Mrt3366 has recently begun contributing at Narendra Modi. Are this edit summary & comment this edit summary and a lot of the stuff here really necessary? I did try to deal with it but was brushed off. Although there has been some heated debate in recent weeks, we have generally managed to keep a lid on things until the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And can someone else notify Mrt3366, please? I am persona non grata on their talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)ANI is not the appropriate venue for this. Do you want me to get blocked or banned? If not, then this is admin shopping. Before he came here I initiated a discussion seeking his explanation. He shrugged it off and came here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how you know that I shrugged something off. What I want is for some uninvolved people to take a look at what seems to berather pugnacious editing by you on that article and its talk page. As I said, things were actually being discussed quite reasonably (the specific section about POV aside) until your arrival. The temperature has suddenly risen and given that this is (i) about a controversial politician, (ii) a BLP, and (iii) potentially one of those awkward Hindu vs Muslim situations that often spiral out of control, it seems sensible to see if something needs doing sooner rather than later. I can't even discuss it with you on your talk page and the article talk page is really not the right place to discuss behavioural things. I'm no prude but shouting out "fucking" in an edit summary that mentions Hindus and Muslims is something that sorta catches the eye, seems unnecessary and perhaps should be revdel'd even if the actual content of your edit is considered to be reasonable & thus reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment MrT is a sometimes passionate editor and gets a little carried away, he does on the other hand stick to NPOV quite well. And saying "fucking" is not a violation of any policy I know given Wikipedia is not censored. I would ask MrT to allow you to post to his talk page so that the two of you can discuss the issue there and should that fail, return here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me an example of him sticking to NPOV quite well? two weeks ago he ws editwarring to insert a claim that Kashmiri Pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race sourced to a 200 year old book. Today he is removing a POV tag from an article that glorifies a hindutva politician during an ongoing discussion of neutrality concerns. I dont think he even knows what WP:NPOV says.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would not ask MrT to allow Sitush on their talk page because I can understand why someone may not want Sitush on their talk page. Perhaps they could discuss things on Sitush's talk page or some other talk page, if it needs discussion at all ...OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with Sitush on this. While the f-word is not by itself a problem, this sort of edit summary indicates that Mrt is approaching the article in a less than salubrious way. Regardless, I think a warning and closing this thread is the best action here. --regentspark (comment) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a fucking good idea. Basket _Feudalist 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Warning MrT for what and what do you want to warn him? Closing the thread is a better idea though.-sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning him that India/Pakistan topics are covered by discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom and that he could be blocked if he continues exhibiting biased editing and intemperate language in edit summaries or elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 11:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has he shown biased editing? I am sure you have seen other issues on the page of Modi here at ANI, you did not call that bias editing, coming to the edit summary I am sure if you dig out you might find not so good edit summaries on the page of Modi. You can close this ANI though, if you want we can ask MrT to tone down his edit summary if it was that offending.-sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is natural for a Pakistani POV guy to fail to see anti Modi bias even if it exists, but see pro Modi bias/problems even where there is usually no cause for concern.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who is this Pakistani POV guy you are referring to, everyone commented here commented are pretty reasonable and if you are referring to RP then I strongly disagree. Can an admin close this thread. I don't think it is going anywhere, lest it turns into a slugfest.-sarvajna (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Why should a warning be given to Mr.T? A warning should be given only if his introduction of any lines was found to be a POV. Unless that has been established by consensus, how is his editing being considered biased? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The comments, edit summaries, and edits of MrT show that he just wants to display what wrong the "Muslims" did. This may be a violation and breach of Wikipedia policies. The editors should take in account WP:POV. That's all. Faizan 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What POV in it? Those are facts. Do you wanna say those numbers are wrong? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about facts, whatever they might be. Rather, this edit summary Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were FUCKING BURNT TO DEATH by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims. is extremely problematic. More of this sort of thing and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Again, I suggest that we warn Mrt that this is not acceptable and move on. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok read this Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were burnt to death by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims., if you remove the f-word then I don't see any issues at all.I don't see any reason why he should be warned, like I said before this is not a first dispute that is resulting in an ANI and somehow you think that this was wrong.Close it if you want.-sarvajna (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I met Mrt3366 a few weeks ago when he was editwarring against multiple editors to insert a claim that "Kashmiri pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race" a standard Hindutva propaganda claim which he sourced to a 200 year old book. When I reached out politely at his talkpage to let him know that he was about to breach 3rr this was the reply[1]. Now he is continuing the same pov pushing at Narendra Modi where he is joined by a few other likeminded editors trying to keep critical information out of the article about the Hindu National politician. I think a round of topic bans are in order, someone clearly are having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality. Mrt3366 also clearly has a hard time accepting critical messages on his talkpage instead flying off the handle[2], but this is a kind of communication that is vital for wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is someone who is "having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality" then it must be you for sure. Your edits to the page/talk page are clear testimony of that. Also if you know even a bit about Hindutva thing then you will know that they do not support the theory of Aryan race, you still need to do some research in that field I think. -sarvajna (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to you I have a long history of editing things that have nothing to do with Hinduism or Indian policy. I dont have a POV on this topic, but I recognize propaganda when I see it. In fact it is only this last month that I came to the topics and discovered their dire state. And your claim about aryanism not being espoused by Hindutva is of course wrong, they exactly propose the theory that there was no Aryan invasion but that the Aryan race and the Indo-European languages originated in the subcontinent. Im a little surprised you wouldnt know this yourself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what, yes I edit articles related to India, that is what interests me, I need not edit other articles to show that I am neutral also coming to the point about aryanism they don't believe in the theory that there were people called Dravidans and the theory that aryans came to India and pushed natives to south India is not something that they accept. So the whole point of considering just Kashmiri Pandits as the purest form of aryans is not some Hindutva thing.One more point, the dispute here is not MrT pushing material against consensus like you were trying to do, the dispute here is whether his language in the edit summary is proper or not -sarvajna (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to push any material as you well know, I was trying to tag the article for its obvious lack of neutrality and start a discussion about how to make it conform to NPOV. As for your claims about Aryanism they are contradicted by sources like these:[3][4][5] which describe the racialist element in hindutva thought. The topic here is Mrt editing aggressively in collaboration with a group of povpushers trying to own articles related to hinduism and make them conform to their own viewpoint.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my concern is Mrt's pugnacity and the way that has almost immediately raised the temperature from warm to uncomfortably hot. We were generally getting along ok together until their arrival. The edit summary is one part of that but not the whole. He has been combative from the outset seemingly because he thinks I am not trying to usefully develop the article and am hiding my POV by committing many small edits etc (at least, that forms part of his rationale in the last of my three links above). - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So was there any discussion started when the disagreement began? To be honest I am still not able to understnd the reason why we are here, Sitush, disagreements happen and people might not have the same style as you do. Taking people to ANI because you did not had your way or because you did not like how they did things might not be the right approach.-sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my 09:38 above. I am not here because I have not got my "own way". I want uninvolved people to look at this, not you or Maunus or OrangesRyellow (who is pretty much always involved with niggling commentary whenever my name crops up here, rather like another user with a fruit-y name once was). Without input from uninvolveds, we are just going to go round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, however you have tried to involve more people [6], [7] .-sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? I went to Boing! before Mrt posted the last-linked item above and with the knowledge that Boing! had just posted a message in another thread here & thus was active. There was no response from Boing prior to Mrt escalating things further and I had good reason to believe that Boing may have gone away. So I came here. I could have come here straight away but I was trying to keep the drama down. If Mrt had not posted that last comment, I might still have been waiting for Boing now but it seemed obvious to me that he (Mrt) was getting still more worked up. Happy now? - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• With due respect to everybody, I think nobody likes to apologize or to be warned, when they have done nothing wrong but still I have been accused of exhibiting "pugnacity" and it's time I said something about it. If somebody's emotions are hurt because of the valid edit which elaborated (with a reference) how a mob of 2000 Muslims burnt alive 58 helpless Hindu pilgrims, then I am profoundly amazed. If somebody doesn't like my usage of the word "fucking", then I ask others to close this discussion ASAP; it is not the right venue to discuss user conduct. There are other venues to discuss user-conduct. Having said that, I am sorry that any of this is happening at all. Let's close this damn thing and move the discussions to relevant pages. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking get on wiv it then Basket _Feudalist 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not looking to get involved here, but I feel the need to point out that user conduct is indeed discussed here (although RFC/U is equally appropriate; it just depends on whether you want sanctions or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointing out that User:Ratnakar.kulkarni have now removed a pov tag three times from the article (just today) with no other rationale that he doesnt agree that the article is biased. These are the editors who are accusing me of pov pushing, "mischief" and "aggresive editing". Could we get some fucking admin attention here already? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, you dont get to come and cry here begging for admins. The real problem here is that you simply want the POV tag stayed there on the top of the article. There is absolutely no action from your side to remove it. You have been asked n number of times of what exactly is POVy and what you think should be written instead. But instead of commenting on the content you are being very very fond of this mud throwing at other editors. Its been 24 hours since i have asked you to come up with your version of non-POVy lead. But here you are playing blame game instead. In that vaguely worded RFC you raised you are asking for other editors to come and see if the article is POV. Why will they do that? You think its POVy, you say it why it is. When i said this last time to you, you resorted on personal attacks. Not surprised by that; Chesterton says that people generally quarrel because they cannot argue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it gets anonoying after having spent three weeks descirbing in detail what the pov problems are and how the article doesnt conform to policy that idiots like you keep saying "so say what the pov problem is". It is pretty difficult to talk to people who are simply not willing to listen. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How odd. How could anyone deny that this edit here is of a promotional kind? "In 1967, he volunteered to serve the people of Gujarat who were affected by the flood"--sourced to the subject's own website. The additional detail on the 2002 massacre appears to be inserted here to rally anti-Muslim sentiment (58 against 2000); the numbers add nothing to the article's subject. And then Ratnaker has the gumption, after all this promotional stuff was added, to remove a perfectly valid POV tag. I think an ArbCom-enforced slap on the wrist for Mr. T and Ratnaker is in order. And Basket Feudalist, if you got nothing useful to say, then just stay out of it. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the numbers do not add anything, but don't you have any issues with the other numbers given there? that post train burning killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. If you really cared to see the talk page you will see that I have started discussion on those things. Unlike few other editors who just want the POV tag, I am rather trying to resolve the disputes.-sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solving the dispute by editwarring and slandering others....Thatll work....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies, the edit does appear to be promotional in the sense that it employs the phrase "to serve the people of Gujarat", but there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for something non-controversial that is not unduly self-serving. The text would have been alright had it simply stated the fact that 'he volunteered during the floods' and so on... and it would have been better had the fact been corroborated through a secondary source. The same paragraph that you point you details the fact that among those dead there were 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. Does that equally seem to prove an anti-Hindu sentiment? I would like to see some unbiased commentary here please from an apparently uninvolved administrator. I would further like to understand your rationale behind the proposal to sanction Ratnakar. Please do elaborate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit warring, related to the tag. There is a big difference between saying there were 790 victims of faith X and 254 of faith Y, on the one hand, and saying that a mob of 2000 Muslims burned 25 women and 15 children, on the other. It's called rhetoric, and it's pretty obvious what this is supposed to accomplish. Helping flood victims and all is nothing encyclopedically unless rigorously verified to be non-trivial. You can send a $10 check and write it up in your autobiography. It is not easy to judge whether this is unduly self-serving, but it certainly is self-serving, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that Modi is a high-level politician and a former pracharak (propagandist working for the RSS), who is known to be reluctant to talk about some of his early involvements and to have pulled the plug on attempts to write an official biography, I think it reasonable to assume that anything he says about his background etc on his website is self-serving and any source that relies on it is also thus. Nick and I do not see eye-to-eye regarding this, nor about the use of op-eds to contrive neutrality, but while I might give a little on the latter, I'm sticking to my guns on the former: Modi's self-published biography is not acceptable for anything much other than his date of birth, religious affiliation and nationality. Mrt3366 only needed to read some still-visible threads on the talk page to understand the contentious nature of some of his recent edits: he should have continued to discuss, not forced the issue in such a heavy-handed manner. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush, I am actually amenable to what you have said regarding the particular assertion and using the primary source above and I am happy to discuss content on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, Mrt3366 was involved in a discussion where you pronounced that using the above WP:SPS for an almost-identical statement was ok. From that he may well have been encouraged to make a contribution based on that dodgy source. Like it or not, I think that even many experienced editors (me included) do tend to have a subconscious "they're an admin so I'm alright doing as they say" mentality. On this one, you were way off-base, as I suspect you have been on a few other content pronouncements relating to that article. You know that you are fallible but did Mrt3366? He is responsible for his own action, of course, but it is all a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush, you are misrepresenting my position again. The other discussion was altogether different where there were secondary sources available to corroborate the primary source. Please review the discussion again. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That page is such a mess now that I can't even be bothered trying to work out who said what and when. I'll take your word for it and apologise. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is the latest in a long line of combative comments and edits made by Mrt3366 in the last few hours. He's probably exceed 3RR anyway but will someone please give him a break. He needs to calm down. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor behaviourial issues

• I have recently reported Maunus's less than productive behaviour on this page when he went on a campaign to canvass for support on several Wikiproject pages without due regard to their relevance. Their aggressive mode of editing and commentary is counter-productive to any form of dispute resolution on the article talk page. I think that any form of sanction should equally apply to users who indulge in unnecessarily combative behaviour to bully, intimidate and harass other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that would of course include your twinkle reversion of my first edit to the page[8] (a clear violation of WP:VANDAL which should cost you your access to automated editing tools) and your subsequent unmotivated threats on my talkpage[9]. You know that your accusations of canvassing are unfounded (advertsising an RfC on project pages is NOT canvassing), and your accusations of bullying are gooing to boomerang right back on your own ass. So I think you should shut up with that right about now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, reverting your edit using Twinkle was a one-off mistake. As a courtesy, I left a message on your talk page asking you to discuss prior to making substantive changes to the lead section (even when cited). The rationale behind the reversion is available in my comments. You also appear to have gotten into a habit of clearing out your talk page each time you have an uncomfortable discussion takes place, mostly cases where other users highlight your less than ideal behaviour. Perhaps you should take time to read what you write and reflect upon that. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many one-off mistakes like that I could find if I perused your editing history. Yes I archive my talkpage regularly - is that a problem? As for my "less than ideal behavior" look at your self in a mirror. I have met few more arrogant admins and admins with less clue about policy. As for your "courteous message", perhaps you could take time to read what you wrote and reflect upon how it looks in the relation to WP:OWN and WP:CHILL. You do not have the right to request from anyone to discuss before they edit, and an edit not having been discussed is not a valid rationale for reverting, not even when not using automated tools. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop treating Wikipedia like your personal playground. You cannot simply decide to barge in on an article and make substantive changes to the lead section without discussing on the talk page first. Please extend some courtesy to other editors if you expect them to extend the same to you. Or perhaps, given your recent experience on the project where you had to give up your admin tools, you no longer believe in civil discussion? The fact is that you edited the article to make inappropriate inclusions to the lead section and I reverted you and left a message on your talk page (which appears to be that of an SPA) informing you that a reversion had taken place and that you were invited to discuss the matter on the talk page in the spirit of WP:BRD. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No? Honestly you call yourself a wikipedian administrator and you think one has to ask permission before adding reliably sourced material to the lead of an article. How the hell did you pass an RfA? And dont talk about courtesy to me: Your first courtesy to me was a threat and a claim of ownership, since then youve graduated to lies and false accusation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave this diff here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

/edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few other one-off mistakes: [10][11][12][13][14] Here is your admission[15] that you know [[User:Kondi] personally. User Kondi who showed up out of nowhere[16] to remove the pov tag that you dont like on the clearly biased BLP article which he had never edited before. Could be a coincidence I guess. But on the other hand perhaps you are not the one to be accusing me of canvassing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is you who is clueless about policy after all. Or perhaps in the spate of zealousness you forgot to review the cited diffs properly. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are all reversions of good faith inclusions of cited material with only an automated editsummary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whomsoever it may concern: I would request you to examine the pages and the changes made carefully along with the corresponding talk pages of the users reverted. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I made a personal attack which I later removed. If you are so keen that people see it i can repeate it here and save "whomseoever" the trouble to go through my editing history. /edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Maunus for 48 as a result of his repeated personal attacks. -- Y not? 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To return to the supposed subject of this discussion. MrT, I've spent a little time reviewing his contribs over the past couple of weeks and I think it is obvious that he has problems with NPOV over a whole range of articles that involve Hindu-Muslim conflicts. Uninvolved admins should step in before it gets to be an even bigger problem than it has been so far. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly aren't new to Wikipedia. Did you accidently get signed out? (For about an hour or so and still didn't notice!!) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just don't edit that much any more, and even when I used to it was back in the time when we mainly used IPs, and I'm old-fashioned. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tend to avoid it because of the POV-battles that are such a feature nowadays, and drive away editors -- which is why I strongly recommend uninvolved admins take a look at MrT. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)— Lazarus the Lazy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Editor (Sitush) behaviourial issues

Sitush is being a real pain at the Talk:Narendra Modi. He is picking trivial stuff and making huge issues out of it. Once or twice was okay. Its good to have best in the article. But he is nibbling every line and arguing on it with every editor. The article is not in GA/FA review and doesn't need so much of strict reviewing. Few examples.

• The article previously said "During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Modi, who was then a teenager, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations." Sitush added a "clarification needed" stating that it was a very vague. We had a huge discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Serving_soldiers_in_1965 on firstly how the term "serve" was sufficiently concise enough for a biography. Then he said it comes from self-published source and wasn't reliable. When presented with multiple third party reliable sources he insisted on what exactly did he serve as. After a whole day of discussion with 3-4 editors finally he was happy to know that Modi served "snacks and tea"; which was the mostly likely guess and didn't need such a huge debate. But whats the result? The line is now finally removed anyways.
• Next day he questioned one of the quotes of the subject, saying that the quote "makes no sense". (NOTE: He did not say that the quote makes no sense in context but said that the quote itself makes no sense.) Thankfully we had a very small discussion here at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Weird_quote which he hasn't replied to. (I don't think he is happy with the discussion. He has simply forgotten about it because he is busy causing other disturbances. )
• Next he picked on Mrt3366's (Mr.T) usage of phrase "Godhra Train Massacre". He object and debated on it and wanted it to be "Godhra train burning". When Mr.T presented various third party independent reliable sources that use "massacre" or "carnage", he came up with some silly reason of how google gives different results in different location and that his UK version didn't give much results that used these words. (The incident is the one that happened in India in 2002, 55 years after India got freedom from UK and has no known connection with UK at all.)
• Then he complained about the Google+ crash incident. He objected on the line "The chat was schedule to start at 20:00 IST, but began 45 minutes late because of the reported crash of Google+ due to the response." because he thinks it is a PR stunt. After giving various references, the line is still anyways removed from the article because he doesn't trust these newspapers like Business Line (part of The Hindu group) and Zee News and others.
• He then debated on use of two references to cite one and same point when its perfectly okay to use multiple sources for one and the same thing.
• Long back we had discussed on the line "He is a crowd-puller as a speaker." Sitush had objected on inclusion of this line firstly because he says its just the opinion of that one particular writer (POV) and secondly that every politician is a crowd puller. I presented to him a newspaper report of how one major politician was not able to get enough crowd and it was felt worthy of noting as a news by one newspaper. To comment on his POV doubt, we presented various reports that called Modi crowd-puller. The discussion did not conclude and hence i finally added multiple sources by bundling them together to avoid CITEKILL. He reverted that addition saying that it was ridiculous.
• He is also seen moving edits of other editors on talk pages [17].
• When Mr.T posted a huge commented on his reversion of edits on talk page at 08:43, 16 May 2013, he instead submitted this complaint about Mr.T here at 08:56, 16 May 2013.
• And you would think that he is such a nice boy being so particular about right usage of words. But no! When Mr.T proposed using exact figures of people killed in 2002 violence, he instead reverted him and added a vague sentence of "Many people were killed".
• He still continues on talk page "wondering who pays the Supreme Court judges!" demeaning India's system as compared with UK's; calling various stuff in the article as gibberish; indirectly calling Modi a male prostitute and various other things.^diff

All these edits of Sitush are just to agitate other editors. He knows that it works well. He knows that Mr.T gets short tempered and would violate WP:3RR and then he can be blocked. He also knows that i have for various times abandoned editing such articles where someone is simply playing in a puddle and throwing dirt. That is also true with various other editors and not just me. He is using all these strategies to irritate us all.
I propose that he be topic banned from editing this and other related articles. He may choose any of his buddy-editors to edit the article instead of him; you know if he is really very caring about the readers and Wikipedia and such moral stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am reluctant to believe that Sitush is making these edits to agitate other editors! The first one "clarification needed"— I also feel expansion was needed there! Which railway stations? Did he volunteer during whole war period or any specific period? Did he work as a member of any volunteering group/religious/political organization? About Godhra Train Massacre>>Godhra train burning, the Wikipedia article is titled Godhra train burning! I have not checked other points you have mentioned! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course! We should also mention his working hours, was it raining or scorching heat on those days, how many more people helped him, what he used to wear then, how did he communicate with soldiers, did he knew Hindi or English then, or did he use sign languages to get their orders, what types of teas he used to serve and what in snacks, did he serve the spicy ones or medium one, did he wear gloves before serving and tie his hair properly, VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS!!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer does not require a reply as it teases back itself! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still a reply below! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "edits to agitate other editors!" - I myself don't believe Sitush is editing this way only to spite other editors.
  Moving on, if you wish to know more about "Godhra Train Massacre>>Godhra train burning" then I urge you to go through the spiral discussions on the talk or we may just use common sense or if you want to know my views click here. That's all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post script to that, my comment should not be used to mean that the points Dharmadhyaksha is presenting as the issues, are in anyway false. His conclusions might not be agreeable but the points are verifiable. I would not like to be involved in this any further. Thank you all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Dharmadhyaksha, initially it was good to clarify his doubts but now he seems to see issue with every word.I do not know the real intention of Sitush behind his nitpicking but I see that lot of editors are agitated and irritated due to to his current behavior, he has very stong opinions about the subject and most of the times think that everything is a PR stunt of the subject or it is somekind of POV that is being added by editors.-sarvajna (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of what is said above, and in particular the opening exposition by Dharmadhyaksha, is a misrepresentation of things that I have done or is mind-reading. To take just the first point as an example, the statement related to a war of 1965 between India & Pakistan and it was sourced to Modi's self-published biography. I raised the issue of what "served soldiers at railway stations" meant due to the lack of context, ie: served in what capacity? It was eventually determined that Modi had served tea to them, as opposed to being, say, a shoe-cleaner, batman or a male prostitute. So, the statement became something like "served tea to soldiers". That it was subsequently removed is something that I that I had mooted (it is a minor point and arguably self-serving) but was not my doing and had support from others. The thread that Dharmadyaksha links explains pretty much all of this.

  I'd rather one of the above actually explained what their specific problem is here because at present it looks like an exposition of various content disputes. Or is the claim that I am editing in a tendentious manner, ie: that I am similar in style to Mrt3366, who is repeatedly raising certain issues in new threads and even here, such as whether we refer to something as a "train burning" or a "massacre"? - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I have not studied all of the points, but see my post above and his immediate reply! Follow this, if keeping Modi's political activities in mind (read the political party as BJP), if I want to to learn did Modi serve for any political or religious volunteering group— RSS, BJP, will it be totally irrelevant, since it could well establish political activities of early days? The second question was— did Modi serve as volunteer during whole war period? From history, Atal Bihari Bajpayee joined Gandhi Ji's Quit India movement as a volunteer but only for few days, not from starting to ending and later was jailed for 23 days.Now, coming to L.K. Advani, though the story is unclear, some people alleged Advani was a member of the team who assassinated Gandhi (ref or search in Google). Whether he was there or not, surely Advani was not the head of team at that time and his activities surely had been minimum. Now, these two examples (actually there are more..) show that some political leaders worked as volunteers in their early days, but those were not very remarkable/ were for brief period. Now read again the question— did Modi serve as volunteer during whole war period or a brief period? Note, the point, he did not even attempt or ask me to clarify the questions I asked and .. (see his reply).. --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you really want to say? There information of Modi serving army men is supported by RSs, if you want to learn more you are free to do research. Was he part of some volunteer group? the info is not provided in source. So what is the issue to write that he just served, obviously he was not a soldier.Also I do not know how helpful the whole Advani thing will be but just FYI, Advani is accused to be involved in a plot to kill Jinnah. Sitush, on what basis did you speculate that Modi would have been a male prostitute? Did Indian army used the services of male prostitutes or is Modi well known to be a male prostitute? It would be helpful if you can control your bias. -sarvajna (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the bias in the "serve" issue, sarvajna? I just picked some random examples - he could have been serving ice-cream or playing tennis with them for all the sense that the statement made. Anyway, Is the allegation of bias the crux of this issue? I'm still trying to figure out what I am supposed to be defending myself against here, if anything. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the serve issue, you speculating that Modi would have been a male prostitute is what I am saying. What was the basis for the speculation? because you wanted to be funny? because you think that Indian army use the service of male prostitute? -sarvajna (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who understands English knows that Sitush did not speculate any such thing. Competency is required. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read this -sarvajna (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do well to point at something specific; I'll do it for you: "as things stand we could as well mean that he served them as a male prostitute as a boot cleaner". If you think that that means that Sitush is speculating that Modi was a male prostitute, there's a serious lack of language competency. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is comprehension underlies much of the angst that I seem to be generating, and I suggested an example of this yesterday. Perhaps I need to try to say things more simplistically. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know there is a slight difference between "simple" and "simplistic"? The "angst" you seem to be generating has little to do with semantics and phraseology, your diction was at times truculent and provocative. Your way of editing was unilateral, autocratic, subsequent justifications for removing seemingly relevant edits (as well as my talk page comments) were whimsical and occasionally peremptory. You're again implicitly refusing to even admit that those who are speaking against your general behavior in this article, have any basis to do so. It seems as though you're trying to blame it on the incompetence of every single one of your detractors while precluding the possibility of your obstinacy over fairly minuscule things. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the same impression as Dharmadhyaksha. I have been following the article and its talk page for some time. It is obvious that Sitush is constantly doing and saying things which would constitute blatant baiting (WP:BAIT}. He appears to be baiting MrT3366 in particular (who does not seem to understand how ridiculously common and succesful baiting is on WP, or what baiting is). I would urge that suitable action be taken to prevent Sitush from baiting others.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute, Dharmadhyaksha is unclear about what exactly it is I am being charged with, sarvajna seems to be suggesting bias as being the issue and you are suggesting baiting. I seem to be causing an awful lot of different problems for different people, so perhaps it would be best to set up a formal call for a topic ban - D mentions it but has not set up a "yes"/"no" arrangement where people can support or oppose. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wrong in writing this all. I did not realize this before. The more chance you give Sitush to speak, the fouler it starts getting. Please close this thread. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I really detest this (AN/I) venue and would not post in this thread unless a bizarre coincidence. Sitush today astonished me by his appearance on my user_talk without any previous interaction or other plausible pretext, and for the sole purpose of reiterating a nonsense accusation made by a third person (I presume the two are members of some clique). I did not try to determine how many other users experienced such intrusions, of which persons and in which numbers, but I have a feeling that it is something undesirable for Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove this is trolling but hey, here we are. For the record, Incnis Mrsi is pissed because they warned a user for "defacing" a user page after an honest mistake and then got even more pissed when I asked them to look carefully next time. Sitush happened to agree with me, hence the "clique" thing. It's on the user's talk page, if anyone is interested, where you'll also find this diff with a sneer against the editor who made the initial mistake, "I am really happy that English Wikipedia has so few people here like you, 76.189.109.155". Maybe someone should collapse this section. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have an impression that the user talk:Drmies page is used by the clique to coordinate attacks against disagreeable contributors. One can see how they discussed (and defamed) me there, without even notifying me, although I did not cross their paths except this single message at user talk: 76.189.109.155:

Believe me: I had no previous history of interaction with anyone of them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I know I said that I would not like to comment here, and I don't. I empathize fully with Incnis Mrsi, like others, I also didn't like Sitush's insinuation and baiting and everything. Didn't find it helpful at all. I don't believe that Sitush randomly chose to use "male prostitute" as one of the few possibilities. It seemed as though he was looking to instigate his opponent to say something unbecoming. Some flatly reject even the possibility that Sitush's way of inserting inferences, speculations and insinuations like "BJP hit squad might be sent to find him" (in response to merely a vague and inarticulate comment by Dharma), "BJP is affiliated with a known militant organisation" along with the anecdotal claim that BJP is trying to kill him and he is worried for his safety (see Talk:Narendra Modi#Serving soldiers in 1965), might reek of possible bias. Sitush is very good with words and his rationales for edits in this highly controversial article have been, at best, arbitrary and subjective. He has removed my comments altogether without even trying to discuss with me or others in the talk. Even after my repeated attempts to stop him (i.e. i asked him on the edit summaries that "don't DELETE my comment", "Don't delete my comment altogether, I didn't refactor your comment, I added proper date"), even then he bullishly kept on shifting my comments with arbitrary claims thereby mocking me. He went to complain against me to admin Salvio Giuliano (as opposed to other editors or admins who were already involved) instead of discussing on a thread in the talk. I later deemed it necessary to open a thread to discuss this otherwise trivial issue. Then he himself proved that he is not concerned about the problems he cited as excuses to delete or shift my comments (read the linked section). I felt indignant, It didn't help at all. But I do not believe his sole objective is to agitate other editors.
  Two sources (bundled) behind one statement is unacceptable to Sitush. He created a big fuss out of that too. Were it not for Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington I don't know where we would be with this article, the lion's share of credit goes to Nick for monitoring the article. I don't believe Sitush is done editing the article, one day Nick won't be around and then nobody could stop Sitush with all his mockery, chicanery and bullish edits. Read the talk, I attest to the points raised by Dharma, they are true. Nitpicking is fine once or twice, but persistently groping for excuses to maintain a neutrality dispute at all times is very, very pugnacious and not helpful at all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (EC) I have a passing interest in the article areas Sitush regularly edits (from a reading perspective only) and I have generally found their interaction in those areas to result in great improvements to the articles. I think most of the issues above are caused by a combination of non-native English speakers completely mis-interpreting Sitush comments (see the above 'serve' discussion), and some, very minor in my opinion, poor choices on the part of Sitush when discussing with editors who do not have the best grasp of the English language. As some people have said above, "competence is required", we also need to accept that certain areas are going to primarily be of interest to people who are not well-versed in all the nuances of the English language. So every reasonable effort should be made to help them. I think Sitush offer to try and communicate more simply would probably eliminate quite a bit of the noise and be in line with that. And perhaps when making a comparison, not take it to the extreme. (Was he a batman or bootcleaner would have sufficed!) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You're oversimplifying a very convoluted issue that has to with the general modus operandi of the user in question, by theorizing it would go away if only these non-native English-speakers knew English better. No. It doesn't have much to do with understanding English. Nobody is saying Sitush is a bad contributor all-around, but his contributions when taken as a whole, from legitimate edits to needless caviling at a number of points, doesn't augur well for the progress of the article and its other editors. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was focusing on the only coherant evidence (with diffs) supporting them above. 'Needless caviling'? You would need to provide supporting diffs that show Sitush objections are trivial for that sort of comment to fly. And I just have not seen anything that qualifies. But as an aside I generally find any time someone says 'this is really complicated' what they are actually have is an inability to explain things in a logical and concise manner, or are unable to drill down to what the issue is. And as I said, when I see Sitush has been involved at an article, it usually means it has/or is in the process of improving. If the issue is communication (which it looks like to my eyes) then an attempt to alter/change the method is likely to have an effect. If your problem is that you think Sitush's objections over article content are 'trivial', then you will need to post diffs that show that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many diffs are provided with proper explaination by Dharmadhyaksha in the beginning of the section.-sarvajna (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is

and my reaction on it a matter of [my] mis-interpreting Sitush comments [due to my non-native English]? Nobody of Drmies’s brigade (of which Sitush is apparently a member) didn’t provide a single diff showing my alleged “inappropriate claim of vandalism”, and nobody of them apologized for their defamation and harassment, including a fresh accusation in trolling. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Drmies is being lenient there. You used the word 'deface' when warning an IP over what amounts to a minor mistake. Deface is not a nice word. It means to intentionally spoil. So vandalism. But thats all explained on your talkpage. When you bring up spurious arguments to support something, expect someone to characterise your editing as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is possible that I made a mistake, I prefer to ask at a more neutral venue to ensure that my mistake took place. An overt assumption of my bad faith and baseless accusations in making “inappropriate templated warnings” eroded my confidence to the people from AN/I and user_talk:Drmies. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the "more neutral venue" agrees with my and others' reading of "deface" should tell you something. I'm surprised you keep pushing the point when you so obviously made a mistake and all you had to do is apologize--or at least not whine and forumshop about it. It's obvious that being pissed at me and Sitush is the only reason you're in this thread; you have no clue what this is all about. That's trolling.

"BTW I have an impression that the user talk:Drmies page is used by the clique to coordinate attacks against disagreeable contributors."--that's just a stupid remark. If we were coordinating attacks we wouldn't be doing it on a talk page with hundreds of watchers including, apparently, hard-hitting superheroes who come here to right great wrongs. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, notice Drmies’s edit summary to this posting (and simultaneous one below):

two for the price of one. who reopened this misery? why no blocks yet?

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what's your point? He's not the only one who wishes this thread was closed (see Dharmadyaksha's comment above for one example). The "two for one" thing referred to his making two comments in one edit. It's his opinion that some people should be blocked, but as he hasn't acted on it himself (which may or may not be an involved action), there's nothing wrong with him expressing that opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sitush has a prodigious output when it comes to Indian subjects, he quotes from reasonably reliable sources and has good understanding of Wikipedia rules. He edits caste articles frequented by those with inadequate understanding of what Wikipedia is. He is a tireless editor ever willing to support his edits with sources and more sources. The only lacuna if there is any is his inability to understand the nuances and his tendency to be judgmental. Most of us here are willing and happy to work within Wikipedia rules and are here for building a better encyclopaedia. He ought to AFG. He also has a right to be unhappy about Modi, or India or Indian courts, however he mustn't let his beliefs overcome his responsibility to be neutral while editing Wikipedia. Also if anyone alleges lack of comprehension of his prose as a defence, I think that is a poor excuse. If there are allegations of baiting against Sitush, well is this the first time? If anyone has been apotheosised he would consider himself beyond action. No surprises here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, Yogesh, what you think Situshs's "beliefs" in regard to Modi are. Why would he even have any? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that "belief" isn't the most appropriate word in the given context, I have used it to avoid using negative sounding words like "prejudices", or "preconceived notions" etc., Drmies I'm not a mind reader what I write about Sitush is what is manifest to me from the way he deals with a particular subject. Again it is my perspective. I see the need to be able to be neutral while editing, I see that is an area that needs to be addressed. I see the need to be able to separate grain from chaff. Wikipedia isn't "my way or highway", he needs to understand that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So now I apparently need to address my neutrality? There have been numerous different claims made here regarding the nature of my contributions to Wikipedia and I'm still waiting for someone to clarify what exactly they want an admin or the community to do here. A topic ban from Narendra Modi was mentioned somewhere above but the range of reasons and the vague references to my manner of contributing in general seems to have turned this discussion into a "take a pop at Sitush if you feel like it" thread. Please will someone say what they want to happen using the format of a formal proposal. Otherwise, this thread is pointless. I'm happy to walk away from the entire project if that is what the community want, so feel free. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • • I don't think they want anything Sitush. This is a content dispute that is spilling over onto ANI. The key is in the very first sentences where the original complainant doesn't seem to have a problem with your suggestions, rather he appears to feel that the level of quality you desire is only necessary for articles under GA or FA review (The article is not in GA/FA review and doesn't need so much of strict reviewing). Though one would hope that quality is independent of any formal star system, apparently not everyone shares that view. Personally, I think it worth arguing over every point as long as we're all able to move on to the next point so I wouldn't do anything different if I were you. And, since this is a public venue, let me say that your contributions to Wikipedia in general, and to various India articles in particular, are, in my opinion, invaluable. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not matter if the article is under GA/FA review. The readers don't want to learn if an article is GA/FA, all they want is "good content". --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is continuously vandalizing articles even after repetitive warnings. His trait has been to remove the references as well as the referenced contents from an article and leaving an edit summary like removing peacocks and puffs or anything that would misguide other editors. Most recently he has been doing that in Joya Ahsan. I have successively warned the user with 3 vandalism templates on his talk page for his edits [34], [35], [36] but he kept on vandalizing the article. Further, he also went on to put a similar warning template on my talk page here. I have also found his edits being reverted for possible vandalism in the articles Tasbiha Binte Shahid Mila, Stoic Bliss etc. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, interesting that you come to report me for "vandalism" when you're the one who was previously warned by both me and another administrator for continuously re-adding puff, peacockery and original research to articles? at the risk of repeating myself for what seems like the 100th time, wikipedia is NOT a place for inflated superfluous verbosity and personal advertising!Ricose (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add any puffs or peacocks rather I just reverted your massive content removals in those articles. Though the articles were in quite bad shape and you were really removing puffs and peacocks from those articles but as I mentioned before you also removed many references and contents that were not puffs which you continued to do even after repetitive warnings. YIn this case of Joya Ahsan, you are simply vandalizing the article by removing the references and referenced contents which can be seen in the diffs given. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of vandalism here, Zayeem. Vandalism has a very specific meaning here. Removing unsourced or promotional content is not vandalism. Let's start by assuming good faith and then move on to discussing content disputes civilly on the article's talk page. Vandalism templates and reports to this drama board seem like an over-reaction to me, but maybe there is something that I am not seeing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a close look at these diffs [37], [38], [39] you will see the user is just vandalizing the article Joya Ahsan by removing the references and the referenced contents and leaving some misguiding edit summaries. He actually doing these things since February (when he created his account) and continued to do so with some small breaks in between. Initially I assumed good faith and advised the user several times to change this trait but he kept on doing. My posts on his talk pages can be seen here. However, I was forced to use the vandalism templates when I was annoyed by his recent edits in the article Joya Ahsan which are clearly nonconstructive (diffs are given above). Moreover, its not just me, he was also warned by other editors before me for similar reasons which can be seen here and here. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user with a dynamic IP seems to be reverting all of User:Trivialist's edits. A couple of IP addresses have been blocked, but I fear that the only way to stop this may be a range block. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/81.17.31.239
• Special:Contributions/81.17.16.241
• Special:Contributions/81.17.16.225
• Special:Contributions/81.17.31.213

--Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All four IPs blocked for 1 week each, though I agree this probably needs something stronger. GiantSnowman 15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more:

• Special:Contributions/81.17.31.225
• Special:Contributions/81.17.16.244

--Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked these two. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting my range block 81.17.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These IPs belong to a company called "Private Layer INC". A few minutes Googling this name suggest the possibility that these IPs are associated with an anonymizing proxy. If so (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to confirm), then perhaps this range and other related ranges should be blocked for longer than 12 hours. Deli nk (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree this line of inquiry merits further investigation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that I've blocked 81.17.31.192/26 (talk · contribs · block log) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that the range I blocked just came off a 6-month block, which expired two days ago. So I'll be extending that one to 1 year. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one I found: 46.19.136.189 (talk · contribs). All of their edits were reverts/undos of Trivialist's edits. Worth a look ... --McDoobAU93 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organization: Private Layer Inc, Switzerland, net: 46.19.136.0/21 Thomas.W (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the host, they have dynamic VPN really cheap. These are a common source of COI paid spammers as well. I wouldn't be opposed to a long block of their entire range(s). Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out 46.19.136.0/21 (talk · contribs · block log) until I (or someone else) have had a chance to have a closer look at their ranges. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this may be related to my removal of affiliate links from articles about adult websites; I was contacted by an editor asking me to leave the affiliate links undisturbed. I'm not positive, but it seems possible. Trivialist (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor? GiantSnowman 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An anon using IPs; see my blacklist request for secure.vivid.com, and the anon edits I reverted on Tera Patrick and Rocco Siffredi which added linkfame.com affiliate links. Trivialist (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More reversions:

• Special:Contributions/80.82.68.7
• Special:Contributions/80.82.68.12
• Special:Contributions/80.82.68.34
• Special:Contributions/80.82.68.35
• Special:Contributions/80.82.68.80
• Special:Contributions/80.82.68.118

Trivialist (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting my year-long rangeblock of 80.82.68.0/24. I see most of the linkspammers are also on anonymisers. It's proxytastic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I noticed IP 12.53.78.125 making unconstructive edits at airport articles on my watchlist, such as this edit made to San Francisco International Airport, which adding false statistics was a reoccurring pattern of vandalism and disruptive editing that Jonathan Yip had. And as you can see, a suspected sock (which was just blocked). Unfortunatley for the IP [which is shared, but is one that Jonathan Yip seemed to have used], constructive edits have to be reverted, since it is made by a suspected sock of a banned user. Is there any way to see if there are still socks out there (both IP and users, since he had abusively used multitudes of both). Thanks for all of the help. Sincerely, WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 00:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Yip socks should be blocked on site and all edits reverted. Nothing good comes from this socker. If a shared ip gets blocked, its no different than a school block. The integrity of Wikipedia is more important than a few ip edits. JOJ ^Hutton 01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my main concern is that this might receal that there could still be more socks. Other than that, I agree. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This really belongs at SPI, so that the issues can be documented for next time. --Rschen7754 08:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI has been done to death on this character. This is mostly about enforcement. Best thing to do is to just get an admins attention on the matter and the suspected ip or account will get blocked. Preferably an admin familiar with of history of JY.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent socks of Jonathan Yip have been mixing in some needed/constructive edits. I don't think we should do blanket reverts without regard. HkCaGu (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HkCaGu, this is true. However, per policy, even constructive edits of banned editors and there confirmed or suspected socks have to be reverted. If needed, we undo the edits per policy and we can add it ourselves, so it does fit policy, while improving the articles. Thanks, HkCaGu. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 21:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to meet you. I'm WorldTraveller101 and welcome to ANI. I regret to inform you that User:TheSyndromeOfaDown is a newly emerged suspected sock (confirmed pending Checkuser). Similar editions as JY and the IP, what's new? It's been mentioned at his SPI case, after the user requested a unblock. Anyway, good bye and have a lovely day. Gracias. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 01:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to The WP:BLP board and WP:RFPP for protection of Wade Robson (in recent news for suing Michael Jackson's estate, accusing him of sexual abuse). This page has been vandalized repeatedly for going on three weeks without protection. Maybe I'm antsy after only a few hours, but I feel biographies should get quicker attention than what is recommended on the talk page templates. Ultra Venia (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, BLPs are among the most sensitive articles on Wikipedia, and we do not as much to protect the subjects as we ought. Take this as a request for people to get more active there. Collect (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty easy on protecting BLPS (which are best requested at WP:RFPP, btw) but the last vandalism was 5 days ago. Currently, RFPP isn't particularly backlogged. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Dennis. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection was denied for no good reason I can see, and vandalism continues. Collect, you are right, apparently at Wikipedia, the right of IPs to vandalize is greater than the right of individuals not to be attacked on their own biography page. It's a sloppy and unprofessional approach to encyclopedia-building. Ultra Venia (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded non-free image File:ShashiKapoor.jpg.jpg for article Shashi Kapoor. The image is tagged as disputed. I have given my reason on File talk:ShashiKapoor.jpg.jpg and also posted general question regarding such circumstance here. But reported saw only one general reply by user, took decision about disputed image and started reverting my edits on article Shashi Kapoor. I reatedly contested that deadline is 19 May and admins have not taken decision. But above user kept overriding admin powers. I was caught in 3RR, above user reported me for edit war, I gave my reason but I was blocked for 48 hrs. After almost 4 days, above user has again removed image from the article. All non-free orphaned images are deleted no matter whether they fulfill nfcc or not. and it looks above user is creating another reason to delete image.

In short, above user is overriding admins powers and is taking unilateral decisions and is gaming the system by citing MCQ which had only one reply at that time and which was long befor 19 May deadline. neo (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neo. simply refuses to accept that a nonfree image may not be used to illustrate a BLP absent extremely unusual circumstances, especially when a free image is available. They were blocked for edit warring over the image just a few days ago [41]. Discussion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Review_of_non-free_image_for_future_uploads_and_certainty has gone uniformly against their position. If this user, still adding back nonfree images to at least two BLPs (also at Meenakshi Seshadri, doesn't accept the clear language of WP:NFC#UUI, the rejection of his position at MCQ, the removal of the images by multiple editors, the legitimacy of their first block over these images, or the clear requirements of NFC policy and the overwhelming consensus supporting it, I'm afraid summary action has become necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one user had replied on MCQ at 13:14 18 May. You treated it, and still treat it, as 'consensus' and started edit war. I am again and again repeatedly saying that image is tagged disputed and admin decision is awaited. If I have uploaded image, I must link it to article because orphaned non-free images are deleted whether they fulfill nfcc or not. Unfortunately no admin is listening and reported user is on rampage. He just reverted my edits. I request admins to make it clear whether users should link non-free images after upload or wait for permission of some admin. I am being flamed and dragged in edit war. neo (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin but, as a content issue, it's not really an admin decision. HW is correct, if there's a suitable free image it should be used in lieu of a non-free one. NE Ent 11:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a free image, we shouldn't be using a non-free image when one is available. GB fan 11:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Free image of the subject is taken during his old age retirement period and ill health, sitting on wheelchair, visibly looking ill. Reader can't associate this visual with contents which describe his work which he did during his youth(1961-1985). Linking bad image of the subject is vandalising the article. (2) As per policy, non-free image should not be orphaned until decision or deletion. I am just doing that. But reported user has somehow his own policy to push. neo (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says that we need to keep a non-free image in an article until a decision has been made? GB fan 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've provided a source that states that a key to his success was his "boyish good looks" in the current discussion. There are a massive number of such sources that use words like "heartthrob" or otherwise make it plain his looks were key to his success (also make it plain he was a good actor). That _should_ end the discussion per NFCC which specifically allows a non-free image in that case. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord, no, that's a grossly inappropriate interpretation of policy. Just because a source (particularly an opinion piece) comments on a subject's physical appearance isn't a justification for overriding NFC limits. Otherwise we might just as well scrap NFC as it applies to performers. It's not like "boyish good looks" is a description that can't be reasonably understood without an image, after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed this discussion because it was just mentioned on the file talk page. The uploader claims that he can't edit discussions if they are longer than 5000 characters, so I'm including an extra section header below, hoping that this will make it possible for him to return to the discussion.

I would like to point out that 19 May is not a deadline. That was just the earliest date on which the image could be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. Sometimes, deletion is backlogged, and Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files shows that there currently is a huge backlog. If a deletion category is backlogged, then it only means that the decision will be made a little bit later. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Finally Admin User:closedmouth has executed image citing nfcc 1. My image was nfcc 1 compliant. Showing the image of old-ill subject in the article is another form of blatant vandalism. Such images do not illustrate article and do not serve encyclopedic purpose. General reader simply can't associate such visuals with contents of the article. I protest this Admin vandalism. neo (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Throwing around "vandalism" like that is a fantastic way of ruining any case you have, when neither thing you describe as vandalism is, in fact, vandalism. If there is a free image, no matter what it is, then a non-free one cannot be used. There is no grey area, it's a concrete policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment - If there is a free image, no matter what it is, then a non-free one cannot be used - is clear in the minds of admins but not in print in WP:NFCC which confuse users. If there is consensus, why not write in print? But arguing before admins is frustrating and useless. Compared to 2007 user traffic to wikipedia has gone down. It will go down further. Bye. neo (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a long-time problem, does a terrible quality or inappropriate free image automatically trump a significantly better non-free image? My feeling is that it should not, but NFCC-absolutists insist that it does, without (as neo points out) any really specific grounds for that belief in policy. If anything, BLP policy would seem to imply that presenting the best possible image of a living person is preferable to presenting one which shows the subject in decline or well after his or her prime - that seems akin to including negative (but true) facts, which we often exclude on the basis of both WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. We would, after all, generally choose the best presentation of the subject between two free images, and not deliberately misrepresent the subject. To my mind, that's much more important to our status as an encyclopedia than adhering to an ultra-strict interpretation of NFCC, especially considering that NFCC is already significantly more restrictive than it needs to be according to US fair-use practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you and I think it is also worth emphasizing that the policy is No free equivalent. "Equivalent" is somewhat vague, but in the context of this BLP, the free and non-free images are of the same person, but they are by no means equivalent in relevant ways (e.g., one is of an older person and the other of a younger person). So, I would say that there is a very good justification for the position that there is no free equivalent in this and many other cases.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMK is correct. The truth about fair use in the US is ... no one knows. The law is so vague it's pretty much impossible to know whether a given use is fair use until the copyright owner notices, sues and a court makes a ruling ... and the penalty is economic (civil) not criminal. As a website owner WMF is well protected by DMCA so fears that failure to be hyper-vigilant about copyright is endangering the project are vastly overblown. NE Ent 09:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although DMCA may protect the Wikimedia Foundation, individual contributors may be sued by copyright holders, although this typically would be based on the law in which the contributors are residing, which may not say the same thing as US law. However, Wikipedia also needs to make it possible for other people to reuse Wikipedia content, and if Wikipedia chooses to use content which doesn't satisfy the legal definition of fair use, then no one else can use Wikipedia content within the United States. It is currently illegal to use Wikipedia content outside the United States due to other copyright laws saying other things.

I suspect that this section may have grown bigger than 5000 characters again, so I'm adding a new header below in case the uploader has problems participating in the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

I would like to inform the admins of what I believe to be continued uncivil behaviour and unfounded complaints, of which I am at the receiving end at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#AUshielding_conversions.

The entire thread should be read through in its entirety, but there are quite a few diffs supplied below with some specific edits:

• [42] - pure adhom.
• [43] - topic discussed has nothing to do with US Roads anyway.
• [44] - attempt to move the discussion to more suitable place (WP:OR, DR/N), thwarted with claims of "forum hopping".
• [45] - threats to stop contributing content if I dont fall into line, dismissal of noticeboard for WP:OR.
• [46] - conspiracy claims, continuing about images supplied
• [47] - issues with unrelated topics
• [48] - more, continued conspiracy, likely unfounded claims of COI in a recent ACR i took part in

I have already removed myself from an RfC due to allegations that I personally am trying to force a specific change (I dont agree with the allegations of course). That would be the basis of the conspiracy mentioned above. I will openly admit I probably did make a few nieve mistakes at that RfC, but these shouldnt follow me to other discussions, and they certainly should derail them to the extent they have so far.

I will comply with any and all requests for my own behaviour to be modified aswell. -- Nbound (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Case lapsed into archive - Nbound (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at it last time. When you tried to call the first link an ad hominem attack, you lost me, and I stopped reading any further (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was tossing up to link these diffs in actually, you do have to read the entire thread to even have the slightest at whats going on. I only added them as user complaints are supposed to have evidence (Though I forget which policy/where i read that though!). -- Nbound (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a storm in a thimble to me. Bidgee looked to get excited, but there is nothing really problematic here. I would not block Bidgee for this. Just keep discussing your differences in a civil manner please. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not looking to ban Bidgee, hell he contributes some pretty good content. The main issue was the continued completely unrelated disruption and utterly baseless claims made in the thread. To be honest, bringing it here has had its desired effect (he's stopped, at least for now). If the behaviour continues to the point where I would consider it harrassment (rather than maybe the results of bad day IRL), I'll bring it back up. Feel free to close :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Is there somewhere separate that responds to "lesser" (non-banning) conduct complaints. Its out of the purview of DRN, and some editors seem to place little value in the opinions of others. (I offered to take this to DRN and/or WP:OR relatively early on, but was essentially told its all just opinion). Im not looking to take this there now, but in future it could be handy - Nbound (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not anymore. WP:WQA was shut down without replacement -- well except for ANI here; depending on the vagaries of who responds first you might get a little help or you might get some variant of There's nothing here requiring admin action!!! NE Ent 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't block Bidgee for this, but it does look he is more interested in obstructing rather than discussing. There is some ad hominem sprinkled in there, but I hear worse daily. I would just ignore him and move on and work with others, going to WP:DRN if you need to. You can't dictate his discussion style, consensus doesn't require unanimity, and while his tone is rude, it is short of personal attacks, so there isn't much an admin can do except chat with him, and I get the feeling that would make the situation worse. WQA would have been the right place, as Ent points out. I'm not sure what else we can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help walk a new editor through some issues around deletion policy and more? Earlier today, 41.132.117.15 appeared on the scene and soon took some offence at some of my recent edits: see User_talk:DonQuixote#Possible_vendetta.3F (which implies the editor isn't that new, but there are no edits prior to today from this IP address, so I don't know who they were previously).

I've been mainly working through one category of articles relating to Dr Who. 41.132.117.15 felt this was a "vendetta" and started working through a different category of articles that s/he felt I was favouring (there is some rivalry in Dr Who fandom between the two categories of releases), tagging them all as being of questionable notability, and then moving on to re-directs and PRODs, as you can see at Special:Contributions/41.132.117.15. Said user then created an account as User:Ohwrotcod (I think some automatic system saw them as adding too many external links and had blocked them?) and continued.

In particular, as Ohwrotcod, s/he PROD'd several articles. I removed the PROD tags as I feel they are wrong. Ohwrotcod re-added, I re-removed. Ohwrotcod started calling me a "persistent vandal": [56]. I have sought to explain at User talk:Ohwrotcod how PRODs work, but I kinda get the feeling that Ohwrotcod isn't going to listen to me.

I'm too involved here to guide this person and I'm going to run into WP:3RR issues. Many of Ohwrotcod's edits are entirely fair; others may reflect more emotion than Wikipedia policy. Some are clearly wrong under policy, but that appears to be out of ignorance. Could someone help &/or monitor them, and also could someone tidy up all the contested PRODs? Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's now this: [57] Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with contested PRODs are Cold Fusion (Doctor Who), All-Consuming Fire, Toy Soldiers (Doctor Who), Just War (Doctor Who) and Return of the Living Dad, I think. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. There are more edits by Ohwrotcod today that push AGF boundaries: [58] and [59]. Ohwrotcod has now started two AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Return of the Living Dad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). I have sought to improve both articles, but Ohwrotcod is now edit-warring Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). At least one edit there by Ohwrotcod feels very odd. I added a citation to the article and Ohwrotcod tagged it "Not in citation given" [60] despite the citation very clearly supporting the sentence. (Sentence added: "The story deliberately contrasts the fifth Doctors and the characterisation of the seventh Doctors in the Virgin New Adventures." From citation: "FTN: And of course you did one of the few multi Doctor novels. Why did you pick the fifth and seventh Doctors? LP: They represented the starkest contrast, I think – a young, fresh Doctor versus a cynical, seasoned one.") Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohwrotcod/41.132.117.15 is also editing as 41.133.1.200. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on this report and the one at WP:ANEW, I've blocked the named account for 72 hours and the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP who uses addresses in the range 109.77.xx.xx has been changing a to an before acronyms (and occasionally the other way around) which I and several other users have reverted. Discussion has been initiated at User talk:109.77.131.0 and User talk:109.77.143.236 but they have not replied and possibly have not even seen it, nor are they likely to see it anytime soon if at each logon they use a different IP in the range.

The latest batch was from 109.77.8.128 [61]. I have now attempted to start a discussion at Talk:XMPP#Please discuss changes to the indefinite article, which they may see, but there's no evidence they have yet used any talk page, so again they may not.

Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP may be related to Mr. Bumble in Dickens' Oliver Twist, who famously said, "...the law is a ass—a idiot!" Perhaps that quote will attract him/her :) Rklear (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to have had the same teacher. (;->

But seriously, there's no evidence that this is other than good faith. But there is a growing risk that someone will jump on the contributor as a vandal (again in good faith).

Plus, of course, it's a nuisance! Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your "latest batch" of edits above, I see that Resource Reservation Protocol has been hit 5 times now since the first of the month, twice by IPs in the 93.107.x.x. range. This means that the IP range is wider than first indicated, but it also means that the user is rechecking his/her work. Linking to that talk discussion in the undo edit summaries, if it's done over and over (which it obviously has to be), might get some attention. Rklear (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a big, loud editnotice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice is a good idea I think, and maybe it wouldn't need to be especially big or loud. I'm reading Wikipedia:Editnotice which is all new ground to me. It appears to me that I could easily create a suitable notice that appeared to all editors of an affected article, but this does need me to act as an admin as it's in the main namespace, and if there's a policy governing this use of admin powers (apart from responsible commonsense) I haven't yet found it. Are we pioneering here? (Sometimes we need to!)

It may even be worth creating a template to post on articles as they are "hit", see Wikipedia:Editnotice#Batch of identical editnotices. But just a notice on one article, say XMPP, would be a good start.

Using a template specific to this incident would allow us to easily identify all articles from which the notice needs to be removed once this issue is resolved. Andrewa (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome suggestion re wikilinking in the edit summaries... I should have thought of that! We'll try it. I've created an anchor at Talk:XMPP#please discuss to make the link a bit more concise.

Good observation also regarding the number of IPs involved, see subsection below on notifications. Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is Vodaphone, on 109.77.128.0/20 I think. 4096 addresses. I checked a couple of the /24s within that but not all. Some traffic but not tons. Blocking isn't a first resort, but those IPs rotate frequently, so talk page messages aren't much of a help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at what might be the most recent batch [62] (not sure on that, or even how to watch for them) and the edits have all been reverted already, so I can't do it myself and put the wikilink to Talk:XMPP#please discuss into the edit summary. I'll lurk for a little, hoping to catch one. The edit notice is looking a better idea. Another possibility is to put a heads-up linking to these discussions on the talk pages of editors who do such reverts, and ask them to put the wikilink in their edit summaries the next time they do such a revert.

I've posted some heads-ups on affected article talk pages, pointing here and to the XMPP talk page section. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

In view of the number of IPs involved, see above, the presumption that it's a single user, and the fact that notices to the affected IP talk pages so far have produced no response, is it reasonable to abandon future attempts to contact the contributor via IP talk pages? This would arguably be an exception to the edit notice above You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. Andrewa (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but it appears that most if not all the articles this person is editing are listed in Template:IPstack. If you post on those talk pages, it may serve to alert the reverting editors, at least. Rklear (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite requests and reminders by myself and others ([63]), User:QM400032 has not restored the userpage links to his custom signature ([64], [65]), in violation of WP:SIGLINK. I’m not sure if this is the most appropriate place to take the issue after trying the user’s Talk page; if it isn’t, I’ll apologize and move it wherever it fits. —Frungi (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the right place. They need to insure their signature does include a link to either their talk page, user page or contribs page per WP:Signature, which is a real guideline and states: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page" It doesn't say "may" or "should", it it says "must", which is a rare word in policy and guideline and used for a reason. Maybe they didn't know, or accidentally messed up the links, but refusing to do so will get someone blocked, so hopefully they will show up here and figure out how to fix it so it does comply with our guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Just an observation, but I find it interesting that the word "must" is used on something "...that editors should attempt to follow..." :) Rockfang (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I was wondering about that too—why isn’t that requirement on a policy page? But obviously this isn’t the place for that. —Frungi (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The template uses 'should' as it is generic template and there are very few policies with 'must' on Wikipedia; WP:SIGLINK is one of them. WP:NOTBURO cuts both ways, just because the template on top says 'should' doesn't overrule the actual 'must' of the policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been particularly concerned with this editor lately as a lot of the templates that they are making have been taken to AFD. Also, there's a userbox he has that says he has been blocked before, but his block log is clean. --Rschen7754 04:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm most concerned about this because of one minor issue. I keep getting edit-conflicted by SineBot whenever I try to immediately reply to a question from him. I know that is a minor gripe, but it's still pretty annoying. TCN7JM 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've left a message on their talk page that spells it out. If they do not fix their signature, we can only assume they are trying to be disruptive and a block should follow suit. Hopefully, that won't be necessary as it seems silly to fight something so obvious within policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Red Bank, New Jersey article, I removed this material for reasons that I spelled out in the edit summary. A comment about Red Bank increasingly becoming a high-end shopping mecca was not found in the cited source, nor was the statement about "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". The cited source, which supported only the opening of a Tiffany's, was a press release by Tiffany themselves. This left only a mention of a brewery, supported by a book archived at Google Books, and a what appeared to be a personal fan site. I didn't challenge the reliability of the book, but this raised the question of whether one business merited its own section, and more importantly, whether mentioning individual businesses is even relevant or salient, particularly when there is nothing unique about that business (like whether it's the flagship store or the company's headquarters).

Alansohn reverted the edit, saying in his edit summary "rv removal of sourced content, with some editing". This despite the fact that the source did not mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters", something Alansohn did nothing to address. For this reason, I again reverted the unsourced material, saying, "Revert. A press release by Tiffany for advertising purposes on WebWire is not an RS, and it doesn't mention "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". That leaves one brewery, which doesn't merit a section."

Alansohn found a source for some of the material, and restored it, leaving out the unsourced information, but did so with the edit summary "rv malicious removal of sourced content, all material that was easily sourced; press release from a top firm meets all requirements of WP:RS, though feel free to replace it".

First of all, whether something is "easily sourced" is irrelevant. The material was not sourced, and it is not my responsibility to source material added by other editors. That I already do so at times ([70],[71]), despite my already heavy edit workload, is a courtesy, not a requirement, and I'm tired the obnoxious edit summaries in which Alansohn implies otherwise, a practice in which he has been engaging in for some time now.

Second, my edits were based on sincere, good-faith readings of Wikipedia policy on my part. They were not motivated in any way by "malice", nor has Alansohn even bothered trying to illustrate how he knows my state of mind. Material that was not sourced was removed, in accordance with WP policy, and he himself omitted quite a bit of it in his most recent restoration of some of it, presumably because he saw that it was not found in the source cited in the article, or even in the new one he found (despite it being so "easily" sourced). If that's the case, then how could removing it have been "malicious"? His comment is a direct violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and is unacceptable. Someone needs to politely inform him of this. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like Alansohn was well out of line here, but I'd be interested to hear their side of the story as well, to see why they acted like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability is rather clear: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step..... If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I believe that all editors have an obligation under policy to preserve content and I will take all reasonable actions to preserve it as required (see this edit for a recent example) by seeking out possible sources; Nightscream follows a We had to destroy the village to save it approach in which he usually fails to make any attempt to find sources, blindly removes the content and then WP:BITEs newbies with claims of WP:V / WP:NOR that are unjustified in most occasions. In this case, removal of sourced content was even less justified. No one ever challenged the material in the Red Bank, New Jersey article. The material was reliably sourced (note that per WP:SELFPUB, a press release is a reliable source) in addition to other sources in the section. Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification. The material was then reinserted with additional sources intended to address any possible objection that Nightscream might ever have. Over and done, one would think. Nightscream seems to be upset that sources were added, as has happened many times before in articles we both edit, where Nightscream removes unsourced content and I reinsert it with sources found with trivial ease. See this edit, where Nightscream removed material regarding a proposed Formula One race that was on the front page of every newspaper in the New York City metro area calling it a "WP:V/WP:NOR" violation, while I reinserted the material with appropriate sources (here) minutes later. This process has happened often and it seems to bother Nightscream deeply. Besides, claims of NPA issues coming from someone who as standard procedure berates, belittles and maliciously attacks other editors on a rather personal basis for rather trivial violations of his expectations ("Really? You can't even capitalize a proper noun? Or format the movie in the same way that all the other films above it and below it are?? Or spell it properly? Seriously?", "No one gives a shit about which studio animated it.", just from the past two days and I could provide hundreds more), I would hope that Nightscream would be better able to recognize legitimate criticism of improper removal of sourced content. And I'm not the only person with these concerns with Nightscream and his editing practices. Take a look at User_talk:Nightscream#Dan Brown, where one of many editors complains on his talk page about unjustifiable removal of what he defines as "Original Research", and see User_talk:Nightscream#Your behavior at Talk:A Scause for Applause, SPI for strong criticism of his attacks on other editors. Alansohn (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyi, this fight again (not you two, but lots of others have gone down this same road). In my experience it is a good idea to remove only material you can't easily confirm. If we deleted every unsourced sentence on Wikipedia, we'd have about 10% of the content we have right now. The "challenged or likely to be challenged" part is the key. And you did yourself no favor by referring to a reliable source as not being reliable and deleting material on that basis. That said, if you do feel the material has an issue, you are 100% correct to remove it. And Alan needs to AGF on that. But did you seriously have doubts about material in the press release? If not, why did you remove it? I can see why Alan would get frustrated, but I also understand why you are. If you showed a bit more care and Alan had a bit more patience, things would go a lot smoother... Hobit (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hobit's points are well taken and I do want to apologize to Nightscream for my snarky remark; Frustration may have been an acceptable rationalization at the time but it isn't an appropriate justification. Nightscream and I are inevitably going to overlap on editing a significant number of articles and I hope that we can find a more effective way to work together towards the goal of building an encyclopedia rather than trying to score points. I do appreciate that Nightscream will lean far more towards removal of unsourced content added to these and other articles, but I am more than willing to work in a partnership in which Nightscream tags (rather than removes) and discusses legitimately questionable unsourced / poorly sourced content, while I will be happy to reference sourceable content and to remove content that is irredeemably unsourceable based on my attempts to find decent references. I thought that we had been heading in a more productive direction in recent months since our earlier confrontations and I hope that this "incident" can lead to mutual agreement on a path to work together in reasonably harmonious fashion rather than to escalate a needless conflict. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a beer some time, or if that's not practical have a chat offline. It is well worth investing time in getting to know and like people you will meet often, especially if you are likely to disagree much of the time. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion after un-archiving

I apologize for not having responded earlier before the discussion was archived. The miniscule amount of time we are given before bots archive is astounding. I also apologize for the length of this post, but this problem has being going on for years, and hope that if you truly care about improving this project, that you read it carefully.

It does not matter what Wikipedia:Verifiability is clear about, nor does it matter whether I had doubts about the source. If Alan or Hobit want to have a discussion on WP:V, or on my criticism of problem editors or one-off IP editors who can’t write a coherent sentence, then they are free to engage me in a discussion on that topic, provided they do so in good faith and with intellectual honesty and decency. But those are separate discussions.

This discussion is about one thing and one thing alone: Alan’s long-time habit of attacking his critics and those he disagrees with in his edit summaries and elsewhere (including in this very discussion), lying about the editing record, and smearing those he disagrees with by any means necessary, including bringing up past discussions with other editors that do not directly bear any relevance to the one at hand.

First, he compounds his earlier attack on me with similar comments here, when he claims, rather inanely, that I am “upset” and “bothered deeply” when sources are added to articles, when that is the precise sort of thing that I want to see occur in articles. The fact of the matter is, I remove unsourced information and original research from Wikipedia every day, and when I do so, I do so rather dispassionately. My removal of the content from the Red Bank article was no less dispassionate, and not motivated by any “malice”, nor does Alan have any basis for arguing otherwise. (Admittedly I have been more critical of editors who exhibit ignorance of grade school writing skills, and while I do criticize this, I don’t make false accusations or claim to know their emotional state.) Note that Alan not only tries to minimize the seriousness of his earlier comment by euphemistically calling it “snarky” (it wasn’t, it was a direct violation of AGF and NPA, and was far more malicious, ironically, than any content removal by me) but that in referring to his “comment” in the singular, he is indicating that he is not also including his comments in this discussion in his “apology”. (Indeed, why would he, when such behavior is his m.o. during ANI discussions?)

Second, he outright lies about the editing record, including his own edits and mine (not the first time he has done this).

He claims, “Even after explaining that the material was all reliably sourced and adding additional sources, Nightscream removed the material a second time without justification.” Alan did not offer any “explanation”. What he did do was simply refer, in passing, to the material as being “sourced” in the edit summary in which he restored all the information, including the portion which was not sourced. In the first place, the mere fact that he asserts something (or even “explains” it) to be true does not make it true. In point of fact, his initial revert did not include any addition of sources; he just reverted my edit. You don’t have to believe me. Just go to the article’s edit history, and compare the version before my removal of the material and after he restored it. If he added more sources to the article, they’d show up in the diff, wouldn’t they? But in fact, they don’t. None of the changes he made included adding more sources. And by reverting my edit, he re-added the unsourced material: Namely, the mention of "Broad Street", "Garmany" or "Urban Outfitters". He eventually made another edit in which he added yet another source, one that did mention Garmany and Broad Street, which I did not revert.

He lied when he claimed that I “blindly remove content”. I think I’ve demonstrated here that I examined both the content and the sources that were cited in order to determine which bits of information were supported by those sources and which weren’t, so unless he is using a definition of “blind” that I’m ignorant of, I think that falsifies this claim fairly clearly. Alan, unfortunately, likes to reuse certain stock tactics and accusations, and one of them is to repeatedly accuse other editors of “blind” reverts. Don’t believe me? Check out this ANI discussion to see how often the word “blind” shows up on his messages. Hell, just count how many times it shows up in his very first message in that discussion. You could practically create a drinking game out of it. (The other editor targeted, User:AdjustShift, denied Alan’s accusation.) Since Alan knows that I read the sources, and that I found that they did not contain some of the material in the passage, this illustrates how he likes to toss accusations around in knee-jerk, indiscriminate fashion, without even giving any thought to what he’s saying.

Third, Alan tries to smear his accusers or opponents by bringing up extraneous past conflicts in which his accusers have been embroiled, apparently in the belief that merely having been involved in numerous conflicts somehow discredits the accuser and falsifies the accusation. This is false. Any editor who has done heavy editing over the course of many years is going to find himself involved in numerous conflicts, especially if he or she is an admin enforcing policy. Bringing up past problems is certainly legitimate if it is directly relevant to the matter at hand, but Alan does not recognize this as a criterion, since he chooses any ol’ editor at random who has had “concerns with my editing practices”. If you want to falsify Accusation X that has been leveled against you, then do it. But bringing up Other Accusation Y against your accuser does not do this. It’s simply employment of the Tu Quoque fallacy. If Alan, or anyone else, wants to start a discussion here about my conduct, then let them. But such a discussion would be separate from this one.

This problem isn’t new

This would not be that big a problem if these behaviors were new. But they’re not. Alan has been troubling the editing community here at least six years, and when one looks through the numerous times he’s been reported here at ANI, ArbCom, etc., one sees an unfortunate pattern. Here are some examples from that pattern:

In this September 2007 ANI discussion, an editor accused Alan of using deliberately misleading edit summaries. The ANI participant who gave the most responses in that discussion, Persian Poet Gal, agreed that Alan was guilty of this, while two other editors, User:Fram and User:Wikipediatrix, observed that this was not a new problem with Alan.

Alan was the subject of a 2007-2008 RfC in which entire lists were compiled showing his personal attacks, AGF violations, questionable summaries, failure to acknowledge his violations and canvassing.

In 2008, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan for his incivility, personal attacks, violations of AGF, etc.

In this February 2010 ANI discussion, three editors, User:postdlf, User:Good Olfactory and User:Ncmvocalist observe Alan's problem with incivility, failure to adhere to AGF, personal attacks, making his accusers the subject of attacks, and stonewalling. User:Eusebeus concurs with this at a related Wikiquette Assistance discussion that same month.

During a September 2007 ANI discussion, Eusebeus pointed to a number of recurring tendencies on Alan’s part, and I’m quoting Eusebeus here:

1. A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
2. A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
3. A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
4. A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
5. A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.

Clearly, this is an ongoing problem with Alan, for which he has previously been seriously disciplined, so it’s unfortunate that once again, those at ANI have refused to take decisive action, as seen by Hobit’s response, in which he talks solely about WP:V, completely failing to address or even acknowledge the problem of Alan’s serial behavior, and Guy’s inane suggestion that we have a beer or chat offline. It reminds me the bit in the comedy show Bill Cosby: Himself, in which one of Cosby’s children steals a toy from a sibling, leading to a fight that awakens Cosby from sleep, and when Cosby smacks both children equally, and the indignant sibling complains that he/she was struck even though he/she was in the right, Cosby responds, “We don’t care about justice! We just want QUIET!” That’s what you guys are doing. (A pity that Lukeno94, who stated that Alan was out of line, but made no response following Alan’s.)

Seriously, why do you people participate here on ANI if you’re so incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff, and simply informing policy violators in no uncertain terms that their disruptive behaviors must cease?

Summary and Conclusion: An Offer for a Resolution

This must stop. Now. Those of you hold yourselves up in a position of authority here, capable of addressing problems here at ANI need to inform Alan, in no uncertain terms, of the following:

• That his viewpoint of WP:V, or any guideline, does not empower him to attack another editor with false accusations, or fabricate imagined emotional states or motivations, and that such behavior should not be minimized with euphemistic labeling like “snarky”.

• That he has lied about his and others’ editing records, and that this behavior is unacceptable, and must cease.

• That when he is accused of wrongdoing, his obligation is to falsify the accusation, and not to respond with ad hominem attacks directed to his accusers, engaging in the Tu Quoque fallacy, or any other type of fallacy.

These resolutions must also be enforced, so that if Alan continues to violate them, that his editing may be revoked. If he does not respond positively to these instructions, then he needs to have his editing privileges taken away from him. Should you refuse to revoke his privileges, or even pursue this matter further, I will be forced to go to the Arbitration Committee to report Alan there, and pursue more a more decisive resolution. (Eventually, I will also be calling for administrator reviews of those of you who have aided and sheltered Alan by refusing to take action to stop his serial abuse, both in regards to this discussion and previous ANI discussions involving Alan, such as the one last July.)

Keep in mind that ArbCom is not ANI. Those at ArbCom tend to get things done. The last time Alan was brought before them, back in 2007, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan, and since Alan has filled the intervening six years with more of the same violations that led to that restriction in the first place, it would not looking good for him. I will contact the other participants in those RfCs and ANIs to comment. And believe me, smearing his accusers will not improve his chances of coming out of any ArbCom investigation unscathed.

Keep in mind also that the last time I spearheaded an ArbCom intervention regarding a serial policy violator who had been disrupting the site for several years, that policy violator, Asgardian, was eventually banned from Wikipedia for a year, and eventually indefinitely.

Alan, I want you to know that this is not a threat. It’s simply a statement of my intention. I am no longer going to allow you to attack others or engage in willfully deceitful behavior. I would far prefer not to go to ArbCom, both because you are capable of being a good editor when you want to be, and also because of the amount of time and work that would go into producing an ArbCom case. Although I don’t harbor tremendous hopes that you’ll change at this point, I feel I’m obligated to give you a chance. The three behaviors I have summarized above have been established by virtue of evidence and reason. You can freely acknowledge, without euphemism, logical fallacy or rhetoric, that you have committed those violations repeatedly, acknowledge that this is unacceptable, and that you will categorically cease doing so immediately. In return, I will not pursue this matter further, nor reference it in the future (provided that it does not become necessary in light of a repeat of the same behavior). If you do not do this, and the ANI admins refuse to hold you accountable, I will go to ArbCom. And I don’t think the chances that you will come out of that without a severe blow to your editing privileges are that great.

Please think it over, and let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to look at this (as you asked me to again), but bloody hell, that is waaaaaaaaaaaay too much writing. The chances of anyone reading that page of text is very low, I'm afraid. WP:TLDR does apply, although if I get time, I may attempt to read it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few (much briefer) thoughts and suggestions

ANI is intended to deal with incidents and to do so in a timely fashion, while they are occurring. Nightscream raised an issue regarding his removal of sourced content from the article for Red Bank, New Jersey. Yet after I and other editors addressed the issue and clarified that Nightscream's improper removal of sourced content is the more relevant issue, Nightscream disappeared and refused to discuss this problem. A week later, Nightscream reappears with a legal brief that the U.S. Supreme Court would toss out as too long and incoherent, discussing issues that may or may not have occurred seven or more years ago. Whatever this is, based on what I could gather from his screed, this is not an incident. Nightscream can productively respond to my suggestions to settle this issue one of two ways. He can stop removing sourced content, start attempting to add sources or tag for them as required by WP:V, stop attacking other editors for violating his own manufactured policies, stop tendentiously wikilawyering, stop making personal attacks (see repeated claims of "lying" above) and start trying to build an encyclopedia. Alternatively, I encourage Nightscream to follow through on his threats to take this to Arbcom, where this will go nowhere. Either alternative makes infinitely more sense than addressing an imagined incident where Nightscream has ignored a rather clear and rational offer to settle his dispute in a useful manner. Guy's suggestion makes even more sense now; we should either have a beer together and settle this or all of us should just start drinking. Heavily. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although using IPs while still having a valid non-blocked account is okay, I am objecting User:Maunus's this act because of the reasons that i mention now. Maunus is now using IPs 68.9.182.96 and 128.148.231.12. He admits that here and at the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/68.9.182.96/Archive. He was recently (17th May 2013) blocked for uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. Previously in May 2011 while the user was admin, he had imposed a self-block for "preempting incivil behavior at multiple takpages". Block log. Now whether the blocks are self imposed or forced by other admins doesn't change the fact that this user makes personal attacks on other editors. As mentioned before, using IPs is valid. But using IPs thus wrongly attributes such personality-wise editing habits. The SPI can not take any action in this case. That's why i am here to note this point and get other admin's opinion and attention. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so let me see, your argument is that because I have previously made personal attacks I should be exempt from the rule that allows editors to edit as IPs? Is that even an argument? 68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they had declared that they were doing thus, in a similar manner to what I had to do earlier this year? There are some situations where people might find it awkward to log in. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also said that it is acceptable. But edits done through IPs aren't attributed to the right person. I am not caring about edit counts. I wouldn't even care of any constructive edits if the user himself has opted for not using their account. But non-constructive edits, like may be vandalism, multiple votes and personal attacks, should be attributed to the right person. Such behavioural attributions are helpful. The duck test relies on such behavioural features. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the duck test is about. It is about determining whether two accounts who do not acknowledge they are used by the same editor are in fact operated by the same sockmaster. Since I have acknowledged that I am using those two IPs, and probably will use more of them since they are dynamic the duck test is entirely irrelevant.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He cannot login in to his account as he has the enforcer enabled, as you linked to the SPI you must know that? He first posted from his place of work and then from another location later, he stated on the talk page that it was him, he has done nothing wrong here and this is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus in the guise of an IP puts a clarify tag here in the article they later revert me without giving any reason only to be reverted by another editor.Later they start to edit war over another section here most importantly they say that we should not revert without giving any edit summary [72] however if you look here they reverted me without any edit summary. The edit war continues where the IP/Maunus also crosses 3RR limit [73] and may be out of frustration they just blank the whole section [74]. All this while the IP user never informed that it was Maunus because if it was informed then they would have been blocked for such disruption. This was very clever tactic by Maunus. Recently Maunus was blocked for incivility and here he calls another editor a joker.-sarvajna (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He also explained on the talk page why he did it, he has not done anything wrong here and this is as already stated, pointless. Please explain what policies he has violated and maybe you will have something, right now all I see is, "this guy pissed me off". Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DS: Committing to crime later on doesn't undo the crime. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Maunus did breach 3RR then that is a valid concern, although I'm not sure why it is brought here rather than taken to WP:AN3. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did break 3rr because I was being reverted and warned for invalid reasons - the information I added was fully sourced. the reversals was not based on having read the actual material, and the rationales given were incorrect. And Ok, I got angry.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Blanking a section without discussion, breach of civility by calling other editor a joker even after being blocked for incivility, breach of 3RR. Did he not indulge in vandalism? -sarvajna (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section blanking was based on discussion. Darkness shines said that the sources were unreliable, which of course should mean that we dont use them. Calling someone who makes jokes a joker is not a personal attack.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Sitush: I did not bring it here to get action on his 3RR. I brought it here to get admin's opinions of how rightful attribution of edits should be done. We are in a way collecting feathers here to make a full duck. And its just a coincidence that his all colours are brought forth. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, all I'll say now is that the more times contributor behaviour relating to the Narendra Modi article is raised here (see above thread), the more likely it is that someone with a mop will decide it is time to do some general cleaning. I doubt very much that the cleaning would be restricted to a single contributor. But if you want to push it then I cannot stop you. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... if that ever happens and wrong people are sacked for no reason, we at least would now be able to make reasonable guess as to who could be behind it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Please, do tell me! - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not sockpuppetry is it unnecessarily disruption. "I can't log in because of the wikibreak enforcer" isn't a good reason -- if Maunus has changed their mind about taking a break they should get the enforcer removed and log in with their account. NE Ent 09:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has to do no such thing, there are no rule saying you have to be logged in to edit, so I just logged out to do this. 212.183.128.186 (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but why happens when you cause disruptions without logging in? to whom should I attribute that disruption to? -sarvajna (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would note that although I agree that editing as an IP is fine, historically certain admins and members of the community in high positions feel otherwise. The primary reason I created this account was because when I was editing as an IP several editors used it as an excuse to say I was socking...and the community didn't debate that or indicate it wasn't ok to block me for editing as an IP. Now even in my RFA some said I was socking and pointed to those IP edits. So unless the member wants to be called a sockmaster they should edit using their account if they have one established. Kumioko (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Im not an admin, but just to weigh in on the IP/user thing. The reason why it is discouraged is that for the average user there is little or no way to discern if an IP belongs to a user. This can obviously be used to to give undue weight to things said by editors who engage in this behaviour. Essentially, User:Foobar12345678 could edit as his IP, and back himself up in a discussion. If his internet connection does not use a static IP, then each time he reconnects, it will be yet another user. Obviously some users may not think this through, and may do it inadvertently, but there is little difference between this and actual socking. -- Nbound (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• On the enforcer - if you want to disable it, all you have to do is turn off JavaScript in your browser, then log in, and remove the enforcer script from your .js page. The enforcer doesn't actually block you from editing - it just lets you log in, and then automatically logs you out again, via JavaScript. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am kind of liking IP editing. I think I'll continue to do that and just leave my account behind. Thanks for the attention.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're still editing as an IP while you have the enforcer enabled, I think it is a sign that you are well and truly addicted to Wikipedia, and that you should either just come back and use your account, or ask Dennis Brown for a self-requested block. I'd prefer the former, but it's up to you... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as someone who accidentally stepped into this dispute while huggling yesterday, I will say that I found Maunus's multiple-IP editing disruptive. Not because he wasn't using his account, per se, but because a) he was using two IPs essentially at once (notice how the contribs of IP 128 and IP 68 cross within minutes of each other, making the same arguments, without identifying them as each other or himself until well into both the edit war and the talk page debate, after the article had been protected and he'd lost his advantage in reverting there); and b) he used that IP editing to get something resembling "extra chances" from, at least, me. As a naive admin not otherwise involved in the dispute, with no indication that I was dealing with not only an experienced editor but an ex-admin, I warned him about our BLP policy and then stuck around to try to explain it to what appeared to be a newbie who needed help understanding, rather than just blocking someone who was edit warring to insert a what looked to me like a pretty egregious BLP violation. Similarly, as an IP he got a warning and extra revert chances on 3RR that he wouldn't have gotten had it been known that he was not only the other IP, but also Maunus, who knows perfectly well about edit warring policy already.

  If Maunus wants to edit as an IP now rather than using his account, he's free to do that - but he needs to be up-front about using multiple IPs on different ranges in the same discussion, and the playing "dumb" about policy to avoid sanction needs to stop. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Maunus, with two u's. Read the sources and you will know why it was not a BLP violation. Block me for 3rr or more personal attacks or disruption if you wish, or give me a topic ban for any topic of your choosing, but PLEASE could we get some qualified admin attention to those pages already?68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are two Us. Sorry for the misspellings; I've corrected them above. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to place this diff here [75] .-sarvajna (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your diff and I raise you with this one[76]68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctantly, given the blatant edit-warring and general disruptive editing via IPs, I think there should be serious talk about sanctions against Maunus. Edits such as this are very much not ok in the first place, let alone something to edit-war back in or double down on, and his bizarre comment about DS being an admin, together with the responses to that on the IP talk page definitely create the impression of an effort to evade scrutiny. All of this is very much unbecoming of any editor, least of all an admin.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sure you're very reluctant. I am not an admin btw.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks][reply]

I was responsible for the page protection of Narendra Modi; I then had a quick check back through the contributions of Maunus and his IP addresses, looking to see if he was using the IP accounts to edit whilst blocked or evade sanctions. I came across the last block ([77] - he was blocked for 48 hours at 03:04 17th May) and any edits after 03:04 on 19th May are perfectly acceptable. It wasn't until I went back and looked did I see one single edit [78] from 18th May 2013 from one of his self identified IP addresses. I hadn't really paid much attention to the Wikibreak enforcer thing, but I'm now more concerned about this edit in light of the entire ANI thread here, than I was when I initially came across it yesterday. I'm not sure what action if any to take, so I'll toss it over to the community here to see if they think it warrants attention. Nick (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my edit. That IP is from my job, the anthropology department at the university where I work, where several people work with India related topics. The edit is adding a space. Not exactly my kind of edit.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks][reply]

• I have done a bunch of stuff thats against the rules, and I will humbly and calmly accept any and all sanctions taken against me. But please can we have some attention to these articles and the editing behaviour of the particular editors I am mentioning. They are not breaking any redline rules, but they are a real threat to wikipedia. I would think much more so than I am, but that is up to you to decide.64.134.99.103 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[Maunus editing from starbucks][reply]

What I would really like

What I would really like is a lot of uninvolved admins and non-admin editors to take a look at the articles Narendra Modi, 2002 Gujarat violence and other pages related to Hindu-Nationalism and communal violence in Gujarat. They should pay special attention to the editing of a group of editors including User:Ratnakar.kulkarni, User:Yogesh Khandke, User:Mrt3366, User:Dharmadhyaksha, User:Kondicherry, User:OrangesRyellow User:A.amitkumar (perhaps not, he only seems to have gotten involved yesterday) and administrator User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (reverts all edits from new editors to the article, even when reliably sourced and well formatted (often without edit summary), then proceeds to warn them om their talkpages). These editors, many of whom are SPAs relating to Hinduism, are working very hard to keep all criticism of Modi out of the article about him using every kind of spurious non-argument available, but usually just sheer force of numbers. There is a huge amount of behavioral issues for admins to sort out, walledgarden, opwnership, misrepresentation of sources, extreme pro-Modi bias. I additionally have reasonable suspicion that some of these editors are editing in coordination, and that some of them may in fact work for Modi or for his RSS organization known to have many fulltime activists paid to publicize propaganda. In short there is a lot of reasons as many administrators as possible should take a look at this article and the editing behavior there.

So why should there be critical information about Narendra Modi? Easy question. Because the overwhelming majority of sources about him are highly critical. He is described in literally dozens of reliable peer viewed sources as having been an "orchestrator" of the 2002 massacre against Muslims in Gujarat. He has been accused of personally intervening on the side of the mobs, even by people who are his supporters (they have been filmed praising him for it), he has been denied visas to USA and Britain under a law meant to target individuals who infringe on the religious freedom of others, he is almost without fail described as the most controversial politician in India, he has given his name to a brand of politics now called "Moditva" (mixing his name Modi and Hindutva, described by reliable sources as populist, virulently anti-muslim hindu nationalism combined with liberal economic policies). See this write up for a review of some scholarly sources about him, none of which are currently used in the article.

Right now the article doesn't even describe the fact that the BJP and RSS are Hindu nationalist organizations and gives no description of his politics. There is a section on his "personality" that builds entirely on news sources, all of which are highly critical of Modi. One would not realize that from reading the article though, because in the section they are used only to cherrypick minor positive details. For example a source that is criticizing or even ridiculing Modis poetry is used to source that "he writes poems in gujarati". A source that critiques him as being virulently chauvinist and Anti-Muslim is used to source that he is a vegetarian. And a source that says says that he is considered an autocrat by his opponents is used only to source that that his supporters see him as a Protector (which in fact is a misrepresentation of what the source says). Whenever a critical piece of information is entered (even the fact that he is a hindu-nationalist) the mentioned editors show up and remove it (often using rollback or twinkle with no edit summary, they then proceed directly to warn the editor who makes the edit), and then when a discussion starts they argue that the critical information is not notable (even when it appears in ), is not backed by reliable sources (even when the same sources are used by themselves to source other pieces of information) or that it is inaccurate (usually not backed by any evidence or supported by blog or news column sources). Then the editor who inserted the information gives up and leaves and everything is back to "normal". The result is that no other living politician with a comparable degree of contentiousness (having been publicly accused of aiding and abetting genocide, having been denied visa to several foreign countries, having been the object of Supreme Court Investigations, strong nationalist and fundamentalist viewpoints, being described having some degree of involvement in sectarian violence in almost every single reliable source that mentions him etc.) is being treated with a similar degree of reverence. Might it be because this particular politician is supported by a large and well paid staff of propagandists?

This is not how wikipedia is supposed to work. And I humbly ask for all of your help in coming to the article and assuring that we achieve an article that gives a critical but fair article about this highly controversial politician that represents all the available sources about him.68.9.182.96 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: As this big essay is about the article and not about the IP usage issue i have raised above, i am separating it. There is no need to nest this topic in the topic thats going on above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT mess with my formatting again.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Big piece of crap... just because I raised a sockpuppet investigation against you... and for a discussion which you couldn't be civil enough and i put a NPA comment... LOL... Hey where are your buddy admin's and users. I dont have to explain myself but i will do so.. i reached the NM page through an edit i was doing on digvijay page which i reached due to some date related cleanup i am doing all across WP... (see year maintenance tag removal history by me in my contribs). And here i meet this bunch of edit warers and got into this mess of war between BJP and congress activists... though what you may say might be true about other editors... this seems true about you too... is some one paying you? Remember WP is filled with so many rules and quotes that every rule has a counter-rule that i can quote, so it is many times best to maintain your civility which i did and you did not. What you claim as reliable sources are political mouthpieces in the same way as the other waring editors are using their mouthpieces... so how are you different from them? you are just another side of the same coin... Amit (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you that you were arguing that we could not mention the political stances of Modi or any of the parties or organizations with which he is affiliated because that would be libel. I have never heard a more absurd argument. As opposed to most of these editors (I think yuo may be an exception as well) I have a long history of editing many other topics on wikipedia and writing large amounts of article content, not just maintaining articles about my favorite politicians. That is the difference between a pov pushing single purpose account and an actual encyclopedic editor. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion I was mentioning about LIBEL due to edits that you had done here and for the addition of party agenda details i said - wiki reference to those party pages should take care of it instead of explaining it there and at this point i also compared it with Sonia Gandhi page saying congress agenda is not summarized in that page so why are you so much into this person alone... at which point you did seem get to enraged... irrespective of all this... lets say my arguments were not sensible... so is that what you would do? call me a joker? and you expect me to take it lying down? i put a sensible NPA comment on your page which was removed later here and when looking at the IP's i notice two IP's one identified by your id and another IP making the same points across the whole NM discusison page, I put a sock puppet investigation too.. i feel my actions are reasonable... where as yours were not surely cool headed.Amit (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

153.161.195.137 (talk · contribs) received this final warning from admin Drmies about making personal attacks against a particular editor. Please see Drmies' talk page, which shows the comment that violated the warning. Since Drmies had already posted a final warning last week, I simply posted this comment on IP 153's talk page instead of using a template. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze city. This could have been dealt with very easily before being brought here. Doc talk 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a question of proper procedure than an incident requiring immediate action, so if anyone thinks it belongs elsewhere, please tell me so or simply move it. We have an article on a place in Armenia called Tsaghkadzor‎ and also a stub about a place in Azerbaijan called Tsaxkadzor (though sources for the latter are pretty thin on the ground). Recently, an Armenian IP has been repeatedly changing the Tsaxkadzor article to be about the Armenian place even though we already have a separate article on it. I've tried to explain in edit summaries why I've reverted these edits and dropped a couple of warnings on the IP's talk page, but I have a feeling that he doesn't understand English very well, and he's been persistent in making the edits. It doesn't seem to be a good case for semiprotection, since it's just the one stable IP doing this; and I feel bad about dropping a couple more warnings and asking for a block, since the IP may not really understand what's going on. What's the best thing to do in such cases? Deor (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of two things and would suggest doing the first before the second. (1) Find someone who speaks Armenian and someone who speaks Azeri; get the first one to write "For the town in Armenia, see Tsaghkadzor" in Armenian and the second to write "For the village in Azerbaijan, see Tsaxkadzor" in Azeri. Paste one on each article, directly under the English-language hatnotes that say the same thing, and be sure to place the text in hidden comments. (2) Block. I suppose there's a small chance that the users simply aren't understanding, but surely they'll understand their own language; someone who keeps this up despite the hidden-text comments is clearly doing it in bad faith. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the coords given for the later, Google Earth shows only a single structure, a lone agricultural building (a chicken or cow shed); not a farmstead, not a hamlet, and certainly not a named place of any note that shows up in either Google or Bing maps. So either the sole source that asserts the existence of Tsaxkadzor is wrong about its location, or we have an article about a cowshed. Either way, without some actual reliable source about Tsaxkadzor, we shouldn't have an article about it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is thinking that it's the same place with two sets of similar coords, the two locations are about 100 miles apart. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the place doesn't exist, the article should be AfD'd or redirected. It shouldn't be rewritten to treat a different place about which we already have an article. Originally, I thought that this was an ethnic thing, since the putative Tsaxkadzor is in the area of Azerbaijan that is currently under the de facto control of the Armenian-dominated (and not internationally recognized) Nagorno-Karabakh Republic; so I assumed that the IP was merely trying to claim the place for Armenia. But he doesn't just change the country to Armenia; he changes the coordinates, province, and everything else to match the information about Tsaghkadzor‎, which is actually in Armenia. Deor (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea of deleting it; the IP's confusion shows that the names are similar enough that it would be a good redirect if we don't retain the article. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Amanda Bynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is semi'd so I can't fix it. Please revert [79], consider deleting image and consider full prot due to last night's arrest. --64.85.214.37 (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted and warned the editor, as well as sent that photo (File:Amanda-Bynes-05-23-2013.jpg) to speedy delete. It is obviously not public domain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faster than Jimmy John's, thank you. --64.85.214.37 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Black continues to launch personal attacks against other editors and myself. Lucia Black has a history of civility and battleground issues that span from 2009 to now. Right from our very first interaction at the Ghost in the Shell GAN she accused me of being biased.[80]. In January, in an unrelated matter, Lucia continued to make NPA attacks even at ANI, in this case which attacked the reporter Goodraise. She was warned about her attacks on me at this ANI.[81] She also lobs attacks at other editors with some frequency; especially when she makes mistakes and errors. Part of the issue comes from Lucia Black's removal or alterations of editor comments, like this confusing one.[82] The alteration of RexxS's comments[83] resulted in a warning on her talk page. As a result, Lucia claimed he 'called her a troll' when he did not.[84] It was the same comment made earlier against me after I proved her insertion of false material into an article.[85]

As for the matter of insertion of false material, which is equally serious in my eyes, Lucia knowingly re-inserted false material into an article with an edit summary which hinted as such.[86] She argued falsely on my talk page. [87] [88][89] Which resulted in me pulling the transcript as proof.[90] Which got her to admit that the characters are different, but she was correct to do make that edit because they were similiar.[91] Which resulted in me calling for seriousness, which provoked her making the accusation of bad-faith and trolling. [92] Lucia has continued to spread this false accusation to other editors including Worldtraveler101 today.[93]

While the NPA matter is why I brought this here; other issues have been noted with WP:IDHT/WP:NOTHERE at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Deletion_campaign_by_editors. Another example of this battleground and disruption comes from Template_talk:Track_listing with edits like this.[94] Where Lucia disruptively opposes after admitting to not understanding the core problem, and threatens admin intervention after consensus is clearly against her. Something needs to be done because Lucia's conduct has been unacceptable and exhausted the patience of the community with these circular arguments and bullying. I propose admonishment or a warning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me not understanding the subject was more hypothetical if they knew something they didnt exactly said, then now was the time to say it. Theyve avoided clear questions.

But regardless, every incident is with you involved and they will see your faults aswell. WP:BOOMERANG. Falls here.

Falls material is completely subjective. I tried explaining to you something and you called me a troll. You wanted to look for a source where sources didnt need to be found and could not be found. Its like looking for a source that says link from ocarina of time is the same link in skyward sword. Youre not gonna find a source for that. Its not upto opinion but commonsense.

If I said you called me a troll, its because you said it. And the ONLY reason why Im not bringing up links like you is because this is all on smartphone and would take me all day for one full comment.Lucia Black (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I read Template_talk:Track_listing#Album_name_.2B_artist, losing precious time of my life I'll never get back. Andy's proposal there is supported by all but one editor, Lucia Black. I don't think individual remarks toward Chris ("youre all bark, with no reason to leave a bite mark"--parsing the grammar is a bit difficult) rise by themselves to a blockable level, but what I do see is a bad case of I DIDN'T HEAR THAT and a refusal to abide by what is a pretty clear consensus. Someone with a decent amount of technical knowledge should go by there and close that discussion as if it were an RfC, to move forward with Andy's proposal which is supported by RexxS, MrMoustache, LilUnique, ChrisGualteri, and possibly Walter Gorlitz. That will put a stop to that particular unholy discussion which is disruptive/disrupted beyond reason because of Lucia Black who, apparently, neither understands the issue at hand nor is willing to accept that those issues are explained. (That's how I read the comments by all other editors; I'm not delving into the technicalities.) I don't see any boomerangs flying around, and I don't understand that "Falls" means in Lucia Black's response here. So, a warning I will give: Lucia Black, your behavior in that track listing debate is highly disruptive. I will leave the rest to someone else--a decision whether to block her or to extend the discussion in some detail by reference to other disruption, and the close of that discussion about the track listing. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS has his own personal reasons, and acknowledhes it doesnt provide any real benefit within wikipedia as an encyclopedia. lilunique is for granularity in which is practically serving the similar ourpose of metadata and microformat. The problem is that the proposed metadata is more suited if the template was not in the article space and in a separate article. Its enhancing metadata only to be redundant. None of them actually answered my question, even if they claim they have. It wouldnt even hurt to repeat themselves just once to know exactly what they claim is their answer. Its definitely hear-say situation.

As for the rest, Chrisgualtieri is mainly putting this on noticeboard due to me informing another editor its not good idea for him to be an Admin. My comments are incredibly low key, compared to Chris. But I cant nominate him, even if he is disruptive of admin level, because they wont. However, I have not said a lie about Chris. CHRIS knows im telling the truth, but this time it compromised his way to becoming an admin. Which is good, because hes not ready to be one, ive reported 3 edit wars on him, all got away with technicalities of responding after ANI, other editors involved also made mention of him in ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is also bringing WP:CANVAS for people who are barely related at all. It seems ridiculois to bring anyone else. Not that I dont have any other editors who have witnessed these situations relating to me and chris, but overall why should I? This is ridiculous.Lucia Black (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to rehash that argument here, but your comments about the opinions of RexxS and Lil-unique1 are, as far as I can tell, completely incorrect. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like having to reply to defend myself here. Your point is duly noted; there is no RFA; I just wanted the tools for administrative backlogs like WP:FTCG and merges assisting with undeletion request like Ashen Empires. I do not want to go back and forth over every detail, but it is proper to notify people that their names have been mentioned at ANI. I explicitly mentioned their name and provided diffs to evidence, I notified them as a courtsey.[95][96][97] We may not agree on things Lucia, but I have never called you a troll; a troll does not improve the coverage of articles at Square Enix and Anime as you do. As much as I like your work at Final Fantasy Dimensions, the conflict is ideology based and I simply do not know how to appeal to you and work together. I've done all that I am capable of, even begging for cooperation on Talk:Ghost in the Shell. This is not about 'winning', I just want things to be factually accurate. I am not a scholar in the field, but works like Tokyo Cyberpunk: Posthumanism in Japanese Visual Culture is a defining book on the subject. While that content dispute is past, I fear that I will have to readdress the appropriateness of a topic-level article at some future point as noted by WP:DETAIL, where you were in the minority opinion. The issue that I brought to ANI however, is the personal attacks. Which I have cited, with diffs, the origin and reason behind why you used it. I do not want you blocked or banned; I just hope that this serves as a call that such conduct is unwelcome. I apologize for any perceived rudeness, in this post and the one above, because the last five months have worn on me. I am unable to resolve this by myself and DRN was of no use, the RFCs have been my way to address this, because I alone cannot solve this problem. I welcome anyone with the fortitude to mediate this issue; I just want this problem to be resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im too tired too search for when exactly you said but I know it was gits related. Still the problem is just between me and you. Whenever you engage you dont stay nuetral, you constantly bring other topics that arent relevant, you use the same attacks you claim I make to you. You always try to undermind my comment by telling other editors of the past discussions. Thats not being civil, thats provoking an argument that can be avoided. You have no room to say anything. Youve edit warred 3 times for the same subject knowing full well you had no consemsus, and knowing it was against BRD rule. Everytime theres a discussion you turn it into something else. Do I mention previous discussions? No. You have always been the first one to provoke. Stop trying to bring ANI to block for something you not only started but continued to fight even I. Topics unrelated to it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Gits? Lucia Black, you need to see that the problem (as far as that Track listing debate is concerned) isn't between you and Chris but between you and everyone else. We need some more eyes on this to confirm: this is a disruptive editor. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  GitS = Ghost in the Shell. —Frungi (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. Such as tracklisting, the editors refused to answer strong consensus changing questions and avoided the flaws. And even then Andy Mabett made it completely clear he didnt want to even clarify the other editors who supported his cause despite having completely different motives.

Disruption isnt "constant" nor "admin" worthy because all im being accused of is wanting to know why consensus is leaning toward this. Sue me for wanting a more agreeing consensus rather than a consensus that has each benefits their personal views but not really supporting the actual cause or focused on how much it would affect an article.

Being in a dispute is not disruptive. Especially if im asking key relevant questions. Even then, its not even admin worthy nor disruptive in general. Its not a poll decision, its based on reasoning. The others barely made any significant reason. The only one who was actually clear was RexxS who was worried about modifying the template so it can be used outside of wikipedia. Still metadata is based solely on the tracklist, they forget that the same info is on the article space and that much metadata is unnecessary. As long as title parameter (sharing the same name of the article title in most cases) is present. Still, its just enhancement for the sake of enhancement and completely subjective. And im not going to fight over this. Mentioning every dispute isnt proving anything significant. Ive seen several editors get in dispute several times. Im done with this, j formally apologize and it wont happen again. Etc. Point being, this is pointless.Lucia Black (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The problem was that your questions were answered, the same way they were answered more then a dozen times at the Pump RFC which was after a lengthy discussion at the A&M talk page. While this is not an exhaustive list, these diffs show WP:IDHT.[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107] You were instructed by half a dozen editors why article assessment is not tied to notability; you cannot delete an article because it cannot make C class. You respond to the editors with comments like: Again...missing the point. So im not going to repeat the same explanations. You all know youre misinterpretting it. Also in that diff, you strangely removed part of my comment which should not be done. It wasn't major, but you did this and got warned by RexxS which you then accused him of calling you a troll as noted in the diffs above. I do not know why you keep doing that either. Though I do appreciate the apology, but it shouldn't be directed at me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, one admitted its not against any policy to do such a campaigne. And even then, you guys havent actually proven that classes arent related to notability. And whats worst is that it didnt affect the campaigne overall. It was pure devils advocate. Even though evidence strongly suggest stubs and start are articles that havent made the notability apparent.

Regardless, unlike tracklist people were onboard with the othersl discussions.im in ANI simply for defending my prooosald and reasoning.Lucia Black (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack at Talk:Soviet Union. User is User:Peterzor See diff showing attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=556596468&oldid=556595902 See diff showing blanking of user talk page, with incorrect edit summary of reverting vandalism, to remove notices. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peterzor&curid=36728281&diff=556617356&oldid=556599808 Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're already discussing this at WP:AN ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This user has received numerous warnings on his talk page [108],[109],[110],[111],[112],[113],[114],[115],[116],[117],[118],[119], but the message that he must abide by Wikipedia policies doesn't seem to be getting through. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been experiencing problems with this editor on Nazi Germany, where I have been trying to prep the article for GA. He has 88 edits to that article since the beginning of April, with almost all of the edits focusing on two sentences in the lead. He's repeatedly removed content that I added specifically in response to the peer review (diff, diff, diff, diff), added factually incorrect and poorly worded material (diff, diff), ignored ongoing talk page discussions that are not going his way and then re-inserting his preferred version of the article (diff, diff) via slow-motion edit wars. Overnight he was canvassing other users when I reverted his addition of unsourced content (Diff of User talk:Boson; Diff of User talk:Rjensen; Diff of User talk:Moxy). Some of his edits to his own talk page make me suspect competence issues (sample four-minute series of edits: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. I have been trying very hard to assume good faith, but in my opinion the matter goes beyond a content dispute and into the issue of this editor's suitability to contribute here. Independent examination of this editor's activities would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -- Dianna (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meyerbeer13 (talk · contribs · count) is a new user who has got annoyed at a couple of experienced users who have tried to explain the Wikipedian way. The user has just accused User:Smerus of all people of being an anti-Semite. This choice of targets makes me wonder if there is some trolling going on. Edit captions such as "removed tendentious and disparaging remarks -- when you put such remarks in Mozart's bio then put them in Meyerbeer's" when removing a cited quotation and "deleted tendentious judgement" when truncating a quote from William Christie (harpsichordist) suggest that he is on a WP:POINT trip.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has violated WP:OR, WP:PEA and WP:CENSOR many times in his so far short career on en.wikipedia.org. That, and accusing anyone of being anti-semitic because of a content dispute, makes this editor block-worthy, and I support a block of him, whether temporary or indefinite. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. This is not good. "Just because something isn't sourced, doesn't mean that it isn't valid -- this is a bogus argument. I have thought deeply and read a lot about these composers." Another thing; 8 days as an editor with 25 edits and he is using language like "removed tendentious and disparaging remark" in edit summaries? The WP:DUCK test tells me that this is a sockpuppet of someone who has been warned or blocked for tendentious editing and disparaging remarks toward other editors. Does anyone have any idea who the sockmaster might be? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any link between User:Rembrandt_Peale, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Evidence-based,Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beheading_in_the_name_of_Islam. User:Rembrandt_Peale is clearly an experienced Wikipedian. Just not sure if there's a link with Evidence-based. Another possible link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historicist/Archive --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just writes something not interesting to place links to youreasyguide.info. Tagremover (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a better warning would have been based on WP:SPAMLINK rather than vandalism, but no matter. If he continues, he'll be blocked, but he hasn't edited since your final warning. In fact, he hasn't edited at all in four days.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's been here before. A long time ago pushing different websites. See the first incarnation.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find this intimidation of an editor who does not happen to share Rcsprinter123's personal views of what Wikipedia should or should not be seriously disturbing. I believe some sort of sanction is needed to bring home to this editor the meaning of collegiate editing and community consensus.--Charles (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide some more of the back story than just the one diff. Based on Rcsprinter's comments, it sounds like there is one, which includes not only Davey but also you. I don't see why you should put us to the task of digging for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, I removed the route list (on Richards Brothers) per WP:Notdir, he reverted, I reverted, he then stuck above comment on my page, I replied with "get a life".

I then decided to remove his cmt/my reply, hours later he took to the talk page to attempt with an discussion so I replied and that's it,

It's not the first time he's been "pleasant" to me [120], apart from me+ RCSprinter - no editors are involved & removals after the "get a ife" cmt are RFC removals,

Thanks Charles for your help, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as "intimidation". I do see it as getting rather carried away, and Rcsprinter should tone it down a bit.

In fact, all of the people involved should tone it down a bit, do some experimental dis-engaging, and so forth.

Charlesdrakew, have you had any interactions with Rcsprinter in the past? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is any need for admin action here, but Rcsprinter who also has a troubled editing and behaviour history is in no position to start throwing his weight around in this manner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-time I.P. editor here (dynamic I.P. address, generally but not always in the 108.45.xxx.xxx range). Please see the developing edit-war on Mendoza Line - my understanding of Bold Revert Deny Discuss has always been that the original addition of content constitutes the "Bold", but User:Beyond My Ken seems to be interpreting the "revert" as the "bold". Whether or not this reflects changing standards since my days of more-frequent WikiGnoming, or whether BmK is just hoping to place the onus on me to "justify" the removal of some pretty useless "content", I'm not entirely sure. To be honest, I've already lost interest - if the current "direction" of Wikipedia is to try to mention every single letter ever written to any editor of a moderately-large publication, then that's fine. Otherwise, maybe someone with more "credentials" than myself can engage the appropriate talk page - I'm sure whatever I say would quickly disappear into the ether of this relatively-obscure page. Not really interested in engaging an editor as seemingly-aggressive as BmK, I have more interesting and rewarding things to do than "defend" myself against this particular blend of wiki-lawyering and allegations of sockpuppetry. Cheers, Strani Beeap (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the top of this page says to use headers that are neutral; I've changed it. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of which edit is the initial bold edit (and arguably, whatever the change to the status quo is, whether it's addition or deletion, is the bold edit), we're past revert and up to the discuss phase, the D of WP:BRD. Strani, I don't see where you've made any edits to Talk:Mendoza Line, where you could explain your reasoning for the edits and see whether other editors will agree. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) From what I read in history that sentence was in there since 2012 already. You were "bold" in removing it after which he "reverted". The "discuss" part both of you haven't done yet since the talk page hasn't been edited since 2011. Garion96 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just want to note that:

    (1) The content removed by Strani Beeap was sourced, and was removed on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Since UNDUE is by its very nature a judgment call, once the removal is contested, discussion is required to get a consensus to justify the deletion. (There would be different onus if the material was not sourced.)

    (2)User:Strani Beeap is clearly not a new user, as anyone looking through his edits - and, especially his edit summaries, which brought him a warning from an admin on his second edit - can see. Since Strani Beeap admits to having been an active WikiGnome in the past, I think it's a fair question from the community to ask who he is, really.

    Since Strani Beeap admits that he's "already lost interest", then the intent of this report would seem to be simply to try to get me into trouble, since he never engaged me on my talk page, and doesn't seem to want to follow up. That's not what AN/I is for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You mean clearly as in "he's never denied it and told us all he's not a new user before you did"? --Jayron32 00:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • No I mean "clearly" as is "oh, no, yet another I've edited for years as an IP story and just happened to make an account now to begin editing with an extreme attitude that's more indicative of the sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user than it is of a person who WikiGnomed for years." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Whatever. Regardless, there needs to be a civil discussion over the issue at the relevant talk page, and people need to stop reverting or editing the article until that discussion is concluded with a satisfactory consensus. It is not a fruitful exercise to decide who has the advantage of first move in any of these situations, as deciding that doesn't make that discussion happen any faster. Once the need for a discussion has been acknowledged, editing needs to stop, the article needs to be left exactly where it is, and discussion needs to happen. --Jayron32 00:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Condescending snark like this is exactly why most of us gnomes do our absolute best to avoid Talk pages at all costs. That, and the fact that I already explained my edits using the "edit summary" feature of WikiMedia, whereas you have yet to explain your repeated re-addition of the content beyond the single two-word refrain, "it's sourced". and then people wonder why there's a problem with editor retention... Strani Beeap (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever get around to writing WP:The Ent guide to wiki battles (articlespace edition) a key element that I'll be emphasizing is the importance of seizing the tactical advantage of the article talk page. When two editors are edit warring and there's been no edits to the talk page since the calendar year before last, neither looks particularly good. NE Ent 01:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be the case, but when one of them is deleting sourced material... Remember, we have a template for that kind of behavior.

In any event, Jayron is correct, the article is kept in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing. I await SB's explanation for why UNDUE applies. If he gets a consensus, great. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, you keep throwing around the term "sourced" as if that's the be-all, end-all "magic bullet" to inclusion. I can go find today's Washington Post and use the letters to the editor to "substantiate" all sorts of deranged, WP:UNDUE "some say" claims. It doesn't make them worthy of inclusion. Strani Beeap (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone please close re. "wonder why there's a problem with editor retention" Strani Beeap, redlink editors who repeatedly delete sourced content and don't discuss are editors we don't bend over backwards to retain. reverting a redlink editors repeated deletion of sourced content isn't a sin, it's a minor barnstar In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]