. As for Ticklemeister, as I said you are poking your nose in something you know nothing about, and I'm not going into all the private details on this forum. Drop it. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On point - and please stay on point, everyone - Jabbsworth seems (to me) to be moderately confrontational but not disruptive in general in other areas now, outside the conflict with CS. The former sockpuppetry has been reviewed, acted upon, and the current account's status reflects admin and arbcom's most recent judgements in this matter. There's no call to re-re-examine those prior incidents per se.

If there is a broader pattern of disruption outside the disagreements with CS, that rises to the level of administrator attention, it will become evident shortly after the topic and interaction ban becomes effective.

People are surely aware of the history and will be closely scrutinizing all editors involved for some time.

Other admins may see this differently, but I am not willing to act based on the current situation (beyond the in-discussion disruption mentioned in my last message above, and more generally the topic ban which is the focal point of the current disruption). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, it seems for me that you are biased George. The interchange between Jabbsworth and NotBW, where Jabbsworth has been calling NotBW "risible","pathetic","pointless","if you do not like me then stay away from the articles I built", "insane point of view", "bloody minded", etc. and where two articles Exit international and Suicide Bag were involved in edit wars and had to be protected, evidently that denies your point of view George. Jabbsworth is currently behaving very disruptive and extremely agressive with other user than me. And I do not mean to be rude by saying this: but as long as you do not see this, you are encouraging his disuprtive behaviour. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I think the Arbcom procces should be published and publicly scrutined, as the unblock affects a lot of users who has been affected by the serious disruptions provoked by Jabbsworth sockpuppetry. Prime facie wikipedia clearly claims that sockpuppetry is a serious breach against community trust. Perhaps the lack of clearness is the reason that I find very difficult to believe that this sockpuppetry, clearly used solely to evade a block of 55 hours and to edit warring could be allegedly an attempt to avoid stalking. Why then he returned with his sockpuppets precisely to the article (Aspartame) where he was being stalked, if he was so wishful to not be identified and stalked?. Also I do not understand how it is allowed to someone to use 6 times sockpuppet even for avoid wikistalking. Why did not he warned the arbcom about the stalking before? why just wait until the 6 time? I At any rate, community deserves to know the process as the unblock affects the trust of the community. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a question: who consider you to be "the others". I guess Claudio, me and several others? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner, again

I've had the misfortune to get embroiled in monitoring Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs), who I recently blocked for a month due to a serious failure to disengage from mutilatio ex equus mortis. It appears that Tokerdesigner has, in a completely unsurprising move, chosen to use his month off to compile yet another list of injustices on his talk page. Could someone who has sensibly remained uninvolved have a look and decide what, if anything, needs done about this? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude is paranoid, obviously. At this point, even a brief skim though his contribs makes it abundantly clear that the (drug addled?) person behind he username is basically unfit to edit constructively here. I wish it weren't so, but this guy has been given every opportunity and then some. Increase the block to indef and walk away.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...but MfD the user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

mutilatio ex equus mortis, from the people that brought you Romanes eunt domus. People, if you are going to make up fake Latinisms, at least try to make them grammatically correct. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nil illigitimo clockwork, costus illigitimus (I'm sure you get the gist lol) Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole fun of pidgin Latin is to mutilate it. :) Nevertheless, I'm not entirely comfortable with increasing the block myself right now. If the soapboxing in question gets to Biblical proportions like the last one then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully support an indef block on Tokerdesigner. He seems incapable of comprehending and abiding by our content policies if they happen to contradict his own, shall we say... unique ideas about the proper way to smoke pot. This has been going on for years now and is unlikely to ever stop. I have been involved ina content dispute with him in the past and so will have to recuse myself from admin action here, but hopefully someone will step up and take the necessary action. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

*cough*At least the editor didn't print a book with an incorrect Latin title. ;) - SudoGhost 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Latine dictum, sit altum videtur. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner's soapboxing is clearly not going to stop. I suppose I should be flattered to not be considered a sockpuppet in his recent user talk page screed despite having blocked him for a week last month. I'd support an indefinite block and revocation of his user talk page privileges (since he's just using that page to continue the same behavior that got him blocked). I'd do it myself, really, I don't think anything I've done should make me involved. As long as nobody has a reasonable objection or expectation that he'll suddenly change. -- Atama頭 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth considering a topic ban on cannabis related topics, rather than an indef? How are his contributions in other areas? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonexistent. This is an WP:SPA, every edit I've looked at, going back several years is aimed at promoting his philosophies about safe pot smoking and/or discouraging the use of cigarettes or joints. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

These are his article edits not related to cannabis, out of all of his non-deleted edits:

All non-cannabis article space edits

Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche on February 18, 2011. Robinsons Galleria on January 27, 2011. Vascular plant on January 25, 2011. Symphony No. 9 (Bruckner) on January 23, 2011. Wood flour on January 3, 2011. Wood flour on December 21, 2010. Jorge Luis Borges on August 24, 2010. Troll on August 24, 2010. (Technically 2 edits.) Pijin language on November 9, 2009. The End of Man on October 30, 2009. The Bloody Exorcism of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Damned – The Strange World of José Mojica Marins on October 30, 2009. The Strange World of Coffin Joe on October 30, 2009. Embodiment of Evil on October 30, 2009. 48 Hours of Hallucinatory Sex on October 30, 2009. Mozart and Beethoven on April 21, 2009. Choral symphony on March 11, 2009. Philip Glass on December 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 17, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on September 3, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 26, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 25, 2008. Maxwell Street on August 21, 2008. Symphony No. 39 (Mozart) on August 21, 2008. Carl Nielsen on April 7, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Symphony in F sharp major (Korngold) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Concerto for Orchestra (Lutosławski) on April 1, 2008. Solomon Volkov on March 31, 2008. Alexander Glazunov on March 11, 2008. Sanding block on March 7, 2008. Ivan Sollertinsky on February 12, 2008. Plastic shopping bag on September 25, 2007. Plastic shopping bag on September 24, 2007.

Out of 1,330 edits, 37 of them were to articles that weren't related to cannabis. (There were also a handful of talk page edits to non-cannabis topics also but I didn't bother to document them.) The majority of those edits were minor. It has been 5 months since his last non-cannabis edit. It's pretty safe to say that he is a single-purpose editor and a topic ban would be a de facto site ban. -- Atama頭 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's been a while, but that he has contributed to other types of articles indicates that there may be some point to topic banning rather than just outright banning / blocking him. Largely SPA, but not entirely. His problems seem related to the topic.

He might chose to walk away from other topics if topic banned, but perhaps a mid-term topic ban (1 month? 3 months?) with a community review to be based on his contibutions elsewhere in the meantime? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess a topic ban can be attempted, maybe he'll work on music-related articles. That seems to be the only topic that he has made any real substantial contribution to that isn't cannabis-related. I'll note that even many of those edits seem to have a good deal of WP:OR in them, which is part of the problem that he has had with his cannabis-related work also. If he is banned, and violates the ban (as I would predict he would) then it would probably just lead to an indefinite block anyway. -- Atama頭 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This has suddenly changed to an SPA issue? Would that address the topic of this thread which is epic soapboxing and incivility? Mjpresson (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if an editor is causing trouble that is exclusive to a particular topic area, sometimes they can be productive outside of the area, that's the whole point of having topic bans. A ban is easier to support if we can expect that the editor could be productive elsewhere, and one way to show the possibility of that is to show what work they've done on other topics (a real SPA would never have had any activity anywhere else). As I said, though, my experiences don't make me optimistic about the potential for the topic ban to work, but violating a topic ban would lead to an indefinite block anyway, so either way we can stop the disruption. -- Atama頭 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support A topic ban or indef block. Looking over his contributions I think he does more harm than good to project. A topic ban will, in my opinion, probably lead to a future indef block but if we want to be conservative then that would be the way to go. N^oformation ^Talk 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• My only concern with a topic ban is that his problem appears to be... well, um... mental. I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist, but it seems obvious that the guy is slightly unstable, and probably suffers from paranoia problems (which, as far as I understand, is a possible side effect of smoking too much reefer). I don't say that to disparage the guy, but to make the point that even if he complies with the topic ban (which I'm guessing will be a large "if") and moves to another area, all we'll be doing is spreading the problem around to other areas. That being said, I'm not adamantly against letting the block expire and enacting a topic ban, and I'm certainly willing to give an editor every possibility (to the point of slight unreasonableness, actually), but I'd hate to see him running around stirring up shit and driving otherwise productive editors away before we really give up on him.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't entirely appropriate as a line of discussion. If there's a topic ban from the community, they can stop editing or find other areas to productively edit. If they edit disruptively in other areas then that's handled. The objective of the topic ban is to handle the glaring problem but leave open a path to recovery and redemption, if they can move into a productive editing mode. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Right... like I said, I'm not adamantly against the topic ban idea. Go ahead and try it. <shrug> I'll just hang on to my "I told ya so" for later, is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have little confidence that it will work, since he's more a SPA than not, but it's worth a try. If he is topic banned, his user page needs to be cleared of all cannabis-related material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I'd already said that a topic ban might be worth an attempt, but I suppose I might as well make a formal approval of the idea. -- Atama頭 07:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, myself being one of his obsessions. Mjpresson (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but not really. If it's going to be a topic ban, I suggest it be a "sudden death" style ban. Just one violation and an indef block is applied. This should apply equally to article space, talk pages, and his own user space, which should be purged of all the ranting an raving that is currently collected there as part of his soapboxing crusade. I predict he will rapidly violate any such topic ban and will end up blocked anyway, so what the hell. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the supporting template of an article have a name consistent with that of said article?

 Deferred to some other forum dedicated to dispute resolution such as WP:RFC or WP:VP. Administrative action is not requested or warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a dispute going on at Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests over the title of the template. Myself and a few other editors have tried to move the template's name to Template:Arab Spring, as that is the name of the main article, only to be continually reverted by a stubborn User:Lihaas. He demands that a new discussion be started for the template, even though the main article already had such a discussion to determine the name (which was closed decisively in favour of "Arab Spring").

Per WP:AT, "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles"; per WP:TEMPLATE, "template names are exactly like other page names"; per WP:Page name, the policy on article titles is WP:AT. Thus, template titles are subject to the same rules as article titles. I maintain that starting a new naming discussion for the template is contrary to naming policy. In addition, any move discussion on the template would be a challenge to the consensus of the main article, and should be settled there; if a main article is moved, all other pages supporting it should have consistent names, with no new discussions needed to determine names. Any challenges to the name should be settled at the talkpage of the main article; if Lihaas has an issue with the title Arab Spring, he should take that to the Talk:Arab Spring instead of jealously guarding the name of a supporting navigation template.

Community/administrator input on the matter would be greatly appreciated, as discussions between the parties involved have been unproductive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As a template no reader sees (or cares) which title it is at... so it is somewhat irrelevant. Create a redirect at {{Arab Spring}} and get on with doing productive things :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but some closure would be appreciated here... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say, for the record, that User:Lihaas needs some wikilove, as he seems to be overly contentious in his editing and has some trouble assuming good faith (yes, I know, a rare thing indeed). Please see my talk to see what I mean. He is also not very clear when raising issues. Perhaps someone un-involved might remind him to be cool man luke... I have no idea if he just grumpus or doesn't get it, but I am afraid that if no TLC is shown, he might be a regular of AN/I...--Cerejota (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just a template; its name will not be visible to readers - that vast majority of encyclopædia users whom we are supposed to serve.

• "2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests" is clunky; perhaps in article-space there is some kind of policy-based argument for having such unwieldy text at the top of a page instead of the widely used "Arab Spring", but whatever that argument is, it can scarcely apply to templates. "Arab Spring" is straightforward, it's a known term, and doesn't seem particularly non-neutral.
• The idea that template titles should match article titles is a nicety but it can hardly be top-level policy - if anybody argues that a renaming of a template must trigger article renaming then I would encourage them to step back for a moment and look at a broader perspective. For a start, template titles are only seen/used by a small subset of the people who see/use article titles - there are bound to be times when the two sets have slightly differing interests. bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument "Nobody cares, it's just a template" is evidently false, as this AN/I thread exists. If I may direct your attention to the talkpage, the bottom two sections both deal with the name, and were both started by IPs. Any reader with the slightest curiosity of how this encyclopaedia works might be inclined to look at a template. Step back from the whole "it's just a template" line of thought for a bit, as such thought does nothing to resolve the dispute.

Re "if anybody argues that a renaming of a template must trigger article renaming": If someone were to argue this, I would agree with you. However, that is not what is being debated here. There is one main article for this topic, Arab Spring. When it was renamed, supporting articles such as Impact of the Arab Spring were renamed without further discussion. As I demonstrated above, template names fall under WP:AT policy. There is no reason why an editor must redemonstrate consensus for a template. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It is just a template (though that wasn't the point I made); your creation of this AN/I thread does not change that.

To argue that phrase from Help:Template requires all templates to follow article naming policy to the letter would be an astonishingly creative feat of wikilawyering. Let me quote the rest of the sentence, which you omitted: "Template names are exactly like other page names: case-sensitive except for the first letter, with spaces indistinguishable from underscores". Technical constraints on characters used in titles are nothing to do with the issue being discussed here. Thus, there's no basis for claims like these:

• "starting a new naming discussion for the template is contrary to naming policy"
• "any move discussion on the template would be a challenge to the consensus of the main article"
• "if a main article is moved, all other pages supporting it should have consistent names, with no new discussions needed to determine names"
• "Any challenges to the [template] name should be settled at the talkpage of the main article"

I'm not here to defend Lihaas; but if there is some other policy which actually supports those claims, please point it out - I would like to read it. bobrayner (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:TEMPLATE: Template names are exactly like other page names [the link is what I am looking at here] —> Help:Page name: For more comprehensive information, see Wikipedia:Page name —> WP:Page name: For the policy on naming pages in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Article titles

Yes, it is stretching things a bit. However, it does demonstrate that template names are held to the same rules as page names. Template naming issues specifically are not dealt with, either because it is understood that they are the same as other names, or because template naming has hardly ever been contentious.

What I intend to gain from this is a verdict on whether or not a main article move sets a precedent for supporting pages, or if RMs should be started for every supporting page, regardless of consensus on the main. In my experience, the former is the case; a move discussion on the main article that ends in a successful rename is followed by discussionless, procedural moves of the supporting pages. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:NPA we discuss CONTENT not editors so refrain from ad hominem attacks. (per Cerejota, you can see on his talk page that OTHER editors have had issue with his norway page edits and lack of consensus building. trying to accuse me is like the pot calling the kettle black)

2. WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE, WP:BRD then needs talk. talk is no t voided because you deem it unncessary. if you feel it should move then the discussion belongs on that page. When consensus is garnered then the BRD protocol that calls for bold edits (note: AGF) to be discussed and then redone with consensus comesinto play. You seem to be usingl lots of content on the NAMING issue here which should be on either the tamplate page OR the discussion page for Arab Spring. (incidentally a media term, but thats for the discussion page). Furthermore, before ANI youre supposed to show attemts at resolving the disoute, of which im willing and have discussed on talk but there is still a defiocency in at attempt to resolve it. One such way would be to get another editor to put his 2 cents and gain consensus. Much easier to do that then come to ANI to force one way over the other. Your whole arguement would be much more helpful to gain consensus (and on your side at that) on the discussion page.Lihaas (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I WP:CANVASS for support? I brought the debate here because it is more visible than the template talk, so more uninvolved parties will comment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

En.wikipedia has various tools for resolving content disputes (or naming disputes) which are definitely not canvassing. Has anybody considered an RfC, or a 3O, a request on some related project's talkpage, or even a medcab case...? bobrayner (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They haven't even made a requested move. I strongly suggest making the requested move discussion instead of running to notice boards and dispute resolution to get support for making a controversial move without a requested move. It's by definition a controversial move when somebody reverts it and discussions about it already exist. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But actually, there was an RM. See here. Pages like Impact of the Arab Spring were moved without discussion, because the consensus determined for the term "Arab Spring" was understood to carry over from the main article to supporting articles. An RfC would be far too much fuss for this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There was an RM for an article, not for the template. In spite of your quoting out of context, there is no rule saying a template must have the same name as its main article. I find it ironic that you say an RfC would be far too much fuss for this. I agree but also think this thread is far too much fuss for this. Just make the bloody RM for the template and stop fussing about it in other places. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User: Johnmylove has now re-inserted the same claim that Anders Behring Breivik ‎is a hindoo a number of times, and has breached 3RR,

[[47]]

[[48]]

[[49]]

[[50]]

There seem to be other instances of this hindoo POV pushing, but I won’t list them.

Added to this is that he claims its well sourced when (as far as I can see) only one (possible not RS) source makes the claim. I asked the user to take this to the talk page and informed him that he was in danger of breeching 3RR [[51]] the reposes was to accuse me of having a personal agenda [[52]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since launching this he has reverted again [[53]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There does appear to be a misrepresentation by Johnmylove as to what the sources he cites actually state. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have well sourced material...Respected administrator, I would like you to read the source well yourself and provide whether the particular information is correct or not AS the User:Slatersteven seem to have remove my material again and again by having different accounts on wikipedia...I want to you take severe action against User:Slatersteven for trying to push personal agenda on the site. I would not mind editing the articles as long as I have the proof and well sourced material. Thank you --Johnmylove (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a PA, and if you have evidacne for the claim I susgest you raise an SPA.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The 'source' is an anti-Hindu website, with no evidence of any credibility whatsoever. Not that this matters, given WP:3RR policy, and your personal attack above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable; this is disrupting Wikipedia, damaging a BLP, and a very high visibility current events related article. I have left a final warning for Johnmylove for disruption. Further activity along these lines will result in a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They're not the only one using non-RS on that high-vis BLP. That's why I wish the BLP1E redirect here hadn't been undone. We should be covering the event, not the person.  Chzz  ►  19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There really should be a note added to BLP1E enforcing that it is doubly important when it come to white supremacists, Scientologists, Republicans et cetera. These Internet Sleuth Squad character profiles are well beyond a joke now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; as one user put it on the talk page, This article takes any flimsy claim from any newspaper and prints it as gospel. Trying to moderate it in any way is futile. Trying to do any kind of reasobable editing of this article would result in deleting 95% of it..

It's "trial by Wikipedia".

Right now, on the talk, is an extensive discussion about whether or not this living person is insane - not referring to any RS, or anything - just, a lovely generic chat about this person, throwing in opinions. And that's not random, new editors; it's people who really should know better.

These kinds of gross BLP violation should be dealt with - and that simply is not happening. I'd hat/remove comments on the talk, and I'd edit the article to remove some of the speculative stuff, but I know from experience that won't be effective.  Chzz  ►  21:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit bitchin' about it and go edit the article.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've edited it twice as much as you [54]. How 'bout we quit talkin' 'bout users, and start a-talkin' 'bout content instead?  Chzz  ►  01:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Anders Behring Breivik [...] is a Norwegian right-wing extremist[7] - ref is [55], which does not use the word "extremist" at all...
• ...and the confessed perpetrator[8][9] of the July 22, 2011 Norway attacks, with 172 victims of whom 76 died.[10][11]

First ref says, "at least 96 people were injured" and avoids giving deaths; "Police on Monday revised down the number killed on Utoeya, citing difficulties in gathering information".

• The terrorist attacks included detonating a car bomb in downtown Oslo, Norway, near the offices of the Prime Minister, killing eight and wounding 26. - new numbers again. Unreferenced.
• This was followed by a mass shooting on the nearby island of Utøya, where he attacked teenagers attending a Norwegian Labour Party youth camp, killing 68 and wounding 66.

Again, numbers unrefereneced.

And, if this is a bio, is this all appropriate in the lede? Fair balance? Oh, but, he is only known for one thing?

"Why is this on ANI? 'coz it's a BLP, and needs admin attention.  Chzz  ►  05:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The article is a mess. Everyone piles in with their 'no true Scotsman' arguments, and their gratuitous coatracking of everything from Darwinism to Hinduism. I've visited this festering pile of POV every so often to try and at least make it stink a little less, but eventually the stench overcomes me. I think that this article probably indicates the limit of what the Wikipedia methodology is capable of - or more accurately, it shows what happens when you go beyond the limits. Maybe we need to take WP:NOTNEWS a little more literally, and not report on anything for a month after it happens... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If there's any consolation, current news events are one of the few areas where Wikipedia usually isn't the top Google hit for a particular subject. By the time the grownups have turned their attentions elsewhere we've normally expunged the worst of a given article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What's a good way to see page view stats? I have a feeling that, despite not being at the top of Google, a majority of page views for unfolding news events occurs as they unfold and not 6 months from now when the dust has settled and we can actually start making a reference worthy article out of this.Griswaldo (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's be WP:ITN's fault then. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of Foul and Abusive words and repeated vandalism on Mohun Bagan AC

Dear Admin, This is nothing new but it is really reaching its limit. For the past few days user 14.96.114.8 has been continually been editing the article on Mohun Bagan AC by inserting foul and slang words inside the article. plz feel free to verify the same from the user's profile as logs of only insertion of inappropriate and racial slurs will show that his foremost object of visiting Wikipedia is to vandalise its property. User 115.242.174.192 has been mass erasing data from the same article. again plz verify the same. Hope you will do the needful and protect wikipedia. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.sinha04 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What do those words mean exactly? As a non speaker of the language it's hard to gauge whether it's vandalism or not. N^oformation ^Talk 09:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP has made precisely 3 edits. The first may or may not be problematic, the second appears to be an unsourced change, which would be hard to call vandalism, and the third edit is possibly problematic. I tried to use Google translate, which said it was in Italian then promptly failed to provide a translation. Unless the OP tells us which language this is, there's not much we can do, even if the editing is problematic. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP is located in Andra Pradesh India, so one of two languages seems right, either Telugu or Sanskrit.

I checked some of the text in a Sanskrit dictionary | here and got some matches, but nothing coherent. We may need a native reader / speaker of Sanskrit (or Telugu). @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't believe there are any living native readers or speakers of Sanskrit.  :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think they're mostly names actually -though I'm not to sure about "Khanki". Could the complainant tell us what he thinks the words are and what he thinks they mean?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed the IP hasn't been notified. Will do that now.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM

FaktneviM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been harassing User:Jeffro77 incessantly on Jeffro77's talkpage over the last couple of days, apparently as a result of a content dispute elsewhere. I stepped in yesterday as a relatively uninvolved third party and tried to get FaktneviM to back off. That failed, and he is now edit-warring with me on my own talk page.

Warnings given to FaktneviM

• 3RR: [56] by User:Bidgee
• Harass4im: [57] by User:Danjel (me)
• Harass3: [58] by User:Danjel (me)
• Personal Attacks & Inappropriate Warnings (non-template message): [59] by User:Jeffro77
• Refactoring/Editing other users' comments (non-template message): [60]

Personal Attacks/Harassment on User:Jeffro77

Jeffro77 has been tremendously patient in dealing with FaktneviM on his talkpage. There is a long threaded discussion at Jeffro77's talkpage which is littered with personal attacks. First, there are two inappropriate warning templates: for personal attacks [diff: [61]] and for promotional material [diff: [62]]. Later Jeffro is accused of being a "frivolous" hypocrite [diff: [63]]. A barnstar was given, then revoked [diff: [64]]. FaktneviM has also edited Jeffro77's content, requiring Jeffro77 to undo the changes [diff: [65]]. I would go on, but it should be pretty clear that Jeffro77 is weathering a storm. The section on his talkpage stands for itself.

Comment: It has been particularly frustrating trying to work with FaktneviM. I'm aware there's a language issue, but it is not the underlying cause of the problem here. For transparency, the initial content dispute is located at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Jesus reference mislead. FaktneviM has also claimed that the Userboxes on my User page constitute "preaching", "offensive, uncivil, hatred, lofty and other very bad things", "hatred and pride" and "bombing with propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

He just doesn't seem to understand[66] (I don't mean the language difference).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On 26 July, FaktneviM also lodged a fraudulent complaint against me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[67]. He did not advise me that he had lodged the complaint. Unsurprisingly, it was summarily dismissed as unactionable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3RR on my talkpage

FaktneviM is now engaging in an edit war with me on my talkpage.

Revert 1: [68] Revert 2: [69] Revert 3: [70] Revert 4: [71]

...and an inappropriate warning: [72]

He is aware of WP:OWNTALK. It has been mentioned to him frequently, for example [diff: [73]].

More than Language Background other than English issues

While I'm conscious that there are some clear issues of literacy/fluency in written English, I think this goes beyond that. This is a matter of maturity and an inability to conform with some pretty basic rules for collaborative conduct on wikipedia. If there is anyone who can speak Czech (?), then by all means see if you can get some sense out of this situation. -danjel (talk to me) 11:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I also warned FaktneviM about his restoring of comments removed by Jeffro77 on his user talk page but has clearly ignored the warning given. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins has given another warning as an uninvolved admin. If this starts again I'm sure someone will block, but for now let's hope that settles at least the user talk warring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

+++++
Hello all. I just firstly (and very last too) read this ´page´ (I try to avoid perfect adjective what I recently thinking about this all).

I could fully and sincerely confirm all, what is stated here, is truth. That is the one side. Reverse side of the situation is: These all "diffs" just show for me another evidence and typical example ´How Wikipedia´s editors, not only admins (but all, in general) ´pluck things out of context´. I don´t expect you read all that "stories" (I mean ... all topics, .... with examining whole text ... not only one diff out of context). But consider, I now seen again how this all society and communion is full of hypocrites and evil-doers. If you would like, ... block me! .... I will be free again of this mock encyclopedia. I have no interests lost another expensive time and my weak mental health here anymore.

If Jeffro saying here, ´he is frustrated´, I have to say the same! We both are absolutely incompatible personalities as I speculated this reason on his talk page. Although, in the last discussion on his talk page, which is mentioned here ... We were not in a quarrel. It was partially most productive talk, which we both have so far! I also pleased him several times for deleting private link, which he used only! for purpose to damage my interests. Reason was NOT, as he claimed - avoiding misleading others. That was only repeatedly said excuse. In fact, NOBODY, excluding me, and people to whom I would like to tell them, ... Nobody other has right to know my personal values ... on ARTICLE TALK! Jeffro used this tactic with the link for continuing in attacking.

I also call for Danjel´s conscience (NOT ONLY his) in contact with me. User_talk:FaktneviM#At_minimum

See for more ... my User Page, ... my Talk Page

But I will not responding anymore. (Maybe only in case of some very big + well-mind surprise)

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
+++++

The link to which FaktneviM refers was in this edit at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. The context for the link (a diff from a Wikipedia subpage, and not a 'private' page) was also provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You should be ashamed for that. I said it already in a talk, but again. You should show big shame for that. Very bad from you, indeed. Shame you! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM has now requested speedy deletion of all of his/her user subpages, including that one. I have complied with the request, as it is policy that users can have their own subpages deleted on request, but I do wonder why that request has come now. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to finish my Wikipedia account some time before these problems starts. However, problems with my pages was like catalyst for me and I had to (in fact, I hadn´t, but I want) end all my activities vigorously and conclusively. For that aim was some cleaning of my pages quite useful. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM's posts to Jeffro77's talk page have been absurdly persistent and unconstructive. At first I though that the solution would be a ban from editing that page, but looking at other pages I see that the problem goes much further and deeper than that. FaktneviM has also started harassing Danjel, following that user's good faith attempt to help. FaktneviM has also responded to good faith and perfectly civil posts from another editor at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses in a paranoid manner, evidently seeing a personal attack where none was intended or given. He/she has a history of responding angrily and uncivilly to any editor who expresses a view he/she doesn't agree with, using such language as "stupidity, pride and nasty behavior", "despicable", and so on. It seems to me that the editor has serious problems with trying to collaborate with other editors. There are also other serious problems, such as the editor's apparent inability to see that his/her belief that something is The Truth is not a valid criterion for how an article should be edited, repeated use of inappropriate warning templates in a vindictive manner, etc etc. I am not sure that the editor will ever be capable of fitting into Wikipedia's methods. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

<blockquote>FaktneviM has also started harassing Danjel, following that user's good faith attempt to help.</blockquote>....Please. Show me at least ONE act from Danjel, which you consider as ´good will´. I felt (+and history revision of my talk page, +and his talk revisions history page, ... both prove it clearly) only bad-will. Nothing, what I recognize as normal behavior if someone wants tell me something. He was clearly bad+bad+bad+bad. See that history revisions carefully. Nothing positive from him. Another lies (as good will from other editors on Article Talk page - Where? That was only provoking me and personal attacks. Tell me - What was at least ´little good´ there. Again. Nothing. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I read some of that again and probably some cleaning should be useful. Problem is, that, when I tried to change culture of Wikiproject members discussion,-including me, I was always taken aback and frustrated, because not-wise Ẅikipedia rules do not allow edit comments to (something like general cleanup of quality talking) for example very suitable for most of WikiProject sites discussion. But when I tried to change it, always someone Undid that. Because Wikipedia rules are so rigid, and goes against sense of civility. I still hope ´my cleaning plans´, which every time someone stop will fulfill someone other (for example here) . But generally, for this rigid encyclopedia is no hope for future.<blockquote> if other editors agree, I ''could'' clean up the thread somewhat.--AuthorityTam</blockquote>. It´s funny that if I tried several times same changes, always were opposite and hatred. Just absurd encyclopedia with irrational procedures and moreover different rules for different wikipedians. Just absurd. And as Jeffro saying with his favorite idiom,- "It´s irrelevant". So bye. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FakteviM, It sounds like you want to make a Right to Vanish request. Follow the methodology on the page and don't log in, don't think about this account/wiki, don't respond. The thread will die of old age and get forgotten. Hasteur (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am not sure what I really want. Surely I leave from -WikiProject Jehovah´s Witnesses, and all other project, where I was active too (-Christianity, -Latter Day Saint movement), -several non-religious related topics, which I previously edited. This probably in summary results I leave from English part of Wikipedia. Still my "global account" have 51 living accounts, in 8 I was actively involved). Since I leave English part, I´ll probably go to my home wiki after return from wikibreak, and other wikis, which seems me much normal and productive, than here. I am quite convinced, that main problems were not in language. That´s get even worse. But mainly about community, which is hardly to comprehend for me and I am not willing to accept hypocrite rules specific for English, which do against sense of that recommendations. Other problems with editors, with which I was not able to mutually cooperate productively. Even with efforts was rather disruptive for me and perhaps for them too, and in summary, it was lost of time and energy. Gain of experiences seems quite good, but for me is ´too low reward´. In this sense, I suppose, "Right to Vanish" will be applied on English only and not globally for all wikis. Or reversely? Other option I´ll fully retire from all WikiMedia projects. Who knows? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - deleting links without consensus

I wish to report MatthiasHuehr (talk · contribs) for persistently removing external links from articles, either with no explanation or with insufficient reason, refusing to enter into discussion and achieve consensus, despite being asked or warned accordingly. Notices in connexion with this have been posted on his talk page here, but note that he has deleted some, including the standard notice about this incident, so you have to also examine the page history. Two latest examples of this disruption and attempt to engage in edit warring are at Streckelsberg and Birnen, Bohnen und Speck. It should be noted in both these examples that there is evidence that he may also be continuing his disruption by logging in as User:212.185.54.2 to disguise his activity as there is a similar pattern of edits. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bermicourt, you told MatthiasHuehr here that this issue has been discussed at WP:Third opinion. Could you please provide a link to that discussion? Thank you. — Satori Son 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Satori. It's here where you can see the background and the response which supports the notion that the link was reasonable. But no input from MatthiasHuehr - he just waited awhile and started the process again. I don't feel particularly strongly about these links - if there's a consensus following discussion that they should be deleted, then fine. But this editor doesn't engage, he just carries on deleting. Check out his contribution history and I think you will see more of the same. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I See at the repeated linking to such websites as an abuse.

Marions-kochbuch.de has to be in Germany is anything but the reputation of a reputable website. The operators make with their business practices outlawed in Germany media money animated by people supposedly free content to use them and then to sue in court. I have a report from the German TV reported as a reference. Links to such websites do not belong in the Wikipedia it. The other link on page, which aims to promote holiday apartment Engen as a business purpose. Here we have an economic interest, which uses Wikipedia as a link farm in order to promote these services. The linked pages exist only in English because the two sides in the German Wikipedia Rules should not be linked. The interest in the restoration of links is therefore for me more than serious.--MatthiasHuehr

Why didn't you say so earlier? Your previous reason for removing the links was "not in English". If your new reason is to be taken seriously, why did you remove links to other sites too? Regardless of what the reason is, I think a little more AGF would be appropriate: "deleting comments from user that spamed seo-links in many articles" is not appropriate, any more than accusing somebody of using en.wikipedia as a linkfarm by, err, updating an article about a German recipe with a link to a German recipe webpage, or updating a German geographical article with a link to a page (on a different site) about that location... a definition of "SEO" or "linkfarming" so wide that it includes practically every good-faith EL on wikipedia.

(Disclaimer: I'm the person who gave the original 3O) bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many reasons to delete these links ... PS Bermicourt understand German --MatthiasHuehr —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

Among those "many" reasons, could you give a reason which is valid? I don't think the one about linkspam can be taken seriously, nor the "not in english" one. Is there some other reason which actually justifies this editwarring? I think it might be better to discuss on talkpages, rather than hammer the revert button. bobrayner (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the "not in English"? This guideline, Wikipedia:External links#Non-English-language content, would seem to disagree. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That guideline says "strongly preferred". Alas, Birnen, Bohnen und Speck recipes on the intertubes are mostly in German rather than English. Nonetheless, when an English alternative was found (hosted on the same site), MatthiasHuehr kept on removing it anyway, with new justifications - mostly linkspam, SEO, unreliable source &c and even "in the link is the recipe, not nececarry to tlink this". And then after a few reverts, a mysterious IP came along and performed exactly the same edit with no summary. That IP also removed a perfectly good link from Streckelsberg; MatthiasHuehr had removed that link repeatedly and was on 3RR. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, because of the nature of the subject, there are only German links. If we delete them willy-nilly we will lose a lot of useful information for those able to read them (albeit perhaps with a translation tool).

The key point here is that Matthias ruthlessly and repeatedly deletes links without consensus or engagement. You get no response either on his page or the talk page to open up a dialogue in a rational way. He won't play by the Wiki rules. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Disturbing shoot first policy

I am seriously concerned about the block that was issued for 206.190.68.46 back in January. Since when does WP policy have us blocking IPs for a single edit, that wasn't even close to be serious vandalism. It was simply the addition of unsourced information, which happens all the time. We should be more welcoming to IPs, and not "shoot first", assuming bad faith. If you check the edit history of this IP, it is a public IP, and all most all of the edits have been helpful. I just wanted to raise this issue, since it frequent affects how I edit, since I spend much of my time in coffee shops, airports, etc. Before you tell me to try "getting an account", please cite the WP policy that requires this. Thanks! 206.190.68.46 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I realize this is a bit stale, but I just saw the message, and found it disturbing. 206.190.68.46 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you know the block was not directed at you, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. While there are cases of worse abuse, it is not uncommon for shared IPs to be blocked because they are such easy targets of abuse. –MuZemike 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to contact the admin who applied the block and ask him why, rather than bringing it to a forum such as this. Having said that, in the one edit that led to the block, the IP signed the comment using an administrator's username (User:Resolute, who was the blocking admin). Deceitfully trying to use the identity of an admin seems like a blockable offense to me. Peacock (talk)

It was hardly a "single edit" that led to the block. There was a pattern of persistent addition of the same text from multiple IPs; an immediate warning was appropriate for this edit to Craig MacTavish, because it indicated the same person was editing again, albeit from a different IP. When they made another malicious edit, the block was in order.

Policy does not require you to get an account. However, the blocking policy means that all users of an IP may have to suffer for the actions of one malicious user of the IP. (If malicious users keep getting the IP of your favorite coffee shop blocked, you may just have to pick a higher-brow coffee shop to edit from. :) ) We try to limit or mitigate collateral damage with those blocks, but it can't always be avoided. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How fortuitous that I just happened to see this thread. Based on the edit history of the Craig MacTavish article, the same unsourced, BLP violating content was being added repeatedly by a slew of IP addresses. I jumped directly to the L4 warning for this IP address on the belief that it was a single IP hopping vandal, then blocked when that person followed up with a spurious warning to another editor while spoofing my name. That was six months ago, and to the current editor on that IP, removing the old notices are certainly fair game. Regards, Resolute 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The person in question had been edit warring. The fact that they were using different IP addresses each time should not give them a protection from being blocked that would not have been afforded to someone using a single IP address or a registered account, and when they then started impersonating another user the block was fully justified. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(resp to IP's opening statement) If you're too lazy to create an account? that's your problem, not ours. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't called for. The IP is correct, they do not have to create an account. But if IP thinks we are obliged to permit IP to post as an IP, when that address is being used inappropriately, IP is mistaken.--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconding Sphilbrick. That was neither polite nor required, nor supported by policy or practice. IPs are important members of the community, and many many named editors spend time editing as an IP first. Treating them like people is as required as it is for "real" editors, as opposed to driving away potential content-builders. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked while reporting a vandalism by User:Bokpasa.

Hello,

Since I asked the admin who blocked for some "clarifications" but that I got no answer, I'm reporting this issue on this board (note that this request isn't for contesting the blocking but to discuss an issue of vandalism) :

While reporting an ongoing vandalism on this board, another contributor, Jasper Deng, reported me (later) as being the vandal [74], after which I was blocked by Ioeth (I assume the good faith of both, but I think that Ioeth's action was a little bit precipitated and as a minimum of honesty Jasper Deng had to report both me and the involved IP, but he reported just me...).

Btw, if we take a look on the articles cited by Jasper Deng:

• Marinid dynasty, disruptive edits started on December 2010, the current version is the one edited by Bokpasa (no discussion, no justification, references deletion & OR). this edit's comment is particularly interesting.
• Almoravid dynasty: disruptive edits started on December 2010, same remark about the current version
• Same remarks about the articles Almohad caliphate and Saadi dynasty.

By the same way, it can easily be seen that I didn't add/remove information from these articles while reverting the IP's edits, I was just putting the article on its pre-vandalism version: [75] [76] [77].

But now since these pages are protected, Bokpasa has to be identified to edit them (as he's doing right now (can be seen on each article's history page), WP:DUCK!!). For information, this user is particularly known for his vandalism on Morocco related articles: [78][79] (you can easily see that he was blocked for disruptive edits on the same articles than right now).

Note that he's also blocked on ES.Wiki and FR.Wiki for excessive vandalism... on that same articles than here...

Also for information, these are some previous issues involving Bokpasa: History of Morocco, sections 7 to 16 of the article's TP (Bokpasa is signing here his messages MOI instead of his own username), Incident noticeboard, User:Bokpasa tendious editing and personal attacks.

Btw, Jasper Deng also referred to some "EW with some IP's", but I suppose that nor him nor Ioeth toke a look on the concerned entries (a simple section search with my username can give that): [80] [81] [82].

As I wrote on my TP, I don't contest my blocking, I just need some "clarifications" ;

My questions are:

• Can these articles be putted under their pre-EW form (2010/12 versions)? Or should we let Bokpasa act as he want?
• Can Bokpasa's act of contributing anonymously to avoid being blocked be considered as a kind of "Reverse Sockpuppetry", as he started to contribute with his own account after his IP range was blocked?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say you got no answer? You only asked about 5 hours before asking here and the admin involved seems to have gone inactive before you asked. It seems it would be more resonable to either wait longer or say you asked but haven't got an answer yet but it's only been 5 hours. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'pre-EW' point but if the article has had significant changes since December 2010, it's unlikely reversion to the December 2010 version is going to be justified, particularly not just because of the claim of a 8 month edit war. On the other hand, if an editor has recently came along and modified the article and these changes are disputed, it may be okay to revert (but probably not to edit war) these changes (even if the version you're reverting to is from December 2010) while they are discussed. BTW, I fail to see how you didn't add or remove info if you were reverting to an earlier version (whether or not that reversion was justified) unless only formatting or organisation changes had been made. Note that removing recently added or disputed info or re-adding recently removed info is clearly still removing/adding info. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked because you violated the three-revert rule, which applies all the time unless you're reverting obvious vandalism, and the blocking admin most likely determined that it isn't the case here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You mean 29 hours? I didn't see that he wasn't active for more than 24 hours, that's why.

@Penwhale: Right, as I said, I don't contest the blocking itself, I'm here to ask to stop Bokpasa's vandalism and POV (which is recurrent since december 2010 and which is highly contested as shown by the diffs I cited) as it is mentionned in my two questions.

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message at his talk page. Let's see what he replies... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies I saw the date wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

74.178.219.79

This editor "74.178.219.79" has a history of adding unreferenced materials to television station articles, and generally disruptive edits. I am not aware of a previous block, if any, but this needs to stop. This IP is one of many who several of us believe are the same person doing the disruptive editing by IP hopping...see here for more. I am hoping that by taking the action here, that something will be done about this issue. The IP(s) never respond on their talk page. Almost all of this editor's edits have been reverted. [83]

I was told on the vandalism page to take this report here. Hopefully someone more qualified than I can help make a decision about this IP-hopping disruptive editor. If there is anything else I can do to help please let me know. I know I am not the only one who wants this stopped. If, however, this is the wrong place to report this, then I apologize profusely. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting. The IP editor is not technically edit warring, and seems to think the information being added will help the article, but in general is not going back to the article to try to readd the information. If the editor does that and ignores warnings, then we have a serious issue. At present, I might say give the editor another day and see if it starts making the same edits. This looks like a drive-by edit situation on all articles in question. It also seems edits stopped at 21:54 UTC, 6 hours ago.

With that said, I agree with another point; if the editor is being informed that the edits are not contributing positively to the article, and keeps making similar edits, a stop needs to be enforced. I'm not sure it's to that point yet. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but I also mentioned the editor is one of several within the same IP range that does this. When other IPs from the same range get blocked, he just jumps to another IP and off he goes again. Its been going on for quite some time. This isn't just a one day thing. I'll refer again to this page. All of the IPs from 74.178.xx.xx are from the same ISP, in the same region/city in the United States. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 05:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need a range block then if that's the case. CycloneGU (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the WHOIS for this IP and did the maths for the range it falls under. It calculates out as a /18 address range. That's a goodly chunk of Jacksonville, FL to knock out. Is the collateral damage a reasonable trade for kicking one disruptive user out of the mix? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how many other users are using the range. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I might be wrong here, but wasn't there a long-time vandal who's modus operandi was doing this same sort of thing, and focused on the Houston area TV stations? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Running the 74.xxx... IPs through the rangeblock calculator, I get 74.178.192.0/19. That would get all the 74.xxx... IPs in Anna's sandbox, but not any of the others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Urk...you're right, my maths were off. Big fingers, small keys. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke

Resolved

 – Blockhammer tossed by EyeSerene. One week block. CycloneGU (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in a variety of disputes related to Indian caste articles (see the section above, WP:ANI#Please look for some examples), and has repeatedly exercised fairly bad, incivil behavior. YK has repeatedly raised, in a variety of forums, a blog impugning the reputations of several longterm WP editors (claiming they are editing for money to deliberately slant the caste articles), made vague attacks, and cause other problems. I'm sure that other users could drag up more diffs than I, but I present just two, which I think, in and of themselves, are grounds for a block for personal attacks. In the middle of a discussion on User Talk:MatthewVanitas, MV mentions that he's been working on these articles for quite a long time. Yogesh reponds by saying "It has been reported that the fellow who bombed Oslo has been preparing hard since 2009." That is, YK is directly and unambiguously comparing MV and Anders Behring Breivik. To me, this is just a ridiculously obvious and wholly offensive personal attack. After being told that MV considered this a personal attack, Yogesh's response was only to state, "You are jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth, please keep the thread in one place. All I want to say is this (<embedded link cut>), which is also all that I have ever said.". So, no retraction, no acknowledgment of how offensive this claim is--in fact, an attempt to distract and go back to something else entirely. It appears to me that YK simply does not understand how to avoid being offensive, or knows and chooses not to, and thus fails to understand that this is intolerable. I'm involved on Indian caste articles and definitely with MV and associated editors, so I can't take action myself, but that looks to so obviously cross WP:NPA to me that I think it's block-worthy. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Off to notify now

To provide a little more context about this infamous blog: long/short someone who is very likely one of our banned dozen-puppet sockmasters from Talk:Nair's fight last month wrote a blog with a very detailed story about being aware of some plot by which several editors who were cleaning up Nair (including me) had been paid $400/hr to go disparage the Nair community on WP. Really silly stuff, and User:MangoWong was blocked temporarily for repeatedly linking to this attack page. Even after MW was blocked, Yogesh continued to post it, and when links were removed for it being an attack page, instead of going to ANI or DR went directly to User:Jimbo Wales and to Sue Gardner frantically warning them of dire consequences to WP's credibility (from a ludicrously untrue blog that had barely 100 views at the time). It's a free country so he can whine to Jimbo as the spirit moves him, but you can obviously see from his part in the discussion that he's pushing this anonymous blog to discredit other editors with absolutely zero evidence: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_79#Why_Wikipedia_is_not_reliable.

Despite being told by various uninvolved folks on Jimbo's page that this was ridiculous, and Jimbo saying "In the meantime if anyone has actual evidence of wrongdoing, i.e. emails with headers intact offering cash for admin actions, I'm always keen to review such. But it sounds made up out of thin air at this point in time.", Yogesh has continued to drag up this blog. Most notably recently, apropos of nothing he brought it up at a WPINDIA discussion: Such an attitude was the reason for my bringing the blog to the notice of the founder. Every one should remember that he has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months.[84]. So among many other attacks, he continues to bring up a smear blog that everyone has told him to shut up about, and then lies about Jimbo being about to smack us over its claims. When I called him on that, he replied Does anyone think that people are retarded and think it is about money? (I said the same thing to Zeebedee, four days ago[6]) Or is a lot of noise being made to divert attention, also check this[7].[85] again trying to avoid being pinned down despite it being clear he's trying to use the attack blog to cast aspersions.

Long short, this guy is a prolific waste of everyone's time, does very little editing other than picking fights, and is indulging in increasingly blatant PAs that are far beyond civility. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Maybe I'm just clueless, but the comment about how the attacker was preparing hard since 2009 seems innocent and pointless. I don't think the editor meant to try to connect MV with the attacks in any way. Thus, I think his comment that words are being put into his mouth is also justified. With that said, I get the connection; I just didn't read it that way. CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that he was clearly making the comparison, that it was tantamount to a personal attack. Not to mention so wildly out of proportion that I'm at a loss for words. Also, would support a blanket ban on him linking (or even mentioning) the blog. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, this is me at a loss. Have you seen how much I normally rabbit on?

It isnt not innocent; it is a deliberate comparison

MV says :. I'm putting in a ton of work to improve caste articles

YK responds: It has been reported that the fellow who bombed Oslo has been preparing hard since 2009.

This isnt innocent and YK isnt someone who is new or doesnt know English. It is clear he is comparing MV to Anders Behring. This isn't the first time YK has been insulting people who dont agree with him. His MO is to phrase his insults in such a way that he can claim his innocence later saying he didnt mean that. Here he is comparing disccusion with Fowler&Fowler to "wrestling with a pig" and here he is again referring to Fowler as a kupamandukas (means ignorant frog in the well). This is a pattern - he regularly rants when he doesnt get his way in discussions and manufactures conspiracy theories. A week ago he also claimed I have also read that certain admins slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors for nationatialist pov. What is this page going to do about this malise?. He was repeatedly told to bring the matter to ANI or create an RFC against the admins concerned. But after repeating the same accusation again and again, he finally refused to go to ANI saying Brother I will go for AN/I, I will jump into a well, since you were so free with kind advice to me, what about a little wisdom to the fellows? Of course it is your life. This is his pattern - when he doesnt get his way in discussions, he will bring up Indian vs non-Indian editors issue, muckrack in noticeboard and user talk pages and refuse when asked to take it take it to ANI or RFC. Claiming "Every one should remember that he [jimbo] has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months" when jimbo has closed the discussion saying the accusation was manufactured "out of thin air" and bringing up the ridiculous attack blog again is disruptive to say the least. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is perfect Sodabottle. While you mention Fawlerx2, why do you not as a neutral fellow also present wild accusations by Fawlerx2? About user:Fawlerx2, the esteemed editors have ignored blatant anti-Indian Government POV pushing here. This is just one example. You can not come here just to throw more muck in the name of other editors. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so Yogesh is promoting a blog that accuses a number of us of bribery and corruption at every possible chance, and is comparing one of our editors to a mass-murdering maniac, but it's Sodabottle who's throwing the muck? That's an, erm, interesting way to look at things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What have neutral admins done about editors with such anti-India POV? If someone points that out, he does not become a POV pusher. I asked clearly why Sodabottle have not also mentioned allegations from Fawlerx2's side as well. I can ask you too, why have you not presented allegations thrown by Fawlerx2 before pointing out what Yogesh replied, for which there are no replies. As you are taking an active part in the discussion here, being active is something you are clearly fine with. So tell us what have you done about such allegations from editors such as Fawlerx2. If tomorrow Yogesh points out arguments that others have alleged randomly, a question will arise what you, as a neutral active admin, done about all that? It appears that you have already decided in your mind that "Yogesh is promoting a blog that accuses a number of us of bribery and corruption at every possible chance, and is comparing one of our editors to a mass-murdering maniac". If things have been already decided here, why do we need the pomp and show? What have you decided already about random allegations thrown about by others and what have you done about it? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

thisthat2011, anti-India POV claims do not excuse personal attacks, intemperate language and convoluted logic. Please stop making insinuations against Sodabottle. If you feel so strongly about Fowler&fowler please set up an ANI or RFC against him and prove your point. And stop mis-spelling editors names. That is a personal attack on your part. How would you like it if we responded with a crude and lewd contraction of your name. And dont for a moment think that you have the "Theka" on defending the country on Wikipedia! AshLin (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I learn something more peculiar and novel every time I am part of discussions with smarter and higher-authority people. Not once anyone has bothered to know reliable source for such Anti-India nonsense, though it is common sense that everyone should be bothered about reliable sources. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I do understand and appreciate Qwyrxian's Wikipedia editing philosophy of solving disputes via amicable ways instead of "fighting" over them. In this case though, focusing only on behavioral issues, I do not see a problem with Yogesh Khandke. He is a patient, mature and balanced editor whose positions are well reasoned. I am saddened by the approach User:Sitush and his otherwise productive collaborators have taken - Sitush wishes to get rid of editors with whom he has had content disputes with. First a failed sockpuppetry case involving Yogesh, then on-going attacks and baiting to somehow drag him at ANI. Banning Yogesh would cause damage to Wikipedia by eliminating a viewpoint and making articles one-sided. Unless India related editors develop the ability to develop articles for the "other" side, editors like Yogehs are needed to keep a watch on articles. This thread should be closed ASAP and people should return to improving articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, Yogesh by his own edits and actions has brought this against himself. Calling him a "patient, mature and balanced editor whose positions are well reasoned" indicates that your own judgement is highly questionable. If you wish your point of view to prevail, you have to abide by the principles of the 5 Pillars. This is absolutely the wrong way to further your country's POV, as opposed to those of Fowler&fowler and others, as you publicly claim that you would like to do. And stop mis-spelling Yogesh's name too! AshLin (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• We should not reward an editor who may have found a way to be absurdly over-the-top offensive while not actually using words that a court of law could unambiguously interpret. There were two editors in dispute, and one of them makes a remark about a terrorist who has been preparing hard since 2009—that meets any common sense definition of an attack, given the background, and given the failure to retract. Repeatedly posting to an absurd and obviously incorrect trolling blog shows that Yogesh Khandke needs a substantial wikibreak. In addition, the persistent pushing in articles related to India needs to be brought under control. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Presently, except for Sitush, MatthewVanitas and Qwirixian, nobody else seems to be able to get a dot in into the caste articles. And they are all like minded eds. Why should only these three get to dominate those articles? Are they omniscient? And what's wrong in discussing a blog which is already well known and is obviously saying baseless things. It was being discussed as an issue which could be an adverse reflection on WP, not anybody personally.-MangoWong (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The caste articles, the POV, all of that is currently irrelevant; if anyone wants to look at my or Sitush's or MV's editing styles, our "bias" feel free--I believe the other section is still open at the top of this page...heck, talk about it here. I'm not afraid of a boomerang when I threw a perfectly straight javelin. But the current concern is a blatant personal attack. This thread should not be closed (IMLTHO) until we get clarification that this was or was not an over-the-top personal attack. Either I (me, not anyone else, me) have lost my ability to understand basic English, am completely insane, or this is a totally unacceptable personal attack that demands immediate blocking. It is impossible to, as Zuggernaut says, "return to improving articles" when one of the other editors has just compared you to a person who admitted to intentionally killing over 80 people because of their political viewpoints. That's the whole point behind having a policy forbidding personal attacks: once the occur, editing collaboratively is impossible. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian. If any of you object to Fowler&fowler, Qwyrxian or Johnuniq's edits or you dont like the POV they push on caste articles, oppose them tooth and nail with debate, discourse, ANI, what have you but all the time within boundaries of civilty and 5 Pillars. If you make sense and have meaningful refs, I will vote for your case, if I'm convinced as I have in the past against a few of Fowler&fowler's edits. AshLin (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

AshLin, I do not, for a moment, doubt your sincerity in what you say. However, trying to discuss anything or fingering the caste articles in the smallest of ways, seems to have become the surest way of getting oneself blackballed and blocked.-MangoWong (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith, MangoWong. If you intend to fight and win battles against seasoned editors on issues you feel are contentious - some advice. Firstly, do your research better than they do theirs. Beat them at their own game. Secondly, master and internalise the 5 Pillars and learn all the accepted norms of conflict resolution on Wikipedia - there are many things to learn, such as you cannot canvas support. Learn the numerous ways to tackle contentious issues. Thirdly, be absolutely sure that you are "correct" in this regard, rather than having a general feeling of being wronged. Be prepared to have an open mind while doing your research; if you find your argument is weak, avoid the conflict. Fourthly, persevere to get the change made. Be prepared for long discussions and debate, within 5 Principles, till you get your point across. Lastly, understand when it may be a lost cause and live to fight another day. At a level of 250+ edits, I would recommend staying off contentious articles till you learn the ropes. AshLin (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The "blog" in question (the only post on a new Blogspot account, put up specifically for this one post) is incontrovertibly a work of the most distilled crackpot paranoia at best, and a flagrant personal attack of the worst sort at worst. No editor in good standing here should ever have linked it here except to highlight that an editor had stooped to such depths. That Yogesh continues to link it with "please don't sweep this under the carpet" rationales either suggests a level of such profound cluelessness that allowing him to continue to edit here would be dangerous, or a vested interest in baselessly attacking the characters of other editors acting in good faith (despite his repeated protests to the contrary). The next time anyone links to it they should be blocked, and if that doesn't resolve the problem it should be blacklisted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist first would probably be better, as the consensus seems to say that it shouldn't be linked? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The blacklist would help, though not entirely, because the last several times its been raised its just been described rather than linked (sometimes with enough info to make searching for it possible, sometimes not). The mentioning of the blog, especially the "Jimbo's looking into this" seems to be an attempt to intimidate. Also, note that while the blog mention is bad, I actually think that the original diffs I raised--comparing MV to the Oslo terrorist, are much worse and much more directly a violation of WP:NPA. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Yogesh Khandke for one week, both for the utterly unacceptable comment he made regarding MatthewVanitas's edits and for the other evidence presented above of his ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I had considered an indefblock because I strongly believe that users who make the editing atmosphere unpleasant for others are a net negative, no matter what content edits they've made, and we're better off without them. Editor recruiting and retention is a growing issue and combative attitudes are actively destructive. However, I decided to to err on the side of caution... although I consider any return to editing after the week is up in the light of WP:ROPE. Review welcome as always, EyeSerene^talk 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was stopped from doing the same by your celerity. I further endorse every word of the above, including the timestamp. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You were more lenient than myself. I was going to make it a month. Block endorsed, absolutely, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with WP:ROPE, and appreciate the support. I/we probably let this go farther than it should before taking it here, and given how serious an impediment this has become I'm going to start being more deliberate about collecting diffs for the sort of behaviour that is massively slowing down caste article cleanups. On Talk:Nair the technique was more massive socking and blatant personal attacks (commenting on the morals and hygeine of other editors' mothers, etc) which was fixed via substantial blocks. On these Deccan caste articles there's been more subtlety, and wiki-lawyering, but equally nasty and chilling effects. Last week a couple of folks were on a kick of posting on multiple talk/user/project pages "the changes made at caste articles violate Indian hate speech laws", quickly followed by "oh, not a legal threat at all, I'm just saying..." Once that petered out, the focus has been pulling the emic/etic card (with a dose of Subaltern studies) to insist that self-identified Western editors "just don't understand India", despite the fact that we're backed by reputable Indian editors who somehow manage to edit without rallying to the flag at every turn. We have several relatively new Indian editors on caste articles who are doing great work, or are very new but willing to learn, so that's an even clearer mandate to stomp down on these discourse-lowering jabs on caste articles: endless accusations and sly attacks while refusing to file proper ANIs they know won't hold up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the use of filing any ANI if admins would jump in on one side and even go to the extent of misinterpreting policies, and simply ignore any complaints from the other side?-MangoWong (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, that you feel there are two "sides" here is disturbing. There is only one side on Wikipedia; those who want to write neutral, well presented and reliably referenced content. No other approach is valid. If you're seeing this in terms of a battle between ideologies you're on the wrong site.

Re the rest, I hope that Yogesh Khandke understands that the leniency shown this time will not be repeated, and that other editors of a similar mindset take careful note of the comments above. Re blacklisting the blog, my personal feeling is that it's probably not worth doing. All sorts of people set up grievance sites about Wikipedia when we don't let them peddle their POV on site; as yet the righteous hordes galvanised by their shocking revelations have signally failed to descend. If linking to it becomes a widespread and persistent problem my views would change, but for now I prefer simply blocking anyone (per the usual policies) who uses it on site as a vehicle for unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks. EyeSerene^talk 16:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, as one of the targets of that blog, and of Yogesh Khandke and others who were pushing it, I thank you for your actions here - it's heartening that every time one of these tendentious editors comes to ANI, we get more uninvolved editors and admins becoming aware of what's happening and providing their assistance, and we always get support for the hardworking editors trying to create properly sourced articles. I think your coming down on the side of leniency was good judgment too - no unbiased observer could possibly accuse the outcome of being too harsh, which I think is an important line to follow. I also agree that we shouldn't blacklist the blog. For one thing, it's so laughably inept that no honest person could take it seriously - and leaving it there kinda makes it part of the rope. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, thanks for mentioning that there is one side in Wikipedia -of "those who want to write neutral, well presented and reliably referenced content". In the same discussion above there are allegations against me as 'defending national POV' etc. when I pointed out that some user has made anti-Indian Govt. nonsense without any substance. Many editors & admins have not shown inclination to inquire source of such unsubstantiated allegation, instead went about pointing fingers at those who point it. Is it not in the interest of Wikipedia and members who adhere to neutral standards to avoid making it look like 'national POV defense' which is basically unsubstantiated nonsense, and also to avoid those who point out as 'national defense POV' people just so that admins/editors can avoid being neutral and inquire about reliable sources? Not once has these editors, who have replied to my messages above, inquired about secondary reliable sources, I don't know by what standards. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And that ^ is another example of the tendentiousness that Thisthat2011 espouses. It is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on a huge, repetitive scale. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike

obvious sock is obvious
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This diff [86]. MuZemike is now locking false information into the articles. The claim which he inserted yesterday "19 tropical years have the same duration as 235 synodal [sic] months" is untrue. 94.195.195.252 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC) It appears to me you've attempted to add two unsourced lines in your edit. CycloneGU (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC) The article is not locked, you were just reverted. The proper procedure if you have any objections about that, is that you go to the talk page of the article and discuss the edits. Starting a topic on ANI after one reversion and no attempt at discussion is not the way to go about it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Quakc Quack. This is an obvious sock of banned user User: Vote (X) for Change. He did this exact same thing like a week ago. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC) OK, he didn't lock that article, but he locked this one [87] after two references were removed so that the article now claims "It is generally held by modern scholars ..." [argument follows]. See WP:RS "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view". 78.146.208.220 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC) The last person to edit this thread, Mann jess, used a deceptive edit summary. The edit removed another user's comments but the summary was "please don't remove another user's comments". 93.97.18.221 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) You're right. I can be a little dyslexic at times. I thought the IP was removing another user's edits, when in fact he was restoring them. (BTW, notice that you'd mentioned me here would have been nice). But anyway, it seems the edit was initially removed as a sock of a banned user. Comments like that are allowed to be removed. For that reason, I've moved the hat up to encompass his edit as well. If someone else wants to remove it outright, that would be fine as well. (Nevermind. That ip appears to be a sock too)   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Raeky and Twinkle

Before anything else, I feel a disclaimer is appropriate. On July 18, I made this edit to Creation–evolution controversy, as I felt the wording was not as NPOV as it probably should be. However, it was reverted, and it seems the consensus is to keep this wording, so I didn't press the issue. Earlier, an IP made the exact same edit, and it was then reverted as "vandalism". I then left a uw-notvand template on User:Raeky's talk page, and tried to show Raeky that the edit was not vandalism and was made in good faith, but was unsuccessful.

I'm requesting that an administrator review User:Raeky's use of the Twinkle tool, and, if appropriate, to remove his ability to use the tool. Raeky is mislabeling edits as vandalism,[88][89][90][91] and templating IP addresses as such, and has a misunderstanding of what is and is not vandalism, even after being explained that such edits fall under WP:NOTVAND.[92]

"Random new accounts and IP's making the edit without an edit summery is essentially vandalism, specifically if the edit is against consensus and been reverted numerous times."[93]

When I made the edit, it was apparently in good-faith and not vandalism, but because the exact same edit was later made by an IP address, it "was clearly not good faith edits, they was POV pushing edits"[94].

Here, Raeky admits that "for dealing with these POV edits, it's clicking the vandal edit is an easy one click solution, that happens occasionally". Raeky is not marking the edits as vandalism because they fall under Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, but because doing so is "easy". This is not the intended use of Twinkle. Wikipedia:TWINKLE#Abuse specifically says that Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. This is why I have brought this to the attention of the administrators, so that the issue can hopefully be solved.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, hopefully it wasn't too drawn out, I just wanted to make what I was trying to say clear enough. - SudoGhost 16:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bitter much? I've explained my reasoning to the best I can on my talk page, but I see you want to keep it going by coming here. Irregardless of your edit, the article in question is plagued with POV pushing edits, and this particular edit is a POV pushing edit. It's not just the first time this particular sentence was removed, it's always removed, and almost always removed by IP addresses who have never edited before, or brand new accounts who have never edited before. After some point the same series of edits and changes become more, and to me it becomes vandalistic. It seems clear SudoGhost is either hurt that his edit was reverted or an extreme-rule follower. There are WP:IAR and WP:UCS, but a quick browse through the history of these creation/evolution articles, this type of reverting isn't uncommon. *shrug* — raekyt 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusing good faith editors of vandalism is not a 'shrug' issue - it chases off good faith contributors. Do you understand what WP:vandalism is? Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure I do, I interpreted these brand new editors, jumping straight to a highly-controversial topic, and making a highly-controversial and debated edit, that has been changed multiple times already this week, as a likely WP:GAME with sockpuppets. Unless you edit these creationist/evolution articles, then you can't understand how much WP:GAME actually takes place. A brand new editor first editing there making a common POV edit, is likely WP:GAME... more likely than them being a legitimate user... If I'm incorrect in this assessment, then I am, but that was my reasoning for the edits. — raekyt 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a contentious statement, I'm not a creationist and even I think it's a pretty loaded statement, so it makes perfect sense that it would be removed often. Someone viewing that article and feeling strongly enough to make that first edit isn't going to know to scroll through talk pages and understand consensus or even that Wikipedia works through consensus. There is no WP:GAME there, and there is no vandalism. Everyone who makes that edit is not automatically a sockpuppet, making the WP:GAME argument completely unfounded without some kind of proof of sockpuppetry. - SudoGhost 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion on the edit or reasoning, just explaining mine. Theres a core set of editors on these particular pages that come here JUST to game the system, to disrupt it and to try to push their point of view. They use new accounts, ip's, etc... Afterall these articles are basically refuting their faith. It is VASTLY more likely a brand new editor making a POV edit on these creation/evolution articles IS here just to game the system, at least in my point of view. It's likely a point of view many of the regular editors of those articles would feel as well. Virtually every edit there gets reversed, and most are POV pushing. Just because YOU disagree with the consensus doesn't make the edit alright. Maybe I was wrong about it, but you keep pushing it further, like on my talk page, and now here... — raekyt 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Just because YOU disagree with the consensus doesn't make the edit alright." Who said otherwise? What I am saying, is that you still fail to see that the edits are not vandalism, that you're abusing the Twinkle tool, and that even still, you fail to see why it is an issue. If it were that one time, I wouldn't take issue, but you've shown that you have no intentions to change this behaviour, and my concern is that if you are allowed to continue to use twinkle for "ease", then you'll continue marking edits as vandalism when you disagree with them, and scare away potential contributors to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you don't get to use WP:IAR to call edits that aren't vandalism "vandalism". If the talk page consensus supports keeping the existing language in the article, put that in the edit summary when you revert, instead of clicking the "[rollback (VANDAL)]" button. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No. In adition to the rollback options there's also "undo" and "Restore to this version" buttons (both in and out of Twinkle). Unless it meets a very narrow definition of vandalism, you don't use the rollback options at all. If you can't seperate the good items from the bad, edit the page to undo the changes and note it in your edit summary. In short, put down the automation tools and edit by hand. It'll help you identify at a quick glance what does and does not qualify for various methods of reversion. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Raeky, it is pretty clear here that you do not understand the very, very narrow definition of the word "vandalism" as it should be used as a rationale for undoing the edits of others. That does not mean that I agree or disagree with your reverting the edits; I am taking no stance at all on that issue. However, I would strenuously suggest that you stop using the word "vandalism" to describe anything at all, since it is clear from the times you have used it that you have no idea how to use the word correctly. Instead, please try to describe exactly what is wrong with the edit in question. The more detailed you are in your rationale for reverting an edit, the more likely people will come to your side in any dispute over the issue, and the less likely people will get hung up over the words you use and completely miss what may otherwise be good work on your part. Instead of drawing attention for the wrong reasons, just avoid the word "vandalism" altogether. Strike it from your vocabulary, and instead be detailed in the specific reason for reverting someone. --Jayron32 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raeky! I have a huge amount of respect for your work on Wikipedia and commend you for being so diligent at keeping Wikipedia accurate and free from vandalism. Unfortunately, I have to agree that, in this case, you may have made a mistake in labeling one or more edits as vandalism that were not actually vandalism. This is a very important issue for the health of the Wikipedia community and I think it needs to be taken seriously. Although Twinkle is a very useful tool, using it incorrectly can drive away potentially constructive new editors. If you are willing to correct this mistake and agree to only label obvious vandalism as vandalism, I think we can probably close this thread. Although it's often a pain in the ass, sometimes we actually need to take the time to talk to new editors in good faith, regardless of how misguided (or even malicious) they may seem at first glance. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already said I probably made a mistake in labeling, and everyone seems in agreement that I did, so I did. It just gets a bit annoying when you watch edits on an article that 99% of all the edits need reversed... *sigh* — raekyt 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks, bad-faith and slow edit-warring

JerryDavid89 (talk · contribs) was pretty sure[95] he personally attacked someone at Talk:Gilad Atzmon [96], but ultimately doesn't care (see first diff). JerryDavid89 has also attempted to remove some content over the period 1:00 27 July to 16:44 29 July on Marty Peretz four times.[97][98][99][100] The justifications, given in edit summaries have included "ridiculous amount of material here. "Wikipedia: the tabloid controversy conservatory"?!" and "there's still far too much "controversy" as far as I'm concerned". I've reverted these attempts twice. I first said, "If it is undue, you can still trim and preserve some content", to which an edit summary replied "that's what i did... [101]. I attempted to explain to the editor on they must have misunderstood what preserving meant[102] on 15:59 29 July. I rewrote the material, by shortening it, and reinstated it in condensed form on 15:47 29 July.[103] It was promptly reverted at 16:08 with no edit summary.[104] This was reverted by another editor who said "Unexplained removal or a large amount of content" to which the editor replied with the fourth revert, "actually, was explained".

In addition to their lack of concern over personal attacks the slow edit warring behavior, their talk page replies (including one that cautioned the editor about our ArbCom Arab-Israeli sanction) suggest no concern for our standards.[105] Can this be dealt with? Shootbamboo (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Should ongoing AFD discussions started by a now-banned user be summarily vacated and closed?

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

This user was a single-purpose account registered to promote and defend the coverage of Fly (programming language) on Wikipedia. When the article went up for AFD and the discussion was clearly not going his way, he left several harassing comments and pointily nominated several other obscure programming languages for deletion in classic "If I can't have mine, then you can't have yours" fashion. Subsequently he was indefblocked by Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and talk page access was then revoked by Smartse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

As an uncontroversial indefinite block (at least three admins including myself agreed with it), I judged that the user was now community banned. Therefore, I closed several of his pointy AFDs out of usual process as disruptive contributions by a banned user.

Later, Ruud Koot appeared on my talk page asking me to reverse my closes since some of the discussions had been forming consensus to delete. He clearly had a point, since WP:SK indicates that bad faith or pointy nominations should not be closed if uninvolved editors think the discussion is worthwhile. Somewhat serendipitously taking the opposite view, Pepper (talk · contribs) left me a comment soon after, asking me to close the pointy AFDs that I'd missed, citing the indefinite block.

The contradiction is amusing, since both options appear to be reasonable courses of action. It's an interesting test case based on a contradiction between WP:SK vs WP:BAN, so hopefully some third opinions will help resolve what to do. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the AfD nominations preceded the indef block and de facto ban, it seems to me that WP:BAN wouldn't be applicable, hence no contradiction. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a possible way to resolve the cognitive dissonance. However, does it match precedent? In abstraction from this specific situation, if a disruptive SPA is de facto banned due to disruptive contributions, shouldn't we revert those disruptive contributions that were the basis for the ban? That seems to be the spirit of the banning policy. causa sui (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered the disruptive SPA angle, so your point is a good one. Hmm, I'll have to think a bit more on this... ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp: if he's blocked first then put up the AFDs, revert (and summarily close). Otherwise let them play out. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, though, that the user couldn't have made nominations if they were already blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Alphasinus

I have had a number of disheartening experiences with Alphasinus (talk · contribs) the user is interested in "Pan-Germanism" and has a habit of editing without or against consensus in order to enforce his viewpoint. He conducts slow revert wars that make it impossible to report him for 3rr, but that does not make the fact that every time I log on he has reinserted his pOV version instead of the sourced version that I have spent time writing, and without adressing the arguments on the talk page. Typical edits include inserting inserting definitions of ethnic groups as "Germanic" withotu providing a proper source for this definition (he has done this repeatedly with Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, and Dutch). He has also repeatedly copypasted the entire article on "X culture" into the article on the ethnic group (with Danes and Norwegians). He is now editwarring to remove mentions of the influence of Pan-Germanism on Nazism, and of the anti-semitic and anti-Slav elements of pan-German ideology from the lead of the article on Pan-Grmanism. In spite of all available sources including the ones he himself inserted into the article making an important point of these aspects. In all these cases he simply reverts without edit summary or without adressing discussion on the talk page. I would like some extra pairs of eyes on this situation as it is getting frustrating.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note, I have taken the liberty of correcting the user name in Maunus's post above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

~:If you could take a closer look at the edit, you would notice that i didnt remove what you added, but rather placed it in the proper part of the article. It's undue that the intro now talks more about Adolf Hitler and National Socialism than the very idea of Pan-Germanism.Alphasinus (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting 1 week protection of Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship due to Vandalism

User Spacejam2 has been warned to cease his moves of the page without discussion on either the talk page or on WikiProject Poland. Requesting 1 week protection of Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship. This particular page is used as example in the Manual of Style to use the Polish name if the English Name is not established

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Poland-related_articles)#Administrative_divisions

Ajh1492 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFPP. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if an administrator gave a warning to the user. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds familiar, somehow...

Raging and raging in the lengthening thread
The mood will not heed the moderator;
Rules sprout loopholes; the FAQ cannot answer;
Mere trollery is loosed upon the site,
The lambent prose is loosed, and everywhere
The assumption of good faith is crumbled;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some resolution is at hand;
Surely Going Viral is at hand.
Going Viral! Hardly are those words onscreen
When a vast image out of Fandom Wank
Troubles my stream: somewhere in the wilds of the net
A community with zeitgeist and common purpose,
A cause right and pitiless as the sun,
Is searching for a forum, while all their LJs
Trail threads of the approving, supportive THIS’s.
The tweets move on again; but now I know
That 287 TLDs of peaceful sites
Were vexed to nightmare by a raging thread
And what rough horde, its cause come round at last
Slouches toward my website to be borne?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

Wut? — Scientizzle 19:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am disappoint. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the poem, but you forgot to sign you post, which I believe is now a bannable offence per Decree #1147-C. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't want to sign it when I didn't write it in the first place. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)