The case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Wikipedia:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Wikipedia:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

He is editing a numbers of Articles with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.

• He uses Wiki:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
• See here [1] he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
• See here[2] and
• here [3]
• here [4]
• Inserted a biased source here [5] and
• veiled criticism in the name of history section here [6] again
• here [7].

• This POV pushing based on single source [8] continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
• Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive [9], *[10],[11]
• Blatant accusations [12],
• Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here [13]
• Again accusations [14]
• Blatant POV and lies [15]
• Editing to prove a Point [16]
• Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.[17]
• Inserting his POV [18]
• Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source [19]
• Again tampering [20]
• Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV [21]

• Salafi-Removing a very Genuine template from the Article see here[22] and Protecting *blatant lies and POV here [23].
• Unsourced POV here [[24]]
• Nazim Al-Haqqani -He removed a lot of content here[[25]]

• Tawassul-Removing total neutral valid content according to his personal views here [26]inserting his POV here [27]
• Ibn Arabi He removed half of content in bad faith here
• Ya Muhammad here[28]

• He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
• for speedy deletion [29],
• [30],
• [31],
• [32],
• [33]
• Mohra shareef here
• Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [34]

• This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
• He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here [35]

• Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day[36].
• He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.

• He is doing this since long-[37]
• See a small example here [38] and here
• reverted by other editors [39].
• Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors [40]

• Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi [41]

• This editing pattern has harassed many editors in the past and has forced them to leave editing specially from Barelvi Page.For Ex-User:Hassanfarooqi,User:MatthewVanitas with his efforts to improve the Article [42],User:Nkv and User:Coercorash. Many fears to edit a single line or wording on these Pages due to this monopoly.

• One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
• If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Wikipedia as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Wikipedia a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: [43]. I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Ibn Arabi allegation, I can verify that Msoamu is the one causing the problem, as all MezzoMezzo did was remove a massive chunk of unverified information (or verified only by primary sources, which aren't sufficient in this case; the information was highly non-neutral. Even with the edit, the article still needs major improvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One major issue is that the majority of Msoamu's diffs are also very old, I believe, and yet being presented as if they're a recent issue... Lukeno94 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not discussed here just a single Article ′but continuous patterns and motives of him'.He is continuously engaged in proposing Sufi movement Articles for deletion.But he is facing failure in his attempts.Many editors have removed his Deletion Prod from various Sufi Articles see here [44] ,[45].Msoamu (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here

• Msoamu, a lot of your issue here is that you're presenting diffs from 2007 as if they're recent. They're not, and from mine, and other editor's, assessments of this dispute, you are by far the more disruptive. There are very few diffs you've presented that date from after your block for edit warring. I believe I requested that you'd stop trying to sully MezzoMezzo's name with half-baked accusations, sadly, you haven't. I can only see this being resolved by a WP:BOOMERANG and a topic and/or interaction ban being enforced on Msoamu, sadly. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Luken,Kindly read my above comments.There are major POV pushing and disruptive editing by MezzoMezzo with in a month.The time period from which he has started this years editing.I have given numbers of Pages and Articles as Proof which he has recommended for Deletion with in a month and reverted by various editors.All the Pages in past and in present he has recommended for deletion belong to Sufi movement ,for which he seems to have certain agenda.Even I have shown recent changes by him to reduce importance from various Articles so that later they can be suggested for Deletion.Most of the pages he has developed belong to Salafi movement which is in strong opposition of Sufi or Barelvi movement.This is not a case of half baked accusation or something else.Non salafi Islamic expert can easily identify his edits.He has been accused of doing this many times.

• I have brought this case here to examine his edits in depth and to seek comments on his editing pattern.Msoamu (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comments seem to suggest that sourcing doesn't matter a jot - if you disagree with an edit, it can have a thousand reliable sources backing it up, and still should be removed. That is totally incorrect, as are assertions that Mezzo has regularly gone against consensus - the opposite is true. Some of these complaints about AfDs are unfounded, as other editors have removed significant chunks of information (rightly or wrongly), and that is what Mezzo has based their arguments on. Also, you've confused speedy deletion and AfDs in your diffs - the two are very different. You also label things as "big accusations" when they're not, they're single sentences worded neutrally. Saying things like "Barelvis have begun mixing with Shi'ites more than before" is NOT an accusation, it's quite possibly a statement of fact (I don't know the source, so can't check), and it's blatantly absurd to claim that - I don't suppose you're anti-Shi'ite? In fact, you've even provided diffs here that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MezzoMezzo - try this one: [46] as an example. You're so blinkered by either your dislike of MezzoMezzo, his (fairly neutral) views, or these movements themselves that you're making a boatload of unfounded accusations, based on a mixture of old, dodgy or downright incorrect evidence. For what it's worth, I'll provide my talk page assessment of this dispute here, from the 9th of February:

• Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi."here is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing).here I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not.here He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:

• Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:[47]. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:[48].
• Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
• His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.

Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Msoamu, I suggest you look at your actions, apologize, and move on, and join the discussions, otherwise the ONLY way I can see this age-old problem is for you to be topic banned from editing anything to do with Islam, broadly construed, and an interaction ban with MezzoMezzo. You were flagged as being disruptive on these articles in 2006: this needs to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear Luken,I learnt a lot from this discussion here.I will try to be calm and cool.Many times third person can clearly tell us that what is really wrong.Hope to see your cooperation in editing,I regret my complaint.Thanks.Msoamu (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's unfortunate that you decided to go against the discussions I'd tried to have with the pair of you, as it's likely this will WP:BOOMERANG back at you, with your history of being involved in edit-warring on these topics as long ago as 2006. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-claims

Msoamu and two editors with whom he sometimes collaborates have launched what I feel are a number of personal attacks on me in the past few days or so.

In the case of User:Msoamu:

Accused me of supporting Salafism and Wahhabism here.

Note that Msoamu was recently blocked for edit warring, POV-pushing and personal attacks (against me). This user has been blocked for vandalizing the same article in 2006.

In the case of User:Hassanfarooqi:

Accused me of engaging in a "Salafi jihad" and turning Wikipedia into a "jihad ground" here.

Called me an "anti-Sufi bigot" and accused me of engaging in a "Jihad against Sufism" and brining a jihad to Wikipedia here.

Accused me of being an "anti-sufi wahhabi" and on a "jihad to wipe them (Sufis) all out" when creating this page.

Note that Msoamu seems to be egging Hassanfarooqi on here.

This user was also blocked in 2006, but for personal attacks rather than vandalism.

In the case of User:Shabiha:

Changed one of my comments on a talk page, seemingly to portray me as a POV-pusher, here.

Accused me of supporting Salafist jihadism here. Yes, it's there. Look all the way down at the very last sentence in his edit.

This user was blocked in 2007 for edit warring and personal attacks.

Especially troublesome are the accusations of me supposedly supporting holy war and violent extremism. I work for a reputable institution; should I ever be outed, such accusations can have personal ramifications for my family and I. I've tried both ignoring it and asking for it to stop, and multiple other users have tried reasoning with these three to no avail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unintentionally deleted Your comments on a Talk page.I was para phrasing my own headings,in this process mistakenly done that.That was not motive which you understood.Next,the comment was not directed to you and was in good faith.Please avoid taking it personally. Shabiha (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• can I present here some earlier examples of Personal Attacks on me ? Shabiha (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, disclosure: Mezzomezzo asked me on my talk page about this complaint and whether or not he should post here, and I advised him to post a short summary with diffs as he has done above. Having said that, now that I see the diffs, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha need to stop the attacks immediately. I am willing to AGF that Shabiha's comment was not intended as an attack and the deletion was in error; but the other two are totally unacceptable. The are evidence of a battleground mentality at best, and outright offensive at worst. Were these western users casually dropping the term "jihad" it might be vaguely understandable, but these editors (based upon the topics they contribute in) must certainly know how strong and aggressive and, ultimately, rude such a label is. Just because someone nominates a lot of articles in a particular subject matter for deletion does not mean that they are attempting to wage a holy war of violence and eradication. Having seen some of the content Msoamu was defending, this is very disruptive. I'm interested in hearing what sort of defense these two have for their attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to counter claims asked by Qwyrxian:-

I am admitting that my wordings and behavior violated wiki policies and guidelines.For that I faced a blocked and I express my sincere apologies for the same.I am in discussion mode on Barelvi page.You can see my sincere discussions [49].But on the other hand would you like to examine these things.Sorry,If I wrote excessive points here but Don't this kind of behavior also needs some kind of action ?

• User:MezzoMezzo accused me of POV Pushing[50] while i was just restoring a consensus version unchanged since months.
• Trying to insult me and another editor Baboon43 [51]
• Accused me of having some hidden reasons [52]
• Claiming falsely that his edits have support of more than one editor which later on proved to be false [53]
• He used the words, intentional disruption for other editors[54]
• He was asked to refrain from making remarks about bias towards other editors[55]
• Personal Attacks on more than one editors-
• Accused Baboon of Racism [56]in these words, Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. and this [57]
• Seems to be engaged in edit warnings [58]
• Accused User:Sunnibarelvi to malign the Salafist movement by creating a Template on Salafism.[59].Msoamu (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some signs of tendentious editing on Mezzo's part but I'm not sure if it is intentional or unintentional as i have not really looked into it..based on my previous discussion with Mezzo on Talk:Barelvi he took the discussion to ani which leads me to believe he might have strong feelings about this barelvi article. Baboon43 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All 3 editors are definitely passionate about this topic area, however you look at it. Msoamu's edits have regularly been the more biased - some of Mezzo's are definitely a bit iffy, but it's rare that someone other than Msoamu or Shabiha has reverted them. Part of Msoamu's problem is with his grasp of the English language: due to him clearly not being fluent, he sees things as being insults when they're not - for example, the diffs about Mezzo insulting him and you are most definitely not insults, and the one saying he has the support of other editors is sort-of true, as GeorgeCustersSabre has reverted Msoamu's edits back to Mezzo's edits. Shabiha also may suffer from a similar issue, albeit to a lesser degree. Inadvertently, Msoamu has also pointed to an inappropriate comment by Baboon - "your either a wahabi or just lack knowledge of the subject", of which the first section is inappropriate - you should not be speculating about what religious beliefs an editor has if they haven't publicly stated them. (I can't comment on the last bit, I've used those sorts of comments myself) Mezzo's template comments start off a bit marginal, but then he does improve them with some relevant points. I would state that "Sunnibarelvi" would be advised to stay away from the groups that Barelvis are known for having disputes with, due to the COI problem (not just his own, which I believe he actually handles reasonably well, but that of other editors, which may provoke a battle). These are just my observations; I'm definitely not a Muslim (nor am I anti-Muslim), let alone a member of any of these groups, so I'm neutral :) Lukeno94 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the ANI thing with Baboon, I took it there mainly because, after 6+ years of seeing Barelvi editors create accounts solely for the purpose of rewriting that article to push their POV, I've come to expect that from any non-native English speakers adding overly-positive content or deleting any content which is remotely negative. In the case of Baboon, things were sorted out (and he's apparently not a Barelvi or even from South Asia to begin with). I don't have strong feelings about Barelvism and I've never met one; I freely admit, however, to having strong feelings about the article. For years, the fact that most English speakers (and this is English Wikipedia) don't know much about the movement has been capitalized upon by Barelvi editors (not all Barelvis, but all of these editors have been Barelvis) in order to push POV about which most English speakers are not aware. I was never even aware of it until I witnessed this editing behavior across 2006-2007; were it not for editing Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what Barelvis are.

As for the attacks, then Hassanfarooqi has a history of attacking anybody who disagrees with him even on articles relating to sports. Without even scrolling down, I checked his last 20 edits and found two personal attacks on other editors in addition to the three on myself. I don't think his issue is disruptive editing (I don't have the experience with him to say that) so much as it is habitually making personal attacks, despite having once been blocked for it. From what I can tell, nobody else ever seems to complain so it's hard to say how often this has happened in the years since his last block.

Msoamu has a combination of things. His editing has been described by disruptive by at least three or four editors other than Lukeno. He only seems to edit articles relating to Barelvism and the movement's opponents, and in all cases seems to present the beliefs of Barelvism as objective fact - Talk:Barelvi is testimony to that. He also has a tendency to call anyone who disagrees with him insulting names, usually relating to religious violence and extremism. I didn't know what a topic ban was before it was mentioned here but it seems to be the only way; as far as I know, he could still comment on talk pages but given his six years and going of POV-pushing followed by personal attacks and disruptive editing if he doesn't get his way, it seems to be the only solution. It seems that any article in which he takes interest never receives fair, productive attention or discussion.

About Shabiha, then again, after six years of interacting with this editor and having previously been involved with content and conduct disputes with him, my good faith has about run out. To be fair, though, Shabiha engages in discussion regarding content in addition to occasional personal remarks, whereas Msoamu generally engages in personal remarks in addition to occasional discussion of actual content, while Hassanfarooqi seems (on both religion and the soccer articles I saw) to just engage in personal attacks.

I would like to see some sort of repercussions at least for Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi. Not simply for attacking me personally, but also for the good of the articles on which they set their sights. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of MezzoMezzo have been described by various editors as Non Neutral and it is not my view that his editing tendentious.Many Salafi editors also have tried in past to change the page according to their wishes.I have tried to maintain it neutral.I have supported in past criticism section and it is there.Msoamu's latest evidences are enough to prove that MezzoMezzo is not free from attacking editors Personally.No one is free from errors.We should try to be Neutral and objective as much as we can. Shabiha (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Shabiha, there have been very few that have had major concerns with Mezzo, apart from those mentioned here (namely yourself, Msoamu, Sunnibarelvi and, apparently, Hassanfarooqi, whom I haven't come across, and haven't seen mentioned before). Most people have had issues with Msoamu. As I've said several times, you've all made mistakes, but Msoamu is probably the more aggressive, and part of the issue is the fact that you and Msoamu have a weaker understanding of English, and are less able to communicate than Mezzo, whom seems fairly fluent. All 3 of you have made allegations of personal attacks that have been completely incorrect, however (simply as English isn't your first language). This is coming from a native British English speaker, so I'm in some position to judge. No offence is meant by this, it's merely my observations. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that both Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi have had a minimal amount of activity, so they have logged in. I'm concerned that they might just be trying to dodge the discussion so that it conveniently "goes away." Still, a discussion is not enough and the pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks - again, especially ones relating to violence and radicalism - are something I would like to see administrators address. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Okay, my feeling is that this is all way too complex and long standing for ANI to solve; some of these complaints go back years, and it would probably take RfC/U's on everyone to really see if there are long term problems. As an alternative to that, I propose that we give Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and MezzoMezzo final warnings: any more personal attacks, incivility, or blatant POV pushing will result in escalating blocks, to be issued by any uninvolved admin. If any of them are in fact "innocent" (and note that I believe that MezzoMezzo is much more the victim here, possibly blameless), and are editing in the best interests of Wikipedia, then they aren't at risk. In a sense, what I'm recommending is that we place these three users on discretionary sanctions. Yes, I know that there is no such thing, but I think you can get my idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept and even welcome being put on discretionary sanction. I fully accept and welcome administrator scrutiny of any and all edits I make on Wikipedia indefinitely, and given the overly long nature of this conflict, a final warning after which no warnings shall come (Lovecraftian, no?) should solve this. I am confident that my editing here is merely to improve the site and thus I have no issue if my account remains under such scrutiny forever. I only ask that administrators follow through should personal attacks come from any of those involved, including myself. One question, will Shabiha be exempt from this? I feel that he has been involved in the same issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I too feel that Shabiha should be placed on some kind of warning, although to my knowledge, he hasn't been involved in the dispute quite as long, so maybe it'll be a 3-strikes-rule or something for him. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabiha has also been at it on the Barelvi article. His block back in 2007 was for his personal attack on my talk page here due to the same POV/content disagrements. Similar comments about myself rather than relevant content can be found under his contributions during the past month or so. It's not limited to the original two examples I posted up there; while his comments are milder than those of the other two, the tendency for personal remarks is still there and has been for at least six years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Shabiha and Msoamu are back to refactoring comment to a pro Barelvi POV, see here.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 12:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only that, it's my comments, not MezzoMezzo, so they've got no valid reasons for it whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past year, this user seems to have made a large number of what appear to be WP:HOAX, or at the very least, extremely speculative articles, most of which seem to have been speedy deleted or AFD'd, judging by his talk page. The user has been warned numerous times about this kind of behavior. Outside of editing in the mainspace, the user seems to spend a lot of time creating elaborate speculative articles about nonexistent future products/media in his userspace (User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/A Hero's Guide to Deadly Dragons, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Holy Cartoon!, User:KuhnstylePro/iMoonTelevision, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Wendy Wu: Year of the Dragon, User:KuhnstylePro/Disney Channel All Star House Party, User:KuhnstylePro/The Star Wars Show, User:KuhnstylePro/Drawn to Life: Boneheads Edition, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Kinect Q, User:KuhnstylePro/Xbox Portable, and many more), a hobby which represents over 40% of his edits. I'm a little bit at a loss for what to do with someone like this. He has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well. Bushranger nominated a bunch of them for speedy deletion, and I deleted those and some others. I hope the ranger will come by here and give their opinion--given that they were blocked before, for the same thing, I'd say block indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Never mind! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a ninja-block strikes! It's clear he's not here to build an encyclopedia, so an indef has been applied. If he wants to be unblocked he'd better provide very strong assurances he understands what Wikipedia is actually for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...looking further into this, it looks like a truly massive hoax has been perpetrated here, focusing around "Boneheads (TV series)". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, what criteria would User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII fall under? Since the game does exist, but essentially, the "hoax" is the entertainment section, since Beyonce performed the show, not Maroon 5/Selena Gomez. ZappaOMati 05:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw that one and thought about MfDing it. Is there content worth saving? If no, it's a test page (at best). I just deleted one (forgot which one) that was copied from mainspace in October and then worked on some; I deleted that under "Housekeeping" as an unattributed copy paste job from the article. I urge other editors to go through their subpages and delete/nominate as they see fit: after a dozen or more I need something else to look at. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think so, since I'm pretty sure all but the entertainment section has been in the main page before the game kicked off, so CSDing it as a test page would work; I'd do it myself, but I have to hit the hay now. ZappaOMati 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just deleted it as a BLP violation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). Read it and weep, for we - and apparently a large chunk of the Internet, judging by the Google hits - but lack of reliable Google hits or Google News hits - have been had but good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII created. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Missed a spot: User:KuhnstylePro/Cartoonlopedia. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I got them all. I need an index-finger massage. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that was fast. And efficient. One last thing, his move of Future Earth to Future Earth (2009 TV series) should be reverted. Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved back without redirect. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great! Thanks for all the help, admins! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Would Touch FX count as another hoax? I've been looking through the user's edits and found this article which, so far, has received edits only from him. A brief search turned up this website, which lists some games listed as "Touch FX". I doubt that it's an actual arcade board, though. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been nuked; I agree that we simply can't extend any good faith to this user's contributions given his proven use of Wikipedia to spread his own imaginary creations (charitable)/hoaxes (WP:SPADE). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty socks

• Well, that didn't take long at all, did it? The socking has begun. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPI for spysleepercheck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I found the existience of this to be interesting... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he would like to be the only active contributor to the wiki for a TV show he made up one day, that's totally fine by me. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I like this bit, however: "Note that "usernames" should be the known user names of the main people who edited the article on Wikipedia." Lukeno94 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It wasn't the existiance of the wikia that raised eyebrows. It was the "This content copied from a deleted Wikipedia article" template that perturbed me. Seeing as since the attribution history of a deleted article is hidden, that makes it a copyright violation... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC, where I have been requested to file the following, as I now reluctantly do having wanted to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND, as previously noted on my talk page:

In contravention of the usual and required policies of Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility; Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and following my considered outside opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by IZAK, here is a list of recent discussions that relate to me where at no point was I ever informed about them by the parties who commenced the discussions, primarily by User User:Danjel backed by User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs). Some of them were quite serious and had I known about them in a timely fashion I would have taken the time and effort to respond:

1. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK. (Fortunately I did manage to comment after a user not connected to the compliant brought it to my attention. The SPI "investigation" ended quickly and was also quickly deleted without any action taken and in effect rendering the spamming of a link to it on other forums that in effect rendered anything to do with that moot.)
2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view.
3. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view criticism of children's account.
4. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK.
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Per WP:WIKIQUETTE, when commencing a discussion about another user, be it on any talk page and certainly on an official forum, and definitely when making serious allegations against that user, it is not just common decency but almost required to inform the user concerned or even any other interested parties. See for example Category:User warning templates, such as: Template {{ANI-notice}}: "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."; or Template {{SPIusernotice}}: "A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts... Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPIusernotice for evidence..." and others like this.

While User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs) has had things to say about me lately, yet he has:

1. Been suspected of sockpuppetry WP:SPI himself: User talk:Bob K31416#Sockpuppetry case; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416/Archive.
2. Been criticized for accusing an established user of being a sockpuppet: User talk:Bob K31416#SlimVirgin that violates WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
3. Accused an established user applying for adminship of being a sockpuppet User talk:Bob K31416#unsupported allegations in a request for admin; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/History2007#Oppose in violation of WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
4. Forgets that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Constant focus on toughening WP policies, thereby making user contributions more difficult, and thus reducing the ability of new users to join (a constant lament at the present of the WP Foundation) and is takes his causes to Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) even coming up with an idea for a "WP Commission" that would have the "final veto" on policy (even as he freely edits away constantly in areas of WP:POLICY) that flies in the face of what WP is all about about which he is reminded and that was rejected: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Policy commission, as concluded by User Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs): "At the end of the day, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think we are in danger of thinking of wikipedia politically in terms of policies rather than focusing on what is most important, encyclopedic content. In fact if many on here cut the bureacratic/governor pretense and wrote articles instead the site would be massively better off.. And if much of the time spent discussing policies and wiki politics instead went into actual development planning and how to feasibly greatly improve overall content we would start meeting our real objectives...♦ Dr. Blofeld" [60].
5. Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) disagrees with his "off-wiki" obsession: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125#Consensus and off-wiki canvassing: "I don't think it's a serious issue. I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" - it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Wikipedia is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying - they are - but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [61] and "I don't disagree with it (much) as written, but I think people tend to overstate the likelihood or importance of it, and tend to underestimate how often the real problem is people screaming 'canvassing' to prevent people from seeking outside voices. Many things on Wikipedia would benefit from more participation, more eyeballs, and the bias against recruitment means that decisions are made in obscure corners without relevant people being properly notified. This may suit the interests of a group that has a majority in that little corner, but knows that they are in the extreme minority in the broader community or world. But it doesn't suit the interests of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [62].

See also related:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Violation of WP:NOSHARE
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Role account used by User:Danjel the latter an extension of
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Short term block proposal:User:Danjel

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Both users have been informed [63], [64]. IZAK (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, if only there was a place where editors could go to deal with WP:ETIQUETTE problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, read the whole megila it's only the tip...IZAK (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. I commented on the previous ANI, it does seem like you're forum shopping a bit here. Anyway, I'm not sure how Jimbo's comments support your viewpoints at all, and I also don't see an issue with a user who wants tougher policies. The comments about false sock allegations are definitely valid here, that I will admit - but that point also reflects that, just because someone's been accused of socking, doesn't mean they have - so why you reference a SPI that found nothing is beyond me. Your wikilawyering appears to have driven Danjel away (in addition to some personal reasons that, combined, you gleefully tried to gravedance on, with your ANI thread about his retirement). In addition, I see no need why he should need to notify you about specific threads at an RfC where you could reasonably have been expected to be watching - it is, after all, involving you, and you had contributed the day before. I'm not claiming Danjel and Bob are completely flawless and innocent: they're not. But you're no better. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading IZAK's message, I don't see that there is anything for me to respond to. FWIW, I think it's a very strange message to post here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• IZAK - As someone who has largely taken the same side as you in this issue, I just see nothing actionable. No body is perfect and that's what you've basically outlined. While I'd love to see Danjel trouted for his disruptive behavior lately, bringing back to back ANI threads against each other isn't going to settle the matter. The smart thing to do is be patience and the better person and let your opponent make an ass out of themselves without your help. Bob just hasn't done anything worth an ANI thread and I think you need to quit bringing him here. And Danjel's has been discussed plenty of times lately, there is nothing new to discuss. I agree with Bob that this is a strange message.--v/r - TP 14:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support closing thread as nonactionable, which raises the question why it was brought here in the first place. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only thing actionable is a trout or warning for IZAK for being a bit disruptive and doing a bit of gravedancing, really. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incorrect calling "gravedancing" the most current dispute, seen just a couple sections above. Also, calling "disruptive" a person who tries to defend themselves against others' accusations is ..er.. disruptive? He was not the one who stirred the shit. And not even a trout's bladder for the opposite side? - Altenmann >t 03:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They're as bad as each other, which I said earlier in this thread. This is the second ANI in just a couple of days opened by IZAK, both are which are disruptive as it's clear that nothing was actionable in either (the first was a "misuse of retirement template"), technically, this is defending themselves against other users defending themselves against IZAK's previous ANI. The previous dispute was gravedancing, and it's had the effect of forcing danjel to edit more, when they clearly no longer wanted to. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that we've heard out your "grievances", it's time to delete it from your talkpage. I'll notify you that I've responded here, because you might get upset if I don't. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not sure if this is the right place but I don't know where to report vandalism at Wikimedia, nor do I know how to undo it. Several articles link to this map [65], as do articles in about 50 different language Wikipedias. The map has been carefully discussed on the talkpage of Languages of Europe, as can be seen at Talk:Languages of Europe. This morning, a Turkish user replaced the map with a new version in which he had inserted a rather extreme Turkish POV. The Kurdish areas in South-Eastern Turkey had been colored Turkish. Even more bizarre, relatively large areas of Germany had been colored as Turkish-speaking!! While there are a fair number of Turkish immigrants in Germany, it's absurd to claim that Turkish is the main language in large parts of the country. To the best of my knowledge, no German city is majority Turkish, let alone a German region, and most second-generation Turks in Germany speak German. In addition to the imposing Turkish on the Kurdish areas and parts of Germany, the Turkish language areas of Bulgaria and Greece were also modified, but these changes are small. This is a rather clear case of a nationalist-driven POV-pushish made without even discussing the matter first, and if it had been an edit to the text, I would simply have reverted it. As I'm less sure about how to do with Wikimedia, I bring the matter here. As the map is featured on so many articles, I hope the matter can be dealt with quickly.Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an issue for Wikimedia Commons: try commons:COM:AN? --Rschen7754 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go there as well. However, I now see that the user is heavily edit-warring with the same nationalist POV at Bulgaria [66], [67], [68]. One of the people he is edit-warring with is extremely uncivil and I'll report that user for violating WP:NPA but that does not excuse Maurice07's own own nationalist edit-warring. Maurice07 already has two blocks for disruptive editing only in 2013, and his user-page makes it clear that his agenda is one of extreme Turkish nationalism [69]. Given that he is clearly here to push a nationalist POV-agenda, and does so in a disruptive way, I'd say his behavior is relevant for ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I disagree with any of your accusations and allegations. Devoid of legal basis baseless according to me. Fistly, looking at the page of a user,you can not accuse him to be with nationalism. This is not acceptable. User pages are special pages in Wikipedia and users reflect the views and opinions there. I don't impose my views of any article!! Each user can make a mistake the first edits and I did. It is completely due to not knowing Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Secondly,about Languges of Europe map,..filled with contradictions. 1. It doesn't have any source. 2. PNG file created by a user. 3. User Athens 2004 made ​​a change on Greece. Vlachs removed from the map!! [70] and don't have any return. Can you explain to me User:Jeppiz? Do you think to question the credibility of this map? Maurice (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points, but also some errors. I agree with your third points, the change by user Athens2004 is just as bad as your changes. I had not seen it. I also agree that new users can make mistakes, and that is no problem. That is why I did not suggest you should be blocked, I only suggested that the previous version of the map should be restored. Thus far I agree with you, not on the rest you write. Just because user-made maps don't have a specific source doesn't mean you can change them as you please. This map has been the subject of long discussions among several users to make it accurate as possible. If you want to challenge aspects of it, then discuss it. And yes, your nationalism is of relevance. Your userpage makes it clear that you have a strong POV on Turkish issues. Claims such as This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide. This user believes that islands of Imia/Kardak belong to Turkey. This user doesn't think that Turkey needs EU, but thinks EU needs Turkey. are all perfectly valid, but also makes it clear that you have a certain POV. That is not a problem, most people do. But when you edit war to impose that point of view, as you clearly did on Bulgaria, then it is relevant to point it out. What is more, are you aware of WP:ARBMAC. Edit warring on Balkans-related articles can land you a block very quickly.Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This one can be closed as the issue is solved. The proper map was restored three days ago, nobody has asked for any blocks.Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While filing a report on a heavily disruptive POV-pusher, Maurice, for vandalizing a map used by more than 50 articles and for edit-warring at Bulgaria (see above [71]), I came across this PA edit summar by Wikiisunbiased [72] that is completely inappropriate.Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, telling someone to "fuck off" is certainly uncivil in that case, it's not a personal attack. Now, referring to them by their ethnicity may also be very uncivil, but I'm not sure I'd call it a personal attack either (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I stand corrected and I correct myself above. Still, it's as much a violation of a policy. I had a quick look at the user's history and saw that this isn't the first time, though certainly the most serious that I found.Jeppiz (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for the "Fuck off, Turk", because that's never acceptable, but quickly unblocked when I realized that they hadn't edited in the past 24 hours. Someone else can figure it out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really apporopriate to unblock as this is an ARBMAC area. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it ever inappropriate to self-revert? Legal matters are an exception, since you're re-enabling a copyvio if you undelete it, but unblocking someone whom you've blocked for this kind of behavior isn't inappropriate. Of course, it's also not inappropriate for someone else to reblock. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now issued a formal ARBMAC warning to Wikiisunbiased. Further disruption will result in an immediate block. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a uncivil activity.It's certainly true.These incivility against me! Fuck off Turk. It was pronounced against me, due to use of official data belonging to CIA World Factbook. Clearly,violation of WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL. I didn't do any destructive editing as alleged in article of Bulgaria. I shared my thoughts in talk page and I held open the negotiation process. I see Wikiisunbiased's activity as entirely ownership of article. In fact,I am meeting so reasonable just with the condition to be respectful to other users...albeit even if the not true. Maurice (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Wikiunbiased"? WP:OWB #72... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That raised my eyebrows as well Lukeno94 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr some sysops are using PC/2 even though WP:PC2012/RfC 1 (current consensus, correct me if I'm wrong) says they shouldn't

Someone should go through [73] and fix this. (and also get that big trout back out)

⁓ Hello71 03:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty limited uses from that report, looks like mostly a few people who missed the memo. I fixed one PC2 use and have asked the admins who set the others to review in light of current consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And on further research, it looks like user:King of Hearts, who set the protection that I changed tonight, had previously declined to remove PC2 on the basis of local consensus overriding community consensus. This seems like an issue that needs to be discussed; I'm going to give him a pointer to this conversation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC2 was applied to 1948 Arab–Israeli War following a report at ANI due to the extensive sockpuppetry. Detailed reports that describe the extent of the sockpuppetry are available (see below and at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_29#data for further details)

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - article results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - talk page results (PDF)

Requiring autoconfirmation will not prevent sockpuppets of topic banned/indefinitely blocked users from editing the article. Actually PC2 didn't provide 100% protection from sock edits either but it effectively eliminated the disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a discussion is held at a public board, like ANI, it's not local consensus; a public discussion decided that IAR was properly applied here. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that someone put PC2 on 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There is also an AN discussion thread that was moved to a subpage here: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets. That thread is awaiting formal closure. Some intrepid person should take care of that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly come out of my isolation for a moment; I've got other things on my mind right now and no desire to handle any more PC discussions myself. That discussion should be closed, and whoever decides to do it should have look at the dulcet writings of Zhuangzi first, you'll get it when you read it. Best of luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, from the perspective of someone who wasn't involved in the local discussion about the Arab-Israeli article and is just analyzing this as a matter of policy application, I would say that given autoconfirmed sockpuppets and community consensus to not use PC2, the solution would have been either full-protection, a dedicated checkuser watching the article, or just playing whac-a-mole with the socks, rather than implementation of a protection level that wasn't supposed to be used. Yeah, full protection would suck, and yeah, socks suck, but in some situations you sort of just have to choose your poison. As a side note, I would also say that a thread like the Mangoeater one, as a wide-open community discussion, could probably overrule community consensus in a limited area if it reached that consensus; however, a consensus made by a few people on an article or editor's talk page is far more tenuous as far as being able to overrule the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. In the ANI discussion, the community came to a consensus that PC2 is preferred over full protection in this specific case. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that discussion that discussion, I think it was a very short and small discussion, not the sort of general consensus that would enable an admin to override a very clear community decision of a matter of policy. Even some of those who supported the use of PC2 thought such a discussion was not the way to do it. I think this was not an appropriate use of IAR, and the reason it was not was the slippery slope argument, which seems to apply, for one use has led to other uses. I think this needs to be continued where it will get a general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that can be said about this is... power corrupts. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that the Transdev York article is now just a redirect so we can all agree that PC2 is no longer necessary there and it can be changed to no protection or even full protection just to be safe.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon-el-Nuevo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user has been a long term disruptive presence on articles related to Christopher Columbus, especially Christopher Columbus and Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. The user’s goal is to elevate the theories of amateur historian Manuel Silva de Rosa, who has argued that Columbus was actually the child of Polish royalty. Given her/his singular purpose, and the strength with which he pushes these theories, I believe that Colon is either closely personally connected with Rosa or is simply a super-fan.

Colon was blocked twice for disruption on these article in 2011. While there have been no recent blocks, the editing has still certainly been disruptive/tendentious. There are two major problems.

• Filling talk pages with arguments about the subject, not about the article itself . That is, Colon is using the talk pages as place to make academic arguments about the topic to push Rosa’s claims. See, for example, [74] , [75], and [76]. Sometimes other editors tell Colon to stop; in some occasions, she/he has even been reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. If people need more examples of tendentious/forum-like behavior, they can be provided…though simply looking at Colon’s contributions will tell the story as this is basically the only thing she/he does on WP.
• Insertion of non-neutral information into articles. Thankfully, this is less common, but the most recent attempt was the back-breaking straw causing me to finally seek sanctions. See [77] and [78] from a few days ago. In these edits, Colon proves her/his inability to edit neutrally on this topic, instead inserting language that sounds as if the case for Columbus’ nobility is now proven, and there is nothing more to debate.

A perusal of Colon’s talk page will show that in addition to the blocks, people have tried to communicate directly with her/him, but to no avail. The user is indefinitely blocked on Spanish Wikipedia, and has been blocked on Polish Wikipedia as well. A quick look at his global contributions shows that this is Colon’s only topic of interest in any language. I believe that the time has come for an indefinite block on en.wiki as well. I mean, theoretically we could topic ban him from any edits related to Christopher Columbus, broadly construed, in all namespaces, but since Colon seems to have no interest in any other topic on Wikipedia, I don’t see any difference. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May as well indef. Further up the page another editor was indef'd for the same thing. Not that it should be a precedent but if all they do is harp on about one subject then topic ban, which can't be enforced by admin tools, isn't going to achieve much beyond a succession of violations leading to an indef anyway. Blackmane (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef - It's been years of his pushing Rosa's views into articles in a pov manner with dubious sources and/or sources that don't back his claims, and using talk pages as a forum. I've never blocked him only because I'm too involved. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now Colon, editing as an IP, attempted to add one of his non-proof non-sources to the Origins article in this edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller and I have been dealing with this editors shenanigans on Filipa Moniz Perestrelo for awhile as well. All of this is visible in the history and talk page. —Diiscool (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Filipa Moniz Perestrelo page is finally a page worthy of the wife of the Admiral Colon thanks to my efforts, despite the constant fight by Dougweller and others to dumb it down. Compare the current version with the fact that there was not even a page for her prior to my involvement. - Furthermore, the fact that I am a poor editor and can't write neutrally, should not be a reason for a ban. Nor should it be a reason for a ban, the fact that I support a writer who others call a dilettante or unreliable. I have done enough reading of both Rosa's work and many other authors to understand the problem of Columbus and I feel Rosa's contribution is worthy of mention. After all he has been invited to speak at many Universities in several countries as he listed in his Portuguese language blog, this is no small accomplishment. Even if I am unable to do the edits in the proper wikipedia "format" - It would be more productive and more beneficial for the Wikipedia, if instead of blanket deleting of all my edits, the interested editors would attempt to re-write them in the proper "neutral" format utilizing the sources that I present. Otherwise it would not be me who loses but the readers who come to this site looking for updated and worthy information.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon you have been told by many editors many times that you are wrong in your assessment of Rosa's notability as a Columbus scholar. The fact that you are bad at formatting your edits is not wehat makes you a poor editor, but the fact that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to accept that the information that you want to supply is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia because it is based on scholarship that is not considered valid by the academic community. Adding information that most scholars consider to be patently false to articles is not an improvement and removing it does not dumb down wikipedia, but raise its quality as a source of reliable information based on serious scholarship rather than layman's speculation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few words... Colon-el-Nuevo spends his days, in a series of systematic violations of the rules... disruptive user. --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon el-Nuevo began with the assumption that all the Genoese documentation referring to ::::Christopher Columbus has nothing to do with Colon. He found hints of Polish origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. To Colon el-Nuevo, even thenavigator's reminiscences on geography were proof of his Polish origins. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics.

Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Nobody in the Admiral's lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace. There are hundreds of evidence. Colon el-Nuevo is a nightmare. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: I would absolutely have indeff'd Colon-el-Nuevo months ago, except that I may count as WP:INVOLVED. I'm hoping another admin will take a moment to look at the evidence, as I think it would be very hard to reach any other conclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A moment taken indicates that this editor is here to push The Truth, not to improve the encyclopedia, and, therefore, an indef has been applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have a similar editing pattern to User:116.72.255.201 (whose edits include damaging the ASA dab page, whether through incompetence or otherwise). Both have added nothing to the encyclopedia except claims that Sachin Kadam is a poet, loves Ketaki Mategaonkar and is president of the All Student Asociation (their spelling). This editor does not appear to be here to improve the encyclopedia. PamD 14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the user page for G11 speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your CSD template has been removed by User:Alexf (an admin), who offered no reason for the removal. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Beg to differ. The reason is explained in the summary. I just removed the spamlinks. This is a user page, not an article. Users are allowed to talk a little about themselves. The requested G11 CSD on a user page in this particular case was overkill as the page was not overly promotional once you remove the links to his website which I did and said so. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i must will do poet. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're all rooting for ya, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I can't see how often All Student Asociation has been speedied and re-created, but from the look of the editor's talk page it's a lot. Could the title please be salted (and the other spelling of All Student Association too), to save us all a lot of time and protect the encyclopedia from this rubbish. Thanks. PamD 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted five times and has today been salted by User:Peridon. I don't understand how that works for the spelling alternatives; the log just keeps redirecting me to the correct spelling. I hope that means the earth is salted for them all. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm exceedingly confused as to what Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is up to with moving talkpage archivesuserspace pages around and deleting/undeleting them. I asked a while back what was up, but didn't get a useful answer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's just dumping everything from his own userspace. Perhaps with no intention of returning. Nothing, imo, to worry about. --regentspark (comment) 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it, he's allowed to delete archives of his talk page (or anything else in his userspace) but not User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim itself. I don't see any need for admin actions here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... unless he actually moves his usertalkpage to an archive, and then tries to have it deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking again, that is what happened. He moved it, deleted the moved page, then recreated his user talk without the history. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get the history of my talk and user page deleted too? Volunteer Marek 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too, please? Bielle (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy fornication, Batman ... he's done it more than once! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of admin rights

As an admin, Deacon would know as well as anyone else that user talkpages cannot be deleted; period. It appears that based on the logs, he has moved the contents and then deleted the new subpage more than once. This is a clear violation of the trust that the community provided him. "Retired" or not, this is an offensive and improper situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of you idle dramaqueens insist on drawing attention to this, I'm streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out. There is actually no policy that prevents me deleting my talkpage if I want to contrary to the assertion above (and per WP:DELTALK), but as it happens all but a fraction of my talk page is undeleteable due to its high number of edits and will remain available to view until I get a crat to delete it some time in the future. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of usertalkpage cannot be done by the editor themself, and you know that. Only in very rare circumstances will the usertalkpage be deleted upon retirement, and you also know that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why I'm commenting, since the damage is already done, but he's not just moving his old talk page and then deleting it (which, if determined to be a bad idea, could be reverted by another admin); he's moved most of his subpages (one at a time) to the same page, deleted it, then moved another pages to that page, and deleted it again. As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle. That's not "streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out". There's no "vanishing" type rationale for doing this. I suppose it's too late to get upset about it as long as he's leaving soon and requesting a desysop, but if he's planning on staying, I stongly object. Didn't another admin do something like this a long time ago, causing a giant uproar? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle." And that, of course, is why he has done it. Why doesn't someone with the power take away his tools immediately, before he makes any more messes that are advantageous to him, and are difficult, if not impossible, to clean up? He had proven he cannot be trusted. Bureaucrats, where are you? Bielle (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They've got their own board ( Wikipedia:Bn#User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim ) but they can't do anything per constraints of policy. Can they be blocked, or would they be able to simply unblock themselves? NE Ent 01:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he could unblock himself. And seeing as he's already broken policy, I see no reason he wouldn't. Regardless, this could be construed as an emergency situation, in which case either per some policy I don't wish to bother finding or IAR an emergency desysopping can and should be performed. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Both WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#U1 (policy) and WP:User pages#Deletion of user pages (guideline) disallow speedy deletion of a user's main talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim has created a large WP:HISTMERGE at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion. No independent admin would have fulfilled its many deletions, G6 or otherwise. For convenience, these are the move logs relevant to the main user and user talk pages: [79], [80]. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I plan to challenge the deletion at WP:Deletion review, as no justification has been presented. Another relevant page is WP:Courtesy vanishing#Deletion of user talk pages (guideline), which includes the sentence, "User talk pages should never be moved to become user subpages to facilitate deletion." Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive done some digging, there are 61 pages that have been combined in that one page, If an admin is interested in undeleting and restoring the individual pages I have some information that will be useful, and make it easier. Werieth (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please can you post that information under the DRV to assist anyone contemplating undeleting this mess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Deacon be blocked promptly to prevent any continuation of this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet with his admin-bit, if I remember right, he could just unblock himself.. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bureaucrats don't seem to have any interest in stopping this misuse of the admin tools. In fact, they are downright patronizing about the complaint. I don't get it. I am quite sure the rest of us, admin or not, wouldn't be allowed any such privilege. Bielle (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking oneself is grounds for an emergency desysop. --Rschen7754 19:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to apparent belief, bureaucrats are not allowed to punitively remove the admin flag. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect would it be punitive? The evidence here is that DofP is using his admin powers to do something he shouldn't be doing, the desysop would be to prevent him from continuing to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only ArbCom is authorized to desysop people. --Rschen7754 05:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats idle. Should we notify Jimbo?

Since it appears that the bureaucrats are failing to take any action, and it is clear that this is an emergenmcy situation (per gwickwire), perhaps we should inform Jimbo of the abuse? He might be able to do something. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not going to pursue this, since (as I said above) the damage is done, and it appears he isn't going to stay active, and ArbCom is such a hassle. But if you want him desysopped, you're going to have to go to ArbCom. That is - literally - the only way to desysop someone against their will. Jimbo won't do it anymore, and Crats (even if they wanted to) are forbidden from involuntarily desysopping someone without direction from ArbCom. Whether ArbCom will desysop... or instead chastise/admonish/warn him... is an interesting question. I know what I'd do, not sure what they'll do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection, I think the best thing to do is to wait and see what happens in the next day or two. This will quite possibly resolve itself on its own. I note that he has not done this anymore, ever since this thread was started. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this "resolves itself on its own" in the sense that "he does not do this anymore"... can I get the history of MY talk page and user page deleted? Why or why not? Volunteer Marek 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "resolves itself" in the sense of "he requests a desysop and retires". It's unacceptable to me that he does this and stays active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Since it appears that the bureaucrats are failing to take any action..." I've yet to see anyone in all of this illustrate what they would like the bureaucrats to do that we are actually allowed to do according to policy. I keep looking at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions and I see nothing relevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want someone desysopped, you have to go to ArbCom. Not commenting on whether a desysop is appropriate here. --Rschen7754 21:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must've read the policy wrong (trouting self now). Stewards can emergency desysop, as would be appropriate imo now. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have the power to, but they very rarely interfere with large wikis like enwiki and dewiki for such a relatively trivial matter like this. But if you don't believe me, m:SRP is thataway. --Rschen7754 05:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the current version of that policy in 2009 and I'm a bureaucrat-steward, so I might have an overly detailed perspective on the topic, but no, this isn't an emergency, under the GRU, CRAT, or ADMIN policies. An emergency is where someone is doing something that is very harmful or can't be undone easily and the person has shown an unwillingness to stop or is perceived to be likely to engage in very harmful or permanent actions if not stopped. If I perceive correctly, the subject's last actions were over 24 hours ago. They consisted of deleting user talk pages with less than 5,000 revisions. The subject's deletions were (and are) reversible, they do not impact the ability of other users to edit nor directly harm other users, and the subject has not "wheel warred" or otherwise indicated he is likely to perform very harmful or permanent actions. Additionally, while it appears his deletions are against policy, no one has even attempted to obtain a consensus to overturn them at WP:DRV. Therefore, they are not an emergency and are best dealt with by Arbcom (if Arbcom so chooses to take a case). It's further worth noting that under Arbcom's own emergency procedures Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions, this situation would be unlikely to be an emergency because the subject is not actively using (and has not for 24 hours) his advanced permissions in a harmful or destructive manner. MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the case then, that any admin can undo DofP's actions? DofP's deletions are a first action, the undo would be a second action, and a (theoretical) third action would be the forbidden wheel-warring, if I understand correctly. If that's true, then -- without concern for DofP's status -- why doesn't an uninvolved admin simply restore these pages (utilizing the help offered above) putting things back to the staus quo ante, then delete all the pages one by one from their original names (without the obfuscating move DofO utilized), except the user talk page, which can be courtesy blanked. Then, a block for DofP would seem to be in order for blatantly misusing his bit. He then would have the choice of unblocking himself, and being desysoped for it, or turning in his bit, which he really doesn't need anyway because he's going bye-bye.

The whole megillah does bring up a more general question, which is what to do when admins go off the deep end -- not that it happens that often; still, it would be nice to have policy which says that when the signs are that an admin is clearing the decks leave, he or she no longer needs the admin bit, because they no longer have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. The bit, after all, doesn't belong to them, it's been given so that they perform specific tasks in aid of the project. Once they turn away from that, the bit should be removed. It's silly to wait to "see what develops" when every indication -- including messages from DofP on his talk page -- are clear that this admin wants no part of the project anymore. That's fine, that's his perogative and his choice, but if so, there's no reason he needs the bit anymore. We should not leave it to the (obviously) departing admin to decide when to give it up, because his or her personal concerns are no longer congruent with those of the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to start a DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 24. --Rschen7754 09:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the DRV. Seriously? Seven days of process wanking. over this? Just undo it already. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Beyond My Ken, if the Deacon's actions could be reverted, and as there is a pretty unanimous consensus that these self-deletions are wrong, simply restore these pages and undo his actions. Cavarrone (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Floq is right here, the best thing to do is see how this flushes out, and clean up afterwards. There is no need to overreact. His actions are obviously out of policy but they aren't affecting any other user directly and can be easily undone. As Rschen points out, only Arb can strip the bit outside of an emergency. All this talk of emergency bit-stripping is very premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kharon2 continues to revert my fixes to the references in this talk page; Social_market_economy and I feel an outside source may be able to convince him of the code markup error. He feels my edits are an attack on him i fear. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 20:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are "fixes" only you need to use this stupid {{Reflist}} Template. What do you think happens when a section with correctly formated references and no <references /> or your Reflist get archived by a bot? Did you read my comment "<references /> is buildin syntax for reason"? --Kharon2 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why in (insert deity)'s name are you using either on a talkpage at all ... or at least in that ridiculous quantity!?!??!?!?!? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know or care about what they do or say. The extra

<references/>

code tag is breaking the references continuity and impeding proper usage, is it not?Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 22:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no "proper usage" on a talk page. Having multiple <references/> surely just allows you to have each set of references in the appropriate places for the talk page comments rather than all at the end, doesn't it? And I think the point of avoiding a separate "References" section is so that a bot doesn't archive it while other sections that refer to it are still active. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the really cool {{reflist-talk}} template to referenize each section with references. NE Ent 23:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSURE! I am so happy I came here. Turns out we were both wrong in a sense and have been shown the right way. Bravo NE Ent.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 23:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ents: they're not just for carrying Hobbits or tearing down Isengard anymore :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get how this is blown up to a problem at all nor why someone is building Templates for this and some other even use them. Using <references /> works perfectly unless you have no idea how references work at all in wikipedia in which case you should start learning. Whats next? {{Reflist}} Templates in Articles? --Kharon2 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, {{Reflist}} is the only template I use for references in articles. Considering that it's the same thing as <references />, but better, I don't understand why anybody would prefer the outdated HTML-ish syntax instead of the streamlined template. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too ... {{Reflist}} allows parameters, and is the only good way to create ref lists inside articles. All the hip kids are doing it these days. IMHO, <references /> was pretty much deprecated by it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've barely ever seen <references /> in articles, I can only recall one instance. I'd always thought that Reflist was the one that HAD to be in articles... Lukeno94 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was about its use in talkpages (that get archived part by part) not in articles. because you can use <references /> multiple times, each one only grabbing "its refs" inbetween, the archivebot cannot mess up. Additionaly if you work in groups, discussing and proposing multiple textversions with partly same, partly different references, i dont want to sort out who used what where how from one big list all below nor do i want to check out what parameters i may or must or may not use. --Kharon2 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(get's popcorn)Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

somebody else try telling 70.44.58.168 (talk · contribs) to sign posts; consistently refuses to do so. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're talking about. Wikipedia doesn't say I have to sign my posts to edit an article. I also don't know why you think you can tell me to do something. If you're going to ask me to do something because of a rule, then provide a link to the rule. Don't act like your the boss of someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGN: "Persistent failure to sign may become disruptive, and if it is persistent, despite the problems being pointed out to the user, doing so may be subject to sanctions." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TPG#signature NE Ent 01:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to sign talk page posts will eventually be seen as disruptive and in bad faith. There's no good reason not to. —Rutebega (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Per Seb and Rutebega, we suggest that you use four tildes to sign and date your posts, before it is seen as disruptive and blocks are handed out. P.S. Technically, admins are our bosses. If they have something to say, it almost always has a good reason. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say admins are our bosses at all. They have earned the community's trust, and are to be respected (and listened to, as you said), but nobody serves anybody else on wikipedia; we're all here for the project's sake. And for selfish reasons. Oh, and if you were referring to Seb, he's an admin on the Navajo wikipedia, and doesn't have the tools here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were not a rule, it's a good idea to follow widely-established conventions unless you have a good reason not to. Signatures help us to follow conversations. (Ideally we'd have a better forum system that would eliminate the need for signing, but we don't.) Dcoetzee 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{We do, it's just not "ready" yet. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

We're apparently dealing with someone who doesn't give a shit unless there's a rule. That rule has now been given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've laid down...THE LAHW!. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, anonymous editor: respect our authoritah!--Shirt58 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With a new editor who doesn't understand how to sign, we ask nicely, and help if there's a problem. But if a user understands what signing is, and how to do it, but refuses to do it to prove that no one is the boss of her, that is bad manners, and counter to the spirit of cooperation which is the foundation of Wikipedia. I think it's reasonable to ask this person to sign her posts from now on, with a clear understanding that if she will not, she will be temporarily blocked from editing until she masters this simple but important Wikipedia coding skill. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c, but I agree with Fisher Queen.) I sometimes wish "attitude problem" was an official block reason, specifically in the sense of refusing to comply with polite common-sense requests unless a "rule" is supplied about it. It's more frustrating than a few cusswords, and is tremendously unpromising. @Shirt: What? Bishonen | talk 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm concerned with JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs)'s recent edits regarding John Kerry. Might it be time to invoke WP:BLPSE and counsel him to be much more careful with his edits regarding biographical information? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can you please provide some specific diffs of "edits regarding John Kerry" beyond this series which resulted in the re-instatement of my edit (subsequently reverted by a third editor and now the subject of an ongoing dispute resolution RfC) and the issuance of a block for edit-warring and disruptive editing in the original series of edits? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest a topic ban from all articles related to John Kerry may be the best way to prevent further occurrences of this particular timesink. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given this user's forum shopping, frequent hostility, and intense negative focus on the subject of the article (I find few of his edits from the last three months to be about anything but Kerry), this is the most logical solution. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, JakeInJoisey has created a lot of anti-Kerry articles, and kept a copy of one of the attack articles in his userspace for about a year, which is currently up for MfD. His attitude to editors who wish for this userspace article to be removed also has left a lot to be desired. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created zero "anti-Kerry articles"...and specifically had zero involvement in the creation of the current MfD article, originally forked from John Kerry to John Kerry VVAW Controversy and now, apparently, about to be expunged from this project space. WP:NPOV notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned. Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules (as does you constant citing of them, despite the fact they actually disprove your points) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned.

First, I didn't "create" this article. I've attempted to improve upon the original article based upon the objections noted in the prior AfD, the first of which were that it was a "non-controversy" and "unsourced and speculative".

Second, whether or not you personally perceive it to be "anti-Kerry" is irrelevant to a consideration as to whether or not it currently satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Wikipedia policy criteria as I've amended it. This WP project is replete with Insert Name Here Controversy content...all in apparent compliance with WP:POLICY criteria.

Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules...

Specifically, which "rules" are you alleging that I don't understand? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• support ban on all Kerry-related articles, including swiftboating. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban for any edit or comment associated with John Kerry or associated topics such as Swiftboating. JakeInJoisey is an experienced editor who knows to not blatantly cross the line. However, inspecting an MfD shows that a topic ban is warranted: see the two comments above mine in this permalink (they have been redacted from the ongoing Mfd; diff, diff, diff). In Jake's last 1000 edits, 459 mention "swiftboating" or "swift vets" or "john kerry", and there are perhaps another 50 on the same topic on talk pages without those terms in the title. In Jake's first 50 edits in 2005, 43 are on the same topic. Good editors have wasted enough time resisting such dedication. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is still going on?? It's been years -- enough already. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoder (talk · contribs) is currently serving time in a Iranian prison, according to his Wikipedia article and Jimbo's blog. However, that didn't stop his account from editing as it started to make edits to Argo (2012 film). How does a prisoner in one of the most oppressed countries in the world able to get online? I doubt it's the real Hoder. Techman224^Talk 06:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit shady. Doc talk 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's something strange going on here but I don't know if I'd call it definitely looking shady. The edits seem fairly innocuous but suggest someone with possible Iranian connections or at last an interest in Iran. Our article on the person notes there was some Facebook activity in 2011 where it's suggested he was released for a short time. Presuming the Facebook identity is correct, looking at his profile Facebook suggests to me there was some update 2 weeks ago possibly of the photos although not being his friend I can't see anything useful (it could just be confusing info from Facebook). It's possible he gave his passwords to a member of his family who's now using the account here. This would be a violation of policy but I wouldn't call it shady. Alternatively he could be on a short release (or even a longer one) but has to be careful what he does but he felt these edits would be okay.

I'm not say it's definitely not shady. I agree there is a (slight IMO) possibility of a compromised account here. It seems a bit strange given how innocuous the edits are but perhaps someone is hoping the attention from them will be enough. Given how long he's been out of touch, it's likely any attempts to compromise his accounts (here and elsewhere) would have gone unnoticed including the possibility someone fooled someone else who wasn't aware of the background. The other shady business would be if he was forced to edit or give up his accounts to third parties unwillingly. But as said, the edits seem innocuous enough, neither pro or anti Iran or it's government so it doesn't seem that likely, unless it's part of a longer planned attempt.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure, but I will check up on it as best I can. However, I do know that in the past he's been given weekend leave to see his family and has therefore (though rarely) sometimes been online. I can easily imagine him watching that film and making some edits. Anyway, the only thing I can confirm at the moment is that "short leave from prison" is a likely explanation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to appear to be a huge WP:DICK, but isn't the cross-space redirect from User:Hoder to Hossein Derakhshan prohibited by policy? I don't like editing the user pages of others, but maybe a soft redirect should be there, to clarify that the userpage redirects to a mainspace article, not a user page. I'd be confused if I had clicked on his name, and then went to the talk page associated with it, which is the talkpage for the mainspace article, not the user talk page. Horologium (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's nothing policy-wise to stop a redirect out of one namespace and into the article namespace; it's just the reverse that is prohibited. (though, for what it's worth, I agree that it should probably be a soft redirect, rather than a regular one) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users routinely create pages in userspace and move them to mainspace, leaving the redirect behind, and there's nothing wrong with that. Since it's functionally the same thing here, I don't see a reason to object. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is that it isn't a user subpage that redirects, but his main user page; an argument could be made (by someone that cares more than I do) that it makes communication with the editor a bit more difficult. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is anyone watching WP:AN/EW? I filed a report yesterday, but there has been no response so far: [82] There appears to be no response to other reports as well. I would appreciate if someone had a look. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangesad is involved in a rather disruptive edit-warring campaign against the expressed consensus at Resurrection of Jesus. The factual matter is simple. Strangesad insists on inserting a paragraph into the lead saying that resurrection is impossible. Other users have pointed out that while they agree, this is not relevant for the article. The article is where people come to read about the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection, not the article where people come to learn about Death.
Whether to include the paragraph or not is of course a content-dispute and not the subject of this report. There is a broad consensus on the talk page not to include it [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]. No other user has supported Strangesad's proposed paragraph, but despite this, Strangesad insists on ignoring the consensus and imposing, with small, variations "his" paragraph all the same, [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94].
While he is careful not to violate WP:3RR, inserting the same version six times in six days and against a consensus not to include it is clearly edit-warring. I have pointed this out to him [95] but obviously he doesn't care. Some other actions of his also seem odd, such as this reply when the consensus was against him [96], or his idea to strike out user comments on ANI that he disagreed with [97] even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate [98].Jeppiz (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on the edit-warring noticeboard. However, it is false that every other use opposes the information that the resurrection of Jesus is impossible in an article on the resurrection of Jesus.

• Jeppiz's comment that this is where readers come to read "the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection" is specious. The Christian view is that the resurrection was possible--as Jeppiz's comment implies. Thus, whether it is possible is relevant.
• The title of the article is not "The Christian View of...." It is, flatly, Resurrection of Jesus. The possibility of X is obviously relevant in an article devoted to X. Unicorn makes it clear that the subject is fictional in the first sentence.
• The article has a section on the historicity of the resurrection. It quotes a source saying the majority of scholars consider the resurrection a biography not a myth. I am not the one trying to introduce the truth/fiction theme; I'm trying to keep Wikipedia secular by adding balance.
• It is sort of ironic that I previously commented atheists don't win popularity contests, and now I find myself repeating the situation. Jeppiz has taken it upon himself to follow me around by getting his editing ideas from my contribs [[99]]. He had no prior interest in Resurrection of Jesus before I edited it, and the recent ANI on a related subject.
• It seems obvious that Wikipedia's policy of secularism collides with its policy on consensus, in the case of Christianity (probably in the case of any dominant religion on any of the Wikipedias). How is Wikipedia going to resolve that problem? Most of the editors opposing this edit are plainly Xians, as seen on the Talk pages or edit history.
• Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article. Jeppiz just seems to be a drama-seeker, finding controversies on ANI, and then showing up at the related article to take sides and "get people in trouble." That kind of thing is disruptive.

I suppose this will go down as either a content-dispute, or I will be blocked. Wikipedia's secular principles are not a content dispute. The use of an easily-mustered Christian consensus to override the project's secular principles needs to be dealt with administratively. Strangesad (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that there is no "secular" policy or principle as such on wikipedia, but a policy of neutrality, see WP:RNPOV.Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't belong on the edit-warring noticeboard, because there is some inappropriate behaviour in there. Strangesad, myself and others noted, during that ANI, that striking other's comments for the reasons you gave was horrendously inappropriate. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see Strangesad is trying what he always does, passing it off as a content-dispute. That is not the reason he is reported. He is reported for massive edit-warring [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106] despite a strong consensus against that version [107], [108], [109], [110], [111].

Quite frankly, Strangesad's response only confirms my worries. Rather than addressing the topic, his edit warring, comments such as "Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article." shows that Strangesad is determined to insert the WP:TRUTH against a consensus to the contrary. Calling me a "dramaseaker" is also in line with his earlier comments [112]. As for me following him around, anyone is free to check my edit history and his. We've come across each other at two articles. On one we agree, on one we disagree. So much for the accusation, which of course also suits Strangesad's tactic of discussing anything except the topic of the report: his persistent edit-warring.Jeppiz (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't strike out anyone's comment (except my own). In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid that. When does deliberate distortion become a conduct issue? I struck the "votes," calling attention to the fact that they were from editors excluded by policy from the consensus process on that matter. I left the comments untouched.

Jeppiz also misleads by saying: "...even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate." It implies I struck the votes after being warned, which is wrong.

I also wasn't made of any particular authority in the person who gave me the "warning" Why should I consier a warning from a non-admin anything but an opinion? (Also, please stop referring to me as "he." Not everybody in the world is male, you know.) Strangesad (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, the story of the "edit-war" is that History2007 initially didn't oppose the statement that it's impossible to come back from the dead, he just disagreed on the right way to source it. The first 3 or so edits Jeppiz mentions above involve only History2007 and myself, and the consensus was different than it is now. I didn't realize History2007 had changed his mind when I made one of the reverts. Jeppiz mentions none of this. Maybe because he wasn't aware of it, because he came to the article only after the recent ANI.....

• Comment As is clear to see, Strangesad is intent on changing the topic, mostly to talk about me. As I've made just one edit to the article, I'm a bit surprised by this. Even more surprised by his/her retaliatory suggestion below that I be topic-banned. The fact of the matter is that:
• There was never a consensus for Strangesad's version.
• Strangesad has edit-warred by inserting the same version six times in six days.
• The latest two of those reverts were both made after being aware of a strong consensus (5-1) against that version.
• Strangesad thinks I should be topic-banned after having made one edit in line with the consensus, but thinks s/he is right to revert over and over again against the consensus. How's that for irony?Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Topic (or Interaction?) Ban for Jeppiz

This editor just launched 2 ANI threads regarding Jesus articles, both concerning matters that just wound down after an exhaustive previous ANI thread in which he also launched an unfounded sock accusation. He seems to have only come to the Jesus articles as a result of seeing them on ANI threads. His characterizations of conduct are consistently distorted. There is sometimes some truth at the kernel--neither Humanpublic nor I have been perfect in every regard, but Jeppiz assumes bad faith averywhere and misrepresents the truth. I am tired of this drama, I suspect the community is too. He seems to have no interest in the articles themselves, never having added a single new source. (I'm willing to topic-ban myself as well, but its the folks who only get to articles from ANI threads, and only stir up muck, that really drive me crazy.)Strangesad (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - Strangesad is one of the least suitable people to propose this, also it is making a load of incorrect statements - "assumes bad faith everywhere"? That's completely false. You striking out people's comments in a terribly inappropriate manner, plus other misdemeanours, means it should be you who faces sanctions. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not strike anyone's comments, and when that accusation has been repeated 3 times, after corrections, I consider it dishonest. Strangesad (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a statement of fact. You did strike the comments, citing the reason being "involved editors are not allowed to vote". Which is an incorrect assertion to make about something that wasn't a vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you literate? I did not strike the comments. Strangesad (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantastic, because comments like that really will help your case... </sarcasm>. Also, neither will downright lying.[113] Lukeno94 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whether I should be topic-banned or not is for others to decide; I've contributed as best I can and if Strangesad have diffs to show why I should be topic-banned is for him to post them. Earlier today I reported him for edit-warring. In all his posts since then, he has consistently been coming after me, never bothering to explain his edit-warring, but instead focusing on me. It is absolutely true that I don't consider Strangesad and Humanpublic constructive users. It's not because I disagree with them (I disagree with a lot of other users, that's life and usually there's no problem) but because Strangesad consistently edit-wars and Humanpublic hurl insults like "turd", "drama-hound" and "zealot" on other users. That is the reason I have reported them, and I guess this proposed topic ban for me is Strangesad's retaliation. As for striking, I provided the diff so everyone could check for themselves.[114]Jeppiz (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff shows comment intact. Humanpublic (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Non starter This sub-thread will go nowhere. There is no way on earth that it will lead to a ban on Jeppiz. Please just end it now. I an not going to say more on this. It is a non-starter. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nonsensical proposal. Jeppiz is obviously a good-faith editor who's here to improve wikipedia. (Is there something missing in your post, Jeppiz? Your drift is unmistakable, but you don't "consider Strangesad and Humanpublic"… what?) Bishonen | talk 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Bogus WP: POINT proposal Merely a retaliatory act by Strangesad. Jeppiz is an obvious WP: AGF editor with no reason to impose a topic ban. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for obvious reasons. (POINT, BATTLEGROUND, etc.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanpublic has a long history of uncivil behavior. Only in the last five days, several editors have urged him to stop this behavior [115], [116], [117], [118]. Clearly this does not concern him. When he received his final warning, his reply was [119]. Afterwards, he has only stepped up his uncivil behavior as in [120] and this latest attack on me [121]. Well, he urges me to take it to ANI so I oblige him. His statement I refuse DRN is erroneous, by the way, as I took full part in it. Humanpublic will probably reply to this that I once called him dishonest and that that was also a WP:PA. It is true that I called one edit of his dishonest, and I believed it justified as he appeared to me to contradict his source. Since then, he has called other users dishonest around ten times at least. Humanpublic has been reported several times for disruptive editing, so I'd like to clarify that this report is only about his continued personal attacks and uncivil behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've called me "dishonest" four times, and falsely accused me of vandalism once, and falsely accused me of sockpuppeting once, and probably some other stuff I haven't stored in short-term memory, but who's counting:

• "What is more, his edit was intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as he took a source that states categorically that Jesus existed and used it to claim that there is no evidence for Jesus's existence. Given that Humanpublic has been informed about Wikipedia's policies time and time again, his edit appears to be clearly disruptive. Controversial changes are to be discussed on the talk page, and using sources to claim the opposite of the main message of the source is just dishonest. [122]
• "Yes, I've rarely seen such a dishonest edit in so many ways. The proper way to edit is to discuss controversial changes first, then edit. ... And talking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing." [123]
• False vandalism charge [124]

The thread containing the sockpuppet accusation seems to have been moved or deleted..... Humanpublic (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those refer to same edit of yours. And yes, as I said then "taking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing". I stand by that, I don't consider it a personal attack. If you do, please file a report about it. If you consider it so serious, it's hard to understand why you hurl that charge at others several times a day. Nor do I consider it a PA to inform you about the policies when you deleted a sourced part of an article. And I have certainly never called you nor anyone else a "turd" [125], a "drama-hound" [126] or anything similar.Jeppiz (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if you really believe someone is being dishonest, it's not a personal attack to say so. Thanks for making my point. (And I'm not the only one calling you a drama hound, I see.) Humanpublic (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would tend to agree with you. At least partly. Calling another editor dishonest is something I'd recommend avoiding. Calling a particular edit dishonest, if there is reason, is something I personally would judge on a case by case basis. None of that has any relevance to the present discussion, of course. Unless you want to give the basis for calling other users "turd" [127], or "drama-hound" [128] or anything similar. I also seem to recall you calling History2007 a "zealot" as well. All of those are uncivil edits of yours for which I find no reason whatsoever.Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Humanpublic has been clearly informed that Wikipedia requires civility of its participants, and that he has gotten a final warning which states that he will be blocked if he continues to make personal attacks. The diffs provided by User:Jeppiz contain personal attacks that are made after that final warning. Is there a reason that we wouldn't block this user, at least temporarily? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to as my final warning, but to my knowledge I've received a "warning" only from people breaking the same rules they're warning about. I could be slapping these warnings on their Talk pages, if that is considered relevant to evaluating their behavior. This entire matter was just reviewed in an extremely long discussion here less than a few days ago, and I received no warning from any uninvolved admin. What personal attacks have I made after the "final warning" anyway? Humanpublic (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about your question. "Turd" and "drama-hound" are both personal insults. Do you disagree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the idea of Humanpublic being blocked, in fact he should've been after his performance in the previous ANI involving him. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Turd" has already been examined, discussed, and dismissed for a week in this forum. Seems like something about double jeopardy applies. The editor, Seb, had already harassed me, deleted my comments from a Talk page, falsely called me a vandal, been warned here (now deleted or archived), called me self-important, told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then kept posting to my Talk page. In that context, "turd" doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you want to block me I guess you can. "Drama-hound" seems the same level as "disruptive" and "dishonest" to me. I'm not going to repeat everything that has already been said in a thread here that lasted a week and was just closed. Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't see the thread here before, so clearly there is context I am missing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanpublic, where was your "turd" insult "examined, discussed and dismissed" a week ago? And how could it be, as it was made this Monday? The "drama-hound" and "find some new carcasses to pick at" are both from today. I'm also mildly surprised that you argue a thread where many users thought you should be topic-banned as something in your defense for breaking WP:CIVIL.Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :::::I just went back and found a thread about you, but it seemed to be about whether your editing primarily in the subject area of Jesus was problematic. I don't see anyone mentioning personal attacks, and civility is barely touched upon; it's a discussion of your editing of articles. Is there a different thread that I'm missing? Is your future interpersonal style likely to be different, or about the same? I don't see anywhere in the thread I found where you really address the question, and your statement that 'turd' and 'drama-hound' don't seem to be very significant problems concerns me. It's easy to lose one's temper in a heated discussion, but a person who doesn't know which words are rude is a person who won't be able to stop using rude words. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thread was closed with this comment: "Closing as this has descended into bickering, going around in circles, and no action will be taken at this point. GiantSnowman 14:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)" The "turd" comment was brought up several times. The same editor beginning this thread, Jeppiz, proposed a topic ban for HP, which did not achieve consensus. Jeppiz is now forum-shopping, basically, um...drama-seeking. I've seen admins describe editors with some variant of "drama-queen". Odd that you are focussing your strict definition of "rude" only on HP. Strangesad (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanpublic is exhibiting problematic behaviour in various ways. Earlier today he advised a user to "start being honest", accused him of "being obstructionist and distorting sources" [129]. He then removed a sourced statement from an article, referring to "bogus" sourcing [130]. Humanpublic started a discussion on DRN full of accusations on 18 February which has been archived as no one volunteered to mediate [131] but he today chastised other users for not participating in this process which is no longer taking place.[132] Some intervention seems necessary to me to prevent a continuation or escalation of this pattern of behaviour.Smeat75 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. Idle browsing....The user HP called a "turd" was Seb az86556. Here's a recent comment from him on an unrelated topic.... "this isn't about you, this isn't about being a drama-queen and attention-whore. Go be famous elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" [133] Gives you a sense of how that editor treats people. I can't say I've waded through all the archives, but the goading is clear to me. Strangesad (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum... Admin calls editor "silly drama queen": "Stop being a silly drama queen. Nothing was moved, so the question of out-of-process does not arise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)" [134]. A violation of civility rules????? Strangesad (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out above in the thread concerning Strangesad (who is reported for persistent edit-warring), Strangesad's tactics in all discussions of this kind is to change the topic. To reply briefly

• I'm certainly not "forum-shopping". Forum-shopping is taking the same even to different forums. I've taken different events to the same forum.
• Strangesad is right, I should perhaps not focus WP:CIVIL only on HumanPublic but on Strangesad as well. Strangesad suggests a topic-ban on me (after ONE edit) to make a point, Strangesad calls me a drama-queen, etc. But why does Strangesad think that the fact the s/he also breaks WP:CIVIL has any relevance for this discussion?
• Same thing for the last point. Yes, it appears HumanPublic was in a heated exchange, but that is not an excuse. Another user breaking WP:CIVIL does not give Humanpublic the right to break WP:CIVIL. And it certainly does not get HumanPublic the right to be uncivil with others, such as he's been with both History2007 and me.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (edit conflict) I think the community is beginning to get tired of Humanpublic and Strangesad's WP: GAMING. The blatantly unwarranted and WP: POINTy proposal for the topic ban of Jeppiz above (similar to another false proposal by Humanpublic) clearly shows the WP:LAWYERING done by H&S. IMHO, this is really getting old, and, has to stop. H&S really need to ease up on the incivility throttle before things get really bad, for both sides. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Licensed to insult? I only respond (really should not waste my life doing this) because the get tired of this comment by Herr Kommisar resonated. But I will make no further comment on this thread after this. As I said on his talk page, this is a user who has done around 40 article edits to date and been on ANI three times already. Does that sound like productive encyclopedic development in any way? If Humanpublic is allowed to walk away from this scot-free, it will create "agent Humapublic: licensed to insult". If Humanpublic goes quiet for 3 days and this thread closes with no action, that can then be used as a rationale for continuing insults against other editors. Every time one is to make an edit to Wikipedia, there will be the prospect of another insult from this editor and that will just drive away other editors who are under the impression that civility is a pillar. If the traffic laws are not to be enforced, why have them at all? History2007 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous two ANI threads have clearly determined that Humanpublic is exempt from WP:NPA. I suggest no more discussion be held on this subject. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody (except for Jimbo) is exempt from WP: NPA. Some admins may tolerate it (if it is a minor outburst), but Humanpublic intentionally using PAs to cause grief to other editors, and disrupt Wikipedia as History stated above, is not acceptable. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any diffs for my "long history of PA" that are more than 6 days old? Humanpublic (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Filing an RFCU might be a good idea here. It's generally preferable over repeatedly opening ANI threads about someone. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Cool-down. What I see is a series of (too) heavy discussions on Talk:Jesus, in which noone, on one side and on the other side, could claim his full "innocence". Maybe it's time to protect that page for a while, as the previous ANI discussions had the only effect of making the relations between some involved users still more tense than they previously were. And noone appears to attempt to deescalate the situation and calm down. Cavarrone (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly vindicate what History2007 and Seb say, that HumanPublic is exempt from WP:NPA. This is the third time he is discussed at ANI, each time there are people suggesting a "cool-down". Clearly it isn't working.Jeppiz (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you agree with me that noone here is fully innocent? And that noone is exempt from having used harsh/uncivil language and/or having done inappropriate actions? C'mon, the best suggestion here was the one by NE Ent, "ignoring" and avoiding escalations, but it seems you guys just want blood. Previous ANI clearly didn't solved the problems but just have created more tensions, protect the page for a while (and possibly stop the related discussions in your respective talk pages) could be a solution. Cavarrone (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking, when and where have I (or History2007 for that matter) said something even remotely like "turd", "drama-hound", "go pick at carcasses"? To the best of my knowledge, never. That being the case, I do object to putting us all in the same both, I don't think it's a fair characterization; there's a vast difference between arguing passionately for a case and deliberately insulting other users. Neither History2007 nor I have ever hurled out insults with the sole purpose of insulting.Jeppiz (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you agree with me that noone here is fully innocent? And that noone is exempt from having used harsh/uncivil language and/or having done inappropriate actions? No, I don't agree with that at all.Smeat75 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irvi Hayka has been continually copy and pasting copyrighted content (translated from a foreign language) into the project. I've warned the user numerous times about copyvios ([135], [136], [137]) however he just keeps adding them.

The latest example from today (courtesy of google translate) is:

"Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, D. M. Jayaratne, invited the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, on a visit to Sri Lanka, and promised that special attention will review the request for recognition of Kosovo."

vs

"Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Mr.. Jayaratne invited to Prime Minister on a visit to Sri Lanka, and promised that special attention will review the request for recognition of Kosovo."

I can provide many more examples if requested. Perhaps some admin can step in? We might need to do a WP:CCI to clean this up as well. TDL (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CP is the best place for it. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, CP is just a forum for addressing copyright problems. I've already fixed this specific case. I brought the issue to AN/I because of the larger issue of Irvi refusing to stop adding copyrighted material to the project which I believe requires administrator involvement. TDL (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indeffed Irvi Hyka. Considering the previous blocks for sockpuppetry and edit warring, plus the not so recent inability to listen to copyright warnings I think this is finally a case of WP:NOTHERE. The last block was 59 days for socking, so I didn't see any merit in issuing an even longer temporary block, and opted for the indefinite version. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCI opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130224. MER-C 11:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is getting nasty again. I was asked on 18 February to take a look by User:Goethean, who had been accused of poor behavior (specifically, WP:TE) and wanted a second opinion from an uninvolved admin (see here). I looked, couldn't find anything objectionable in his edits, so I asked the accusing editor to provide a diff here, but as you can see by following the link, I got reams of vague accusations but not a single diff. I hatted the accusatory accusations on the article talk page [139] (my first ever edit there) and advised the accusing editor, North8000, to either provide diffs, or cease the accusations (basically put up or shut up.) Then I added the TPM article to my watchlist. Sure enough, not a week later and North8000 is making uncivil comments and personal attacks on the talk page.[140] I posted on his talk pageasking him to be more civil and I added a reminder on the article talk page that the article is under probation and... well, take a look at Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Reminder and offer thoughts. So far (in only a couple of hours) North8000 has told me I'm involved, Arzel has insulted Goethean again and misrepresented him, and Malke 2010 has told me I'm Goethean's meatpuppet in order to enable Goethean to bully people - the exact phrasing was "you're here at the behest of goethean who apparently wants to bully editors he doesn't agree with. You, like goethean are failing to assume good faith"[141] Now, I'm thinking a week or two topic banning North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010 is called for, per WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA on an article on probation. Looking for community views on this, as I'm new to this probation area. Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua 02:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Arzel does have a history of questioning the good faith of other editors and insults, such as here Casprings (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and here. — goethean 14:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good look at the article talk page and my talk page says an immense amount. I form opinions very slowly and carefully and based on 2 years of observation at the article I commented that 2 editors have kept that article in a bad state by TE. I made it (only) as an attempt to reduce such at the article by spotlighting it out rather than seeking sanctions against the individuals. (I could put together rock solid cases on these with hundreds of diffs, but I have reported only one individual in my entire wiki-life.) After immense observation it is also pretty clear that Goethean is particularly abrasive & rude there. Goethen then bypassed the admin who has been watching the article, and message boards and instead solicited two selected / particular admins (SlimVirgin and KillerChihuahua) to get involved. (I'm assuming that they were selected for a particular reason, neither has background at the article). Ostensibly this was to evaluate the TE comment. One (KillerChihuahua) jumped in. Despite a solid TE evaluation requiring looking at an immense history, they quickly said that the TE comment was baseless and instead came after me. (see my talk page) They said to either provide diffs or shut up. I indicated that TE would require an immense amount of diffs and that I'd be willing to start building such a case but was willing to leave it as what already transpired.

Then Goethean did something that I felt was really nasty. Malke brought up the idea of starting a new sub-artcle on economic issues. Goethean responded by baselessly invented bad motives and accusing Malke of them. I complained and asked to Goethean provide a basis for the accusation. Specifically I said: "Goethean, you are being rude as usual. And missing wp:agf by two levels. Baselessly inventing bad faith. How do you get "You don't like what the Wikipedia process has come up with here, so you are going to create a new article on the same topic, but exclude all of the negative material." out of Malke's idea for a sub-article on the economic issues?" KillerChihuahua ignored what Goethean did and the basis for my comment and instead came after me. KillerChihuahua is clearly not objective in this case. They are overlooking far more severe things by the person that selectively solicited their involvement, and came after me for some I think very merited and useful comments. I would welcome a thorough review of the last few days of talk at Tea Party Movement and the last few days of talk at my talk page. I think whether technically or in spirit KillerChihuahua is involved twice over on this and has clearly not been objective. Both on the initial dynamics with the person who solicited their involvement, and where their people dynamics with me (and the folks that challenged their objectivity) seem to clearly be dominating over objectivity. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have misread my uName. It's "Chihuahua" not "Chinchilla". Hope this helps to avoid confusion, as we have no User:KillerChinchilla. KillerChihuahua 03:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll fix. BTW, I think that it will take a large RFC to wikfy the article, and so there is no urgent need there. I would be happy to follow advice given by uninvolved parties regarding my involvement there during the next few weeks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. KillerChihuahua 03:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: I have now registered that as a doppelganger account. KillerChihuahua 05:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: I prefer the name "KillerChinchilla" :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, who is the admin "who has been watching the page" and who you think that I bypassed? — goethean 14:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I have never edited the Tea Party article, but after giving this matter a cursory inspection, and having had some extremely unpleasant previous interactions with Malke2010, I feel the need to point out a few facts. This is an editor with a substantially troubled history, with 8 blocks in a one year period in 2009-2010. Mentoring was not particularly helpful, as I recall, and in the end it was the dramatic falling off of the frequency in the past few years of Malke's edits that defused the tension that the editor's combative, confrontational polemics often caused. An accusation of lack of assumption of good faith, as they have just done on the Tea Party talk page, is one of the hallmarks of this editor, and Malke's edits to political articles such as this one are sometimes of questionable utility in terms of NPOV. I submit that it is time to discuss a topic ban for Malke2010 on all political articles. (Note: Also posted this on the Tea Party article Talk page, however, North8000 User:Fat&Happy has seen fit to remove it, terming it a "personal attack," which I hereby protest.) Jusdafax 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misread the history, it was User:Fat&Happy who removed[142] your post and labeled it a personal attack, although North8000 did comment about it that "ad hominems / attacks have no place here" so he was also labeling it so. KillerChihuahua 04:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and I have corrected the statement above and hereby extend appropriate apologies to North8000. However, that mistake led me to North's talk page and the interaction between you two. I would say that your requests for diffs are more than fair. I also support you bringing the matter here, and your take on this case. Jusdafax 04:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the diffs and briefly looked through the Talk page, it seems fairly plausible that Goethean is being targeted by an affinity group of TPM advocate editors with an obstructionist agenda. There would seem to be ample evidence of them ignoring more than one editor and attempting to exclude numerous RS.--Ubikwit (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I listed North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010 above, and all have exhibited battleground behavior, and their response to warnings is to deflect and attack more. I really think a topic ban is in order. KillerChihuahua 04:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer, on all political articles or just this Tea Party one? The problem appears widespread. Jusdafax 05:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. I brought this here for the TPM article only, as that was all I had seen; let's see what others think about a political topic ban. It may be the best way forward; it would be a pity to article ban them and then have to do this entire discussion over again in a month or two. KillerChihuahua 05:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be overkill to topic ban without evidence of the problem actually being widespread. Gotta collect the evidence first I'm afraid.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You want "evidence," eh? The problem, then, to focus on the larger political issues, is to define them per Ubikwit as "an affinity group of TPM (or, in the larger case what can loosely be called Right Wing) advocate editors with an obstructionist agenda." Now, since few people have the time and energy to pour through thousands of edits to get the dozens needed, let's do it like a barn raising... concerned parties take it one bit at a time to respond to your request as we build a case for this.

My contribution: Malke2010 has indeed previously "create(d) a new article on the same topic, but exclude(d) all of the negative material" before this: at the sub article they created at Karl Rove, where they took the most controversial material from Rove's career, then scrubbed out reliably sourced material or added in slanted material like the Moyers material. Virtually every edit there (look at the edit record) is designed to put a positive "spin" on Rove's years in the Bush White House. Additionally, the new sub-article is another "click" away from the reading public, and the controversies sanitized with a summary. So Goethean's objections to Malke's similar proposal for the Tea Party article are in fact quite apt, and North8000 is in fact out of line defending this transparent attempt at obstructionism. Standing by for the next diff. Jusdafax 07:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for Malke 2010. She's been at this nonsense for how many years now? I can't support a topic ban for the rest of the editors because I'm not familiar with their role, but I'm very familiar with Malke 2010 and her past promises to stop contributing to conflict in this topic area. I may support a topic ban for other editors if there is additional evidence to review. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After reviewing additional evidence concerning North8000 and his inability to provide diffs for his claims when asked, I would support some kind of sanction. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I slowly and carefully came to my assessments about TE by those 2 editors (Xenophrenic and Goethean) at that article, and ongoing rudeness (mostly in the form of direct insults) primarily by Goethean. This was after at least two years of observations and looking at many hundred of posts. And a solid case for TE (by its definition) would involve an immense amount of posts. And it is not a violation of policy to note behavior without providing diffs.. As I said, I did in in the hopes that spotlighting those behaviors at the article would reduce them, not to fully build cases for sanctions of those editors. And I was and am content to leave it at that. If this assertion that "failure to provide diffs" is somehow wrong persists then I would need to start building those cases. It will be a big job due to the immense amount of material which resulted in and supports my conclusion but will be rock solid. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking at their contributions, I think a broadly-construed topic ban on political-related articles can be made for the following 5 users:

• Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• All 5 show a battlefield mentality that is all too typical on political articles. I would prefer an indefinite ban, minimum of 6 months, to force then to show they can contribute positively in another area of Wikipedia. I also support two weeks per KillerChihuahua's suggestion, but I guarantee after 2 weeks they'll be right back to the usual behavior. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have to reopen this case, as this IP has taken his block rather harshly. He's now posting my personal information on any site he can find. Suggested course of action? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on the severity of the problem and the methods used, legal authorities may be an option. As for here, a community ban would provide closure. Jusdafax 04:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mostly been taking what little personal information is available for non-friends on my facebook page and posting it on other wikis I'm a member of, sending spiteful e-mails to any family members whose e-mail he can find, and signing me up for inappropriate e-mail newsletters. Thankfully, he hasn't broken into any of my accounts, but his actions ARE irritating me. Not sure whether it's reached a point that justifies legal action yet, though. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's reached the point of seeking further advice, at the very least. The WMF legal counsel might be a good place to start. I am a firm believer in shutting this type of harassment down with all the tools in the box. Jusdafax 05:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll definitely take it under consideration. Just to be sure, what are the proper channels through which I would go about getting legal counsel from WMF? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My suggestion is to contact M.Paulson by email (or phone if the problem escalates) and take it from there. There can be few more serious matters than real word harassment, and I have a bit of experience with this sort of thing from my time in the San Francisco office, so contact me on my talk page if you hit a dead end, but I doubt you will, as I am sure WMF will advise on your options, which I believe include alerting proper investigative and punitive authorities. I should make it clear, however, that the WMF is extremely unlikely, unless I am mistaken, to actually represent you in court. My best, Jusdafax 06:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems to have stopped, so I'm not going to make any decisions just yet. If this escalates or becomes a recurring thing, however, I'll definitely use this. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBenW is supposed to be indefinitely banned from "making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same".[143] In the last week he has, brazenly violated this ban with dozens of edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles,[144][145][146][147][148][149][150] Talk:Yūji Oda,[151][152][153][154] and several other places, arguing for the removal of macrons from Japan-related articles. He has been bringing diacritics into unrelated discussions.[155] He has brought up incidents revolving around diacritics that took place months ago and had nothing to do with him.[156][157] He has also ignored warnings.[158] Too numerous examples to fully list them all here. I assumed good faith and had no idea he was under such a ban, but In ictu oculi has been following the problem as well. He has also been engaging in personal attacks against me and protesting the righteous blocks for User:JoshuSasori and his sockpuppets (the latter was indeffed for making real-world threats against me, disruptive edits regarding diacritics, hounding me and using dozens of sockpuppet accounts). elvenscout742 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours, as it's his first time being blocked for violating that ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't involved in the discussion but he also did this. We'll see if he shuts up once the block expires, but he hasn't been doing much for the last week other than violating the ban. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

187.153.58.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The above user has made 58 edits over the past two weeks, most of them either deleting information without explanation, or changing songs' genre without consensus. Both problems are exemplified in this edit. The user has ignored six warnings from four different editors, has never made any attempt at communication, and after the expiry of a 31-hour block rapidly resumed the behaviour they were blocked for. Given their history, it seems all but certain they'll continue with their disruptive edits. So can an administrator please block?

As a second issue, I reported this user to WP:AIV like this:

* 187.153.58.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Was recently blocked for frequent undiscussed changes to song genres, sometimes contrary to references. The block expired and the IP has resumed the same behaviour. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The report was declined with the comment "Stale. Last edits approximately 12 hours ago." This must be the third or fourth time I've made what I thought was a straightforward AIV report and had it declined for what seemed to me like a solely procedural reason, contrary to WP:NOTBUREAU. So I'm seeking some feedback on my use of AIV. Is it reasonable for me to report this kind of thing there, or should I be using ANI? Note I reveiw edits via my watchlist, rather than recent changes, so it's pretty common for me to find editors with a consistent history of disruption but who haven't edited for several hours. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC) User notified. Tweaked for tone and clarity. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP got blocked for 31 hours on 22 February but since they have resumed their course, I have now reblocked for one week. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a small summary of this incident with appropriate diffs:

Takes out request for citation without discussion and omits edit summary: [159]

Again takes out numerous citation requests without discussion and omits this from edits summary: [160]

False edit summary, claims to add lost source, but in reality takes out citation request in addition: [161]

Reverts all edits that are not his without discussion: [162]

takes out clarififcation request without disucssion and omits edit summary: [163]

takes out page request without any kind of explanation anywhere, no discussion, no edit summary. This request clearly explained in the discussion and in the tag it self in the article text in an attempt to prevent him from simply deleting it (that is further expalation for him, in case he does not understand. [164]

Edit summary claims to be adding a ref, but actually is deleting a non-primary source request in addition. This even when the reason is discussed on the talk page, and he does not give an counterpoints there: [165]

takes out Original research template without discussion or mention in edit summary: [166]

After discussion on the talk page, some other editor reverts his undiscussed deletation of the primary source tag, but he reverts it saying the sumary that there is no primary source problem, which clearly is not true as it cites one single study claiming itself to be the starter of the anthropologicala dicussion on gift economy, when this claim has been challanged, and even if it were true, would still be primary source (i.e Malinowski claiming to be first sourced with Malinowski himself). Editor claims to be PhD and is explained the differences in Wikipedia editing and academic writing, but ignores this.[167]

Conflict resolution was attempted by leaving a message on his talk page. User responded to this by deleting the discussion. [168]

What has made this conflict especially frustrating is the fact that the editor has agreed that his one of his entries is his own synthesis, after the majority views has seem it like this. This after a long disruptive edit scence, where he first deleted request numreous times, then provided as a source something that was not cited in the original paragraph, refused to give page, deleted request and when finally gace page, it was clear that the claim was not in the source mentioned. This part was deleted and he requested it back. But after others agreed that it could be brought back, in the case that a source is found that states so, he simply reverts the edit yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpylkkö (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tpylkkö, please sign your posts with four tildes as such: ~~~~. Also, if you put URLs in a pair of single square brackets like this [] you'll get a nicely-formatted unique ID to the underlying link. I've formatted the above to make it easier to read. Garamond Lethet
c 09:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:JudgementSummary created his account in the midst of a POV/OR expansion by 71.133.107.222 and 71.198.45.10. In all likelihood he's both of these IP's, as he proceeded to carry on their expansion in the same manner, with identical writing style. He's writing a POV/OR essay about Determinism and his personal philosophical views, under the guise of five "Objections/Considerations" sections. One can experience this monstrosity immediately by glancing at the article.

By far the most important diffs:

• Net IP contributions before JudgementSummary created his account: [169]
• Net change between JudgementSummary's account creation and just before I tried to intervened (~400 edits): [170].
  • most of this is either JudgementSummary or one of the two IP's, with occasional blundering appeasements by User:Tgeorgescu, like: [171]]

Multiple warnings:

• he creates a fifth "Objections due to Free Will" section [172].
• My 1st explanation/warning to him: [173]
  • he doesn't get it: [174]
• I throw out four WP:OFFTOPIC WP:COATRACKs: [175],[176], [177], [178]
  • he reverts, changes their names to "Considerations", requesting discussion: [179]
• 2nd explanation/warning: [180]
  • he accuses me of being a sockpuppet, doesn't get that his content is POV, OR and SYN:[181]
• 3rd explanation/warning, cautiously firmer: [182]
• 4th warning: [183]
• I request a WP:THIRD from Machine Elf 1735: [184]
• Machine Elf 1735 concurs, and warns him, suggesting WP isn't for him: [185]
  • JudgementSummary ignores Machine Elf, complains about reverts of his other POV content: [186]
• 5th. After extreme patience, I suggest he's being disruptive: [187]
  • He just learned a new word, and accuses me of being disruptive: [188]
• He breaks WP:3RR by reverting 5 of my attempts to purge various WP:NPOV phrases: [189], [190], [191], [192], [193]

Related:

• Proof he's 71.198.45.10: [194]
• The Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Clockwork_universe_theory is going nowhere fast.
• Because the result of a recent AfD was keep, JudgementSummary is convinced his essay is worth keeping.

Given the duration over which this WP:Tendentious essay-writing has taken place, given that he has ignored several attempts to dissuade him, and given that he still doesn't get the fundamental complaint about his WP:OR/WP:NPOV essay, I don't think Wikipedia is for him. (First time, have mercy if I'm utterly misinterpreting this), but request a 1 week ban on JudgementSummary's account and the two IP's mentioned above.

—wing gundam 13:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems to be a tedious edit-war between Wing gundam and JudgementSummary, the edit history of Clockwork universe theory is depressive reading. It's quite likely that JudgementSummary violates WP:OR. It is absolutely certain that both Wing gundam and JudgementSummary edit-war extensively, with no respect for WP:3RR.Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balderdash, I've tried hard to avoid edit-warring. After he reverted my initial removal, I left it, and went to the Talk. He reverted several other attempts of mine to cleanup different sections. Sorry if I pushed WP:3RR last night: The last revision is his; I stopped when I realized what was happening. I probably waited a day too long before coming here, but I was hoping the Talk would come to fruition. JudgementSummary has heeded neither the Talk nor WP:ORN discussion. Tell me I'm wrong on this, and I'm gone. —wing gundam 13:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamrup_region&diff=prev&oldid=540047202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs)

Both users warned (3RR). Go to talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide regarding next step. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same as all content disputes: follow dispute resolution, and if either of you editwar you'll get blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will go for it. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Seb az86556 for letting me know of this notice, since User:Bhaskarbhagawati did not inform me of this. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As adviced here we have to move to DRN, till then can you restore the cited lede because your version is not sourced. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the first step of DR is to talk it out on the article talkpage to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anuomkara have been continuously removing maintenance templates at Meethari Marwar without addressing or fixing the issue. User:Anuomkara is not even following MOS either when editing. I have repeatedly warned the user yet he/she is not even responding either. I have even guided User:Anuomkara to links to improve the article. The article is about a village in India and does not make any sense since language is very poor. So I couldn't improve the article either, maybe someone from WP:INDIA could rewrite the article. Could someone tell me what to do? --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meethari Marwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#radiondistics.altervista.org for details. It appears that no one is taking any action about any sites listed at Spam-blacklist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]