I have never filed an ANI complaint previous to this in over five years and 50k edits, and I am sorry to have to do so now, regarding established editor conduct towards editors new to an article and on the broader topic of infoboxes and classical music composers and compositions.

On March 30 I stopped by Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach after noticing some changes on my watchlist there. I have never edited content at the Bach article to my knowledge aside from possibly some vandal reversion, and have absolutely no history with any of the editors at the Bach article. While there, I contributed a !vote on an issue being discussed, the proposed addition of an infobox to the article. I voted for inclusion, but is important to note at this point that the content of the article is not why I am here.

The reasoning behind my !vote was frank and straightforward, but hardly uncivil, in my own view. To my astonishment, User:Ceoil replied to my first-time Talk page comment with a "Fuck You" response either directed at me, or interpreting my comment that way, which either way is highly inappropriate. Ceoil has a long record of previous incivility etc. that has resulted in 11 blocks, from which he has seemingly learned nothing.

• I suggest a substantial block for Ceoil on the basis of this f-word diff, which, especially directed to a first-time editor at an article, is extremely uncivil and unwelcoming, and obviously designed to have a chilling effect. The infobox proposal was also the subject of a directed canvassing notice - by Ceoil. This results in a slanted group of commentators.

Looking at the current Bach Talk page, I notice a polite suggestion from User:Gerda Arendt on March 21 to be the cause of concern from about a dozen editors. As I say, I am not disputing content in this report, but the way the simple request for an infobox was dealt with... what can only be termed needless hostility, including a comment by User:Kleinzach, in which he inappropriately he questions the good faith of the proposal itself and by extension, the proposer.

• I suggest a strong administrator warning for Kleinzach on the basis of this diff - which again, in my view, is clearly designed to have a chilling effect.

Further reading the Bach talk page reveals at least one editor, User:GFHandel recently resigned in protest over the infobox issue and specific and arguably tendentious claims that the infoboxes are "difficult for women to edit", presumably after years of fruitless discussion with the aforementioned relatively small clique, and the resignation by GF Handel I can only take as another red flag. A few days ago I made a strong warning statement at the bottom of the Bach talk page regarding Ceoil calling editors that want userboxes "special interests" that has gone unanswered; it seems no one on the anti-infobox faction were untroubled by Ceoil and my reaction.

Another page that has serious current infobox issues is Sparrow Mass where I notice a violation a few days ago of WP:3RR by an administrator, User:Nikkimaria, who actually removed the offending infobox via a misleading edit summary called "cleanup." This plus three additional reverts resulted in a 24 hour block, the notice of which was scrubbed twice by the admin Nikkimaria to eliminate any trace of unpleasantry. I'd call this type of edit warring by an administrator highly unacceptable, and the edit summary and removal of notices lacking in transparency, which are crucial traits in an admin; Nikkimaria was also following Gerda Arendt and deleting infoboxes.

• I suggest that administrator Nikkimaria needs at the very least a serious warning, with possibly additional sanctions to make Wikipedia's basic policy clear and prevent further intimidation and process abuse, with any further examples cause for a desysop discussion. (As for the Sparrow Mass article, it had to be fully protected to stop the edit war, but has since been unprotected and has been quiet for the last 24 hours as of this posting.)

Historically, infobox opponents have tried to stifle opponents. The template for the infobox itself at Template:Infobox classical composer has been the subject of multiple attempts at deletion, with the last being closed as a bad faith nomination. Clearly User:Antandrus, the recipient of the bad faith closure and awarning to stop keep trying to delete the template doesn't want an open discussion as he advises the need to keep the infobox topic off discussion boards. This is sneaky battleground mentality, as I see it, and another example of a systemic problem on the infobox topic. Strike through with apologies to Antandrus, I got this backwards, as he was not the recipient of the bad faith closure.

To conclude, clearly there are editors and at least one admin that don't want infoboxes in classical composer articles, and said opponents are using methods that are, at best, irregular and questionable. In my view, these methods call for the admin community to investigate further. And really, all this over infoboxes! The topic of music composers, some of the finest examples of humanity, should be a pleasant place to edit, not a battleground that drives away those with opinions different from an established clique. Jusdafax 04:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, you still need to inform Nikkimaria and Kleinzach of this thread. That being said...
  1. I think Ceoil needs a NPA/AGF warning;
  2. I think Kleinzach needs to AGF a bit more (but as that edit was more than a week ago, not necessarily actionable by itself now);
  3. There is nothing currently that prevents an editor from removing any notices unless it's an active block notice - and the block had expired by the time that Nikkimaria removed it, so that edit is okay on that front. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have informed the parties you mention. Remedial efforts aside, you fail to address the larger pattern of the systemic abuse I have documented. Jusdafax 05:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, you have accused people of bullying. I read your entire post, but I saw nothing about that there; the issue regarding User:Ceoil is one of WP:CIV. Accusing people of bullying is a bold accusation, and even though I already challenged you to defend it here, you have not done so, and now are repeating that claim. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our posts crossed, and I have moved the discussion here from the Bach page, by notification. Perhaps your definition of the word "bullying" is different from mine. I look forward to other voices than anti-infobox clique found on the Bach Talk page to give their views on the tone found there, including yours. Jusdafax 05:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My tone"? My tone was one of opposing the infobox, in posts devoid of uncivil or vulgar language. Once again: diffs, please? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the diffs I have supplied (which I notice you do not discuss) are indicative of problems. In regards to your tone, calling an infobox "useless" is worthy of comment for starters. And one can be "devoid of uncivil or vulgar language" and still be uncivil in intent, as your repeated use of bolding in your "requests" which come off as demands. I again point out that the point of bringing this matter to ANI was to get input from the wider community, not to have the conversation dominated by intractable infobox opponents, which is how I would define your demonstrated inflexible opposition. Jusdafax 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never thought of the word "useless" as uncivil (unless it is used to describe another editor), and I'm unaware of an euphemism for it, except for perhaps "it would serve no purpose". As for bolding, you have made bold accusations; ones which I do not take lightly. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, please note that contrary to your assertion, Antandrus did not nominate that infobox for deletion. It was nominated by Pigsonthewing [4], and it was the second time he had attempted to get it deleted. Pigsonthewing received the "warning" about repeated attempts at deletion, and the bad faith nomination (rightly or wrongly). Antandrus !voted to keep it. I suggest you strike your accusation above. Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I managed to get it reversed, which shows if nothing else that I am unfamiliar with this entrenched infobox battleground. My apologies to Antandrus; I'll do some strikethroughs. However, I now see that it is even more complicated than I previously thought... this template was another battleground and was never seriously used, as far as I now can tell. Antandrus' comment about keeping the matter off talk boards is still telling, in my view. I have notified Pigsonthewing about this discussion. Jusdafax 06:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Telling" to you because you chose to interpret his comment as a conspiracy to keep the discussion off the notice boards. He was absolutely right in his assessment, things do turn nasty very fast. Incidentally, the issue referred to there was then discussed at the Village Pump [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy" is your word, not mine. I am here to ask for wider editor comment and admin scrutiny, which you will hopefully welcome. Jusdafax 07:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also notified Antandrus of this discussion [6], which you failed to do. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been editing non-stop for a couple hours, and had not yet notified Antandrus. Jusdafax 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, Jusdafax: you claim that there issues of WP:OWN going on at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, but all I see there is a discussion among editors. Where's the breach of WP:OWN? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it plain to the community, Toccata quarta, that you are a staunch opponent of the infoboxes, as the Bach Talk page clearly shows. What would you call the way I was greeted with an F-word... friendly? Now, the reason I brought this to ANI is to get some other views to this discussion. Let's let others be the judge of what's going on at that Talk page, shall we? Jusdafax 06:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN comes into play with comments like "not usually associated with composer articles"; "has never edited the article... like X", as though there was some requirement to edit a page (now much? how often?) before expressing an opinion on its talk page; and "contra WP:COMPOSERS policy" (my emphasis) as though that opinion page had any authority, which WP:Advice pages makes clear it does not. Likewise in the HTML comment at the head of the Bach article, which read "Please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes" (again, my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Gerda Arendt, involved, surprised

I suggested an infobox for Bach, knowing that Project Classical music asks to have no infoboxes for composers. It was discussed, supported by some users, not supported by several others, I moved on, suggesting a much shorter infobox for Handel.

I installed an infobox for Sparrow Mass, knowing that there is no such restriction (or how should I call it?) for compostions. It was reverted, see history, in a pattern that can be seen also at Peter Planyavsky and Membra Jesu Nostri. In the latter case, I received a discussion about the content of the box on the talk which I found helpful, and I made changes. A good way forward: I believe that discussion is better than reverting and edit war, and I respect the involved editors, see? Happy Easter. (In Leipzig at Bach's time, they celebrated Easter for three days.)

ps: this is the first time that I am an involved party on this page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps II: I miss GFHandel and said so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, but again, what I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing. This is not about infoboxes, it is about the way opponents of infoboxes are acting. It has the effect of driving editors away, in my view, and in some cases investigation and correctional measures may well be needed. I am a totally uninvolved editor, so I saw bringing this to ANI as a moral duty. Your proposal was termed "bad faith" by Kleinzach, which I find unacceptable, and I seek comment and action on that here. Only one editor on the Bach Talk page, a supporter of your proposal, saw fit to speak up against this serious abuse before I did, which got my attention. It may not bother you, but what of someone new to Wikipedia? Really, what kind of editing environment exists at classical music articles? I submit there is room for improvement, based on my statement above. Jusdafax 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax:

1. Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach doesn't show that I'm "a staunch opponent of the infoboxes". For a start, I'm one of the main editors of the article Magnus Carlsen, but I have never complained about the infobox there (or removed it). Like many other editors at the Bach talk page, I'm opposed to some infoboxes because of the reasons listed at WP:COMPOSERS. That's why I have no problem with geographical infoboxes, for instance.
2. I have already commented on the F-word issue by saying that it has to do with WP:CIV.
3. None of what you wrote has to do with WP:OWN. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I saw the discussion but didn't post). I note that Douay–Rheims Bible, Rennet, Structural engineering and Captain Midnight are lacking infoboxes also. The reason I mention this is that Jusdafax, your comment "This one will have one too, sooner or later" was the kind of comment that - while not deserving the uncouth terms of the "F" response you got, was still not exactly going to win classical music editors to your cause. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • As an eventualist, the comment I made stands, but it did not deserve the F-word, and when the person hurling it has been blocked 11 times, I'd say there is a problem. Jusdafax 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. "In other words, I discount your argument, becuase I cant, and dont want to, understand it. And f.. you anyway. is how your comment sounded to Ceoil hence his next sentence "sooner or later" is the under current most of the supporters are hinting at, nice that you are so explicit." - he's saying you were in effect saying F. you to others. Yes he deserves a WP:CIVILITY warning. But to be honest even your comment here above "As an eventualist, the comment I made stands" might be worthy of a small baby trout. Do you not see that "This one will have one too, sooner or later" is not a conciliatory or communicative reason? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Uninvolved user here. I'm generally pro-infobox, but don't understand why people get so heated over one. The comment by Ceoil is absolutely unacceptable, and should result in a heavy sanction, given their history in this area (yes, their last block was January 2012, but for such an out of proportion attack, with the user having 4 blocks for personal attacks since whatever discussion overturned the earliest ones in 2008, a block is needed, and a NPA warning is utterly pointless). The second user needs a AGF/NPA warning, but probably little more, based on the evidence here. Nikkimaria has already been dealt with for edit warring, so there's nothing for anyone to do there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is so heated because it became a personal thing which went on for years, 2005 has been mentioned. I am new to the topic, so not yet tired. How do we get to content? For example discuss the content for an infobox Bach, rather than yes or no? Bach is a vital article and deserves one, if you ask me ;) - I generally assume good faith and am speechless when I am not trusted, - thanks to those speaking for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These discussions on infoboxes are rarely useful and can generate extraordinary responses. [7] The discussions also divert attention from the difficulty in actually producing reasonable content on classical music, which can be a slow process. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like a forum shopping expedition to me."What I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing." This doesn't sound like the same person who wrote: "Infoboxes are standard components to most Wikipedia articles. This one will have one too, sooner or later." Infoboxes "contradict orthodox editing" yet they are standard and every article must have one. Hmm. --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't see "bullying" per the thread title; I did see one intemperate comment from Ceoil from a few days ago. I've asked him to cool his jets. It'd be great if folk could refrain from getting so heated over fairly minor issues like this one and use the normal channels of DR rather than coming here. --John (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bach page is just one example. There's a lot of bullying and it consistently happens (Talk:Robert Stoepel is another recent case). And most of those opposed to infoboxes will consistently bring up that there's no rule for or against them, and that the guideline against them for classical music articles is just a guideline and should be taken on an individual basis....yet if someone puts in a box in good faith it'll be reverted -- here is a good example. "format per WP:Classical music" as an edit summary? Seriously? Not to mention as far as arguments in the talk pages we have this little gem. I'd give a lot more but at this point I've really stopped wanting to waste so much energy on it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One wonders where bringing WikiProject Biography to bear on these controversies would force a different outcome. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [ec]One? Perhaps you missed this: this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think this ANI is well-taken, I see bullying occurring here quite clearly. I have not been involved at all in either of these two articles, but I have noticed that the anti-infobox "consensus" of these particular wikiprojects is rather odd and in conflict with most of the uses of infobocx person and its variants across wikipedia. As there is a good-faith discussion of whether that consensus SHOULD change, personal attacks on people who weigh in with good faith opinions is not appropriate. Having looked at the diffs and associated talk, there is a clear attempt to run off people who disagree with the "old guard" or even those who attempt to tread a middle ground. The individuals who perpetuated this incivility need some appropriate cautions and warnings. I don't see it as an "off with their heads" sanction, but telling anyone to "f-off" is not the way to handle any dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that there POV is more important then there willingness to solve the problem. Many suggestions have been proposed over the years to no avail, resulting in the loss of there own project members and group isolation. Some progress has been made in the wording of there advice page, but despite the communities concerns this is still a problem. Its embarrassing and a waste of time to say the least for all of us who have to explain to people why this small corner of Wikipedia is uninviting and full of conflict.Moxy (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've commented a little previously on this infobox issue. I see it as an unfortunate attempt by a group of truly excellent editors who have otherwise my great respect and admiration, to try to maintain a standard of formatting in their special area that is different from elsewhere it WP. I agree that articles look cleaner without infoboxes. I agree that our current formatting of infoboxes overly highlights them. I hope very much the Wikidata project devises some better way of handling it. But I think there is a general consensus at WP, rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes, and I do not think any one project ought to decide otherwise unless they can get a consensus of the entire community. We are a single encyclopedia. The project's primary job should be maintaining the generally excellent quality of the articles in their field, not fighting over formatting. If they try to maintain a special format they will inevitably come into conflict with outsiders, and give the impression of a closed community. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"But I think there is a general consensus at WP,rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes." There isn't. In fact, editors have been sanctioned for trying to impose infoboxes on articles by force and bullying [8]. I hope very much the Wikipedia Data project and its associated tag team give up their efforts to own every article on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a "tag team". There's similar remarks from other users on the Bach talk page that imply that roving gangs of bullies are going around trying to impose their info-box-will on others. There's lots of individual people who favour info boxes that are not doing so in an attempt to own the place or doing so on behalf of the Wikipedia Data project. Divisive lumping together of people of similar opinions into hypothetical factions is never a good idea, and it's one reason the issue is being discussed on this board. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a 'tag team'." No, I'm not and it doesn't sound that way, not if you read it properly. I'm referring to a small(ish) but highly committed group of editors who try to impose infoboxes on every article. Their reason for doing so, whether they state it or not, boils down to metadata concerns rather than any concern for things like accurate content. They appear on a wide variety of articles on subjects for which they have displayed no prior interest or knowledge. --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not part of a group "imposing infoboxes on every article". I explained (on the Bach talk) that I think Bach deserves an infobox because it's a vital article, like Franz Kafka, for example. When I noticed that the thought was not welcome enough I moved on and recommended to archive the discussion. Please stay factual. - Everybody is welcome to add infoboxes to "my" articles, I like structured information for easy access and I don't believe that they are "trivialising" the subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one said you were a part of this group. But Andy Mabbett and his Metadata crew is not a figment of my imagination, although some of its members are now either banned [9] or otherwise sanctioned. Mabbett himself has been banned twice for a year by ArbCom for aggrssive behaviour. Most of these infobox debates would benefit massively by his absence. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be about the incidents mentionened, Bach and Sparrow Mass. I suggested one and inserted the other. Why mention "group" in this context? - See my talk for an 1 April operatic semiseria DYK suggestion (not by me), for a smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabbett features in both those examples as well as in most of the others mentioned in this discussion. --Folantin (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, making reasonable comments, so? - I am on friendly terms with him, with the three editors mentioned in headings below (1, 2, 3), with several others in this thread, - and would like to talk about the facts of a future rather than unpleasant personal experiences of a past that I don't share. I am sorry to disagree with Truthkeeper (in this case), recommending to NOT look at old discussions, but to take a fresh unbiased look at the question if Bach or others should have an infobox, and what it should contain if wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was permanently community-banned from contributing to Featured Article of the Day after a particular nasty infobox imposition incident only last August [10]. He's exhibited the same behaviour for years and shows no sign of stopping....But he's your friend, so OK then. --Folantin (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"shows no sign of stopping" - I don't see that, - also "on friendly terms" and "friend" don't mean the same for me. You show no sign of stopping to talk about people instead of facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that Mabbett has been community-banned and ArbCom-banned over these issues.--Folantin (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've been away for over a week, not logged in once, because I'm sick of these discussions [11] and am more than disgusted at finding this here. That Gerda misses a user and adds that person to a special page [12] and ignores another who has left for the same reason shows the closed community DGG mentions above. I commented at Bach, and yes made edits when my suggestion to tidy the page were ignored,[13], [14], otherwise I've not edited there. These discussions have been raging all over the project and we *are* losing productive content editors because of it. One particularly nasty discussion occurred here, there's another here, one here, another here. Bullying? Yep, there's been bullying for sure. In my view bringing this is AN/I over a single word said by a single editor is beyond shortsighted. But carry on. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As someone who loves classical music, loves working together with other people and abhors incivility: this whole thread saddens me.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have stood back here after initiating this ANI thread and responding to initial comments, but I feel I must respond to Truthkeeper's post, as well as try to begin to wrap this up. I have attempted to make it abundantly clear that this is not about one profane word at one Talk page, but about the nature of the debate on infoboxes in composer and composition articles and the methods used by opposers. That f-word triggered thorough examination of that entire Bach Talk page and the topic as a whole, but I resent being called shortsighted by Truthkeeper (who does agree, along with a number of others, that bullying at classical music articles exists) for bringing the matter to this noticeboard. As I have commented on the Bach talk page, I gave the matter considerable thought. Above all, the fact that I was and am completely uninvolved in this debate and those debating it made me, I continue to feel, an ideal editor to initiate this ANI complaint to bring in fresh eyes to the overall topic of bullying and ownership at classical music articles. I also feel that the fact that I have never initiated a single ANI complaint of any kind previously added weight to my concerns. It may be important at this point to acknowledge that at least one advocate of infoboxes in classical music articles has issues of the his own regarding questionable editing practices. So be it. That a number of other editors have stepped forward to agree that a problem exists has been established. Let's move on from there to the next phase of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusdafax (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realise, don't you, that Truthkeeper was referring to what she perceived as bullying by pro-infobox editors? And that she pointed to what she considers to be further examples of it, not in classical musical articles, but in those on literary and historic architecture subjects? Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've arrived here late, and to be frank I'm relieved to have missed most of it. I’ve been accused (inaccurately) of saying that the infobox proposal at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach was made in ‘bad faith’, though in fact I said was that it was an open question. What I had in mind was SNOW "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted . . . ." Here’s the relevant diff [15]. (The context of my remark was the attempt to close a damaging and unproductive discussion.) I stand by what I wrote there and elsewhere in response to the proposal. Anybody who reads this ANI and still thinks that these discussions are ruled by AGF must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Given the substantial blocks suffered by the leading player in these debates, going back to 2007, good faith is clearly in short supply. Kleinzach 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in a "cloud cuckoo land", not after reading "these discussions", but when suggesting an infobox for Bach. Things could be so simple, Gerda writes an article, Andy adds an infobox, Gerda says thank you. (This is an example, which also actually happened, see Holzhausenschlösschen). Note that I said "adds", not "imposes" "by force". I think of infoboxes as an additional access to structured information, we can discuss their content and their design ("cloud cuckoo land"?). I don't think sanctions will help to change minds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps somebody else has thus accused you, but IIRC I said you had "questioned Gerda's good faith". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Infoboxes aren't as great as many people think that they are. It is 100% ok to not use them. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also 100% OK to use them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The bias against infoboxes by the classical music/composer projects is a well-known fact and has been ongoing for many years now. There are good arguments on both sides. In theory, infoboxes were designed to help the reader; they were meant to confer essential information at a glance in an unobtrusive way, but that has not always been the case. The best solution is for preferences to control their placement. If you don't like them, then you should be able to use your preferences to control their display. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is already possible for a user to hide them, using their local CSS (set class="infobox" to display:none;). I'm in a rush now, but I'm sure someone at WP:VPT will advise or assist anyone wanting to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanctions for Nikkimaria, Ceoli, and Kleinzach

It is established that there is a problem with the methods being used by some opponents to infoboxes in general and these three in particular. I have discussed each editor in the bullet points in my original complaint that started this thread. I call for editor comment on proposed sanctions for the three as a start to make it clear to opponents, and yes, supporters of infoboxes as well. One thing I notice is that none of the three has seen fit to contribute to this discussion to date, much less express contrition. This, in my view, should be a matter of of community concern and response. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, I suggest you do your homework before asking for these sanctions. You've dropped into a single conversation, taken offense to a single word, and are apparently fully unaware of more than a year of seriously unacceptable behavior by Pigsonthewing et. al., that's had repercussions in terms of editor retention. The Bach conversation came directly on the heels of another infobox discussion and in the least the timing was bad. It was you who posted beneath my own post on Bach saying there will be an infobox regardless, basically telling me to fuck off. I'm very very tired of this and hope that other uninvolved admins do their homework, look at the many conversations - I can provide more diffs if someone posts a request on my page - and takes a good long hard look at what's really happening. Furthermore in terms of looking for contrition and responses, might be a good idea to look at editors' editing patterns to see how often and when they edit before asking for sanctions less than 24 hours after a single comment was dropped on a page. In my view you're fueling a fire that's best let alone and I strongly suggest you withdraw these proposals and let this thread be archived. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying? Ownership concerns? The first just didn't happen – profanity and incivility are not bullying. The second is asserted but never even attempted to be shown. This whole soap opera/drama should never have reached this forum. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained the ownership concerns, above (Timestamp: 15:11, 2 April 2013). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed block of Ceoil

For his profane f-word greeting to my initial greeting to my initial post at the J.S. Bach talk page, as well as other highly questionable editing behavior found on the Bach talk page, I propose a block. This block is preventative, not punitive. To date, Ceoil has received a lukewarm warning on his talkpage, with no contrition expressed or indeed response of any kind. Again, this editor has amassed 11 blocks for unacceptable editing in the past, which must be factored into my concerns. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed strong warning or additional block for Administrator Nikkimaria

A 24 hour block for the edit warring and tendentious editing outlined above is not enough. Administrators must exhibit the highest standards of community trust; when they edit in demonstrated bad faith, a serious problem exists. Here again, no contrition has been demonstrated, to my knowledge. This suggests an intractable admin with a pov issue that needs to be dealt with by the community, and not just by a 24 hour block that the admin can then scrub from their Talk page and go on their way. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the user in question warned before they made their fourth revert? Also this happened 5 days ago thus a little old. And the users who were attempting to add the content into the article managed to do so per [16] and without consensus on the talk page [17]. Typically it is the person attempting to add new content who should get consensus before it is added not the other way around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in question was blocked (24 hours) for that episode. The "warning" was a diff to this conversation. Unless I'm mistaken, the OP here is asking for an (additional) longer block for the offense she'd already been blocked for. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence of any "admin abuse". Nikkimaria did not use her admin tools in the dispute(s). --Folantin (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is thataway. --Rschen7754 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed warning for Kleinzach

To submit that a proposal for an infobox, made in civil language and with proper formatting and knowledge of the subject is in "bad faith," is unacceptable, and cannot be allowed to stand. At least one other editor has provided an additional complaint diff above; I suggest a strong warning on Kleinzach's Talk page to discourage this sort of attack-editing in the future. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No sanctions. Some other admin may feel free to warn editors more sternly. Personally, I think that Ceoil's "Fuck you" came way too out of the blue, and if you agree you might feel inclined to leave some diplomatic words of your own on their talk page. But here's the thing. Some of you are some of the best editors around. There's at least a half a dozen names in the conversation above and the discussion on the article talk page--wait, maybe a dozen--of some of the finest editors I know producing some of the finest content we have. In y'all's capacity as editors, I look up to you. In y'all's capacity as human beings, you may not be as bad as I am, but you're not perfect either, that's clear as well. There's bad blood here, judging from some of the article talk page comments (there's mention of teams, of ownership, etc), but blocks are only going to make that worse. As an admin (admittedly not of the same detached and calm temperament as some others), I do not think that the (admittedly poor) behavior (of some) is blockworthy. Will you please work this out some other way? You're setting a terrible example for the kids. Sorry, I'd speechify more, but a student came in and we're talking Paradise Lost. Good luck to you all, and may you write your content cooperatively and in peace. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No sanctions, please read what I said above, look for "cloud cuckoo land": "I don't think sanctions will help to change minds." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I try praise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also made it to reddit. 50.198.13.161 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:WoodSnake

We need to strongly protect our editors from those who are disruptive and make threatening legal remarks against them as done here [19]. Stating that it is 1) cyber-stalking and 2) borderline (or not) illegal to review his students edits is bizarre and shows a lack of competence. I propose and indefinite ban until the WMF, the community and he come to an appropriate agreement on if and how he is allowed to continue editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a solution - The user's editing hasn't been problematic, generally. His real-world guidance has been causing issues, and a block doesn't help in any way about that. Preventing him from editing serves absolutely no purpose, and runs the risk of alienating him and/or complicating discussions. We're trying to engage in dialogue but propose to block him from editing? I'm pretty sure there has been some preliminary agreement earlier in the discussion that the specific post referenced here wasn't exactly a violation of WP:NLT, and even if it was eventually considered as such, a warning and suggestion to reword would be a highly preferable course of action. I am not endorsing anything specific he has said or done, but a block doesn't solve anything and is potential for more trouble. Of course, that's open to change if further things are said that cleanly cross a line. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what a block would accomplish here. He's not using the WoodSnake account for much of anything and he already knows that the community is displeased. I think its more important at this point that the lines of communication are open so that the issue can be resolved civilly. GabrielF (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present/WikiPsych (Steve Joordens) lists four Campus Ambassadors. Any chance one of them might be able to help? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are from a year ago. Not sure if they are still active. Contacted them previously. Few edits either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:I'm sure there is a problem with the editor's understanding and use of Wikipedia. However blocking is not the solution. I've worked with outreach programmes, I'm sure with a little tact and patience, this professor would be an asset to Wikipedia. The local chapter ought to take a lead in the matter. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was he made aware of wp:NLT? His suggestion of control group seems pretty scientific. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wikipedia is a website. We do not use our policies, which are not graven in stone, to affect how people act in the real world. This should be left to the office. As should the pedophile matter elsewhere on this page, IMO. In his statement, what he said, at least on the surface, seems reasonable btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blocking could jeopardize working this out via lines of communication and since he has not proceeded with any legal action, nor threatened to pursue it (just that he thinks possibly someone might have (or might not have) broken a law which we obviously know did not happen), he himself hasn't vandalized or plagiarized anything, and he hasn't indicated that he will in the future. Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive, so I fail to see how one would help in this case. Go Phightins! 10:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This will create more problems than it solves. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure so simply letting him continue editing will give the impression that the community does not have an serious issue with his class editing in the style they are and "under the radar". A partial analysis of his classes edits has been done and the amount of plagiarism is significant. This further analysis he proposes is not need as we already have two years of data.

He in fact agreed to stop editing which is why we did not pursue things a year ago. With respect to comparing his students to another group of new editors I have dealt with lots of new edits and not seen rates of plagiarism this great. He students sort of stand out as they frequently add refs to behind the U of T's firewall. It is hard not to notice a pattern. Unsure what "problems" people see blocking him as making? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Time out Our objective should be to make sure that this doesn't happen again, and to do so with the minimum of drama. There are currently actions being taken by the WMF and the Education board. Can't we give them a chance to solve the problem? I propose that we give this a couple of weeks and then reactivate the matter if it hasn't been solved. We could name a group of editors who are responsible for doing that -- I'm willing to be one of them. (I'm the one who first brought up the new problems on the Education Noticeboard.) Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears per here that the education program has warned the prof in the past.[20] I guess it is reasonable to give the WMF some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointless A user who almost never edits Wikipedia causes some problems for Wikipedia in real life, and we suggest to block him? It's not that I'm opposed to a block, I just don't see what difference it would make. If someone created WP:DONQUIXOTE, it would apply here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - Philippe has (or had at some point today) a Skype meeting with Joordens, so why don't we all keep our pants on until then? Go Phightins! 19:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are hundreds of more edits that need looking at and the group of us working on it would love more help. Feel free to jump on in here [21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: - [ http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-joordens-toronto-professor-plagiarism/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For various days, THE SLY (talk · contribs) (and possibly his/her IP 201.144.5.38 (talk · contribs), they have similar editing) has been adding unsourced and biased information to articles, including, but not limited to, Tigres de la UANL and San Luis F.C. 1, 2, 3. SLY has been warned in the past for violating the NPOV policy e.g., and multiple times warned at es.wiki 3. Since the account creation's, SLY has not proved any kind of communication with others, demostrated by his/her edit count. Last days, I gave him/her a final warning considering I warned the IP for including unsourced content and deliberately ignoring the warns, and considering I was reverted in less that a minute (a and b,) and the similar pages they edit, like Lucas Lobos, José José, et. al. They are likely the same person. Both accounts have denoted no intentions to discuss, source or balance they edits. I reported him/her at AIV, but it was declined (I haven't check why), but they need to stop. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S/He continue adding unsourced an biased content. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SergeantHippyZombie (talk · contribs) is very happy for reverting vandalism with Twinkle - a little too happy judging from the many unanswered requests to explain reversions of non-vandalism edits on his talkpage. When asked he doesn't seem interested in communicating that he understands our policies or in acting collegially. In fact when he does communicate it is often biting or riducling such as here[23]. I don't think s/he needs access to automated tools untill s/he shows he understand policies and collegiality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we please get an approval process for Twinkle or, at the very least, a blacklist? Ryan Vesey 03:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Or just tie it to the rollback userright.--v/r - TP 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would we do that? You shouldn't have to have the rollback right to automatically CSD tag an article. I wouldn't oppose an approval process, though. TCN7JM 03:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any admin can simply remove it from their common.js/vector.js. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I've perused a bunch of their edits and left them a warning. I don't care one way or the either how we do it, but Twinkle is waaaay too easy for such editors and invites snark and damage. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Twinkle generally has less destructive potential than, say, AWB, however it has always confused me that it basically hands out freely access to an option Wikipedia has an approval process for. I'm generally against adding bureaucracy and I definitely don't think it needs to be tied to the Rollback right as it performs much, much more, but I believe it should replace the Rollback right and use the same approval process as AWB. I was a rollbacker, and once I discovered Twinkle, I didn't use the Rollback right once. Only Twinkle. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps this is overcomplicating matters but what about joining the twinkle revert functions up with the rollback right while leaving things like CSD tagging, PRODing, etc as general use? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SHZ needs a heads up about their sig too. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The easiest solution would be to create a blacklist, where users who have misused Twinkle can be listed. Then, Twinkle can check that blacklist to see if the current user is on it, and if so, disable itself. This would basically mean that all users are given access to Twinkle by default (i.e. the same situation as today), except we'd add a measure of control for problematic users. No additional bureaucracy required. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, this is by far the best solution. Wikipedia needs less red tape, not more of it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Anyone on the blacklist can have their .js Twinkle settings page salted, I guess? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is a good idea, does anyone want to move forward with it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a wonderful idea. I think we should try to implement it ASAP. TCN7JM 20:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the idea as well. If the Twinkle developers will make the update, I don't even think we need an RfC. Ryan Vesey 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This used to exist. Why did it get removed in the first place? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Fine idea to have a blacklist. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) A quick search of the WT:TWINKLE archives led to an AN duscussion that had some background information. It appears, if I read it correctly, when Twinkle was rewritten in 2011 the blacklisting was not included in the new process. The AN discussion concluded it was too easy to circumvent the blacklisting at the time and just more busy work and creep, but hey, WP:CCC. Rgrds. --64.85.214.111 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pile on support. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang on! If we are to have blacklisting for Twinkle, then shouldn't we also have it for all those other tools that implement rollback in JavaScript? E.g. AVT, and its derivatives. Let's be clear what's happened here, historically. Once upon a time only admins had MediaWiki rollback rights, and lots of anti-vandal tools were written to make non-admins productive anti-vandalisers. Then rollback was granted more widely, for performance reasons, and some tools (e.g. Huggle) then required it, but not all. Now we have some people demanding control over who uses what tools. I don't think this is the way to go, not least because it might discourage tool development. Any user of a tool is held responsible for what he does with it, and the blame attaches to the user, not the fact that the user was using the tool. Either the user deserves a series of warnings leading to a block, or he doesn't. Controlling access to a tool (as opposed to a MediaWiki facility) is not the way to go. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, this was already tried, and it didn't really work. There is no practical way to 100% prevent unauthorized persons from using twinkle. If they abuse it after being asked to stop , we have an appropriate response already at our disposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

98.252.50.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone ballistic leaving 3RR warnings and threats on multiple userpages, including mine, and ranting on Maduro's talkpage. Samples:

What is going on here is a criminal strangle hold on his page, forcing him smiling...

and

Look at this crazy bastard...

and accusing other editors of being bullies etc. He got a week-long block before. Perhaps it is time for another. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That's why me, as well as other Venezuelans editing this website, avoid such articles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand you. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I too claim on national TV that Hugo Chavez came to me reincarnated as a parakeet http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFbPo_5pyrI

Or when Maduro offered 20 million to a candidate openly, yesterday. Or when he shut down the airport to prevent a candidate from landing to campaign. (Stop me when I'm not right, wait I read UT / La Patilla and watch VZ TV half my day.) You have done nothing but reverts over 4 days. You have not participated in talk. If you think that talking to birds on national television doesn't define what crazy is, deal with it. Now stop wasting admin time, but while an admin is here, address the non-participation of this user in the Maduro talk.98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no involvement with this matter whatsoever, but I did notice (and revert) a rather trollish message on Bbb23's talk page by the aforementioned ip. If I weren't going to bed, I'd file an SPI. The master shouldn't be too hard to find. If no one else does it by the time I wake (or the ip is likely blocked) ill handle it then.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing editors I am the ;offending' IP - the guy who wrote me up Dr.K is not participating in talk, only reverting others and he did hit 3rr - thus it was done. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahc21, you know as well as I that the homophobia and rampant crime are being redacted and censored here. Capriles was attacked viciously using homophobic slurs as part of the general campaign!

I am getting legitimate edits like the devaluation and the crime rate peak this February, using La Patilla and UT links, and they called them 'blogs'

This guy needs to A. stop undoing edits, and instead participate in talk. and b. stop deleting legitimate warnings on his talk page. Ballistic is saying 'crazy bastard' when referencing a guy talking to bird-men on national TV on the talk page. You don't like it, go quote me a byline against profanity in talk.

Here I have a link for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material

And to the admin Green Rosette, you are actually claiming - "I would ask you to the talk page. The users are very unhappy about you and your colleague's repeated redactions to the controversy section."

Is "Trolling"? Noticing they have made 5 undo's over 72 hours and given them an edit warning? That's far reaching to say the least. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on this, but I fixed the indenting as LGR and the IP's posts were mixed together. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@98.252.50.93: The issue, 98.252.50.93, is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make political campaigns in favour or against a political line of view. Whatever my thoughts are on Venezuelan politics are irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia, and thus I refrain myself from talking about it, or even expressing such views on my edits, because that would be a breach of the neutral point of view policy. All content on this site must be neutral, and that includes pages about Venezuelan politicians such as Maduro or Capriles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've attempted a few more tweaks here to condense these seemingly random lines. I removed a few postings from the article talk page, since they are nothing more than a poorly written cocktail of personal attacks and conspiracy theories, besides some rambling on the wrong side of the BLP line. The IP editor will be blocked if they continue disrupting--at this point, the word that best describes it is "trolling". Yes, IP, trolling, and you must stop. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP has restored the BLP violations and insults by reverting you. I undid their change. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos and the most famous three newspapers aren't "conspiracies" - Go check the links before you yourself use offensive commentary on my contributions to talk. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material before you remove half a talk page. As you can see there is nothing about me using my own syntax while describing someone who talks to birds as reincarnated people.

To the editor who's views are close to the gay community, if you are to specifically not post content that relates to views you hold, I would ask you to cite that as a wiki pillar or wiki guidance, as the article you posed is not what your personal views are, but what the syntax of the edit is. That is a clear delineation that you must make. Also you might want to cite the actual by-lines when in effect labeling another editor's contributions entirely POV (if this was not the intent I stand corrected). I will not have 1/2 the talk page removed which also yet again included more editors than myself and held over 25 useful editorial links and dialogue. If you have comments you disagree with me on, or that you can cite a wiki pillar via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material I will remove it. You do not do a service to Wiki by deleting half a talk page. You can check out the JFK assassination if you are curious about what a Conspiracy Theory. Let me spoil it for you, it doesn't include 17 YouTube videos of the grassy knoll shooter talking about magical Parakeets. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you keep my views on sexuality away from this discussion. That's another topic I have zero desire to talk, write, or discuss about. That said, it is evident that you have a very clear point of view. You are trying to deceive one of the two candidates by adding claims that although true, are not encyclopedic content and only serve, by the way that you write them, to make the person look bad, and this even goes against another core policy: the biography of living persons policy. Look, I don't care if Maduro talks with birds or not. The point is that such things are not worthy of a mention unless they are truly important and valuable. Wikipedia is not a place for trivia, promotion, deception, personal opinions, or a newspaper. Those are things that should be kept for the people to discuss on the streets or at their jobs, and not to be included on an encyclopedia, unless Maduro becomes, seriously, known for talking to birds. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In March I blocked the IP for one week for edit-warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks related to the Maduro page. Unfortunately, I stupidly became WP:INVOLVED later by removing attack content from the article inserted by registered accounts (not by the IP, who incites on the talk page), including User:Yeah 93, who is a WP:SPA, and User:Periergeia, who has only 530 edits (mostly Venezuelan subjects) and was egged on by indefinitely blocked User:LifeEditorLatinAmerica. Content-wise, I'm at a handicap because of my lack of knowledge of Spanish and Spanish sources, but there's way too much crap going on at this article and at its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What you believe to be "attack edit" is what anyone else will understand as justified criticism and your edits is what other people will understand as vandalism.

Here it is: I added an important accussation carried out by an elected deputy against Nicolás Maduro, an accusation published in three well-known Venezuelan newspapers. Whether the accusations are of your liking or not does not matter at all. They are real and you cannot just delete them at your pleasure. --Periergeia (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Please, stop vandalizing.[reply]

• • I used Google translate to read the sources and the allegations against Maduro are vague and also not carried by all three sources. One of the three sources, "El Universal", does not mention Maduro at all which indicates that Maduro is not the focus of the controversy. "Ultimas Noticias" says: Alleged acts alleged by Deputy Palacios occurred while Nicolas Maduro was the president of the National Assembly , so the leader responsible directly to the current Vice President for these irregularities. which does not implicate Maduro directly, other than in his role as leader who should have known better. "TalCual Digital" mentions: Another who was involved in alleged corruption is vice president Nicolás Maduro. [...] The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz said that evaluates request merit impeachment against National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano for alleged corruption, then the president of the commission of the Comptroller of Parliament Pedro Carreño, appropriated the video of the press conference where both political leaders admit the allegations. So we have a lone deputy who has made some corruption allegations that do not clearly and directly involve Maduro but rather National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano and Maduro is mentioned almost in passing. These allegations are so vague and isolated from the wider political scene of Venezuela that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at the present time. If they spread to a wider political circle and become more Maduro-specific perhaps they could be included, but not before then. Finally, I know Periergeia is a relative newbie but they should understand that calling other good-faith editors' actions "vandalism" is a form of a personal attack and they should stop doing it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mine wasn't atteck content. It was what I genuinely thought a valid point and relevant enough to be included in the article. I want the article to reflect a neutral point of view but I did not know it violated one rule of BLP. If there was an incident with this I apologize, because I truly didn't do anything to bash or attack the article or someone else. --Yeah 93 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to report an incident. It started at the article Ages of consent in Asia. The age of consent in India has recently changed to 18. In order to update the article I added this new information, with a source (see the talk page of Ages of consent in Asia, there are plenty of sources listed there). I was reverted THREE times, without any explanation AND received hostile messages on my talk page. User:SpyMagician called my edits "combative & dismissive ". Now I may have not been perfect in this dispute, but is it normal and acceptable to be repeatedly reverted when you add sourced information and be attacked on talk page for trying to improve an article? Do people simply go around reverting new edits without even reading them? (I agree that I may have acted angrily, but is it justifiable to revert without properly reading and to attack an editor on their talk page for doing nothing else than trying to update an article with sourced information?)188.25.27.35 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a notification on the user's talk page. Mediran (t • c) 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your edit was reverted three times, by User:SpyMagician, User:Solarra and User:Josve05a. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reverted it the second time as I thought it was an attempt at possible factual inaccuracies. After further research I found ample sources to support the proposed revision, but as it was obviously contested proposed it be discussed on the article's talk page and posted a link for the IP user to be able to source his contribution there as well as seek guidance as to how to properly include it into the article. Hope this helps :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Correction: the edit wasn't so much contested as apparently blindly reverted. Recent changes patroller sees IP editor making an edit that removes material, boom, it's Twinkled right back, warning and all. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Typical. IP makes an edit, references and all, and a brief edit summary, and is immediately reverted without explanation "because it didn't appear constructive to me", by a Recent changes patroller who all of a sudden racks up over 2000 semi-automated edits per month. IP reverts, is reverted again, reverts, is reverted again, and is justifiably pissed. The last reverter has the gall to say "His edits are combative & dismissive", which is complete nonsense: reverting without a proper explanation, that's what is combative and dismissive. Fortunately Solarra made an attempt to make up for it--really, though what Solarra should have done after looking at the sources is reinstate the IPs edits. Trouts to Josve05a (talk · contribs) and to SpyMagician (talk · contribs), both of whom reverted blindly and (in the case of SpyMagician) tried to make up for it by insulting the IP editor some more. And another one to Mediran (talk · contribs), who had the nerve to pile it on here with accusations of incivility and personal attacks--no, Mediran, your "warning" was incivil and a borderline personal attack. IP, thank you for the report, and thank you for your contribution. Solarra, thank you for your realizing that this wasn't exactly right. Case closed with the warning that Recent changes patrollers should be much, much more careful judging IP edits--no, they should try to judge them in the first place. You're scaring off possible new editors. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  At least part of the problem is that patrolling has become something of a race; no time for investigating or thinking, gotta rack up those edits and get there before anyone else. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there seems to be a rather easy solution for that: do NPP the old way, not semiautomated. And at least try to assume good faith, even (or especially from) IP editors, until you are proven wrong. Lectonar (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  A user comes along. Makes an edit. Does so with little to no explanation. Can only respond in badly formatted text & odd sentences. Can't even sign their name to comments. Feigns being a newbie, but somehow knows how to post to an administrator's noticeboard & is aware of the 3 revert rule? I claim that this IP user is not a new user, will not be scared off & is fully conscious of what they have done. And in this case I am the last of a total of 3 other editors who have acted against this IP editor. But somehow I am bearing the brunt of what exactly? --SpyMagician (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  For this edit. Only vandalism and trolling should be just reverted without at minimum an edit summary and preferably a talk page edit. NE Ent 02:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You are simply the third, last, and most irritated-sounding reverter of an edit. You may have had an excellent reason for reverting the edit (and even for reverting it in the way that you did), but no reason is immediately apparent to the IP or various others (e.g. myself). Did you have a reason, or did you simply goof? (Most of us goof from time to time - certainly I do.) If you goofed, say that you goofed. If you didn't goof, please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not goof. I explained why I reverted their edit above. And I stand by my assertion that the IP editor is far from a new user. Their edits were without regard towards references that existed previously. So is this a discussion of my edits, the concept of vandalism patrol, or a trial that is specifically dumping on me because one IP user had a fit? The invocation of the 3 revert rule falls more on the IP user who has complained than any of the 3 users let alone me. That evidence exists more than anything else. --SpyMagician (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here but I personally don't see anything wrong with the IP's edit. Although the India Times is not a law journal by any means, his edits were clearly made in good faith and were an attempt to update outdated information. His/her rationale for editing is irrelevant, it's assume that what he did was in the interest of keeping Wikipedia updated, assuming otherwise without evidence is a clear and distinct example of a violation of WP:AGF. I guess he specifically mentioned you as you labelled his good faith edits as "dismissive" and "combative" even though a reliable source was provided and no one provided him/her with a reason for why they reverted his edits. I sympathise with the IP and can fully understand why he is frustrated particularly after being labelled as an unconstructive editor while attempting to improve Wikipedia. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  IP editors are often not new users, SpyMagician. There was a four-day period recently when, through a combination of travel and closed proxies, I edited from at least six different IPs in four different states. Of course, I'm logged in, so you can track my edits from one IP to the next, but if I were logged out, I would appear to be this random guy who knows an immense amount of Wikipedia policy straight from his "first" edit. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "IP editors are often not new users, SpyMagician." Did you read what I wrote where I contend that this user is not a new editor based on the fact while they feign knowledge about doing basic things on Wikipedia—such as signing their posts—yet they somehow know where the administrator's noticeboard is & understand what the 3 revert rule is? I don't believe this user is some magical stray puppy that needs to be protected from their own bad editing habits. I was one of 3 editors who saw the edit, saw the IP user's erratic method of communication & deduced this was an edit that warranted reversion. I contend what I did at the moment was correct & I stand by any future edits that might have even reverted that. If one editor is on vandalism patrol & they notice an issue that wreaks of vandalism, then they have the right to act on that. If another later editor comes in & sees something else that adds substance despite the user's erratic behavior, they too have the right to act on that. Simple as that. Now can someone explain how the user Drmies behavior now towards me is in any way civil, with me basically being berated, “Your summary bears no relationship to reality.” on my talk page? [24] Because I say this with no contention but my original assertion: The IP editor's behavior warranted the response I gave. I genuinely see no issue in in. And being berated or having passive-aggresive posts on my talk page do not change my opinion on this. Please move on & get over it. --SpyMagician (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "from their own bad editing habits"--the IP did not have a bad editing habit. Stop digging. The edit didn't even reek ("wreak") of vandalism, as should be obvious to anyone who can read English--provided of course they took the time to read the actual edit. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpyMagician, you say "I did not goof." You did goof. You reverted the addition of adequately sourced material (A) that disagreed with other material already cited (B). It disagreed because (A) is newer than (B) and the world, and the facts about it, changed from the time reflected in (B) to the time reflected in (A). This has been pointed out above.

I've done things that are just as stupid. But when they're brought to my attention, I acknowledge them, and even apologize for them. You don't. Why not?

If you really still don't understand your goof, then you are slow on the uptake. I first tend to attribute slowness of uptake to exhaustion from too many edits (the "bad editing habits" that you rather freely attribute to others). But I may be wrong. Is there some other problem? -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This admin Boing! said Zebedee giving me block threats and accusing me that I'm doing political campaigning. I respect all wikipedians here, got nothing to do with any political parties, the block warning sounds like admin wants to stop me from my attempts to fix an article's issue with its neutrality.

Supplied book which clearly shows the distinction of castes but admin brings up irrelevant sections from book to the talk page and trying to make the decent talk to a mess. I strongly suggest for a topic ban on this admin. I would like to request some senior admins attention here, apparently there is some sort of "admin gang up" in progress in the talk page.

I strongly request to take off admin privelages from above mentioned admin, because he has been misusing it, yesterday he blocked another user from talk page and within minutes reverted after realising he was wrong, irajeevwiki talk 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Ezhava - all of it - and consider WP:BOOMERANG. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment)This looks like just another run-of-the-mill content dispute. I don't have the time to look at it now, but this doesn't seem to be something to desysop Boing! said Zebedee over. Also, as Sitush said, this may well end in a WP:BOOMERANG. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 19:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is interested might also want to consider the recent request for imposition of WP:GS/Caste made here. Patience has generally run out now: there is WP:IDHT in spades, and not a little WP:CIR involved also. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this archived before it was closed? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. There is no requirement that ANI discussions are formally closed. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just have a read of Talk:Ezhava, if you can face it - I don't really think I need to say anything more than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've seen that article talk page before, thanks. OK, I don't like swinging the boomerang around, but here it is: I'm blocking this account for three days to prevent further disruption. In my opinion, this retaliatory ANI thread, which comes on the heels of a justifiably issued warning which invoked WP:GS/Caste, is a disruption and is blockable: the General sanctions allow for sanctions for edits that fail to adhere to "expected standards of behavior". User has a long history of disruption in caste-related articles, and enough is enough. PS: will someone log this for me, please? I got a kid to pick up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has been logged by Ched. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is unfortunate that Drmies has blocked Rajeev, Martijn has blocked Rajeev, (the block log says it is Martijn, but the notice is put by Drmies) the fellow is new and is trying to learn the ropes. The problem with the Ezhava page is that it is patrolled by a few admins and editors, that makes this allegation of "tagging" possible. I had appealed at the "India notice board" requesting editors to step in at Ezhava, to explain to these newcomers that they do not comprehend Wikipedia policy adequately as manifest from their edits on the talk page and else where. For the present I appeal that Rajeev be unblocked, perhaps Zebedee himself could unblock Rajeev as a good faith gesture. I don't understand the description "long history of disruption" for someone whose first edit was on 12 January 2013. I am not claiming that the sanctions have been wrongly applied, I appeal for leniency, in the interests of the project. Rajeev has a demonstrated commitment for the processes that run Wikipedia as manifest in his sitting out of a discussion until he could purchase a book that he thought supported his argument, and then coming back to the discussion (that is why he says above, "Supplied book which clearly shows the distinction of castes..."). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I could scrap "long". But I stand by "disruption"--a disruptive escalation. BTW, Martijn's block was last month; this one is mine. I am rarely opposed to leniency. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also consider that Rajeev has made only 2 article edits in the 400 odd edits he has made. 0.5%.[25] This fellow is trying to discuss. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yogesh, how many times do newcomers need to repeat their disruptive WP:IDHT behaviour before we are allowed it is appropriate to take some action? "Discuss" is great, but "attack", "berate", "battle" are not, and it is plain to anyone reading Talk:Ezhava which of those is actually happening. Our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia (and the purpose of admins is to assist and support those engaged in that task), not to act as social support for people who possess neither the temperament nor the competence to take part in this collaborative project. Attracting new editors is a big part of what we do, but so is weeding out those who refuse to listen, refuse to follow community policy and consensus, and approach everything with a battleground mentality. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (modified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
      • I accept what you have stated, it is for admins to exercise their privileges as they understand the situation best. I for that matter have appealed for leniency. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. If we saw some commitment to drop the battleground approach, I would also support leniency and would support an early unblock - and I would, indeed, be prepared to do the unblock myself (with the blocking admin's consent). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThis is clearly an attempt at gagging criticism, and the block was made by making a false claim ("long"). Rajeev has been blocked for criticizing an admin. If admins are infallible and cannot be criticized, just declare it in some policy. I have seen several incidents in which admins make false claims and begin threatening/blocking Indian eds on the basis of those false claims. WP admins are clearly engaging in racist behavior here and such admins should be banned from WP.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the case, OrangesRyellow: Consider that you may be less than accurate in this case, please check the Ezhava talk page, could you provide an example supported by a diff, to substantiate your allegation please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OrangesRyellow

I would like to request action against User:OrangesRyellow for that accusation of racism against me - here's the diff, for the record. Racism is disgusting, and unfounded accusations of racism are also disgusting. I consider it a very serious personal attack, and if I saw such an accusation made against another editor I would reach straight for a block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mighty "vague" accusation. Maybe a warning on their talk page? Preventative, not punitive. Doc talk 07:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"WP admins are clearly engaging in racist behavior" doesn't sound at all vague to me, and as this section is targeted at me and I am one of the few admins engaged in this subject area, I think I am justified in taking it personally. As for "preventative", yes, something to prevent further accusations is what I am requesting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::Strafing would escalate and not de-escalate matters. An unqualified apology from Oranges ought to put things to rest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would consider that acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justified? Perhaps. But that's not really want what we're here for, is it? Ignoring such ridiculous accusations is better for the project -- they show confidence in one's actions and deescalate the situation better than a block talk-talk-talk-apologize eventual unblock scenario would. NE Ent 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But when it comes from an editor with a history of low-level disruption and personal attacks (and always chipping into things he hasn't been involved in, if he can use them as an excuse to attack the people he doesn't like), it amounts to a drain on the goodwill of editors working in a very tricky subject area. And stopping such tactics is very much one of the things we (admins, at least) are here for. But see next comment... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ched has left a warning on the user's talk page; I say let's let that suffice unless the editor repeats the behavior. NE Ent 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy to leave it at a warning - providing it proves to be effective. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

After consulting Drmies, I've accepted irajeevwiki's unblock request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zebedee. Let us hope that by this wonderful gesture, he is encouraged to contribute constructively to the project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at User_talk:Visionat#Problems? I deleted GNU C-Graph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) following this help desk post, explained to the editor why I did and now I have been accused of "preserving racism" and being a "pro-apartheid Wikipedian". The article wasn't entirely promotional, but I felt confident that most admins would also have deleted it on sight. SmartSE (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see deleted content, but the reaction and claims about discrimination (apartheid? what?) are excessive at best and indicative of larger issues than just having had an article deleted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Visionat/C-Graph.--Auric talk 23:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the user that they'll be blocked for a good long time if the very nasty personal attacks continue. Maybe I should have blocked straight off, but what can I say, I'm a milquetoast admin. I'm also going to bed now; I hope somebody else will in fact block for a good long time if the nonsense continues. Nobody should have to put up with that crap. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

OK, thanks for that. So just a heads up, there's this. Might want to take it into consideration when dealing with her. Apparently her fiancee was murdered by an international racism conspiracy, allegedly tied to the University of Aberdeen, to prevent development of a GNU graphing package. There's also a website, which I shall not link to, that documents a bunch of other stuff, including accusations about other international conspiracies involving MIT academics. I believe care should be exercised when dealing with this person. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the speedy deletion. Vision can request review in the normal channels if she doesn't like it. But her reactions point her out as someone who may be fundamentally incapable of collaborative editing. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on how this evolves. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part promotion, part allegation/soapboxing about alleged criminal activities ("As may be inferred from the University's non-disclosure in breach of its obligations under the DPA,[44] the conclusive evidence adduced is not amenable to challenge. The continuing cover-up relies on...") and very little actual third-party, RS coverage about the nominal subject of the article. Whether or not DRV would overturn a speedy nomination, I'd likely !vote delete at an AFD. Resolute 00:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. If I did make the right call though, User:Visionat/C-Graph should also be deleted as it is exactly the same as what I deleted. I'd prefer that someone else took care of it, but if someone doesn't soon I'll delete it. I'm not happy with us hosting material with essentially unsourced accusations of theft, racism and forgery. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is no more acceptable in userspace. Wikipedia will not host attack pages anywhere. I've deleted it. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen just reminded me about this forum. Had you taken the time to read the impugned article - and the sources - you would have been able to verify that the allegations are reliably sourced. The live page was deleted as I was adding such further sources. As I indicated on my talk page deletion of the article evidently serves only the interests of the eminent criminal enterprise and the continuing cover-up. That being the case, I am not surprised regarding the deletion of the page in my userspace, which included even further citations of verifiable evidence.

Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor or administrator. So Wikipedia has a few problems? [User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] claims my GNU C-Graph is an attack page. Who is/are the article attacking? Are the secondary sources which include international and public agencies and officials themselves presenting reliable facts on theft, racial discrimination and apartheid that are self-attacking? The user page you deleted included additional citations to such reliable secondary sources providing further verification to the facts cited in the article. Who benefits by covering up the information elucidated by these sources?

Perhaps you need to articulate the issues that you claim justify the deletion to help those who are viewing this conversation (I am sending messages) better understand why an historic case on apartheid in universities - moreover one subject to a blanket cover-up by national and international law enforcement authorities - should be excluded from an article in Wikipedia with verifiable secondary sources. What are Wikipedia's policies concerning racial discrimination - and censorship of articles on racial discrimination and their authors? Visionat (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, notability is an issue beyond the fact that the article existed for the dual purpose of promoting this software and attacking the alleged theft (unproven) and coverup (unproven). Of the 47 inline references (not all of which are citations), 24 go back to Thompson herself. Several have absolutely nothing at all to do with either Thompson or this software (notably the two articles complaining about the ICC and several about mathematical formulas), and the rest are pretty much letters and responses to allegations. There is, as far as I can tell, not a single reliable, third party, neutral, non-trivial source about the nominal subject of that article, the "GNU C-Graph". The response I posted above after my first glance was far too charitable to your position. This article was little more than a soapbox to continue your campaign against the University. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and unless significant third-party, independent, reliable coverage can be shown, this is definitely an obvious speedy delete. Resolute 23:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the obvious bias, it would be a waste of my time to continue discussions here. I have software to develop and further criminal complaints to draft. I am now completing the citations in the article and will resolve the issue through more appropriate channels at Wikipedia. All the citations are concerned with the software as the theft of the associated rights is crime underlying the commission of apartheid. The software and it's underlying dissertation are at the heart of the issue. Obviously, an encyclopedia cannot of itself "right great wrongs", but it can assist in the perpetration of such wrongs by concealing encyclopedic facts from the public. I am obviously accustomed to pedestrian reactions to any mention of "racial discrimination". "Biased" is far too charitable a description for your actions. As I said, I don't have the time to waste here. Visionat (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taskin the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to match a pattern of low-quality stub creation about historical subjects "sourced" to Wikipedia. I believe this was a thing a couple of months ago but I'm not sure if this is someone evading a block or something like that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the articles as best I can.--Auric talk 00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a Polllilur sock. I've notified Peridon to have a look. - MrX 04:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only two edits, but for my money that's Polllilur. I'll add this to the SPI. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They'd only just closed the last one, too. Not blocked yet - I've asked for CU but mightn't get it. For me, there's a quack. Peridon (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has persistently been behaving disruptively in articles on gender studies academics (perhaps for some political reason), and engages in wikihounding of me, a form of harrassment (Wikipedia:Harrassment). His disruption includes edit-warring to delete whole sections (the customary list of books written by the article subject), frivolously claiming such lists are "unsourced" (a bibliography is obviously sourced by itself) and "spam"(!). (see eg. [26],[27]), and spamming articles on obviously notable people which are translated from the German Wikipedia which has a very high notability treshold (eg.[28])) with no less than 6(!) frivolous tags[29], a clear case of spamming. As he is constantly following me around to attack new articles I write or articles I edit in the way described, he is clearly doing this specifically to inhibit my work and behave disruptively in articles I am editing per Wikipedia:Harrassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Octet sole (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Octet sole is a maintenance-tag vandal, as seen here [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Not all of the maintenance tags were placed by me, but are the work of multiple editors. Octet sole has been warned many times about vandalizing the tags, with the warnings coming mostly in edit summaries, but continues to remove the tags without explanation, and without discussing issues on talk pages, as consistently advised. I warned the user on her own talk page [35] but she blanked even that [36], again without explanation. Qworty (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As a third-party, I have reverted your latest removal of the maintenance tags at Ursula Apitzsch; I feel the issues have not sufficiently been addressed. I recommend discussion of some sort (did you even attempt to do this before coming to ANI?) rather than blind accusations of vandalism against Qworty or any other editors. Given your edit summary here, I would also recommend a reading of WP:OWN. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have added more references and added the ISBNs for the publications (thereby referencing them). Both of you need to dial back your use of the term "vandalism" - removing a section as unreferenced and adding multiple tags, although not the most constructive of edits, are not valdalism, and neither is removing tags being a vandal. I suggest further improving the article building on what I've done so that the rest of the tags can be removed. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree it's not generally vandalism, so I didn't use the term in this report. But the sum of his behaviour, which included following me from article to article to bombard them with half a dozen tags (even notability tags for articles with versions in other Wikipedia editions) and blank whole sections of bibliographies and remove other uncontroversial information, and on top of that edit-warring and calling me a vandal, was extremely disruptive at the very least. I want him to stop following me from article to article to inhibit my work per Wikipedia:Harrassment#Wikihounding. Octet sole (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Qworty continues his disruptive activity, eg. by blanking the entire Örebro University article[37], leaving just a single sentence. While the article could need some improvement and more sources, it only contains uncontroversial information found in a dozen other language editions and lead sections are not normally heavily referenced. Note that I'm a third party in this question, as I didn't write the article, and despite this, Qworty uses a false edit summary implying I am introducing changes to the article, when he is the one drastically altering the stable version of it, and without any discussio. Octet sole (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a display of atrocious behavior by established editors who should know better. A new editor (whether new to wikipedia or new to en-wiki isn't clear) and creates a series of perfectly appropriate articles on subjects relating to academia. Good work. The referencing is imperfect, but looks like it meets the standards for the other-language wikipedias from which information was drawn. A helping hand to the new user, and a few carefully-placed citation-needed tags on particular statements would have been an appropriate way to approach this. Instead, a few loud-mouth bullyboys dropped in, plastered the articles with absurdly overbroad tagging and insultingly hectoring the new editor. Just about the paradigm for WP:BITE violations, and not the way to improve an encyclopedia. Judging by the behavior here, one Octet sole is more valuable to our project than one hundred Qwortys, and some of the responses here, especially administrative, are really disappointing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A month ago, Wondering55 was sent to ANI for methodically removing all citations to one newspaper, specifically one newspaper reporter's articles: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Editor_with_an_apparent_grudge_against_a_reporter. He was warned not to keep doing so.
• Today he did another such removal: [38]; on top of that, he is changing the citation to refer to a WP:SPS, and thus threatening the GA status of that article.
• As such, I think Wondering55 should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE as his only purpose here is to eliminate citations to a newspaper reporter's articles that he apparently has a grudge against. He continued the behavior after being warned. I would do this myself, but I'm put in a bit of an awkward position as most of the removals are from U.S. Roads articles; due to my prominent position in that WikiProject, I'm referring the matter to someone else, though I don't think I'm biased here. --Rschen7754 08:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Dennis Brown proposed mentoring in the previous ANI thread. What was the result of that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis tried to talk him down, and it apparently didn't work. User talk:Wondering55#Dear friend... It seems that the account is only here for one purpose, and mentoring someone who is bent on one purpose is not a good use of resources, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 09:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, it look more like WP:COMPETENCE than WP:NOTHERE, though his penchant for explaining himself in great and tedious detail does him no favours. Dennis is, as usual, bang on point and I agree with his insights. I think before we wield the banhammer, we make it unambiguously and abundantly clear what he's doing wrong and draw a line in the sand, making it incredibly clear that a block might happen if he crosses it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already did that last time - why do we need another round? --Rschen7754 09:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through his contributions and he has started using talk pages, which (at least according to Seb) he wasn't before the ANI thread, so I think he is trying to contribute, even if he does so in a boorish manner. For a WP:NOTHERE claim to stick, in my view, I would expect to see multiple warning templates on the talk page, including a few "this is your last warning" ones at the bottom. I also note that no invitation to the teahouse has been posted on his talk page - as a new user, that may be worth considering. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but most of his talk page ramblings are basically "why did you undo my changes?" and repeated WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 09:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it is worth, I did point them to the Teahouse in my "Dear Friend" comment, near the bottom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped a note on Wondering55's talk page - we'll see what comes out of that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm torn here. My first instinct is to offer one final piece of rope, one more chance than they likely have not earned. However, the logical side of me says that it won't matter and that we will end up here again if we do, causing more collateral damage along the way. Some people simply do not do well in a collaborative environment; they are simply not wired for it. My estimation is that this is what we have here, and that no amount of mentoring is going to make a difference. I don't draw this conclusion flippantly, nor do I enjoy having to do express it, but to say otherwise would simply be dishonest of me. I did try to approach them on their talk page, which was responded to politely but with excuses rather than a desire to learn what the expectations are. We are pretty independent around here, and that is part of the charm that is Wikipedia, but it still requires a degree of conformity in how we deal with disputes or the whole system breaks down. I'm not convinced this person can do this, or truly understands this. I will leave it to others to determine a proper course of action, as I really have no idea what would be best in this situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd consider his latest edit here, adding a substantial amount of unreferenced content, and moving an existing reference around, to be problematic, though I'll leave it up to the people who understand the topic to comment on that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no problem with my latest Pulaski Skyway edit here since every single one of my significant edits includes a cited source or was addressed in Talk:Pulaski Skyway#Elevation of Eastern Terminus of Pulaski Skyway for the accepted statement that I added in other sections in order to maintain consistency in the article. In addition, I moved an existing reference around since the same source referred to an existing statement and multiple consecutive statements that I added next to it. Rather than insert the source after each consecutive sentence, I included the original source once in a summary statement at the beginning of the paragraph that referred to all existing and new referenced consecutive sentences that immediately followed in that paragraph. All of my edits added significant value and clarification to the entire Pulaski Skyway article when reviewed in its full context.Wondering55 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a constructive perspective to the issues that have been raised on this Talk page since some of the information that has been presented is inaccurate, biased, or does not represent the complete picture. Since my original kerfuffle as a novice Wikipedia editor, the record clearly shows that I have been diligent and focused in adding significant value, updates, and corrections to multiple articles without removing Record articles.

In addition, I have followed the advice of Seb and opened up some Talk pages to raise issues and asked for substantiated feedback on whether some of the cited Record articles should be replaced with more reliable sources since the reported info in a cited Record article either had absolutely NO details in regards to the referenced article statements or had information that was in contradiction to the referenced statements or facts. I have NOT continued to make any widespread effort to remove Record articles without some type of resolution.

In fact, my updates for Route 24 New Jersey, which seems to have started this new kerfuffle, were based on adding value, updates, and corrections for multiple items, along with providing an alternate source for the cited Record article that I raised and thought was agreed to in Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation. On April 2, I thought that the Record source replacement could be made after I did not hear back from Dough4872 for 5 days after addressing his concerns and providing justification for the suggested changes on the Talk page on March 28.

So lets recap the positive aspects of my contributions. I provide multiple value added updates to Route 24 New Jersey. I followed Seb's advice to raise issues that I have about making a proposed change. I addressed the feedback provided to me on Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation, and made changes on April 2 based on what I thought had been properly resolved after waiting an appropriate time.

Now let's address the unsubstantiated and biased charges against me:

• Rschen7754 uses inflammatory biased language, which Wikipedia recommends not be used, when Rschen7754 falsely accuses me of having a "grudge" against a reporter, which is simply not substantiated by any facts. Since the original ANI notice, I have made dozens of updates, clarifications, and corrections to multiple articles that have not involved removing source material from the cited reporter.
• Rschen7754 continues his biased accusations against me without any supporting evidence that "his only purpose here is to eliminate citations to a newspaper reporter's articles". The evidence clearly contradicts this statement since my contributions for a variety of articles clearly show I have made dozens of updates, clarifications, and corrections to multiple articles that have not involved removing source material from the cited reporter.
• Rschen7754 seemed to be wrong when stating "he is changing the citation to refer to a WP:SPS, and thus threatening the GA status of that article." The reliability of nycroads (by Steve Anderson) and alpsroads (by Steve Alpert) as reliable sources based on WP:SPS was raised, resolved, and accepted by Wikipedia users in Talk:New Jersey Route 24#GA Review that I referenced for that article prior to adding what I thought was a reliable source from nycroads, which is currently in 100's of Wikipedia articles, and the author Steve Anderson is mentioned as an authoritative source in Robert Moses.
• Rschen7754 has no clear evidence to support the contention that "Wondering55 should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE". In fact, in the dozens of contributions I have made I have tried to demonstrate positive contributions that oppose every one of the self-interest and bad behavior traits identified in WP:NOTHERE. I try to treat everyone with respect when they treat me with respect and they provide substantiated facts without biased accusations.
• Rschen7754 is simply wrong when falsely accusing me that "He continued the behavior after being warned." The facts clearly show I have NOT continued this behavior. My focus has been on making dozens of positive contributions. If I have had a question about a specific cited article I have raised it in a Talk page as I was asked to do and waited for what I thought was final resolution to allow me to make a specific change based on the facts and feedback.
• Rschen7754 continues to demonstrate a bias and lack of respect in violation of Wikipedia policies when referring to my Talk page communications as "ramblings" instead of acknowledging my Talk page communications as an effort to address legitimate issues in good faith while presenting facts and reasons for my proposals.
• Rschen7754 distorts the legitimacy of issues that I have raised by falsely dismissing "most of his talk page ramblings are basically "why did you undo my changes?". Most of my talk pages are NOT focused on why my changes were undone, but are instead focused on resolving any differences of opinion and trying to understand the other person's point of view when there is a contentious issue regarding changes made to a very few of the dozens of changes that I have made. In many cases, I have accepted the other person's feedback and allowed the change to be made or I have convinced the other party to accept my changes based on additional info that I have provided them, or we have made even better changes than each of our original revisions based on mutually agreed additional suggestions by both of us.

I believe I have been working in a very collaborative manner and have worked to not make contentious contributions and have not gone against previous advice, while also soliciting user feedback.

I have to say with full honesty that I definitely did heed the advice of Dennis Brown "for a desire to learn what the expectations are". I make no excuses and I have regularly checked out Wikipedia policies referenced by others in a variety of Talk pages that I have seen. I have worked to make sure that my integrity, behavior, and efforts for collaboration and resolution on a variety of issues have met Wikipedia policies and respect for others.

I hope this response has given everyone pause to reconsider my status and my dozens of positive contributions, which also includes collaborating with others.Wondering55 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your new tactic is to attack the person who reported you to ANI, just as you did to Alansohn? Secondly, GA standards have gone up a lot since 2008; those SPS sources are no longer acceptable. Finally, all of your rambling comments above are a red herring - you have not addressed the fact that you are continuing the behavior (specifically removing links to reliable sources) that got you in trouble in the first place. --Rschen7754 19:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my word. Wondering55, all administrators are going to think when reading your above rant is "tl;dr" You've got to be straight and to the point, otherwise you're not going to get anything done. If you really think Rschen's being disruptive, show us some diffs of it so we can judge for ourselves. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm somewhat invested here and would like to think I'm patient and thorough, but even I just skimmed this. I applaud your reading of policy, but it seems you have yet to understand the nuances in the spirit behind the policies, which is more important than the actual words. You are still giving external reason for your shortcomings, which makes others less likely to consider your point of view, quite frankly. This is why I suggested you pull back, perhaps be a bit deferential in your dealings with others, and maybe remember that you are the new one here, others are more familiar with the community norms. Again, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do question your ability to get along, and your compulsion to generate walls of text only make matters worse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to make it as succinct as possible, dozens of my contributions, which anyone can check, have been focused on providing constructive value, updates, or corrections and have NOT been focused on removing sources from one reporter or removing reliable sources.

I should also not be cited for making a source replacement based on referencing Talk:New Jersey Route 24#GA Review that allowed the cited source and my replacement on April 2 based on what I thought was resolution from my March 28 comment for Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation.

Rschen7754 has been disruptive in NOT first addressing this issue with me prior to bringing it to this administrative board and in making personally denigrating comments and false claims without supporting facts. All of this is against Wikipedia policies.

The only one, who is personally attacking anyone is Rschen7754 with denigrating comments, along with even more extraneous issues and false claims that simply have nothing to do with the facts of this case. The only one guilty of a red herring is Rschen7754 due to a refusal to acknowledge that I have clearly addressed all of the facts that show I am NOT continuing the behavior that is claimed against me. I responded to each of the many, many, original false claims by Rschen7754 by presenting the facts and substantiated reasons that disputed these claims that were without merit.

It would not seem right that I could not provide a brief response with substantiated reasons and facts to dispute each of the 7 original false claims made by Rschen7754. It would not seem right that someone can also cite multiple Wikipedia policies against me and I can not respond to show I have not violated the policies based on the facts.

If Rschen7754 has any issue with including nycroads or alpsroads as being reliable sources, Rschen7754 should raise it on my Talk page or on his Talk page with me and provide more definitive sources to support that contention. I would be more than happy to listen since it does not need to take up the time of the administrators on this page.

I don't find the need to put up a wall of text if someone does not put up a wall of false claims and denigrating comments against me and my activities and then continues to repeat and add more false claims and denigrating comments in total disregard of the facts and substantiated reasons for my actions.

I have a great ability to get along with those who respect me, even if they may disagree with me.Wondering55 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you have still not stopped your problematic behavior of removing all citations to a particular reporter. Furthermore, Imzadi1979 and Dough4872 have also agreed with me that the nycroads and alpsroads sources are problematic. --Rschen7754 22:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating something over and over does not make it any more true. The claim remains just as false as when it was originally made based on the facts that I have presented. I am also not clear why Rschen is wasting the time of the administrators and other on this Talk page regarding comments about nycroads and alpsroads sources since this issue has just been addressed and resolved to my satisfaction in Talk:New Jersey Route 24#Reinsertion of Irrelevant Source Citation in which Rschen7754 directly participated. I hope that Rshchen7754 is still not trying to make me look bad, while still NOT working with me. As the old saying goes, "You can try and lead a horse to water, you just can't make him work with you."Wondering55 (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wondering, what I am seeing is that frequently you make a change to a page, then go to the talk page, get extremely defensive, long winded, and if I do say so, rather abrasive in your tone. You're doing better than before, but you have a ways to go. We aren't here to debate articles, we discuss them. None of us know it all, we need each other. Often, I think I'm correct, but instead of pounding the other person, I try to calmly discuss and let them get around to figuring it out themselves. Sometimes I will simply defer to other's opinions, even if I think they are mistaken, and go research it quietly, then discuss with them at a later date. This is more productive than trying to battle out every little edit, and it makes others want to actually work with you, instead of feeling like every time you walk into the room, there is going to be a battle. When I say you might try a little deference to others, this includes when you think you are right. Slow down, research a bit, learn the system, and instead of barking in frustration, try "Hey, I was reading the policy on $x, it says $y, wouldn't that apply here?" In other words, genuinely ask. You might actually be right, and your tone dictates whether others are receptive to your ideas. Or, you might be wrong, and they will gladly explain why if you are not so brazen in the asking. I'm afraid that if you don't pull back, and I mean pull back hard, you will be blocked for WP:TE and/or WP:DE before long. Go slow, learn. You learn by doing, not just by reading, and that means taking advice from others when it comes to editing even if you don't fully understand at the time. You have to trust your fellow editors a bit and rely on their experience. If you want to be here, you must stop making excuses, blaming others, and find a way to cooperate with them. I've said enough. At this point, what happens next is solely in your hands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I'm not sure why you have been grossly misrepresenting my actions and my intentions in a such a negative fashion. You could have looked at all of my communications and edits and indicated that based on the facts Wondering55 makes constructive value added edits and frequently resolves issues amicably without any long winded responses. Anything can be taken out of context to try and prove a point. If people make denigrating comments, misrepresent my actions or revisions, or are abrasive to me, I direct myself to those issues. I am also not sure why you now piling on Wikipedia policies that are not relevant, unless you can verify those accusations. I certainly have NOT disrupted progress towards improving articles or building the encyclopedia or made partisan, biased or skewed edits. I have made dozens of constructive, neutral, value added edits and occasionally go to the Talk page to try and clarify an issue. I also defer to others, even when I disagree with them. If others respond in a dismissive or challenging manner or make unsubstantiated comments, I try to redirect them back to the facts. I also do not allow others to insult me without clearly telling them they are wrong. I came to Wikipedia to make good faith efforts to work with people and improve articles in a neutral constructive manner based on the facts and Wikipedia policies. Can you work with me on that basis and recognize the positive in my contributions?Wondering55 (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically "Wondering55 is always right and everyone else is wrong"? --Rschen7754 05:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm honest, I would read Dennis' comments carefully yourself and consider how they might apply equally to your own behaviour as well as Wondering55 - a good recent example of which being your aggressive conduct at WP:DRN ([39] [40]) and subsequent attempt to take the project to WP:MFD ([41] [42]). In retrospect, don't you think ignoring all that and taking a short break would have been better? Anyhow, it's all been dealt with so it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. I apologise if I've got come across in an increasingly blunt and hot-headed manner about this recently, but you need to stop overreacting to criticism - nobody is "always right" and if you think you are - don't! In an attempt to close this thread down, I'm going to politely ask Wondering55 to drop this issue now, and for Rschen to consider being a little more tactful and empathic when dealing with new editors in future. Be cool, people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check this [56] on my TP- is the bot functioning correctly? I haven't edited Willem Jeths, so am unlikely to have created any Disam Links. In fact no-one has in the last few days. What gives? Basket _Feudalist 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, unless you think it's urgent, you should report bot problems on the bot's talk page or on the owner's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not urgent. Got me to read an article I would never hhave otherwise known existed Basket _Feudalist 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disambigged the three terms that the bot reported. One of them was easy. The other two I either did it right or we don't have an article on the term. Take a look and see what you think if you feel like it. (Drmies, if you see this, you should look at it.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In looking at a few of the bot's edits to other user's talk pages near the edit to your talk page, it looks like a good sampling of the users haven't edited their assigned article in 3-5 days. May be a queuing problem or something. It seems to have stopped for the day, so try the 'bot board. Rgrds. --64.85.214.111 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be something to do with the job queue. It's pretty badly backed up at the moment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what is highly reminiscent of Belchfire's previous disruptive reverts and hounding of Roscelese before he was blocked for persistent sockpuppetry, Little green rosetta (talk · contribs) has now taken up where Belchfire left off and has begun following me around to articles he has never edited before to revert my edits and has generally been uncivil and combative.[57][58][59][60][61] This behavior consists of deliberate hounding, blanket reverts, and ignoring requests for sources on Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability. Little green rosetta was politely asked to stop hounding me and he was invited to use the article talk page to discuss his concerns.[62] His response was to tell me to "Go away and don't come back"[63] and to tell me to "fuck off".[64] Further, he did not add sources as requested[65] and he quite blatantly continued to follow me to pages he has never edited before, simply to revert me.[66] He was given a second warning,[67] which he promptly ignored while continuing to revert me.[68][69] After multiple requests on his talk page, Little green rosetta has refused to stop hounding and reverting me, and he has refused to respond directly to the discussion on the talk page. Finally, he has falsely accused me of "vandalism" because I used his talk page to ask him to stop this behavior once again.[70][71] Therefore, I have no choice but to ask for administrative intervention. The user has been asked twice to stop following me around and has refused. The user has been asked twice to stop reverting me and has refused. Finally, the user has refused to engage directly on the talk page and to provide the requested sources supporting his reverts. This is not a content dispute but a documented case of disruptive editing. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This user told you to stay off their talk page, you ignored it, so that bit IS vandalism. What about diffs that show they weren't reverting dodgy edits, but reverting good ones? From what I've seen, the hounding may be the other way around... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you are mistaken. Per dispute resolution protocol, I am required to communicate with the user. There has been no vandalism of any kind. As for the hounding, the diffs clearly show that Little green rosetta followed me to two different articles (Michael & Me and Larry Elder) and reverted me twice. How could this possibly be the other way around? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to remind people that vandalism is the deliberate defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Ignoring a request to stay off a talk page, though possibly disruptive, is not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "disruptive" or "hounding" to ask someone to stop hounding. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the 1st dif you provided was of you deleting an entire article about a documentary? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleting, redirecting to the parent topic, Larry_Elder#DVD, which is sourced to the author himself. The film article has been unsourced since 2007 and LGR can't bring himself to add any sources, just revert. As I have already shown on the film talk page, there are no reliable film sources to support this encyclopedia article. Feel free to take your queries there. This incident report isn't about the content, it's about LGR's behavior which consists of following me around and reverting me and then telling me to fuck off when I ask him to stop. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]