According to the list op Topic Bans ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a topic ban for al Euthanasia-related articles. As stated on the mentioned page: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed,...". Knowing his habit of connecting the nazi atrocities with eugenetics and euthanasia, I was wondering if he crossed the line. The contested sentence is Although it was not the ideology underlying Nazi atrocities that Sanger found regrettable, it was the methodology.. Violation or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section "Eugenics" at "Margaret Sanger" article, and that paragraph does deal explicity with "nazi eugenics" not with euthanasia. And clearly my edit and the cited source was referring to "Nazi eugenics" related to "Margaret Sanger" and my edit did not relate nor even mentioned at all euthanasia. And this issue has been discussed and resolved already 3 times, here at the ANI and at one admin-talk-page. And all the times it was concluded that editing eugenics topics is not a violation of the euthanasia topic ban. This user NotBW certainly know this as he has been directly involved. I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, there is the traditional smoke screen and counter accusation. But, my dear Claudio, you are referring to earlier questions in relation to other articles. And here you clearly make the connection nazi atrocities vs. eugenetics movement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has six prior blocks for edit-warring, several of which stem from his relentless efforts to link Planned Parenthood to Nazism and eugenics by any means necessary. He was unblocked early last time because he supposedly understood the error of his ways. Now he's moved on to edit-warring at Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), pushing the exact same agenda.

  Obviously he's repeatedly trying to force in contentious material and earned a number of blocks, but he's still at it, still refusing to gain consensus on the talk page. How long does this go on? (That is not a rhetorical question - it is addressed to any uninvolved admin reviewing this thread). MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell is another user who has been involved in this attempts to look for an excuse to ban me. My last edit at Margaret Sanger has not violated the 1RR and the prior cases are NOT the case now. Actually my edit was reverted 1 time by NotBW arguing that "he does not believe that I have read the source"; thus clearly baseless assuming bad faith due my edit was almost literally taken from a source which was already accepted as a reliable source for that article. Now, NotBW is trying to abuse the topic ban to enforce a broad ban against me, as it has been attempted 3 times up to now. If it was a content dispute at any rate MasterCell did not even complaint about the phrase but he just came first here also to attempt to enforce a ban against me. And MaterCell was also involved in the prior attempts to extend the euthanasia topic ban to the eugenic topic. So it seems MasterCell is always looking for any excuse to try to resolve the dispute contents by forcing punishments and bans against me. Is he stalking me also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing your POV-pushing and creativity with the truth, I still do not think I was overly distrustful to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that the sentence is really there in the source. But crucially, the context is totally different. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this guy edits dishonestly and in bad faith, and has problems understanding written English that severely undermine his ability to edit effectively. Worse, he seems uninterested in improving himself in this regard. When challenged on any of the above, he reacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute.

Take this for what you will; I am apparently risking a permanent ban from Wikipedia just by saying this, as you can see from my talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[To clarify, I am not familiar with this topic ban or the previous incidents that led to it, and don't take any position on the topic ban itself. I added the above comments because they tend to support some of the things NOTBW and MastCell have said, and also, partly, out of sheer frustration.] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factcheker was warned two times because of his proven personal attacks and rude uncivil comments against me. At any rate, for Factchecker I am just a "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, say those things, and was indeed warned twice, with the second warning appearing to imply that any subsequent block would be permanent. This really has no bearing on the complaints that I and other editors have raised regarding your actual editing conduct. Regardless of how inappropriately I acted, has it occurred to you that the frequency of personal attacks against you, real or perceived, may have something to do with your own behavior? And has anyone ever made a criticism that you found to be legitimate or worthwhile? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker, you are simply attempting to legitimate your continuous and very rude personal attacks against me. I have to ask also if you are looking for a revenge against me because you were warned by an admin to stop insulting me?. At any rate I have not to tolerate nor to condone you calling me "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" speaking "gibberish", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time the issue came up, the limited consensus appeared to be the topic ban didn't cover eugenics in itself. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#ClaudioSantos_and_eugenics. Has the topic ban changed since then? If not it was suggested last time there may be merit to expand the topic ban, or if his behaviour is too bad, just banning him completely would I guess be an option. However I wouldn't suggest his editing the topic in itself should lead to any action (his precise editing may be a different matter), particularly since he was aware of the previous discussion so even if a new consensus develops, it seems a bit unfair to take action when he was possibly relying on the previous intepretation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem that he is seeking the borders... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, you NotBW are the one seeking the borders. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. My point is that it's time to expand the topic ban to include abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. He's racked up three blocks for edit-warring on these very topics in the past few months. And that's on top of his prior blocks for edit-warring that led to the topic ban from euthanasia. People who edit these topics constructively shouldn't have to deal with this sort of relentlessly tendentious editing. There are actually general sanctions on abortion-related articles which are supposed to prevent this sort of thing: "Any uninvolved admin may impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Such topic bans or blocks may be of up to three months duration." MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell you always attempt to use any excuse to try this, I believe you are stalking me and less concerned about the disruptions in this wikipedia. Proof: Factchekcer (the user who believes that I am a "fucking idiot") violated the 1RR rule at the same articles more than 1 time during the last weeks and he even got an incredible patience although he insisted on edit warring after being warned[1]; but his clear disruptive behaviour did not deserve your attention surely because he is usually at your side of the disputes. So it seems you are not really concerned about the disruption at those articles but you are trying to eliminate an user who does not agree with you. Another proof: if you were just concerned about my alleged contentious last edit why did not you revert it or attempted to discuss it at the talk page but you just came first here to the ANI? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Factchecker violates 1RR and doesn't self-revert, I think he should be blocked. If he gets blocked six times for edit-warring, as you've been, then I think he should be topic-banned. Does that sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I violated 1RR once because I had never heard of 1RR before and didn't know any such restriction was in place; I violated 1RR a second time because I simply forgot it was in place. I am now wary of the existence of such strict measures. In the meantime, I also participated in the discussion and implemented the resulting consensus even though it was contrary to my own feelings on what was appropriate. This last part is a very crucial step that Claudio is missing and I'd suggest that this is the chief reason this discussion was initiated. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No MastCell, as I said, your attempts to ban me are not a fair way to resolve your contents disputes with me. And my last edit was far from become a edit warring, so you even lack of a pretext to try this ban again. It seems you are stalking me. Factckeer I am not missing nothing not even one of your words referring to me, such as "stupid reasoning", "giberish" or "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I said you're missing is, among other things, the need to accept consensus when it is contrary to your own conclusions about what is best. I am aware that you noticed the profanity I directed at you on one occasion, as you've now repeated it in this discussion five separate times, as if to distract from the substance of the complaints about you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a discussion on whether or not the topic ban should be extended is warranted. The continued and tedentious behavior exhibited in order to try and create this link has gone on long enough. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "tendentiouslink tendentiously inserted" are you talking about Falcon8765? That Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, coercive sterilization of sick people, ban for sick immigrants based on eugenics grounds is not a "tendentious link tendentiously inserted" but a fact that was even accepted and included into the Margaret Sanger wikipedia-article since long ago and actually not by me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "tedentious link". I said "tedentious behavior". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate it is not a link tendentiously inserted but a fact already inserted since long ago into that article and not by me. And actually that link has nothing to do with the current discussion here. But you are another of those users who always came to the ANI looking for a ban against me based on off-topic things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question Glancing at ClaudioSantos' edit history, I see a near single-minded obsession with eugenics (and, lets be fair, it is pretty horrifying) and related sanctity of life issues such as euthanasia (again, many people find it pretty horrifying), and a lot of chatter that seems to involve an aggressive attitude and getting into edit wars. What am I missing here that makes a topic ban make sense as opposed to a plain old, and rather long, block?--Tznkai (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So an "obsession with life" is your reason to push a block against me? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Tznkai's question. ClaudioSantos has been topic banned (once) and blocked SIX times for tendentious and obsessive POV pushing and shows little promise of reform despite numerous unkept promises. An indefinite block seems reasonable to me. Patience is a virtue, but only up to a certain point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been topic banned solely 1 time and I have not violated that topic ban ever. Dominus Vobisdu is clearly lying and misleading misled or he just mistyped, but his comment could mislead other users to my detriment. And the reason to open this thread at the ANI was baseless: solely one edit -already reverted and which did not drive to any edit warring- which at any rate also did NOT violate the topic ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the phrasing for which you are searching, Claudio, is "Dominus, if I have been topic banned as you say, could you please provide diffs of those bans? Thank you." I am almost certain you were not calling another editor a liar in a thread about how combative your approach has been. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Dominus mistyped and meant to say "blocked six times" not "banned". This is a common mis-type. KillerChihuahua^?!?[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice] 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did. Sometimes my keyboard freezes up for a moment and ignores input, as it did in this case. I've added the omitted words in bold to my post above, as well as added the word once so that no one can interpret it as meaning that he was topic banned six times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let correct my last comment. Here I also have to add that the user (NotBW) who opened this thread already admitted that the reason he argued to revert my edit was also baseless due my edit was indeed explicity in the source. So his confessed assumption of bad faith ("I do not think you really did read the source") was nothing else than that. And this edit did not violate the topic ban as it was already stablished, because a lot of times it was told that editing eugenics topics does not mean editing euthanasia topics. This thread lacks even of pretexts but not of hostile and sedulous supporters who have called me a "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" writting "gibberish", included some other users bordering the personal attacks referring to my edits with psycho(patho)logisms such as "obsessions", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be; its irrelevant to the issue of your behavior. Its clear from your posts here that you have a problematic approach to working with your fellow editors. Regarding Factchecker atyourservice, you keep harping on a past transgression which has been handled and therefore there is no reason I can see to bring it up unless you're trying to refute his statements not by refuting them directly but by the ad hom approach of character assassination; Mastcell, you accuse of stalking you and "looking for excuses to ban you"; Dominus, you accused of lying - and yes, I appreciate you refactoring that statement, but in the future you'd do much better if you think before you post, and refactor before hitting the "submit" button. Meanwhile, you've caused a lot of disruption and don't seem to be at all open to the idea that your approach is causing any problems. I'm leaning strongly towards supporting Mastcell's suggestion we widen the topic ban; my main concern is that we'll have to keep widening it until it encompasses all of Wikipedia if you don't start reconsidering some of the advice you've been getting and taking it to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at the end of this long and quite not-so-nice discussion, I still have no answer on the question "Did he violate the topic ban". Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; no, he did not. The topic ban was quite narrow; hence our discussion about whether it should be expanded to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics; I would also add Nazi related topics. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear! Thank you for your opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The topic ban is explicitly broad, and I quote: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". I don't think that Euthanasia sections of any article could be considered outside the scope of that topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics is not euthanasia, no matter how broadly one construes it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. The altered paragraph, however, is focused on euthanasia in eugenics. No matter what the title of the article or the section, he is editing regarding the topic of euthanasia - that's a violation of his topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding sentence, which he did not edit, mentions euthanasia. The sentence he edited has no reference to euthanasia at all. I'm willing to call that a non-violation. Right now, I'm more interested in trying to see if he understands why he got that ban, and realizes he's engaging in the same behavior, and looking at increased editing restrictions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.

KillerChihuahua, let me ask: so it is fair for all the mentioned users to refer about what they consider my behavior to re-open this ANI-thread but it is a fault of my part to refer to their behavior toward me? and it is fair to reopen this ANI-thread harping things which were already "handled" and which happened weeks and even months ago, but it is a fault of my part to refer to some very rude personal attacks and disruptions continuosly happening (and the last PA took part just 1 day ago) for whereby I think they are stalking me? KillerChihuahua, if that is your concern, certainly I was not the one who opened this ANI-thread to deal with already handled things, I came here to defend myself. So I find this unfair, given the fact that this ANI thread was opened because of one single edit, whereby I have not broken the current topic ban nor I have broken any 1RR rule nor my last edit even became an edit war nor a disruption, so precisely it seems here I am going to be re-judged and re-punished for already handled and past things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand why you got the first topic ban? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do. And currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user. The case with Factchecker is an example: instead of answering his very rude personal attacks, I have invited him to disengage from me and as he did not, then I have reported him to an admin to handle the thing. If this is your concern, let consider that I am not harping in Factcheker-s PAs here but the fact is: 1 day after he was warned because of his rude behavior calling me "dishonest person", then he came here to this ANI calling me again a "dishonest person". Actually I have not mentioned his PA-s here before he came here again to call me again "dishonest". Perhaps I must not ask if some users are stalking me, but the fact is: this is the 3 or even the 4 time the very same users open this ANI-thread using the very same pretext ("by editing eugenics I have broken the euthanasia ban"), and after that pretext is rejected then they bring again already handled and closed cases against me. So, I have to repeat: Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article, so I have not broken the ban. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just so you know, I was strongly temped to ignore everything you wrote after "I do." I read it, but it was useless and spammy and repetitive and I wish you hadn't wasted the text. Please don't do that again. Second question: WHAT led to your topic ban? Please be brief be concise and stay on topic this time, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think I have already answered: currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user which were the reason for the ban. And yes, I have understood those reasons. Proofs> certainly I have not PA any user although I have received some very provokatives comments. Certainly I have got my last blocks because I broke the 1RR rule as I was not used with that rule but I was being very careful not to engage in edit wars but discussing my edits at the talk pages. And you can check that after the ban most of my edits are at talk pages discussing the changes instead of editing the articles. A -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So short version (which I would have very much appreciated you sticking to) would be "editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user" - yes? And then you claim you haven't done that. Because accusing other editors of stalking, and lying, and so on, is not being rude??? A simple yes or no will do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No and yes. I have expressed my concerns and I asked if opening 4 times the very same thread with the very same wrong pretext is not stalking me given the fact that the user who opened this thread was warned by one admin, because the non-involved admin also found in the past that this user was stalking me. If I wrote that some user was lying, it was due the very hard pressure that means to be answering this very same thread to the very same users once again, but I have refactored my comment. And at any rate I also think that it is not fair to let some users to continuously PA me and let other users to re-open this ANI thread using the very same wrong rejected pretext, again and again and again and again, whereby finally it desperates me and I write a wrong word which is then used as an excuse to punish me. I have patiently answered those concerns again and again and again. You can check that I have not written any PA against any user at any of the mentioned ANI threads dealing with the very same thing. So, finally, perhaps deseperated I lost a word ("he is lying") that at least is less rude than some words I have received also here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He asked a question. That's not a "wrong pretext" no matter how much you ABF. He got a short clear answer, too, which is more than I'm getting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this same question was already answered 3 times and he was aware> editing eugenics is not breaking the euthanasia topic ban. Why to ask here again? Will any edit, I do at eugenics, trigger this very same thread again and again? Should I keep quite each time it happens? At any rate if that is not a pretext this time I was invited to came here to answer again the same question and I was put again under the same pressure. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in question did mention euthanasia, and moreover, mentioned it in direct comparison to eugenics and as part of a general eugenics program. Just because I decided to cut some slack and not treat this as a violation does not mean it isn't very, very borderline, and another admin - or even me on another day - might have ruled that it does violate your ban. Every single time someone thinks you might be violating your ban, they can come here and ask. And if they ask 100 times, you should come and respond here, by explaining how your edit did not violate your ban. NOT with what's wrong with the other editor, or who is stalking you, or who is lying, or any other speculations or attacks on other editors. Simply with whether you violated the ban, and why or why not you think that. This is part of being under a topic ban. You are under this "pressure" because your behavior and editing have led to sanctions, in this case a topic ban. It is not the fault of the person asking the question; it is your fault, for your poor editing behavior previously which led to your topic ban. Do you understand? A yes or no will suffice. If the answer is no, then a brief question here about what you do not understand will be answered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have patiently answered the question, the past 3 times it emerged, without any PA nor even asking if it was stalking. I also rejected to answer a question of some user who openly asked me if I considered euthanasia to be a form of eugenics or viceversa and then he came to the ANI to ask if eugenics could be part of the euthanasia topic ban if I thought that eugenics is euthanasia. I also have been very patience rejecting insults like "fucking idiot", "imbecile", "stupid", "dishonest". If I deserves that sort of pressures at any rate my patience should be considered and not solely two wrong words at this thread because I thought the question was already answered enough times and the criteria was enough clear. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any new insults to report? If so, provide diffs. Otherwise, your beating of this dead horse is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this same thread Factcheker call me "dishonest" and diqualified my reading and language skills[2], while one day ago he was warned to stop calling me precisely with the same very terms. But given that a ban is being triggered because of my alleged "combative attitude" it should be noticed that you have not mentioned nothing at all about me being really so patience about those rude insults and aswering very patiently 3 threads asking if euthanasia topic ban includes eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "In this very thread Factchecker called me "dishonest" and disparaged my reading and language skills. I believe he may have a point; it is clear your English language skills are not quite to the level we expect of editors, if your posts here are any example. I am sorry you find this information painful to read; however your lack of skill at written English is quite plain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the thing and being unfair. He was warned not to refer again to my language skills for he used that excuse to call me "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "giberish writer" and he abusively and repeatedly edited my user page although he was warned to stop doing so. If a ban against me is now considered because of my past, it is proverbial how these past insults and disruptions are now being forgotten and you simply say: "he has a point".But let aside the language skills, are you legitimating him to call me "dishonest" also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that your difficulties with English may be contributing to your problems here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio, I only began calling your editing "dishonest" after our most recent discussion which revealed conduct which I consider to be clearly dishonest. To be specific, you deleted an article sentence with the edit summary "that is not siad by the cited sources". When I discovered that it was, in fact, stated verbatim by the cited source on the cited page, I chalked it up to the language barrier, although in retrospect that seems to have been too generous to you, as no failure of reading comprehension by a reader who uses the Latin alphabet could explain a failure to see an exact replica of the article text in the source itself.

The picture got much worse when you revealed your actual motive for removing the material. I quote:

The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months.

Leaving aside the question of whether you were right in claiming this (which I really don't think you were), it became clear at this point that you had misrepresented your edit. To be specific, you were making the edit based on a very thin (and I think, questionable) argument; but instead you pretended that you had a rock-solid justification (because surely, "it's not in the source" is one of the most rock-solid justifications of all for removing article text). I find it impossible to believe that this was not a fully calculated attempt to disguise the nature of an unjustified and very POV-pushing edit. There's just no rational explanation that I can see that would explain why you acted the way you did.

So, that's why I called you dishonest, and you have not even attempted to prove me wrong. Instead, you go on and on about how I'm persecuting you and shouldn't be believed because I cursed at you. This, too, seems a bit dishonest, though not in the unambiguous sense that the other conduct I just described appears to be dishonest. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker, after you referred to me using expresions such as "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "gibberish" and "someone who does not deserve friendly manners", I have decided that chatting with you would be a waste of time and a occasion for unproductive and uncivil discussions and for more personal attacks against me. Ironically my efforts to disengage from you and to keeep away from uncivil discussions were not seen here but solely my sole rude word asking if I was being "stalked". At any rate, my edit was finally reverted by you and I did not restore it to avoid any edit war, thus another of my efforts to avoid edit wars but also an effort not considered here in favor of me. At any rate I explained to you that I could not find that claim was in the source because for me it seemed a matter of opinion while in the article it was presented as a matter of facts. Perhaps the matter is that I can not understand how can be said that Sanger does not tolerate bigotry with some people while at the same time this Sanger expressively and openly considers this people to be an inferior race. Surely I have a different comprehension on what does mean tolerence. For me just saying and admitting that some people is inferior is a matter of bigotry. That was my "stupid reasoning" which led me to think that it was not a fact but an opinion, while the WP was presenting it as a fact. At any rate, instead of discussing the thing and instead of using the existing means for an eventual content dispute, the thing was bringed immediately here at the ANI. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that you think "that is not siad by the cited sources" was a clear and honest way of saying that you think the source was stating a matter of opinion which should not be reflected as fact in a Wikipedia article? Do you see how an editor who simply took that edit summary at face value would likely refrain from investigating further—rather than logging in to Google books and reading through pages of some obscure text—whereas if you had raised the "opinion vs. fact" rationale then that would have given other editors a clue that the issue was not quite that cut and dry?

It seems to me that this was either just as dishonest as I think it was, or that the language barrier is a bit steeper than I had thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me the source does not say that "Sanger does not tolerate bigotry", but for me the source says that "for the author Sanger would not tolerate bigotry". So I summarized: the source does not say that. If it was a mistake at any rate I answered your concern and explained my reasons and I did not restore my edit when you reverted it. Thus another overlooked effort from my part to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions and to explain and let correct my edits. Another effort also not considered here in my favor. So unfair. For the rest: you assuming my bad language skills and my defficient moral, is something I still reject once again to discuss due improductive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment, was reply to Factchecker in the Alternate proposal section. As it has ntohing to do with the proposal, I have moved it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Since the ban I use to explain any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and you also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). Despite your rude comments, I have even explained to you my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once you have reverted it. And you reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. But at any rate I have not restored it once you have reverted me and you opened the discussion at the talk page. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. So, these are some proofs that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussion about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unfair. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Do you remember your first reply on me in this discussion? For your information, you have stated there: "I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me". I call that an, to cite you, "unporductive uncivil discussion about the users"! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken into account the very large amount of times included the last 3 threads asking if I was breaking the euthanasia topic ban when editing eugenics, a lor of thread for which I have answered very patiently to anybody? It is unfair to judge me here because I used here a the word "stalking" because I thought your question was alreay answered before a lot of times. If that was a wrong word at any rate certainly I have shown a lot of disposal to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions despite of very rude insults against me and I have discussed every edit that emerged to be disputed. My last blocks were because I have broken the very strict 1RR rule for which I was not used. So, things in my favor should be also considered, do not you think so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a normal question about the article Margaret Sanger. It does not matter that the same question was asked in relation to other articles. But every article is judged on his own merites, so checking on every article is possible. Unfortunately, you reponded by kicking and screaming, sparking an ugly discussion. You could also have waited to see what the answer would be... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could ask me about the thing instead of coming here to the ANI or you could just warned me about your concern and perhaps I would have reverted myself, or you could advise me to keep quite here at this thread to avoid any misundertanding. Unfortunately you did not. If there are no innocent, at any rate I am not incorrigible but elimination may be. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

grin Up until now you have most words of advice used as toilet paper! Do you really expect me to have hope for an improvement regarding your behaviour in the near future here on Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not expected from you nothing, not even about my behavior. I have demanded to consider not only proofs against me but also proofs in favor of me. That is something that is claimed to be guaranteed at any modern court, or for example the guarantee that the accuser is not also the judge, but I also realized that those nice procedural legal guarantees are used to be used as toilet paper. If that happens in the courts what do you think you can expect here at this community? But I remmeber that you have strong confidence in the legal guarantees around euthanasia there where it is legal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expand ban

I suggest expanding the topic ban for ClaudioSantos to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all BLPs biographies of notable persons involved (however remotely) in such subjects. This would include editing any BLP where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article. Editor has combative attitude, a bad case of pointing fingers at others rather than discussing problems with his own behavior. Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP, or Biographies in general? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. All biographies relating to the topics, I should think. I welcome any feedback or other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with some reservations. I think even with an expanded topic ban we'll be back here again, so I would advocate an indefinite block here. If a topic ban is put in place I think restricting all edits to biographies in his problem areas is warranted. AniMate 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We can always indef if the expanded parameters don't have the desired effect. I have changed the proposed sanctions to cover all biographies in covered topics, not just BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic ban for user with long term civility problems and an agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In line with my comments above. If you're going to topic ban him/her from the only places he/she is interested in writing, why not just block or siteban outright?--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Currently it hasn't been mentioned whether this is keeping the current timeline, extending it or making it indefinite. Also have a problem with the Biography wording. With the wording now if he edits ANY politician page whether he is editing the person's view on abortion or not, someone can say he is violating his ban.Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re: canvassing: Just FYI, Claudio has canvassed at least 4 other editors requesting their participation in this discussion, all of whom were apparently chosen on the presumption that they would view him favorably (NYyankees51, Haymaker, Marauder40, Qwyrxian). MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  addendum: he has already been warned and has not canvassed any more since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And I have invited also users who support the ban against me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Not on Wikipedia you haven't. You've only asked those listed by Mastcell. After you received the note about WP:CANVASS, you told the editor who cautioned you that you had "asked by email some usred who are against me and who have asked for ban me"[3] which is conveniently something only you and the recipients can verify, as it is not available for the rest of us to view. I'm left wondering why the difference in venue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How convenient. Please provide proof of that statement, or else explain why you should not be blocked for it. NW (Talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an email to Tznkai, ask him to verify. And I did sent an email also to Marauder, but while Tznkai answered here the ANI supporting the ban against me, Marauder did not commented anything so I also left him a message at his talk page. I also left a message to Qwyrxian an uninvolved admin in the articles here mentioned (Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, etc.) but who have a vreal and good understanding to differentiate and reject PAs and insults. He already commented this proposal and it should be noticed that he did not supported nor rejected the ban but mentioned some points about it. Marauder and the other 2 users I left a message were users previously involved in all the content disputes I have been dealing with the topic eugenics including the article Margaret Sanger, so I think they could be interested in this thing. I thought it was not canvassing given that I did invite not only people who could side with me but people uninvolved and people against. At any rate, once I have been warned that it could be cavassing I still did not invite anyone else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - An outright ban seems unproductive, seeing his prior sockpuppetry. But a wide topic ban seems fair if it includes biographies of everybody actively involved or member of any related movement but excludes national politicians (if not involved/member). Half a year or a year looks a good term. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm one of the canvassed editors. As far as I can recall, my involvement with this crew so far has been the person mentioned above several times as having warned Factchecker for personal attacks. I have no opinion on whether or not this ban is deserved, but I do think that the phrase "however remotely" needs to be removed. "Broadly construed", as already used, is the standard wording, and "however remotely" would render this topic ban into an unintentional trap. That wording would almost guarantee that CS would cross the ban, because someone could say, "Hey, you edited an article of Person X; he used to work for Company X whose ex-CEO once gave a donation to Planned Parenthood,so that's remotely related, so you're in violation of your ban." Also, I'd like clarification on whether or not this ban extends to user space and/or article talk space. My opinion is that article talk space should apply, but not user space; I would like for the user to be able to safely ask someone whether or not a given article falls under the ban, since the limits may be difficult to see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This seems too harsh. I might agree with a short (i.e. one month) topic ban to allow for mentorship or adoption, as I proposed below. I think what Claudio needs is a full appreciation of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. As someone who has been down this road before, it is entirely possible for Claudio to reform without drastic measures being taken. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is now serving a 3 month topic ban. Why just a month? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still like to have an answer on that, Mr. NYyankees! Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an editor doesn't have an appreciation of Wikipedia's guidelines after the multiple discussions brought here, a topic ban, and multiple blocks for edit warring; you'll forgive me for being skeptical that they'll have a sudden change of heart. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am an advocate of second chances, as well as an adopter. I would like for this editor to have the benefit of adoption before we start seriously considering indef banning.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The expanded ban proposed by KillerChihuahua is the very least that can be done to stop the constant disruption this editor has caused. Personally, I consider it lenient and would prefer an idefinite ban. The editor has a severe case of battleground mentality and there is little, if any, hope that he will improve, as his topic ban, his six blocks for edit warring and his statements here confirm. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No reason to believe that Wikipedia would benefit from any such major expansion of a topic ban. In fact, the expansion would make this one of the broadest bans in the entire history of Wikipedia entirely. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I have edited any article related to abortion or nazism it was related to euthaNAZIa or eugenics. For instance, Aktion-T4 nazi euthanasia program and sections related to eugenics roots of Margaret Sanger at Planned Parenthood. All users here demanding a ban for me were very strong opponets to mention the actual links between Margaret Sanger and eugenics and racism but I wonder why they also support to protect from me the articles related to nazism as a whole? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rephrasing to add time; address concerns - ClaudioSantos is to be topic banned for a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. - Please comment below; if there are any tweaks or fixes to make please discuss. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think one year may be a little harsh, unless you do something like one year if he doesn't agree to mentoring, 3 months if he does and abides by his mentors suggestions during that time. As for the biography section, I don't like the wording from this point on "This would include editing any biography where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article..." I am terrible at legalize editing but can it just be simplified to say something similar to "including portions of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The way he could edit say (just as an example) the Barack Obama page but he can't touch the subjects on abortion, eugenics, etc. contained within and/or add something about that to the page. If he just goes into a page like that an bashes the person or something like that, that can be dealt with separately.Marauder40 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've changed it to "This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects, with the exception of politicians who merely mention their stance on Abortion, but including those who are active in listed causes/fields or are members of related organizations or have worked for same. " - basically using your verbiage, but changing "portion" to "section". Regarding the time, what about adding that he can apply to have the restrictions lifted after 6 months? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally think you can just end it at "This would include editing any section of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The rest of it would be included in that sentence and the sentence before it covers all cases, both the cases of biographies that directly deal directly with the said subjects, and any sections of biographies where the person isn't directly in the "industry" but deals with the subject in some way. As for adding applying after 6 months, technically someone can apply at any time. Not sure adding it will help. Just think 1 year may be a little harsh. In effect this is an escalation from 3 months to 1 year, figuring it would be better to go from 3 months to 6 months for this type of infraction, but violation again would cause indefinite topic ban. Marauder40 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: With the updated wording. Arguments that this is too harsh don't take into account the repeated pattern of combative behavior even after six blocks and a topic ban. I highly doubt it improves. The copious fingerpointing and deflection in this thread serves as a good example. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - based on the behavior seen in this AN/I thread, this seems an appropriate action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is clear from this discussion alone that the user needs time to work on collaborative editing skills, and that should be done away from topics which have proved repeatedly contentious in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

• Comment — Again, I'd prefer to abstain from judgment on the actual topic ban, but I think it's important to state the following. My repeated core suggestion to Claudio, which has unfortunately both gone ignored and has provoked hostility in response (which I admit I have subsequently matched), can be stated as follows:

If Claudio finds himself locked in a dispute with another editor, and resolution of the dispute promises to hinge on either of the following:

1. Analysis of English text in a source, or

2. Understanding of WP policy as expressed in written statements of policy,

Claudio should consult with a native or other expert English speaker, and preferably one with very extensive WP experience, before persisting with a disputed edit, or even a drawn-out talk page discussion, which can be equally unproductive given a significant language barrier. If he does not do this, his good but still problematic English language skills will negatively impact both his reading of the source and his understanding of the applicable policy. These two manifestations of the language barrier would seem likely to feed off of each other and multiply the problems that result. The other perceived qualities that have led to this ANI, the topic ban, and other blocks, are a significant enough problem without this complicating factor. And it just seems that the language barrier problem would be the very easiest one to correct—if not in the way I suggest, then in some other way that leaves the door open to a productive editing future.

Barring that, it's not my opinion that editing English WP should be open to any and all. Some baseline language ability, or at least a willingness to work around a very real language barrier, should be required, IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Factckeher proposal: Since the ban I use to explain and discuss any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user as proposed by Factchecker now, so I am not against doing so. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and Factcheker self also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). For example, despite some rude comments, I have even explained and discussed my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once Factcheker have reverted it. And Factchecker reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. Due the ban I strive not to get involved in that sort of discussions despite the commenter deserves an answer about the content despite of the manners. So, these are some proofs showing that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussions about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unnecessary. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternate proposal

Simple: mentorship or adoption for ClaudioSantos. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This editor should be offered the benefit of mentoring/adoption. In the instance the disruption continues we can always revisit more stringent sanctions.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to offer to mentor him. He could use some help. The two are not mutually exclusive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Plain useless. Subject has rejected all earlier issued advice, al least in deeds. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I remember that once after you read my position against this really noxious capitalistic reality, that for me deserves to be helped to die and to be abolished forever and replaced with a real Human Species, unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i hope you don't mind that I skip the gibberish part and reflect on "unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said". In a certain way, that is true. I think I have said something like "I trust people until they have proven to be untrustworthy." Let me be clear: I don't trust you and you will not get an invitation for my birthday party. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when is your birthday? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There's nothing to suggest that Claudio is at all interested in mentorship or adoption. It's also worth noting that Yank and Lionel didn't show up here until they were canvassed. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also worth noting that NotBW who opened this ANI thread did not show up at Margaret Sanger or to Eugenics at the United States, until I edited there. I do not believe in coincidences, do you PhGustaf? At any rate, actually I do have asked one user to adopt me so I am indeed interested in the adoption. I did not canvass Lionel nor asked him to adopt me, I have never interacted with him. All about an alleged canvass was responded above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the combative behavior we are talking about. Fingerpointing and accusing another editor of waiting in the wings for you to edit so they can report you. A bit silly. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, are you talking about PhGustaf concerns about Lionel showing up here allegedely because I have canvassed him? I have not canvassed Lionel, although I was fingerpointed and accused of that. A bit silly, I do agree. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not when I responded to your comment. Regardless, that's quite enough interaction with you for me. Don't have the patience for the behavior you got brought here for int he first place. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Very unlikely to have any effect on the combative behaviour that has caused this editor to be topic banned and blocked for edit warring six times. If anyone wants to try it, feel free. But that is no substitute for expanding the topic ban. This user has consumed an incredible amount of time and attention already. I also have concerns about the canvassing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe and practice adoption instead of abortion, even if I have to "waste" my time. But that's me who have nothing at all to lose than chains. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Very much doubt this would do any good, given the lack of behavioral change after previous blocks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sadly - won't fix the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think a mentor will be able to keep him in check. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for a stritjacket or for haloperidol? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your selections are intriguing but they are not my words. It's exactly this combativeness that makes me think you will not benefit from a mentor. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you ever have had any concern about undefinition. Well, I was diallecticaly but simply asking you to define your completely undefined suggestion, about the weaponsmeasures to keep people -like me- under control, in check, or even in check-mate. Due, what a matter of coincidences, certainly you know about combativeness. Because you got 6 blocks (like the number of my blocks) and to avoid your last block (up to 3 months, like the length of my current ban) you made a compromise to 1RR for 6 months. Are you then suggesting than instead of a ban expansion, a straitjacket or haloperidol for me, it can be better applied the same compromise you made: 1RR for 6 months? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR for six months sounds like a good proposal. I'll throw up another subheading. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I had been ignoring this topic, but just noticed some comments (dated today) above by ClaudioSantos, and the attitude is not conducive to collaborative editing or mentoring. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR for six months

Santos suggests above that a six-month period of 1RR may work for him. Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Won't work. The issue here is his inability to discuss in a collegial manner without resorting to a variety of accusations. --Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the idea behind the 1RR for this editor. If anything he does is reverted, he is not allowed to revert it back, but must gain a consensus. At least, that's my interpretation. Is that in line with your thought Bink? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the gaining consensus bit which is the issue. From what I've read, ClaudioSantos tends to reduce attempts at discussion to various accusations and rants that don't seem to help discussion. --Blackmane (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR proposal is intended to stop article space edit warring from Santos, but admittedly will not address his talk page behavior, except for possible talk page reversions. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think this is fair. Edit warring seems to be the predominant problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I highly doubt that this will be effective in addressing the main issue of Claudio's battleground mentality and his hostility towards other editors. Six months of 1RR IN ADDITION TO an extended topic ban may be a good idea, though, as it will force him to gain consensus on less contentious articles. A major problem is that Claudio has not expressed any credible intention of correcting the tendentious behaviour that led to the current situation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a problem with the user Karparthos(2 weeks and a half), He started an edit war against me (I will not lie that I kept with it and it really wrong). He always delete airlines from the article or add seasonal route with proof. After a week, He started to add proof but these only reinforced what I explained to him. Karparthos's friend ,RadioFan, Decided in a very creative way to invent new airports in various places in Israel like: Tiberias, Nazareth, Dead Sea, Jerusalem (closed) and Acre. And so, he blotted out all the international destinations of the airline Arkia and added all these airports. And what was the proof that he was put there?The most tourist destinations in Israel. Karparthos continues to follow it and do what that user RadioFan did. He manages to turn against me a few users and it really uncomfortable and once he even wrote to me that he needs to find a very special solution to me. One of the admins sent him a warning and locked the article for two weeks, but I know it would not help, he continues to turn against me and I'm sure that in two weeks he will continue to destroy the value. I'd love if you can help me. --Assaf050 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First, you have not notified Karparthos or RadioFan of this ANI. I have done so now

  Second, I'm not seeing a word of discussion on the page at Talk:Ben Gurion International Airport. Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports does have some rules about destinations etc - a proper discussion should sort this out.

  Third, RadioFan appears to be trying to mediate the dispute. I suggest you withdraw your allegation above as it could be construed as a personal attack. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The "discussion" was at Karparthos and my talk pages. Second, I personally did not feel a neutral position of the user RadioFan, Karparthos delete alot of my messages at RadioFan's talk and wrote on my, Karparthos delete my proof of Ben Gurion destinations and I do not think it should pass over in "silence"... I feel like I'm dealing with a child under 8, He simply dismiss everything I say and delete my evidence ,but no one backing me even though I'm right...I feel just lost. --Assaf050 (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talkpage of the article, and put on the talkpage what destinations you want to add, and what reliable sources you have for them, so all the other editors of the article can chip in. If Karpathos refuses to discuss the matter with you, then we shall see where the problem lies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sorry but Assaf050 is vandalize Ben Gurion Airport page. Because he always remove everybodys contributions like Snoozlepet and RadioFan users. Also they're not my friend. They are just trying to correct his mistakes. We don't want to argue with him but he vandalize Wikipedia. Also Fastily administrator protected Ben Gurion Airport page because of his successful lie. Now nobody can edit that page. We're really tired of undoing all his contributions. We warned him but he can't understand us.

Thank you

Karparthos (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of you, go away and read WP:VANDAL and stop referring to the other's edits as vandalism, because they are not. This is a content dispute, you need to agree with each other and other editors what should be in the article. As I said previously (and I think RadioFan tried to point out as well) Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports has some useful guidelines on what to do with charter flights and seasonal destinations. Go read them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I published the proof that the user ignores them on the talk page of the article.--Assaf050 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been trying, in vain, to mediate this dispute, point them to the relavant Wikipedia guidelines and the project which provides excellent guidance on what does and does not belong in airport articles. I even got clarification from some members of that project on specific content (charter airline destinations) that was at the center of some of the controversy here. Neither party has paid much attention to that guidance, both are in the wrong here as both are sniping at each other in the article (in edit summaries and even in HTML comments in the article itself), each other's talk pages and even my talk page. I hope no loyalty to either Assaf050 nor Karparthos. Both have been reminded to remember to assume good faith. I started finding references for destinations served by this airport and based the article content on these references (which is not "invent[ing] new airports" as Karparthos states above. They've both created a mess of unreferenced claims around various destinations and airlines I've grown a bit tired of the antics here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I think about it Radio Fan is right, I behaved childishly simple yet pained me to see this mess and deletions to these unjust or adding anything seasonal. I could listen to him and I get all the punishment you give. However, I still do not justify KARPRTHOS. I will not behave like that again provided that KRPARTHOS stop acting like this also and would listen to me also.

I'm very sorry Radio Fan.--Assaf050 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your apology and think that you can become a valued editor here. Just make sure you focus on improving the articles rather than focus on other editors. Issues with article content should be discussed on the article talk page and concensus gained there.--RadioFan (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm glad you accept my apology. I am giving a proof to what I'm arguing with the user Karparthos, what happens is that he does not listen to me and delete my proof and it shows that I did not give evidence. His remarks about me are really bad like I'm telling successfuly lies or he should find a special solution for me, it's no fun to read it. I'm sure he does it on purpose, he writes messages on my posts, the evidence he gives are not a real evidence because his evidence always reinforce my point. I'm asking you to help me solve this. --Assaf050 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On October 7, I reverted an edit by David A on the talk page for Holy Terror (graphic novel) as nonconstructive. It was a reply to a six-months old thread that was simply about the editor's political views and how he apparently believes that he is being made fun of in the graphic novel itself. He also goes on about the Bible, the Quran, Nazism, Sharia Law and Homophobia. None of this is in the context of the book. Here's the edit in question. I reverted these edits (here), and seeing as there were various outdated discussions, I decided to archive the page. (here). Now the user is editing the archive with a long political rant about how he finds the subject of the article itself personally insulting. I've been reverting this, and he apparently sees that as political censorship, looking at the revision history of the talk archive (here). I feel it's important to note that I archived the discussion only four minutes after reverting the edit, but this wasn't an attempt to selectively remove comments on my part, though David A seems to think so. I've never seen a situation quite like this one, and seeing as I've reverted the archive three times now, I just don't know what to do. Friginator (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't figure out what he's on about. Is he claiming that Rorschach was based on him somehow? o.O - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I'm not alone. The main thing I got out of it, though, was that David was musing about all sorts of things rather than using the Talk page appropriately. I think he likes to muse (see his user page).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gathered, and I may be incorrect, there is a Rorschach like-character in this graphic novel and David A seems to think it is based on him. He wanted to rebut Millers depiction of him in the novel, choosing to do so here on Wikipedia. He seems to feel his free speech rights on this issue are being censored because no one will let him put it on the article talk page or edit it into the archives of that talk page. I've advised him here that WP:NOTFORUM applies. Guess we see if he takes the hint. Heiro 19:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to believe that an IP that stopped by earlier at the article talk page and left a snarky response is Frank Miller himself, which is why he wanted his response to stand, I assume. Rnb (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David A is saying that Miller confirmed a character was based on him, is there a source for this anywhere? Dayewalker (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if he adds the content back to the talk archive, should I revert it? I'd be violating WP:3RR if I did it once more, but would this be an exception? Friginator (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted it, but I wont be on here all day. If he reinserts it, I'd suggest bringing it back here or taking it to the 3RR noticeboard, so as to avoid crossing that line yourself. Heiro 19:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also watchlisted the archive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me very sad - I'm very familar with David's work and he's been a productive if often problematical editor. However over the last year, his edits have... changed. David has made various claims about comics professionals over the last few months (check his talkpage and user page - some of which has been oversighted), basically they (high profile comic professionals) are out to get him and they leave him secret messages in their work either by story-choices or character choices. Further as far as I can determine, some are trying to torture him and drive him to suicide - why he thinks this, I am not qualified to say. He has been warned about this before (on his talkpage). The claims should be removed like the others. I think eventually David might have be banned for the protection of the project (simply because I'm not sure he can stop himself) --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not apply in cases where an edit is an unambiguous policy violation, such vandalism, but if you feel there is some danger of violating 3RR, Friginator, then you did the right thing by alerting others. Obviously, message board-type comments do not belong on article talk pages, and it's been my practice for some time to remove them. If the messages did not discuss ways to improve the article, then removing them was valid, and if they were archived, David had no business changing that. Now if David wished to contest this by arguing how they were part of an attempt to improve the article, that would be a different story, but he has already admitted that his posts had nothing to do with the article at all. You did the right thing, and I'll assist in reverting out of your 3RR concerns if necessary. Banning seems a bit much, but if he continues, then some form of block may be necessary. For now, I've left an admonishment on that other IP's talk page, and I've asked David to cease restoring those message board-type comments of his to the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason for "changing" isn't some sudden mental illness, but because there actually have been a very perplexing number of apparent potshots against me in media, although my brother keeps telling me that it is considerably more likely simply in my direction (according to this episode, due to being so overloaded by depressing input, although I'm a very unusual autistic, and neither a member of any network, particularly agenda-driven, or in any way a good representative for anybody except myself). In any case, it has happened so often that I eventually started to not be able to chalk it up to coincidence, but I was fine with removing it from my page when asked to.

I admit that Cameron is right that I genuinely have strong manic-compulsive tendencies, completely harmless ones, but still. However, I never, ever let that affect my actual encyclopedia edits, just a few talk pages, or forum posts outside of Wikipedia when it needs to get out of my system.

Anyway, in this particular case, as you can see if you read the archive, an anonymous ip user had called me Rorschach in the very talk thread that I responded to, and then I read the on-page review that Frank Miller had created a Muslim version of Rorschach with a "background in the humanities" (it is very visible on my page that I have somewhat of a humanist bias, but I have a scientific background), and that said character was named "Anima", which constitutes the first and last syllables of my internet handle "antvasima" (randomly chosen, but turned out to be an anagram for "vast anima").

Less relevantly, it also refers to a man's ideal "dream woman" or "feminine part of the man", although I don't subscribe to that version myself, which seems to be a rather off interpretation of a story I wrote (also linked on my page) starring a female psychopath (written as a baffled criticism of input that encourages that kind of mindset), and I suppose somewhat similar to Miller's own character Ava, so he may talk from personal perspective.

I had previously inserted assorted legitimate critical references to the 300 movie (given that it had an ideological viewpoint that seemed to justify extreme eugenics), and brought attention to some attempts to censor them out, so I suppose that Frank might hold a grudge for that.

In any case, considering that it in sum total seemed like Frank Miller crafted a terrorist character as a "take that" in my direction, one that murdered lots of innocents and was viciously killed in retaliation I might add (which to somebody very literal-minded like myself is felt much the same as getting an elaborate death-threath in the mail), I thought that comparatively very mildly explaining myself as a response to said death-threath was an extremely harmless counter-reaction.

"Friginator" also omits to mention that I also compromised by severely cutting down on the length of the post to the bare essentials, without any of the topic matter . I also found the motivations for handling of the issue very suspect given that it was new non-administrator editor of opposite libertarian bias, and who used hollow justifications. You can read the entire conversation yourselves rather than only accept his account for it. Dave (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, he likes musing - at some length. I think you should listen to your brother, Dave. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, it does not matter if you think Frank Miller has referenced you in the media, or if you cut down the length of your response. The fact remains that any response you perceive to Miller's public slights don't belong on Wikipedia at all. Period. Neither do such comments or musings belong in its articles, unless they comply with WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:IRS/WP:SECONDARY, etc. I'm sorry, but that's all there is to it. Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not inserted personal musings into articles, just a few referenced relevant quotes, and legitimate critical responses to balance things out. I have not edited out opposite reactions either. Dave (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"legitimate critical responses" - of your own? If so that is WP:OR at its worst. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No, I meant inserting this reference into the "Eugenics" section, and two relevant author quotes. I technically found quite a lot of legitimate notable criticism on the topic, but thought that inserting more than a few would have been overdoing it and have skewed the balance of the page too much. Dave (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion, and is not the place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically I am probably correct in the impression, as the ip comment sounded much the same as Frank did in a recent interview, but all right then. I have that one out of my system now. Dave (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now making accusations against BLP figures which I have removed from his talkpage (although I expect him to return them). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "accusations"? I am attempting to sincerely explain myself regarding this very topic, as I have no ability to lie, but tend to get some stray thought tracks. Stop trying to take advantage of anything whatsoever that I do to attack me. I was perfectly fine with cutting it down.

See, your response is the only one here that I find out of place. I apologise if I am being unfair, as it may be a biased memory playing a part, and there has been quite a lot of time afterwards, but I remember you making your debut at Wikipedia by repeatedly aggressively scolding me, and although I have improved a lot since then, I don't remember you saying nice things to me afterwards, but you have turned a lot more polite, so again it is always hard to get anything resembling a current picture from old memories.

Anyway, the combination with this background, and also instantly stating concern, and the need for extreme affirmative action against the person that you are supposedly concerned about, seems to create a dichotomy in the, admittedly very narrow, impression.

However, you are correct that I have not been feeling well... I'm better now, due to constant meditation, healthy lifestyle, and personal training, but you wouldn't either if you already had all my problems, and traumatising input that I made an effort to process through the story, good intentions, and then suddenly apparently lots of media people screaming for your blood for very disproportionate reasons on top of that. However, the best way to not make me mildly react to an attack, is obviously to not attack me, not to attempt to shut me up, as I will simply pop up somewhere else. Anyway, the best I can manage is to get rid of any impressions that need to get out elsewhere. Dave (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds somewhat pointy to me, to be honest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only perplexed by how this series of connections about Frank Miller's comic character relates to Dave? I'm probably missing some background here, but how are David A and Frank Miller even remotely related if at all? No offense intended, but is David A significant enough that someone would go out of their way to create a character in a comic book based on him? Rather than blow the issue out of proportion, perhaps Dave you need to take a self imposed wiki-break until you've gotten yourself sorted out? --Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Blackmane, you're right. This only makes sense to David A. This matter probably either deserves a Wikibreak, or a topic ban. Dayewalker (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I thought I was losing my mind. --Blackmane (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, never mind then, although it wasn't about importance, just about possibly being a pet peeve due to monitoring activity at his Wikipedia pages. It is quite common for people to regularly check up important pages connected to them, but as the above link roughly said: "Don't use Wikipedia to illustrate a point from scratch", so never mind. Dave (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David seems to have some issues of paranoia, whether that relates to his mental problems is not for me to figure out, however what is obvious is that this is likely to escalate to be an issue in future. David, I would seriously recommend you move away from editing in this area and take all those articles off your watch list. I don't want to patronise you by saying it's for your own good, but unfortunately it is what it is. --Blackmane (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't like I am currently contributing to the pages anyway, just occasionally checking for vandalism. Dave (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of editors who can do that. Just let it go and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. --Blackmane (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, a TFD was closed concerning several navboxes created by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs). During the course of that TFD, Tony created several other related templates that I discovered and noted at the discussion. Upon its closure, I was told to start a new discussion based on the closing admin's precedent, rather than tack on more templates to that discussion. That led to this TFD (whose size has fluctuated based on the utility of templates Tony suggested to me that he did not create. However, during this TFD he created two new templates, despite the fact that the existing consensus is that these templates are not useful and are to be deleted.

I am proposing that on top of his existing topic bans, TonyTheTiger be banned from creating or editing navbox templates. We should not waste the community's time in cleaning up after his massive and useless templates.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misrepresenting facts, but I need to check some diffs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As the nominator of the templates that were deleted, I fully support Ryulong's proposed ban. This isn't the first time Tony has created useless templates that later have to be deleted. Because the closing admin of this multi-nomination declined - and regrettably I agree with the decline - to delete the templates that were added to the deletion discussion, I have a piece of paper right next to my keyboard reminding me that I have to nominate another group of Tony-created templates. Haven't done it yet because it's a lot of bother, frankly. Too many wasted resources nominating, discussing, deleting, and it doesn't appear that Tony gets it, either, because it keeps coming.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual the wikilynchmob is in action. I do expect that they will act regardless of fact. However, Ryulong is fabricating evidence for the discussion just to enact a lynch mob. He knows that I did not create any templates at issue during the first TFD. This is again a topic ban for a first action.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I made him aware myself that since the TFD is still at issue and TVFAN24 (talk · contribs) had chopped up the {{CWNetwork Shows}}, I reformatted it to be like the {{FOXNetwork Shows}}. It was just formatting for the 2011–12 United States network television schedule so that the template there is consistent with the others, which is probably why he chopped the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you created any templates during the discussion or not, do you agree not to create any in the future?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending the TFD, I agree not to create any network templates. I create templates off and on for other subjects like Movie awards, College football, basketball and Chicago related events and have thoughts of others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the last week, I have created about 10 or 11 templates with the blessing of WP:CFB after a lengthy discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what templates you mean and I'm not going to verify your statement, but with respect to entertainment templates, saying you won't create any new ones pending the TfD isn't saying much. Perhaps a narrower ban would be palatable to Ryulong. It would be for me, although I confess to not having looked at the full scope of all the templates you create (you appear to be prolific).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the templates: 1925 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1926 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1927 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1933 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1942 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1947 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1948 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1949 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1965 College Football Consensus All-Americans, 1966 College Football Consensus All-Americans and 1996 College Football Consensus All-Americans. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narrower ban? The TFD has not closed and is very borderline. I have no intention of creating any other network templates. If the TFD closes as delete, I intend to DRV the current and upcoming only for the purpose of the 2011–12 United States network television schedule page where they serve an important navigational purpose. I also intend to DRV the HBO miniseries template as very different from the others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the conduct here that justifies a topic ban at all? Just because it turns out consensus is against the templates at a deletion discussion, doesn't mean it was wrong to create them in the first place. And note the the second TfD discussion cited is only weakly in favor of deleting at this time. Was there a clearly established consensus that TonyTheTiger was made aware of and then violated? I don't see it from the evidence presented here. Monty₈₄₅ 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the second discussion "is only weakly in favor of deleting". There are far more !votes for delete than for keep, although because of the number of templates involved, some of the delete !votes are qualified with exceptions (I can't follow some of those exceptions, btw). As for whether there is sufficient evidence of a violation, that is another matter and one I'm more sympathetic to. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how many deletion discussions there have been involving Tony's templates, and I'm not sure how to search for them. I tried looking at Tony's Talk page and archives (boy, he's got a lot), but I gave up.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed several of the exception templates from the discussion upon review. And I too was going to TFD the various All Americans templates, as well, until I discovered he was not the only author of all of the templates in the group.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find the deleted ones, they are the ones in red at User:TonyTheTiger/creations. A few of my templates have been deleted and a big batch is up at TFD now, but most of my templates are in good use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, thanks for the tip, but all I can think of as I look at many of the blue ones is why they haven't been TfDed. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Try this search: Search for TfD notices, given TonyTheTiger's high level of template creations, I think the the frequency of deletion nominations is not a problem, and certainly nothing to warrant an administrative action. Monty₈₄₅ 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why any template "needs" to be deleted. Is it abusive, or otherwise disruptive? Is the quality of it so atrocious that it doesn't function? This is a tempest in a teacup. My view is that certain people like to find things to use as a stick to smack TTT with. My other view is that things like templates, categories, etc. tend to be lorded over by small cliques of editors who go on the warpath whenever someone does something they don't agree with. I don't know that this is necessarily the case here, but I have seen it quite a bit in the past so it wouldn't surprise me. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, we should never delete templates or categories. After all, what harm do they do? The proliferation of them all over the encyclopedia? No big deal. And by keeping them, we can also eliminate all those useless discussions about deleting them. While we're at it, we might as well keep every article that is created. After all, speedy deletions are an annoyance for admins who have to review them, and full-blown AfD discussions are often so contentious. I will now go back to my clique and find some other stick to smack poor Tony with. End of rant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Straw man. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI I just created 4 new templates: Template:2003 Nobel Prize winners, Template:2004 Nobel Prize winners, Template:2005 Nobel Prize winners, Template:2006 Nobel Prize winners.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to report User:William S. Saturn for incivility, edit warring, refusing to use the talk page for consensus-building, and more recently, for conducting original research with the subject of an article. The conflict is focused on the Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012 and on Jonathon Sharkey. On both, Saturn has refused to use conventional talk page discussions and has threatened User:Kessy628 and myself for opposing his edits. He has called me "incompetent" and has even called my misspelling of Jonathan to Jonathan as "intentional." When confronted with counterpoints and arguments, he has said "you don't know anything about images on wikipedia" and has even said "don't start this" as a rationale for editing. He has taken to my edit history and has undone several of my edits, including Donald Trump. The issue of Jonathon Sharkey is highly-controversial now because the subject of the article, who has contributed a photo, is now refusing to participate with wikipedia and wants his page taken down. IMO, there are legitimate points for and against the deletion of his page, which is now on its 5th deletion nomination. The page is especially difficult to work with because the subject himself is taking direct involvement with the page and is calling it defamatory. William S. Saturn has been in direct correspondence with him and is not communicating clearly what the issue or the intentions of this Sharkey character is. We need a lot of impartial editors to sort through the issues here, since there are so many.--Screwball23 talk 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick things, it does appear that you've edit warred to misspell the name of the subject (three edits in the last six hours [4] [5] [6]). Also, as you're accusing WMS of having a personal relationship with the subject, would you provide some DIFFs showing his conflict of interest, please? Dayewalker (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball23 also just made a personal attack against me on my own talk page, accusing me of not having balls. Who's being uncivil here? Difluoroethene (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice an apparent history of edit-warring on the part of the nominator. Beware the boomerang? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball seems to have a very strong interest in a number of Republican candidates overall, his edit count outnumbers everyone else in a large number of political articles by a wide margin, -- his incivility is well-known, and he has been warned recently about his propensity to call others "morons" etc. [7] and his interesting edit summary [8] was

I was asked why the mcmahon page never reached GA status and I told the truth. there's nothing more to it)

-- in short this is a splendid example for WP:BOOMERANG indeed. Frankly, he needs a "vacation" from all political articles until after "silly season" is over next November 2012. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least as concerns Talk:Jonathon_Sharkey#image, William S. Saturn is quite right in noting Screwball23 is not correctly representing image policy. Once an image has been released under CC-BY-SA, it has been released, and the release can not be withdrawn simply because the right holder no longer wants to work with us.--GRuban (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you're right; but practically speaking, the case of user Xanderliptak renders that theory null and void. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awwight, you wascawwy wabbit. You've piqued my curiousity. What's the case of user Xanderliptak? --GRuban (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an editor who uploaded his own images to Commons and then didn't like the fact that he had relinquished his copyright to them, and was upset that his personal watermark was edited out by other users, thus rendering them useless as advertising tools for his website. So he sent a legal threat to Commons, claiming they were "copyright violations". He was indef'd, but he got what he wanted, which was that the Commons folks deleted the items he had uploaded. So if you abuse Wikimedia sufficiently, you can get what you want, despite the alleged "irrevocable" license. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the precedent extend to indeffing Screwball23? BTW, how does one take a photo of a "vampire"? Collect (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the precedent would extend to indeffing User: Jonathon The Impaler, since he's the one who actually took and uploaded the photos, as in the Xander case. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The userpage of User: Jonathon The Impaler should be speedily deleted as its an unreferenced alternative biography of a living person that makes some rather absurd claims. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that. Is this the same as the bandslash subgenre where Jon Bon Jovi is an immortal vampire?? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would certainly explain a lot. Dayewalker (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – sock drawer slammed shut by MuZemike. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shifty333 (talk · contribs) is making "original research" moves to pages, which can't be undone without admin action. He's ignoring warnings. Please help! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to get me blocked over a page move? Shifty333 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the admins. The specific help I need is for them to fix your screwing around with the renames, since I can't fix it myself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Shifty has also created a fake logo to back up their page move. The addition of a bunch of periods on the redirect pages seems a deliberate attempt to prevent a page move revert. This is obviously an intentional act of deception, tantamount to vandalism and I wouldn't be opposed to a block until they can promise not to do this anymore.--Atlan (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shifty has also made a non-consensual move via cut-and-paste of Florida Marlins to Miami Marlins. The article states, with sources, "Marlins will be known as the Miami Marlins starting on November 11, 2011". This has been agreed upon by the page editors as the date to change the name. - BilCat (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shifty has also moved MetLife Stadium to Meadowlands Stadium (NFL) via the move feature, and then edited the first page, meaning only an admin can revert the move. Again, this is incorrect and nonconsensual. - BilCat (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Shifty editor won't stop, I must call for a block, after which the admins will need to fix his nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shifty has been making numerous moves, copy/pastes, and internal content changes (some of which I can revert/redirect, and some of which will require admin attention) in relation to three baseball teams: Miami Marlins in relation to their upcoming change to Florida Marlins, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in relation to their change from their old name of Anaheim Angels, and Tampa Bay Rays in relation their change from their old name of Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The user has change numberous articles and templates to accomplish this. Also, as Bugs has pointed out, Shifty has created similar problems for various major sports venues. Singularity42 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The sequence of events needs to be (1) block the user; (2) editors repair any text not already fixed; (3) admins need to revert the moves as soon as possible; and (4) admins need to delete the junk-logo uploads at leisure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay okay, it was a little prank. im sorry and the pagemoves have been corrected. can you please spare me?? Shifty333 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for "little pranks", otherwise known as vandalism. Are you willing to give a clear undertaking that you will never indulge in "pranks" again? If not, you are likely to be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct me if I got this wrong but using the word "Shifty" as his moniker has raised my eyebrows and the fact that a supposedly newbie editor with less than 100 edits knows something about Arbcom is raising my eyebrows higher. More mysterious is the way that the account was registered in January of 2010 and yet somehow he has figured out so much of our lingo is now raising my eyebrows to their absolute limit. Again, I hope I got this wrong but "someone" (as in a CU capable Admin, ahem!) please take a look into this supposedly newbie's "undercover mission" or better known as hidden agenda to the layman like us. To which I'm sure that BB would agree 100% with me on the above all. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A CU is welcome to have a look, but the behavior itself is sufficient grounds for me to block the account. Wikipedia is not for making pranks. Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be socks out there. This user created four new user talk pages within one minute for users that either do not exist or users who were created at the exact same time and have made no contributions: User talk:Subhankar1131, User talk:Waleed24680, User talk:Fakd2120, and User talk:Wheeler333. I've tagged the talk pages for non-existing users for speedy deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin put 2012 Tampa Bay Devil Rays season back to 2012 Tampa Bay Rays season? Shifty appears to have purposely added punctuation to the redirect in order to prevent it from being easily moved back. Singularity42 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shifty333 is  Unrelated to Subhankar1131 and Waleed24670, and appears to have no other socks. The other two users do not exist; he was pasting welcomes onto the talk pages of non-existent users. I'm not sure what's going on with this guy, but technical evidence suggests there is no abuse. AGK [•] 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, User:Shifty333 is a sock of indefinitely blocked user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs), who has been insistent for a long time on "Devil Rays" despite the name change. –MuZemike 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now the editor is active as Shiffy 333 (talk · contribs), doing pretty much the same thing. Dayewalker (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Shiffy 333 just tried to delete MuZemike's comment. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have just rollbacked User:Shiffy 333's attempt to refactor and remove the above paragraph by User:MuZemike (diff). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was User:Shiffy 333, with an f. I presume it's a sockpuppet. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With this diff he tried to implicate MuZemike as the sockpuppeteer... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note "Anaheim Angels" on a previous sock. –MuZemike 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And User talk:Seufs apparently also. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done blizzocked. –MuZemike 08:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straight, Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure what noticeboard to file this under so I apologize if this is the wrong page.

I've stubbed the article Straight, Incorporated for the following reasons (modified slightly from the talk page):

1. Copyright issues/plagiarism. Significant portions of the article are lifted from [9]. Examples include: "Because participants were policed, punished, or rewarded by each other, a unique camaraderie exists towards the very individuals who inflicted the torment." "Given the 20 years required for the memories to resurface, and the additional sequelae of PTSD, only a fraction are beginning to seek and receive successful treatment for their trauma."
2. The article is completely biased and presents only one side of the story. By searching through news articles I found that while there were many allegations of abuse, the program was also praised by significant figures including two US presidents. This is absent from the article. The organization and its treatment method is described completely from the point of view of the critics.
3. The use of sources is very bad. Instead of mainstream news or academic sources, there are references to "Cannabis Culture" and to websites run by self-described survivors of the program. A great deal of information is completely unsourced. In certain cases - for instance the link to WCPO - the sources do not seem to actually say what the article indicates that they say.
4. Some very serious allegations are completely uncited.

Two users with minimal contributions have reverted my changes in the past 10 hours or so. The first user: Webdiva (talk · contribs), has a clear COI. This diff[10] shows that user webdiva links to webdiva.org, which describes a personal experience with the article topic. From the pattern of editing, I suspect that the second editor to revert Blondie84 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of webdiva. I do not want to violate 3RR so I'd appreciate the guidance of other editors on how to proceed.

Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to agree that these users have an axe to grind, and also in the respect that Blondie is a throwaway sock/meat account, bearing in mind its first edit is merely a minute after creation WilliamH (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked User:Webdiva on the grounds that they appear to be the webdiva organisation - something that was first raised in 2007. They have less than a dozen edits, half in 2007 and half now, all to same article. I have fully protected the article for one week - if Blondie84 wants to discuss like a civilised contributor, the article talkpage is available. If they don't then that WP:DUCK will definitely be quacking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am most definitely NOT webdiva - just to clear that up at the outset. I do know who the person is though. I am the one who told webdiva that the entry had been removed, both of us thought it was someone playing games at first. Webdiva did an undo, and then when I got up this morning I saw another undo by Gabriel, so yes, undid. As I previously stated, we thought we were dealing with a person playing games. Webdiva has a website, so do I. I run a website called Surviving Straight Inc, http://survivingstraightinc.com/ - it is against Straight however you will notice in the document library and newspaper archives, both sides of the debate are represented, its an overwhelming pile of evidence, again, both sides. 2) I didnt write this entry. Eons ago, most likely at least a year ago, I made an edit, which is no longer on the entry. Unless I have forgotten other edits, I highly doubt I ever made more than a few....if memory serves it was something about PTSD being attributed to survivors from the Virginia program (a highly inaccurate stmt)...my edit was to change to ALL Straight branches (not just Virginia), something to that effect. Today I add 2 citations - you should have no trouble finding them in the history. 3) I agree, better and more complete citation is needed. I even saw things that should be rewritten. Again, I did NOT write this entry and rarely even look at this site. 4) Unfortunately so many people edit this thing I have no idea who has done the the majority of the writing and editing. 5) "Pro straight people" have a habit of trying to suppress the truth. Until Gabriel proved he/she submitted a complaint through the proper channels, you can imagine why I persisted in restoring the text today. Obviously people like me will not allow the truth to be suppressed. 6) As to the timing of the posts, the unsupported "hypothesis" that webdiva and I are one in the same (ironic given that the issue in question is so-called unsupported allegations), that this is supposedly "webdiva's organization" (there is no such "organization"), and that this an alleged an "axe to grind" (yet another unsupported allegation), let me share the FACTS. I thought I had a user id but I couldn't remember the password since its been so long since I used it - possibly a year or more. So, I created a new user id. Last Time I checked there was nothing wrong with that. Yes, I created it so that I could use the "undo" function. That was ME not webdiva. Again, different person. Another FACT - presently there are HUNDREDS of Straight Survivors on the internet in various online groups who share their experiences about Straight daily. Among those hundreds, there are certain activist survivors who independently work to expose the truth about Straight. Sometimes independent activists collaborate for specific projects. The documentary you may or may not have come across is one such collaboration. (They have legal permission to use the name, I own the trademark). Finally, and yes, I get upset and offended by statements such as "axe to grind" - a statement frequently made by uninformed people who jump to conclusions without researching the facts. So, forgive me but I have to say, THAT is an INSULT to many survivors who have PROVED, on countless occasions, those supposed "unsupported allegations." ok done venting. 7) Now, in the interest of having a fact based entry about Straight, Inc. (which I completely support) What do you suggest? (Blondie84 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC))Blondie84[reply]

(Non-admin observation) First thing I suggest you do is get off the "I'm here to expose/reveal/publish the truth" wagon. That usually gets most people's hackles up mainly because there have been many "truth" warriors who have come to wikipedia to try and establish the "true" version of whatever it is they're passionate about who ultimately are removed from Wikipedia because their goals are at odds with the purpose of site. What Wikipedia is about is reliable secondary sources, under which, for your information, online groups are not considered reliable. As you are relatively new, you should also apprise yourself, if you have not already, of the relevant editing policies such as edit warring, the 3 revert rule, personal attacks,civility, maintaining a neutral point of view as well as the previously linked reliable sources policy. These are policy and sustained violation of them is a blockable offense. There are also a number of essays that, while not policy, are often cited as something we should hold ourselves to and a number of editors have been blocked for violating. These are WP:POINT, disruptive editing, tendentious editing, conflict of interest and particularly in your case WP:TRUTH. The last one is particularly important for people who edit in areas that they have a personal connection with as they often misread their understanding of the "truth" as "fact". What Wikipedia sees as "facts" are those that can be confirmed by citing reliable secondary sources. I preemptively apologise if I seem to be patronising or have come across as condescending in any way. --Blackmane (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm I will repeat myself - I, along with others are committed to exposing the truth. The truth entails PROVABLE FACTS. Clearly - if you thoroughly read EVERYTHING I wrote, which you obviously did NOT, I AGREED the citations were needed. I am as hung up on evidence as you claim to be. Its NOT a bandwagon. What happened at Straight is provable, very easily I might add. AND, the truth (provable with DOCUMENTS and personal accounts) is far from neutral. Straight was embroiled in controversy for the entire 17 year period it was open. If you spent one minute on the sections of my website I mentioned, document library and newspaper archives, you would have noticed that my website is loaded with primary evidence - do you know what that is? (I can be condescending and patronizing too). Its SUPERIOR to secondary sources. Original documents such as investigations done by government authorities, original documents from Straight, etc. And I have secondary sources as well. And, testimonials from survivors is also valid. Amazingly enough, most secondary sources USE personal testimonials in their writings. Imagine that. Now as I stated before, I did not write the entry in question. It does need alot of work. I did notice lack of citations and that some parts definitely needed rewritten. I really hate repeating myself - Gabriel,William, Elen please respond as quickly as you kept responding to my undo's - I am anxious to solve this issue. Blondie84 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Blondie84[reply]

what you are talking about is original research based on primary documents and personal accounts - you are never going to get that accepted here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the matter that Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. If you have reliable, verifiable sources that you can cite -- other than material you yourself derived and published -- the material would be acceptable for the article. As to a primary source being superior to a secondary source, perhaps you should rethink that stance, after you re-read WP:PRIMARY...which is policy. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that WIkipedia has standards that are very different from other types of publications (newspapers, academic journals, etc.) We don't interpret primary sources - all we do is look at what reputable secondary and tertiary sources have said and summarize them, noting cases where these sources disagree. We have to be very strict about these rules because that's the only way we can cobble together an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You have to be dispassionate to edit an article. If you're interested in getting the truth out about a subject you probably won't succeed here. GabrielF (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On October 4 I stopped by User:MikeWazowski's talk page to thank him for some helpful edits. I saw an unanswered question from the new editor User:Thegracekelly about tags that MikeWazowski had placed and I stopped by that article to see if I could answer it. I found an article talk page full of requests for him to talk [11] with no responses. I saw in the article history that Thegracekelly had removed the tags twice and MikeWazowski had put them back twice.

(The tags were accurate but the new editor did not seem to understand them. I spent some time talking to the new editor on the article talk page and their personal talk page and did my best to help them understand what they needed to do to fix the article. They were under the misimpression that one of the tags on the article they started was accusing them of libel, and didn't really seem to understand any of the tags.)

I left MikeWazowski a note [12] on October 5th saying that I did not think that edit summaries took the place of talk page notes and that I was surprised he had not replied to Thegracekelly on a talk page.

When I started looking more closely at MikeWazowski's talk page I saw other unanswered messages. I also saw an earlier (September 12) request [13] by User:Qwyrxian for him to reply to people on his talk page, including people who asked why article's were tagged for deletion. If I understand MikeWazowski's reponse to Qwyrxian [14] he considers his edit summaries to be replies.

Here, [15], on October 10, he appears to be deleting more unanswered questions.

What do you think should be done? Cloveapple (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As my mother used to say, what do you think should be done? Although Qwyrxian seems to think this might be reportable to ANI (or some other unspecified forum), in my ignorance, I'm struggling to understand what policy Mike has violated and why his behavior requires administrative intervention. He's already been told that what he's doing is unconstructive and supposedly driving away all of these editors who question his tags. Is he obligated to respond to the questioners? I'm not saying it wouldn't be courteous or constructive to respond, but that's different from it being an obligation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, Cloveapple. Not responding to communication is actually a problem under a number of policies and guidelines: if I'm not mistaken, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:DR and WP:AGF all encourage or require clear communication. We have the right not to talk to others, but we don't have the right not to talk to others with whom we are engaging in active dispute, as Mike was when repeatedly reverting the removal of the disputed tags. That the tags were proper is beside the point; talking is necessary to resolve disputes without edit warring. And I appreciate that you took the time to offer this user some guidance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl is probably correct here. I don't think any admin action should be taken against MikeWazkowski at this time, but there may be a bigger issue here; personally, I'd recommend starting with WQA. In some cases, MikeWazkowski's failure to respond was fine--basically, the issue had been resolved before he got back to WP. In other cases, though, there was serious need for communication. How much a user has to communicate with others depends in part on what they're doing. If they're mainly running around doing gnomish edits, or if they do content work that doesn't seem to conflict with other editors, then they're probably fine being mostly non-communicative. But just by eyeballing his last 500 contributions, it looks like he spends the majority of his time on New Page Patrol, prodding and CSD tagging articles. That type of work on WP is going to require that the editor communicate with others. New editors really don't understand our processes in very many cases, and thus it's legitimate for them to ask "Why did you delete my new article?" even when it's perfectly obvious to us why it doesn't belong on WP. Notability, significance, reliable sourcing...all of this stuff is, really, pretty hard, especially if you haven't done work similar to this before. Anytime an editor tags something for deletion, they should be fully prepared to engage in a conversation with the article creator if needed. Heck, sometimes, I think we should start pre-emptive conversations when we tag or delete articles. If Mike isn't prepared to have these conversations, then it may well be that Mike is engaging in the wrong kind of WP work. WQA might be a good place to discuss the issue, to start.

As a side note, does anyone know if there's a way to track an editors "success rate" at tagging pages for speedy deletion? I've personally already declined 4 of Mike's CSD tags in about 2 months, several of which seemed very obviously not speedyable. I know different people have different standards, but I think if someone is on NPP, they should be at a minimum 90% accurate when they tag something for speedy deletion; if there's a secondary problem of Mike being too aggressive with speedy deletion (or other deletion processes), then that may require more direct admin action. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for a wiki user to insult an entire country?111.118.189.200 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things I can't stand: people who insult entire countries... and the Dutch. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All right, we'll give some land to the n*gg*rs and the ch*nks. But we don't want the Irish!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Enough of this. How about taking up the tax? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object your honor. This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. I move for a mistrial. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the Great Beyond, Norman Corwin and Groucho Marx are reading this...and cringing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct answer is it depends on the country. After all, in some countries, an insult could result in your execution. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled comedy hour.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the context. If you're mouthing off an incredibly offensive slur about the people (like if someone called Serbia is a country of genocidal maniacs - not saying they are, just a common example) then probably not. If you're just repeating what a reliable source says about the country then that is what you're supposed to do (so long as it is relevant). Like if someone says that the current actions of Turkey are very belligerent and they are repeating what was put forward by the author in the RS. There's also a lot of things patriotic people might have a problem with that could be truthful. It could be that someone says the Islamic Republic of Iran is a poor example of a republican government for instance or some things about Israel I would disagree with. Oh, and some Americans of course could get offended by all manner of things. So yeah, depends on the context. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Tishrei 5772 00:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the page in question? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never insulted a single Randomite, let alone the entire country (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're a far better man than I... VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Scheinwerfermann apparently needs a reminder from an administrator that editing others' comments (including changing the threading and indentation) in ways which modify the meaning or to what or to whom the OP was replying to is not acceptable. After he modified my comment at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets#Overuse of non-standard (Type A, B, C etc) arbitrary designations not once but twice, [16] [17] rather than get into a WP:LAME battle over it, I finally struck my comments and left him a note on his talk page. His reply? "Unga bunga bunga!" while reverting my note on his talk page [18] as well as an attempt to downplay his "refactoring" [19] (while making a veiled personal attack towards me).

I was absolutely not agreeing with Scheinwerfermann's berating of another editor: "Yes, yes, we know you're still waiting for Wikipedia policy to fall in line with your opinions and preferences [...]" [20], but Scheinwerfermann's modifications to my comment make it look as though I was and further "refactoring" by Scheinwerfermann [21] [22] then had DMahalko's reply [23] to Scheinwerfermann's berating looking as a reply to my comment...

The WP:TPNO section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." and WP:REFACTOR states: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Given this problematic "refactoring", someone should probably have a look though the edit history of Talk:AC power plugs and sockets and Scheinwerfermann's contribution history to see if such "refactoring" has been a common occurrence. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning. I'll follow up if necessary.—Kww(talk) 11:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the user has a big "retired" notice on his talk page, and reverts every attempt to make contact with him - keeping said "retired" notice pristine. Yet his contributions show clearly he is both a) not retired and b) not always inclined to behave in a particularly collegiate manner to his fellow users. I suspect you may want to keep an eye on him, and unless his behaviour changes, he'll need you to follow up fairly soon. fish&karate 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP who has a dynamic IP address (or so it is claimed) has engaged in block evasion [24], [25] at least twice. More than this they have attempted to apply the BLP policy [26] to an article where this does not apply. This "strategy" of attempting to apply BLP has been carried to an Arbocom discussion by the anonymous IP [27] specifically mentioning the Journal of Cosmology (where this policy does not apply [28]). Please notice that the focus of the Arbcom comment is a particular editor in goood standing, that works on the JOC article. Please also notice that it has been noted on the JOC talk page (the section being discussed) and in the Arbcom comment that there is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BookWorm44 with a drop down box. This anonymous IP is a subject of this investigation.

The attack on the same editor then continued with Arbcom enforcement as a platform [29]. Please note that the controversial editing to this article has taken place on or before September 18, 2011 [30]. Until October 9, 2011 the entire discussion was about the tenor of the article -- whether or it was too negative for Wikipedia or not. No specific disciplines that this journal covers (as described in the main-space article [31], [32]) ever became an issue. However, the anonymous IP specifically brought up the subject of climate change [33]. I quote: "My justification is that the current scope conspicuously leaves out climate change even though 1 of the 16 volumes published was devoted specifically to this topic. The above change would make the scope consistent with the full list of sub-disciplines documented in the journal's about page". The replies that follow appear indicate an attempt to to neutralize the further contributions of an editor in good standing to the JOC article [34], [35]. And this is the same editor that the anonymous IP brought an Arbcom enforcement complaint against.

Finally, it appears that the anonymous IP was attempting to harass User:Headbomb [36], [37]. Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying SQ's off the track here, but I'm wondering what exactly this thread hopes to accomplish. The Journal of Cosmology article and its talk page are semi-protected, his ramblings marked as those of a long-term disruptive editor/sock, etc... I'm all for a rangeblock, but ARBCOM is smart enough to ignore socks (or at least I hope they are, because otherwise, ARBCOM would really have taken a turn for the worse in the last years...), and I'm rather immune to the IP's trolling. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty good backlog at Requests for page protection. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of some of the backlog but I'm not generally an RFPP admin so I can't say I did it with any competence.--v/r - TP 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin, competence is not required. NW (Talk) 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]