Terpene

thcscience_admin

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Youreallycan/Off2riorob

    At an AfD discussion, Youreallycan has made the following personal attacks on myself:

    • [1] - accuses me of "repeated NPOV contributions"; without any evidence to support it
      • [2] - I respond to this baseless accusation
    • [3] - reiterates the same accusation, and includes another editor as well. Calls me a disruptive troll.
      • [4] - Greyhood notes that personal attacks are not on.
    • [5] - I make a comment to another editor in response to their accusation that I am here to push an agenda.
      • [6] - Youreallycan posts: Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?

    He was asked to redact the comments, and he has struck them. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and a redaction is not enough in this instance.

    I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks. But most importantly, I have never really edited "queer" subjects, so how exactly am I pushing a "queer agenda" anywhere on this project? The only agenda I have been involved in is speaking out against homophobic attacks on GLBT editors, and urging the community to protect editors.

    Numerous editors have in the past expressed serious concerns relating to what has been construed as homophobic comments made by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards other editors. A recent example was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. In previous instances, when this has been brought to the community's attention, he has gotten out of jail by using the BLP card.

    Unfortunately for youreallycan/off2riorob, this time there is no BLP to hide behind.

    He made outright an outright homophobic attack on another editor, and I am asking that he be given:

    1. a lengthy block for his inexcusable attack

    # A DIGWUREN warning given the topic area. - as per fluffernutter, this was already done. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The community finally needs to do the right thing by its GLBT editors here. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Queer", in the context he used it, is not a homophobic slur. In this context, he is likely calling your "agenda" out as being questionable or odd. It does not look like the two of you had a good interaction there, but you asked him to redact and he did. Unless you want an administrator to look at the interaction between the both of you, I'm not sure anything further is necessary here. Resolute 02:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the 1940s. I don't think "queer agenda" can be reasonably taken not to have a homophobic connotation here. FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What FormerIP said. I really don't see "queer agenda" meaning anything other than homosexual agenda. LadyofShalott 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, for UK editors of a certain vintage the use of the term Queer for Gay wasn't in use in the early 70's when I was growing up and it was a word that would have meant odd or strange. Wiktionary agrees too. The only person who can explain what YRC meant is YRC and unless they do so anything else us just supposition. Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll revise my comment. It isn't the 1970s. FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the word queer has that meaning, no argument. However, combined with the word agenda, and given the concerns people have already had with certain comments from O2RR/YRC concerning the subject matter of BGLT people, it seems to reduce the liklihood that any meaning other than that of homosexual agenda is viable. LadyofShalott 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, knowing nothing of Youreallycan's history in this regard, I took the positive context (such as it is) by default. It seems that assumption was poor on my part in this case. Resolute 04:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the Wikipedia editors I have ever encountered, Youreallycan has impressed me as the most homophobic. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29 I spoke in favor of an LGBT topic ban for the guy. I continue to hold this opinion, now more strongly than ever. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Insulting a person as "most homophobic" since July 2007: That seems to be an extreme, vicious personal attack on a person who used the word "queer" in this reported incident. Just counting all the editors whom you "have ever encountered" since first editing as "User:Binksternet" (since 28 July 2007: contribs), how many editors do you count who were not the "most homophobic" in Wikipedia? -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my words; they exactly reflect the impression I have gathered over four years. I have not met a more homophobic editor. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm disappointed but entirely unsurprised that YRC/O2RR has continued this pattern of attacks on other editors. I hope that since it's not about any "favorite" politicians this time, his defenders will finally be forced to drop the lame BLP excuse for not banning him. This has gone on for way too long. (See evidence linked here and his list of past blocks for personal attacks.) Given the number of times he's been asked to stop and/or brought to a noticeboard over such comments, his failure to change his behavior indicates that a block or ban would clearly be preventative rather than punitive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Though Russavia and I have clashed nastily on several occasions, I agree with him 100% on O2RR. I have watched his disgusting hate speech flare up numerous times on the boards, only for him to slither away from sanctions by masking his revolting remarks with policy. This time, he has nothing to hide behind. He's already been warned under DIGWUREN, but I think that is really a secondary concern here. I firmly support a lengthy block for O2RR. This has gone on far too long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I logged my warning today to YRC (diff above in russavia's original post) as a DIGWUREN (now known as ARBEE) warning, since I informed him that he was operating in that topic area and needed to be wary. It was an informally-phrased warning, however, and I suppose there's no reason that he can't be given a more explicit templated version of the discretionary sanctions warning if someone feels it's necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Fluffernutter, thanks for your intervention there. I really do appreciate it mate. I don't know if you got my message on IRC, but I just stated that after discussing this with some other editors, and because of the history of shocking comments towards other editors, that something more substantial needs to be done in regards to him. Thanks again for your assistance with that. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • [Non-admin observation] I do not in any way endorse the language above (though I'm wondering what prompted Russavia to introduce the big and clever 'F' word to talk about his contributions to en.WP on getting Fucking, Austria onto DYK) but while we're here, can a grown up admin please curtail Russavia's 7-day RM process on Zhirinovsky's ass and get it off centre-stage in DYK queue please? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse. If we were dealing with a persistent racist who started calling another editor the n-word, there would be no hesitation in taking appropriate action here. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fæ, actually I agree, homophobic comments shouldn't be tolerated, ever. FYI I suppose my WP:AGF has been tested a little by the gaming to get Zhirinovsky's ass on DYK, I already noted concern at BLP Noticeboard yesterday. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very little hesitation, anyone who thinks that somehow it's not a slur is dreaming and living in a Mickey Spillane novel. That was then this is now. RxS (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Queer as Folk was homophobic? John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Queer as Folk was as homophobic as Huckleberry Finn was racist. Got it now, John? Blake Burba (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to stereotypes we have a number of one dimensional characters on stage in this thread. John lilburne (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russavia himself has pointed out in this thread that he is not known to be gay and has not edited LGBT-related topics to any extent, so there is reason to question whether or not YRC intended the comment to be an attack. The comment itself is ambiguous, but given the previous concerns expressed here, it was an unwise choice of words at best. I think it would be wise to wait for YRC to explain himself before deciding if a block is in order. In any case, an LGBT topic ban is probably overdue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your first sentence: "I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks." This context makes it much more likely that it was intended as an attack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor point, but YRC's comments about a 'fucking agenda' need to be looked at in the context of Russavia's previous post: [7]. It seems to me that Russavia set Rob up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may explain the repeated use of "fucking" but would not justify making a homophobic comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me Andy, but my post was not attentioned towards Rob, nor was it in response to anything that Rob said. It was in response to the editor directly above me who stated that I was pushing an agenda. I simply pointed out an article that I (unbelievably) managed to 5x expand -- the only agenda being because I could. To say that I set Rob up is an inexcusable assessment to make at this point. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For the life of me I can't think why any instance of homophobic abuse - let alone a persistent pattern of it - should receive greater indulgence than, say, racist or anti-Semitic abuse. Oh why anyone would try to justify it by blaming the victim. Writegeist (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Abuse is abuse, period, regardless of the target, end of line. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has only been a month or two since the last ANI discussion of YRC and homophobic attacks. Perhaps we should automate the initiation of threads like these -- or keep a permanent discussion going here, since there appears to be a lack of will to do anything about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at a loss as to how someone so concerned with BLP issues can do something like this. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As am I. A topic ban here is the least we can do, but were this any group besides LGBT, I can't help but feel like a long time out would be issued post haste. AniMate 07:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Queer - is not a homophobic descriptor in any way, its a totally acceptable word these days - User:Russavia uses it extremely often. It is his (at least on wiki) preferred word for homosexuality. He use the self descriptor with great regularity. - Using a word that the complaint uses himself regularly can hardly be an attack. Youreallycan 07:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Baloney. Spoken like a heterosexual willfully ignorant of the current usage of the word "queer" or someone desperately trying to make himself appear so. The re-appropriation of "queer" as a self-descriptor by the gay community is not license to fling it about in a pejorative manner while simultaneously claiming it is an innocuous or "acceptable" term. Blake Burba (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Queer eyes for the straight guy, Queer as Folks Queer is not some phrase from the ghetto but in mainstream usage. John lilburne (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Blake Burba, context is important here. Many black rappers liberally use the n-word in their lyrics and Dan Savage, a well known gay activist, has a history of addressing his readership using Hey Faggot!. This is not an excuse for any Wikipedian to start addressing other contributors using these highly offensive words without permission or without expecting them to be immediately treated as defamation and a blatant personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is the very nub of this discussion. Way back in January 2009 I found a red-link somewhere or other, and started the Crittenden Report article. Lets say I got this response on my talk-page: "Hey girlfriend! Thanks for queering up Wikipedia!" How I would have reacted to the very same message is all in the context.
    • If it was the first edit from an IP user, I would have welcomed them and asked them if they were interested in WP:MILHIST
    • If it was from a registered user who was active in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a compliment
    • If it was from a registered user that had a history of intolerance in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a slur against me and LGBT editors.
    Context is what is important here. That disingenuousness about context is very much not to the credit of those editors who would appear to have overlooked it. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As there's pretty much no doubt now what YRC meant, and as he still thinks that there's nothing wrong with it, I've blocked for a week. It's longer than usual due to his history of NPA blocks. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks TC. Long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing about the use of the word "queer" here is a complete sidetrack, and frankly a non issue. What is abundantly clear is that there was a definite breach of civility in that discussion. I don't think the accusation that Russavia has a pro-homosexuality agenda is in itself anything to be concerned with - it may or not be true but editors are accused of bias all over Wikipedia and the fact that this alleged bias regards homosexuality doesn't make that any worse or any better. What is a concern is the rest of that sentence. That's a clear personal attack and is inexcusable.
    But the important thing is that User:Youreallycan did redact the comment when asked to. Since blocks are preventative not punitive it seems clear to me that User:Youreallycan is aware his actions were incorrect and is not about to repeat them, so a block is not appropriate here.
    A topic ban, however, is worth considering. I recommend that User:Youreallycan is warned that any similar behaviour in future will result in such a ban. Beyond that I don't think any further action needs to be taken at this stage. waggers (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, I don't think he's aware that his actions were incorrect at all. As I said on his talk page, I wouldn't have blocked him, since he redacted the comments when requested. However, in his current unblock request, he seems to think it's fine to make comments of that nature. When/if he acknowledges that it isn't, I'd support an unblock. 28bytes (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being manipulated by the application of false dramah for the lulz. Back in the 70s Queer was a preferred term used by members of the LGBT communnity, this was replaced by Gay from about teh late 70s, but never went away as Queer tended to be used to used as a shortened form of LGBT without resorting to acronyms. John lilburne (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your comment a reply to me? It's indented as though it is. And yet it has nothing to do with my comment. My point, in case I wasn't clear, was that I'd support an unblock if YRC agrees not to make any more comments like "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" That would not be an OK comment to make even if "queer" were replaced by a synonym. 28bytes (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you mean 'synonym', is it not the case that you are really complaining about accusations of 'agendas' regardless as to whether they are 'queer', 'fucking', or 'WASPish'. John lilburne (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redacted usernames from insulting thread title: As an uninvolved editor, I have changed the title of this ANI thread to replace usernames "Youreallycan/off2ri..." as "Yrc/o2r" and link-anchored the prior title. Of course everyone realizes that calling someone's actions "homophobic" is an extreme personal attack of the most vicious and hateful sort. It is one thing to claim a remark was a GLBT-slur, but to generalize, universally, as being "homophobic" is just begging the question as if stating "wife-beater attacks". As a formal debate judge for years, I will try to reduce all this rampant use of word "homophobic" as unneeded hate-mongering with ad hominem attacks on accused editors. Please remember, the use of the word "homophobic" is completely, totally, and utterly unacceptable in this manner, especially in the title of a thread. Comment on the actions, not the contributor. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah. If an editor has a long and ongoing history of making homophobic attacks, describing that person as homophobic is right on target. A person who makes racist comments is a racist person. For the present case, it's becoming clear that it's the person that needs dealing with, not just a distinct set of remarks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      YRC/O2RR's personal beliefs are frankly entirely irrelevant. He could really be a homophobic person or he could be on a sustained campaign to troll us all. Either way, the attacks on LGBT editors need to end, and since he shows no sign of stopping of his own accord, preventative measures are the solution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me this looks like one final round of gaming from Russavia, who is currently looking at a likely 6-month ban at WP:AE for ... gaming. Yes, Youreallycan's statements were uncivil. On the other hand, he redacted them immediately when called upon, and they also reflected exactly what went through this editor's mind. If I had been asked to say what I thought of Russavia, honestly, in light of shenanigans like these, and his involvement in stuff like Zhirinovsky's ass and Polandball here and on German Wikipedia, all of them real embarrassments to this project, I would have said exactly the same. Why are we putting up with Russavia? Lastly, the term "queer agenda" is in mainstream media and scholarly use. That agenda is as unwelcome in Wikipedia as any other type of agenda-based editing. --JN466 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble is, you have not been asked here to say what you think about Russavia. Having just replied to you at User_talk:Youreallycan#unblock_request, could you tell me exactly how many forums are you intending to use to canvass against Russavia with the same text? When there is an ANI thread about Russavia we can discuss Russavia. This discussion is not an excuse to repeat offensive claims about Russavia or to promote your personal views that there is a "queer agenda" that Wikipedians you think might be gay and don't like must be following. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This attempt to justify YRC's homophobic remarks reflects poorly on those contributing to it. "Queer" is one thing, but the term "queer agenda" is usually used by those seeking to denigrate it, and in fact JN466 is wrong to say it's "in mainstream media ... use" -- in all of Google News archives, there are 68 hits, very few of them "positive" in any sense. In any event it's painfully obvious how YRC intended to use the term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarc, your claim about me is a bad faith personal attack attempting to devalue my opinions in a consensus process (other admins here, please take note). As for "List of gay bathhouse regulars" that is way off-topic for this discussion about Youreallycan and a reply to Jayen466's wife sweeping aside this attempt at smearing my character is already on Jimbo's talk page. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a personal attacks to point out things you have done under prior user accounts, I'm afraid. There is no good-faith reason to support that article's existence, there fore we're left with the bad-faith reason. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An extraordinarily bad accusation here after the baiting of YRC which has been repeatedly done and is fully as objectionable - and the use of "homophobe" as an "attack word" is getting too dang commonplace on Wikipedia. Time to retire the attacks and get down to actually editing the dang encyclopedia. I also note this was placed at UT:Jimbo to get the maximum effect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Too dang commonplace? Can you link to some instances of it being used where the editor in question has not attacked LGBT fellow-editors with homophobic language? Or is it your belief that the word "homophobe" is so incredibly hurtful (more so than the homophobic slurs users like YRC/O2RR fling around, too) that we should avoid using it even when an editor clearly demonstrates that it applies? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe he's not homophobic but opposes agenda-pushers, of all varieties, who persistently skew Wikipedia content off NPOV. However, sexuality and oppression of minorities are highly emotive and important topics, and there is no room in discussions for flippant use of ambiguous terms like "queer". Obvious personal attacks, like "fuck off", are almost never appropriate. (I can think of a couple of instances where such language was spot on, but this certainly wasn't one of them.) So, I think the block is appropriate for the obvious personal attack, but this was not a homophobic attack, that's a smoke screen frequently thrown up by gaming tendentious editors to undermine YRC's quite often legitimate concerns. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you aware of YRC/O2RR's very long history of homophobic comments about other users? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Fae is now forum-shopping...or foundation-member-shopping...this around as he is not getting the answers he wants here or at Talk:Jimbo. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You obviously believe there is such a thing as a "queer agenda", logically that means there is an "anti-queer agenda". Do you think some of the editors expressing rather inflammatory opinions here might subscribe to that second agenda? I thought this ANI thread was about Youreallycan. If you are making it all about me and pointlessly repeating old and tired allegations about me, could you please follow the guidelines and leave a note on my user talk page before having a personal crack at me here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand you're not addressing me but, if I may, It's highly likely there are bigots of all flavours on this site. Given his obvious capacity for empathy, demonstrated by his frequently-expressed (and acted-upon) concern for human rights and the feelings of other editors, our subjects and our readers, and the absence of any convincing evidence that he is homophobic, I can't condone lumping YRC into that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking over the evidence of YRC's past behavior under his two accounts, I think we're seeing two issues here. First, blatant incivility yesterday, which he quickly redacted at my request. Tim's block was valid at the time, since there was no commitment from YRC to avoid such personal attacks in the future, but I note that YRC has now apologized for his outburst and stated that "I will keep a tighter lid on my emotions and can accept a heightened level of civility restriction for the rest of the original block length, a one strike and blocked def con level". At this point, I think an unblock should be on the table, as long as YRC understands that civility is required, not something one does for a week as a sort of probation.

      The second issue is that homosexuality is clearly a reactive issue for him. It matters little whether this is because he's homophobic, because he dislikes (what he perceives as) POV pushers, or because a witch once turned him into a newt (he got better!) - no matter what the cause, his presence in LGBT-relates areas of the 'pedia ends up being disruptive because of his reactiveness to the topic. I would support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors in any way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think he's any more reactive in this topic than others. I've seen YRC in action on several different topic areas where he perceives tendentious editing, and he is prone to emotional responses in all of them. I'd like to see a commitment from him to reign in his thymos on all areas of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. If that's the case, this is a more difficult matter. We can topic-ban someone from an issue that pushes their buttons in the wrong way, but if any and every issue pushes or could push their buttons, little other than a draconian civility parole or an indef block seems likely to remedy the matter if the person can't control themselves. And civility paroles, well, they never seem to work. It's possible we could offer some sort of "official last chance" to YRC, with the warning that the next time he flies off the handle, he'll have exhausted his chances and be indeffed, but...none of these options really feel entirely comfortable to me, and I'm open to other ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've not looked closely (nor will I for a while) but it does look like a good block. Given the relatively long history of similar issues, I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unlike the editor who provoked him into making this outburst, Youreallycan actually contributes something of value to this project on a daily basis, rather than schoolboy humour. --JN466 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Russavia did not force YRC to make homophobic remarks. Neither did any of the other users whom YRC has attacked in a homophobic manner. YRC had the choice not to make those remarks, but he made them anyway. If Russavia's behavior is sanctionable on its own, then deal with it elsewhere. He is not responsible for YRC's own decision to attack other users based on their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to block talk page access for Youreallycan

    Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is manipulating discussion of their repeated unblock requests by deleting all negative comments and leaving in anything that appears positive, even where comments were in response to each other. This is in contravention of Refactoring talk pages as it gives a deliberately misleading impression of the opinions of others. This is making it difficult for any independent administrator to assess or discuss a possible unblock. I propose that the block is extended to a user talk page block and Youreallycan can email the blocking admin if they wish to have further unblock requests created on their behalf. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • A lot of those messages are nothing but gravedancing and, by the by, I assume any admin worth his salt knows how to use the history tab. And you should really stop agitating against other editors. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Salvio, do you perceive support/consensus in this ANI thread for your proposal to unblock YRC? You don't appear to have support from the blocking admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This ANI thread, honestly, is nothing but a disjointed train wreck. There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself. The few who do emphasise that Youreallycan had struck his attacks as soon as he was asked to and before this thread was started, has apologised, has admitted he acted inappropriately and has promised he'll avoid such behaviour in future. Admins are allowed to use their best judgement, that's why we were made admins by the community. And my best judgement tells me this block doesn't serve any purpose any longer except to punish Youreallycan. And, therefore, should be lifted. And I don't have to have the support of the blocking admin to reverse his block; it's considered courteous to contact a blocking admin before reversing his actions, but that has never been a requirement. Especially when one is evaluating an unblock request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a sad day for our community when a long term disruptive editor makes a blatant homophobic attack and gets unblocked after only a few hours, while wikilawyers quibble over whether demeaning other editors by telling them to fuck off with their "queer agenda" might not be quite blatantly homophobic enough. Poor show, bad unblock. I'm disgusted at how ineffective ANI is as a means to deal with harassment in these cases. --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The fact that YRC has been unblocked doesn't mean this thread can't continue to discuss the issue of if he needs any sort of further topic ban or blocking regarding his behavior in LGBT issues. I would encourage everyone to move ahead with discussing that matter, especially since now YRC is able to participate directly in that conversation on his own behalf. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Disappointingly, the rationale for the unblock seems to be that the comment "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" was in no way homophobic, so apologising for the swearing and refusing to apologise for the homophobia is good enough. Maybe we should preach what we practice and take "homophobic" out of the text of WP:NPA#WHATIS. FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Salvio could you please explain the meaning of your wink and bum related joke immediately after your unblock for Youreallycan?[12] In the context of homophobic allegations it seems to deliberately make light of these serious issues and not what I would expect of an unblocking admin who has taken time to consider the nature of the serious allegations, the disruption this has caused or how LGBT Wikimedians will judge your comment as trivializing such attacks as a joke. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Of everything I have read in this debacle; this is the most disturbing and worrying thing. Fæ, when you start to see homophobia in such small detail then it starts to become disruptive. When you shop in multiple fora for a response it begins to get worring. It's bad enough that the word "queer" is now being bandied as a heinous crime, and multiple editors are being accused (even if subtly) of homophobia. I have a growing concern here that there really is some sort of agenda here - exactly what, and from whom, is eluding me at the present moment but something odd is emerging. In the light of day this comment was unfair of me, and rude, sorry Fæ. In mitigation it was 1am :) --Errant (chat!) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I was taken aback to see your comment and its implications about my motivations, and I very much appreciate your withdrawing it in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realise how offensive and paranoid this question is? I'm employing a commonly used colloquial expression to tell Youreallycan that I hope my actions will not boomerang on me and that I hope he'll not let me down. Have I become an homophobe too, now? Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)In the recently-closed and aptly-named Civility Enforcement case (which you yourself clerked), arbcom held that in a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. Since you nowhere discussed this unblock with me, care to explain how there is a clear consensus to unblock or that this is an emergency? T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have explained my actions earlier. It is only courteous to discuss with the blocking admin before reversing his actions; it has never been a requirement and that statement by ArbCom does not make it one. In this thread, there is no consensus that Youreallycan should remain blocked and various admins have stated that they would consider an unblock, if Youreallycan promised to refrain from making personal attacks. Since he did and since the block was no longer preventative, I unblocked. I consider my actions fully justified. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am glad you are so comfortable Salvio. Are there any more bum jokes and winks for Youreallycan you would like to add at this point, so all LGBT Wikimedians reading this are completely clear how sensitively these sorts of homophobic attacks will be treated by administrators in the future? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fae I think you're over reacting to the wink and bum joke, although the real joke might be Salvio saying this is a risk to himself. What's the worst that could happen? Is he going to be desysopped over an unblock some disagree with? Will he be taken before Arbcom? Will he himself be blocked? The answer to all of those is of course no, so the risk to Salvio seems minimal, while the risk of more unpleasantness being dealt with by those he edits with seems much more realistic. Perhaps instead of focusing on the unblock, we should attempt to craft some community sanction to keep YRC from this disruptive behavior. AniMate 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fæ, let's not turn this into something that it isn't. Salvio's meaning with the "bum joke" was perfectly plain and in no way homophobic. This is how to react to a bum joke: by first assuming the person making it meant no offense. Let's not toss AGF out of the window here. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) AniMate, Those are not the only risks I worry about. I have taken a chance and if it turns out I was wrong, that would of course reflect on me too. That's the risk I was referring to. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • By all means try and get something a bit more meaningful out of this. At the moment I see only reasons to be disgusted at how homophobic abuse is repeatedly "tolerated" while anyone who might be accused of having a "queer agenda" appears to be a target of malicious harassment and canvassing on and off-wiki. I'm travelling, so it's a good time for me to take a break from looking at the issue of blatant patterns of homophobia on Wikipedia that should have been left behind in the 1970s, and focus on less disheartening matters. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fae, for what it's worth, I agree with you completely. Salvio, this is a bad time for bad jokes: unblocking a blocked editor is already a delicate matter, and unblocking someone who got blocked for anti-gay remarks with a bum joke: I expected better from you. To the rest of you: what? It's obvious that a joke was being made here, wink and all, and if you don't see how it is a bad joke, then maybe empathy workshop, required by HR, might not be a crazy idea. Fo shizzle. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't want to add on but I disagree very much with what has happened here. Much as I agree this was a user reacting out of anger, how in the world is this [13] not a blockable offense? The comments were in no means relevant to the AfD in question (baited by another user or not) and are offensive to other users (LGBT or not) as evidenced by this thread. I would argue that the block is preventative over its duration in a user with the block history described above. I think an unblock was a very bad idea and sets a poor precedent that vitriol with accusatory overtones is acceptable on this project when an editor is baited or if they promise not to do it again after the fact. It is not, regardless of circumstance. -- Samir 23:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is beyond credibility that you are persisting in this discussion about the term "queer". We all know TODAY, right here and now, what that word means. It's homophobic in this context. Also I take into account the proof given of the editor's horrific incivility in general. Something must be done. You cannot continue to strain to give that editor's ugly words any kind of innocent construction.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The workings of Wikipedia "civility enforcement" seem most mysterious to me. One editor calls some people "control freaks"[14] or says "u r dumb"[15] and gets banned for life, another drops the F-bomb in the process of telling a fellow editor to get lost from the project and after a few hours all is forgiven. It all seems very peculiar. I think that it is time for people to seriously consider repealing or at least reducing the scope and penalties for WP:CIVILITY violations, because the policy won't and can't be enforced in any coherent way. Wnt (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This (insert whatever words you wish) business is now getting far out of hand. A block was made - and anything more sounds like "Torch his castle". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment re: Collect's remark: You dismiss this too lightly, as do too many here. Look at the threads this has generated. And you're saying the decision is to 'torch his castle'? I am personally in favour of torching any castle that houses a anti-Semitic, homophobic abuser. I'm a Jew and I'm gay. I don't need anyone telling me who is playing at being my enemy. Point is, he should be stopped.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are accusing YRK of antisemitism now? What next... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Andy the Grump decided to make things more personal[16], I will strike the anti-Semitism comment. Andy, as I told you at my talk: do not come to my talk page like that and stay clear of it henceforth. In fact as I redact and retract my anti-Semitism suggestion, I also officially take umbrage with Andy - or anyone - threatening me on my talk page about this thread. Stay off my talk henceforth, Andy. You know, you give this place a really bad name.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that Djathinkimacowboy has still not redacted this obnoxious personal attack on me, and has only made a half-hearted retraction of his outrageous accusations regarding YRK. Can I suggest that we ignore all his postings on this thread, on the basis that he clearly thinks that he is immune from being held to the same standards that he demands of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    Since Salvio thought it most essential to unblock while ignoring an ongoing discussion, what do people think about topic banning YRC from LGBT related material for 3 months? AniMate 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd go for an indefinite topic ban on all LGBT-related articles and pages, very broadly construed, and a ban on mentioning anything even slightly LGBT-related anywhere in the project, with an non-negotiable indefinite community ban for any violation. Three months is too short, considering his history. He has insurmountable problems in this area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think a topic ban can only help here, even if it doesn't fix everything. As I said up above, I'd support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors or article subjects in any way. I'd prefer an indef duration rather than a three-month one, since time isn't a reliable fixer of, well, much of anything behavioral, but I can support 3 months as a minimum. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be fine with the unblock, if the community is able to implement an interaction ban on Youreallycan/Off2riorob from interacting with me, anywhere on WP, for any reason. The attack of myself, was absolutely below the pale, and I do not accept (along with the majority of uninvolved, level-headed and open-minded editors) Youreallycan's statement that it was not a personal attack. With an interaction ban on myself, at least I will be protected from such degrading, personal attacks in the future, and particularly because Youreallycan often engages in outright harassment of editors. (He's been warned against harassment of myself some months ago as Off2riorob). I also support an indefinite topic ban as per Dominus Vobisdu. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 04:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Context: I have had no recent interactions, and never any prolonged open discord, with Youreallycan/Off2riorob. As I recall, we interacted a few times, usually disagreeing, several years ago. I really hate saying this about a fellow Wikipedian who clearly is capable of contributing constructively, but Off2riorob's repeated incivility when discussing LGBT-related topics and relating to editors he perceives as having an "agenda" has created a toxic atmosphere in various parts of the project. When I encounter his username on a talk page, I generally just close the tab and go elsewhere even if I have something worth adding to the discussion because reading his combative, sometimes blatantly offensive remarks is just too stressful. Adding to that stress is the knowledge that no matter how many times the pattern repeats itself, Off2riorob walks away scot-free—sometimes with a slap on the wrist, not infrequently with heartfelt kudos, but the point is: he walks away, free to do it again. I believe in second chances, sometimes even third or fourth, but not an infinite number. How many times must this behavior come to ANI before it's taken seriously? A topic ban per Dominus Vobisdu's suggestion is entirely warranted. Failing that, a final warning—with teeth in it—is the only other acceptable outcome of this thread. Anything less would make a mockery of WP:CIVIL in general and send a clear message that Wikipedia tolerates a hostile editing environment when it comes to LGBT-related civility specifically. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I see claims of homophobic behavior, but the only instance I see reported is the outburst concerning "Was it your queer agenda?". The claims that "queer agenda" is a homophobic attack are nonsense: click the news, books, and scholar links in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I have no idea whether YRC's claim (that someone has an agenda to unduly promote LGBT issues) has any basis, and of course the redacted remark breaches CIVIL. However, it is not evidence that a topic ban is warranted. If evidence exists, please present a summary before making a proposal about a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Accusing people of having a gay agenda for being supportive of gay people and issues can certainly be homophobic, depending on circumstances and irrespective of the words used to say it. It accuses a person based on assumptions about their group identity. There's a crowd of bigots out there who are convinced that society is falling apart, losing its moral fiber, children are in danger, the suffering majority is afraid, etc., due to the concerted efforts of gays (or Jews, blacks, women, foreigners, whatever) with an agenda to control things. Like I said, it depends on context, but seeing those words used in anger is a red flag. Even if said without anti-gay malice, that kind of talk is at best divisive and unconstructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      While various attempts to reclaim "queer" from the epithet gutter have met with considerable success, the word tossed around casually and carelessly is still deeply offensive to many. (See 1 2 3 4.) In conjunction with the word "agenda", it's not even so much the word itself as the phrase and its connotations (see Homosexual agenda). In any event, this instance was part of a larger pattern. I don't log these kinds of things (in fact, I try to forget about them if at all possible) and I lack the patience to spend hours meticulously combing through thousands of user contribs only to find this thread has been prematurely closed in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Adding: These two threads are a starting point, however. This was also sort of weird; not sure what it meant, but it seemed a bit less than civil. Rivertorch (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      John, I suggest you look at the discussion on my talk page with AGK, where I have chewed his arse out because of the Arbcom doing nothing about acting upon what many editors saw as homophobic harassment of Fae at the RFC/U. Given that these statements were made within a short time after this on my talk page, one can safely assume that my "queer agenda" is protecting other editors from what many deemed to be homophobic harassment. It is disgusting behaviour from Youreallycan, and he needs to be removed from this entire area. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      John, you should also look at the most recent thread linked at the top of this section, in which users linked to YRC calling LGBT people (as a class, not specific users) immature/backwards, saying that any mention of a person's non-straight sexual orientation would make Wikipedia just like a gay newspaper, vandalizing a BLP because he believed it would make LGBT users (again as a class, not specific ones) angry, etc. Since a lot of past evidence was brought up in that thread, I think people have largely refrained from linking to each instance individually, but please do read it before saying that it was just this one time. And no, "homosexual agenda" and any of its variants are, again, not used in the MSM/scholarly work. Please do not propagate this ridiculous claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- in part on the basis of clicking on the links offered by Johnuniq, which demonstrate the opposite of that editor's claims (the scholar links are irrelevant in this context as YRC has almost certainly not consulted scholarly sources). The main point is that this sort of kerfuffle with YRC recurs on a regular basis -- there has been ample evidence in this and previous threads that a topic ban is warranted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a well demonstrated history of disruptive editing and aggressive behaviour to other editors shows that an indefinite topic ban on LGBT related topics is required, this includes an interaction ban for any contributor that Youreallycan / Off2riorob has made "queer agenda" or similar anti-gay and unprovable claims about. Claiming a Wikipedian has a gay agenda is the declaration of a witch-hunt - such a claim can be made about any of us who have ever edited gay related articles and is a malicious act to foster a hostile environment to ensure that LGBT editors leave the project or cease improving these topics for fear of outing and malicious harassment. Sadly, there is an established pattern that such branding of editors is an open invitation for stalkers to canvass against Wikipedians using off-wiki badsites to sadistically out, harass and bully such an editor; Youreallycan is fully aware of the damaging consequences of his actions. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose And noting that many BLPs have had substantial problems with people violating WP:BLP by asserting a sexual identity on a person without WP:BLP required sourcing, saying a person can not work on such abuses is absurd. Use of a topic ban in order to allow violations to go unchecked is a violation of common sense. And using a !vote in order to silence an editor whose article edits are of great value is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • YRC opposes mentioning anyone's (non-straight, of course - we can talk about people's heterosexuality all we like and it's fine with him) sexual orientation even when it is well-sourced, as demonstrated in the evidence at the last discussion, linked at the top of this section. He believes that we must only talk about heterosexual people's sexual orientation because otherwise Wikipedia would be the "gay times." I'm really rather tired of people bringing up irrelevant BLP comments. BLP does not mean "remove sourced information you don't like if the article subject is a living person" and it certainly does not mean "if you edit enough BLP articles you are exempt from all rules." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. If there is a civility/NPA problem, address that, but banning someone from enforcing BLP policy related to LGBT seems like the wrong way to go about this. The problem here is a very bad interaction with other editors, not LGBT-related abuse in articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The problems here are actually multiple, but this is an attempt to deal with very bad interaction with other editors that frequently manifests itself on LGBT-related discussions. And let's be clear: it's not a question of "enforcing BLP policy"; it's more like "edit warring to enforce his narrow interpretation of BLP policy on LGBT-related articles, questioning the motives and affronting the dignity of editors who disagree with him, getting blocked or admonished (but defended by the same select few administrators), announcing a break or retirement, and then returning in a few weeks or months and doing the exact same thing all over again". Does this happen only with regard to LGBT-related discussions? No. But it happens often with such discussions, and the continual lack of resolve at ANI thus far to do something about it is perpetuating an environment especially hostile to editors who identify as LGBT or are active in editing LGBT-related topics. It is my hope that a topic ban would have the effect of directing Youreallycan to other areas of the project where his tenacity would be less disruptive. Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for "broadly construed" topic ban given YRC's repeatedly demonstrated inability to edit with neutrality on subjects related to LGBT issues. Ban should also encompass any reference to another user's sexual orientation in any namespace. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Insufficient grounds shown. Admittedly this is a touchy area, but I think a topic ban to be excessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My view, humbly proffered here, is that the editor be permanently blocked. No suffering should pass from hand to hand. This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering. That is an aspect of this you should all consider. I do not view this as 'burning down his castle'. He burned it down himself. Practice what you seem to preach, and get off Salvio's back - that is what I think you should also do. Unless you wish to bring further actions against Salvio, what has he really got to do with this?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    " This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering". Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you are funny. How about I cite this entire thread and the previous one. Or are you willing to cite all the examples he should be coddled and allowed to keep doing what he's been doing?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If I were convinced he was making homophobic comments, I would absolutely support the ban. I just don't see sufficient evidence here. Yea, his comment was inappropriate and juvenile, but it doesn't warrant a ban.JoelWhy (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per others. Taken in context and with knowledge of past behaviour, YRC/O2RR's remark crossed the final line. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Above I said that we may as well take homophobia out of the NPA guidance, which was meant as a throwaway comment. But if the consensus on this is denialism and an unaccountable desire to indulge the culprit, I think we really should forgo the hypocrisy and stop pretending. Because YRC refuses to acknowledge the problem, he should not have been unblocked. A topic ban is the next rung down the ladder and should be imposed instead. FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. It's more than just a touchy area, YRC has been genuinely offensive here. He shouldn't be editing in the LGBT area if he's going to offend LGBT people - surely that's obvious. OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Youreallycan has done very good work, including cases where the question at issue was sexuality-related categorisation in accordance with BLPCAT. In one case it took multiple admins and an OTRS ticket, in addition to Youreallycan's efforts, to stop the nonsense. Youreallycan has been a tower of strength in such situations. (And I am sure he earned the wrath of those he thwarted.) --JN466 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the instances where I've encountered YRC working on a sexual orientation categorization topic, he wanted to suppress sourced information (exactly compliant with the standards of WP:BLPCAT) because "Wikipedia is not the gay times - get over yourself." (To be more specific, but without getting into too much detail, he wanted to decategorize as LGBT an actor who had very prominently come out as gay because there were tabloid rumors of his dating a woman. We wouldn't allow non-primary tabloid rumors as a source for the individual being gay, but because YRC's agenda is to pretend everyone is heterosexual rather than to enforce BLP, YRC claimed that it was sufficient to make him straight.) What is this mythical "good work" he's done in the BLP area? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that was one of those cases I recall. The actor, once proudly out, either attempted to get back into the closet, or decided he was (at the very least) bisexual. All the queer media, like queerty and hunkandgayguys, gave him a roasting for it, and there were editors here who wanted to roast him too, and make sure he would remain categorised as gay. I find it absolutely distasteful how anonymous editors, sometimes described as the "tag-a-gay brigade", seek to claim ownership over notable people's sexuality. This has nothing to do with what someone's sexual identification is, and everything to do with not respecting the personal boundaries of BLP subjects. Sexuality is private, unless there are good reasons for it not to be, and BLPCAT says we go with public self-identification, whatever that is. Their sexuality is one thing that BLP subjects have the final say on, and rightly so. JN466 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • We didn't have a source for him saying he was bisexual, and we had copious sourcing of him saying he was gay. Precisely because BLPCAT works off of public self-identification, we don't use tabloid rumors of him dating a woman to say anything about his sexual orientation. But YRC wanted to use these rumors - with no comment from the subject about the girlfriend and certainly not about self-identification - not even to say that he may be bisexual, but to say that he was heterosexual. Again, the sourcing was completely inadequate for comments on someone's sexual orientation, per the very rules you cite, but YRC doesn't care about those rules; they're just a convenient smokescreen when he wants to put someone back in the closet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's my recollection of it, too, assuming we're thinking of the same discussion. (There have been a number of very similar ones.) I left that discussion in its early stages when it became clear that special standards were being applied by some editors purely because of the subject's gay self-identification, which was impeccably sourced. If the shoe had been on the other foot, and someone had been using tabloid reports to identify as gay an actor reliably reported to be straight, I don't suppose the BLP warriors would have been eager to accept the tabloid stories; in fact, there would have been a huge outcry (and rightly so). It was a classic illustration of a double standard that has become disturbingly common at Wikipedia wherein any number of reliable sources apparently aren't enough when it comes to non-heterosexual people. This has even spilled over into articles on deceased people. It has occurred to me that a sworn affadavit accompanied by a videotaped statement carried live on the BBC from a notable person proclaiming "I'm definitely gay and it's very relevant to my life and my career" would somehow still not satisfy some of the editors around here. So, speaking of double standards, I'd like to ask those opposing the topic ban to consider the remark that spawned this ANI report: "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" Now substitute for "queer" a word referring to racial or religious identity—the "n word" is a good example, but there are lots of them—and ask yourself: would we all be so deeply divided or would there be a blizzard of support for the ban? Rivertorch (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Rivertorch, the way to handle sexual and religious categorisation is very simple: if in doubt, leave it out. In other words, if there is reasonable doubt as to current self-identification, and it's tangential to the person's notability, don't put any categorisation in place. Let's make it easy: this was the discussion I was thinking of. (Rivertorch wasn't involved in this one.) People can read it and form their own judgment as to whether Off2riorob was trying to protect the subject's privacy, or whether he was trying to bash gays. --JN466 05:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh, yes, that one. A separate discussion ran concurrently here in which Off2riorob claimed The Advocate is not a "quality publication" and confused sexual orientation with behavior, citing "no recent reports of any homosexual activity" as a reason not to categorize. The subject's privacy vis-à-vis his sexual orientation was not at issue, except perhaps in terms of protecting the article from unreliably sourced claims of heterosexuality. Rivertorch (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • His agent put out a statement that he regretted earlier statements he had made, and now considered his sexuality private. That can be taken in good faith as a withdrawal of public self-identification, even without the story that he was now in a relationship with a woman. And it really doesn't matter whether he discovered a different side to his sexuality or had the statement put out for PR reasons. Under BLPCAT, it is arguable grounds to withdraw categorisation. Basically, Wikipedia needs to keep its hands off BLP subjects' sexual identity. If there is a clear and current public self-identifcation, categorise. If there is any doubt, don't. We owe BLP subjects that much respect. --JN466 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - High maintenance editor who is said to do good work. As his block log moves into well into doubt digits, its time for Rob to understand that it's time to cut the crap. Topic banning him out of one subject where he clearly "has issues" is a start. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - No merit to the proposal. The LGBT topic area has become increasingly problematic over the years, and if some toes are getting stepped on in cleaning it up, that's a price worth paying. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Translation: the queers are getting uppity, better bring in a homophobic blunt instrument to put them in their place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please spare me the Victim Card ploy. I oppose wiki-activism regardles of the ideology. I have been quite active in keeping the Tea Party and birther talking points out of the Obama articles over the years, for starters. It just happens at the moment that there is a lot of very bad-faith pro-LGBT activism going on in this project. From Ash's "gay bathhouse regulars" to the small-s santorum crusade to my torpedoing of the Marcus Bachmann hit piece, there's been a lot of bad articles to take care of lately. "Queer agenda" may have been an impolitic turn of a phrase, but the general gist behind it is clear and present. This stuff isn't being opposed and fought against because editors are gay; it is being fought because it is wrong for this project. Tarc (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My comment was intended seriously. Why do you believe that the only way to deal with the problems you believe exist in the topic area is by making LGBT users feel unwelcome, and why do you believe that rampant and obvious policy violations on the one hand are the right tool to deal with what you believe to be policy violations on the other? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't want to make "LGBT users" feel unwelcome, I want to make "bad users" feel unwelcome, if one of the latter is also one of the former, that doesn't mean "Tarc doesn't want LGBT editors around". As for your last question, I don't see them as equal; WP:BLP trumps civility twaddle. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The repeated homophobic attacks from YRC don't single out bad users, though; they single out LGBT users. There are many, many ways to call out bad editing without saying that LGBT people, as a class, are retarded, without invoking the far-right "homosexual agenda" meme, etc. Why is an entire class of productive users acceptable collateral damage for what you personally believe to be editing problems, while one user is not acceptable "collateral damage" (and I use the scare quotes because he's not a victim by the wayside, but the one causing the problem) in enforcing a productive editing environment for people of all sexual orientations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would like to see a diff where YRC says "LGBT people, as a class, are retarded". And if you don't have one, Roscelese, you can look forward to a thread being started on you here, below. --JN466 05:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Paraphrase of "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world," which it will honestly take forever to find the exact diff for but which is easily found in BLPN archive in a discussion already linked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's good enough for me not to start a thread on you, but looking over that [old discussion, you will see that you complained about this then, and Johnuniq told you, Why do you think that observation is an attack? As I read it, the assertion is that the LGBT sector at Wikipedia should adopt the attitude that LGBT is part of normal society and human activity, and there should be no need to label everyone who may have had an LGBT experience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Now cross-reference that with [Jay Brannan's view quoted below, who was sick to death of being gay-tagged here. Does that make Brannan a homophobe? Surely not. Can you at least entertain the view that one may see gay tagging as deplorable for other reasons than homophobia? And if YRC were such a homophobe, shouldn't he have taken pleasure in Brannan's anguish, or at least washed his hands of that one? Instead, it was the tag-a-gay brigade who were driving Brannan crazy, while YRC treated that case like every other case he's handled at BLPN over the past three years or so: with respect and concern for the BLP subject, and little time for POV pushers. Some homophobe. --JN466 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Johnuniq was also wrong, as Trystan explains, so I'm not sure why his reply should be meaningful to me or prevent me from pointing out that YRC has been making these sorts of homophobic comments for months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There is a fairly clear line between opposing specific editors who are not editing constructively or within guidelines, and making blanket statements about an entire class of people. Both in the present instance, and the one Roscelese refers to, YRC was way over that line. Telling the "LGBT sector" it needs to mature[17] is disparaging and condescending to all LGBT editors, rather than objecting to the actions of the specific editors involved. If we allow individual negative interactions to be an excuse for prejudicial statements against entire groups, we may as well abandon any attempt to enforce rules against homophobia, racism, sexism and the like, because editors will always be able to point to individuals from the disparaged group that did something to trigger the statement against the entire class of people. The same goes for telling an editor to take their "queer agenda" and "fuck off", tying a profane insult to the target's sexual orientation. Particularly using a reappropriated word in an indisputably hostile and insulting context; does anyone really buy the completely unrepentant excuse that telling a queer to fuck off isn't homophobic because LGBT people use the word queer in a positive way? To see such an attack brushed aside by the deciding admin, relegating everyone concerned about such language into either a lynch mob or a group quibbling about semantics, is very disheartening.--Trystan (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose overly broad for one instance of being an insensitive dick. Also open to gaming, we'd be back here in no time arguing the scope. Kevin (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please check out the noticeboard discussion linked near the top of the thread. It's not "one instance of being an insensitive dick" - these comments go back months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: If a single homophobic or uncivil crack (and "queer agenda" is nothing short) was sufficient to elicit topic sanctions, I can think of some editors who should have been slapped with sanctions a hundred times over. Obviously Youreallycan has been offensive and uncivil generally, but there are remedies for that. Ravenswing 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said to Kevin, this isn't a "single" comment - this is months upon months of sustained attacks on editors whose sexual orientation differs from YRC's. I refer you to the last noticeboard report on the subject. I'm also not sure why the other cases are supposed to be relevant here: if you don't believe homophobic attacks on other users should be prevented, why is it a problem that other users haven't been restricted? And if you do believe such behavior should be prevented, why does YRC deserve special treatment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think YRC deserves special treatment. I think the same avenues of conflict resolution should be employed as with those other editors: RfC/RfA, complete with the expected display of diffs, as opposed to an airy reference to another thread. (That being said, do you fancy you're doing your side any good by attempting to rebut almost every Oppose proponent, sometimes uncivilly?) Ravenswing 08:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support While Off2riorob/YRC has done good work, Wikipedia should make a firm stand against homophobia. I'd be in favour of a fixed term ban on LGBT topics and issues relating to gender and sexuality on BLPs. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all LGBT related pages, broadly construed. I don't know or care if YRC is or isn't a bigot but I don't think it matters considering the consequences of his edits, which make it seem as though he is trying to marginalize homosexuals. No wikipedian, or person in general, should be subject to that kind of treatment. I also don't care if some here attempt to hammer the "queer agenda" comment out as though it's ok because gay people use the term. There is an obvious difference between naming a show "Queer eye for the straight guy" and telling someone to pack up their queer agenda. Ultimately, WP will be a more harmonious place with this topic ban and that's what matters. SÆdontalk 23:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sounds like a reasonable start. As others have noted the problems aren't simply linked to LGBT issues, but if that's where the very worst cases are then we can begin there and widen any ban later if needed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I remember YRC doing good work—as Off2riorob—in the article and BLP noticeboard discussion on Jay Brannan, a gay singer/songwriter who did not want to see his life and work reduced to his sexuality, and who had asked several times to have his WP biography deleted. YRC a raging homophobe? More like the opposite. He stood up for a gay man when other wikipedians chose to torment him. DracoE 07:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If one instance of "standing up for" a gay person is enough to make character judgments off, why isn't a sustained pattern for months and months of homophobic attacks enough? Either the evidence presented is enough or it is not enough, but you can't argue that the evidence presented is meaningless and then turn around and say "he did a good thing for one gay person this one time, let's give him a prize." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • M'kay ... I see a pattern of you badgering every contributor who opposes your views, and no willingness to give YRC the benefit of the doubt. Would you mind providing diffs for your fabled "sustained pattern … of homophobic attacks"? If you're referring to YRC’s acerbic comments during the santorum mess, maybe you should try and get friendly with the definition of sarcasm? YRC has done a world of good for BLP subjects, and you have yet to provide us with one example where he has taken out his so-called anti-queer agenda on the subject of a biography.
        • Why not look at the people you're defending? Russavia's latest bits of trolling and drama mongering include writing an article that pokes fun at Polish people and looks very much like something he wrote to provoke the Polish editors of WP whom he's banned from interacting with. He didn't go for an all-encompassing article on the countryball meme, oh no, it had to be Polandball. His article on Zhirinovsky's ass is a veiled attack piece on Russian presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov. As for Russavia's bosom buddy Fæ: this shining example of admin excellence is by now quite infamous for accusing people of homophobia whenever they rightfully question his past and present actions. But did you know that under his previous account name of Ash, he was quite the misogynist, what with making light of a BLP subject's experience of rape? I cannot recall a single instance where YRC has acted in manner that compares to what the two WP users you're defending choose to spend their time on. Congratulations. You’ve been had. DracoE 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Russavia's qualities as an editor are irrelevant to the question of whether it is acceptable to subject Russavia to homophobic abuse. Fae's qualities as an editor are even more irrelevant. FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. There are many and varied ways to criticize or even insult someone else's editing without insulting an entire class of people based on their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said? Guess why I'm taking umbrage with Fæ/Ash questioning an out and proud straight black woman's account of having been raped as a teenager while trying to insert a link to an adult streaming video website into her biography? Please allow me to remind you that out and proud straight black women are also an 'entire class of people'. As are Polish people. Now when exactly are you gonna stop your bad-faith meddling and deliver on those 'homophobic' BLP violations by YRC? DracoE 02:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If by irrelevant you mean forgettable I couldn't agree with you more with regard to the actual content contributions of these two disruptive, divisive characters. Though I would never go so far as to refer to them as editors. DracoE 02:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Person made a remark that someone else found offensive...yet at the same time, people from the LGBT community use it all the time. Yet in "outrage" to this comment, they begin labeling his responses as "homophobic". What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let a free discussion reign. Buffs (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Its a civility issue not a content one, and people need to be a little more robust in dealing with comments like that. Using obscene language generally undermines an editor's position ----Snowded TALK 02:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal: BLP and policy enforcement ban

    Youreallycan has, unfortunately, a long-running behavioral issue. I previously discussed this in some detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan#Behavioral, not topic-based, problem. I recommend that readers of this thread should take a look. As I said on that occasion, I don't think a ban on a particular topic is going to be effective. We have seen this problem arising with a number of topics - this time it's LGBT, previously it's been British Jews, tomorrow it will be something else. Banning him from LGBT topics will do nothing to address the underlying problem.

    The constant thread connecting all of these issues is that YRC has set himself up as a policy enforcer. The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan centred on his disruptive editing of a BLP under the aegis of "enforcing" BLP. A later discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob) involved his "enforcement" actions on articles related to Rick Santorum. On this occasion he has got himself into trouble over his comments in relation to an attempt to "enforce" NPOV via an AfD discussion. An LGBT topic ban would miss the point: it is not specifically the topic that is the problem, it's the pattern of behaviour related to his cack-handed attempts to enforce policy.

    His contributions show that he focuses primarily on BLP and policy enforcement, areas which are notoriously prone to interpersonal conflict between editors. The bottom line is that his judgement and approach are both too flawed for him to be effective in this self-appointed role. There are many other editors who can and do manage to do this effectively. He is not one of them. For his own good as much as anyone else's, I think it would be appropriate to make him go and do something else - write new articles, contribute to DYK, help to rescue articles, whatever, but not participate in areas that are likely to lead to conflict. He should not participate further in noticeboard discussions concerning policy enforcement (including on AN, AN/I, BLPN, AfD etc) but should focus on building the encyclopedia.

    I therefore propose that Youreallycan should be prohibited from (i) editing biographies of living people broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to the enforcement of Wikipedia policies anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. The Arbitration Committee should be authorised to review this prohibition after a year, taking regard of his contributions to article space during this period. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support changing of account name may have given the impression that Youreallycan intended to leave the massive long term disruption he caused to the project behind and turn over a new leaf. Unfortunately not so, anyone concerned about his recent actions which have turned Wikipedia into a battleground, should review the long history of complaints on ANI about his edits as Off2riorob (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not a playpen for Jew baiting and gay bashing; it is a pity that Arbcom and Oversight are so short of time that they seem unable to be of much practical help with these problems and some of their members appear more interested in spending their time writing replies and even creating discussions with banned users on badsites, rather than resolving their personal concerns on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As the other case of harassment against myself occurred on Boris Berezovsky article, in which I was using scholarly sources, Off2riorob took to stalking, accusing me of sockpuppetry, and generally harassing me. For context, there was an editor on the article who declared they had a close relationship with Berezovsky, and they were actively whitewashing the article in the lead up to a major court case in the UK between Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich. Here is the warning to him (in which he noted WP:DIGWUREN) and here is the trolling and harassment on my talk page. He tends to WP:OWN BLP pages, and thinks of himself as judge, jury and executioner on subjects he knows nothing about, thereby stopping knowledgeable editors who are mindful to NPOV and the like from editing articles. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 09:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. YRC/O2RR may have done some things wrong related to BLP articles (and he has certainly been too belligerent in support of his own position at times), but he has also done an awful lot of very good BLP work, and a complete BLP ban would be overkill. If there is to be any action or sanction, make it related to civility and NPA, not to the very important BLP work area. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I acknowledge that he's done good work, but at the same time he is racking up block after block for the same kind of thing, over and over again. At some point it has to be resolved. A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic. There are really only three workable options going forward. 1) An indefinite block, which really would be overkill. 2) Letting him continue what he's doing now but giving him some kind of civility/NPA parole. This would only partly address the problem, as the issue goes wider than that - note the edit-warring and disruption raised in previous discussions. Frankly I don't believe he has the self-control to abide by a civility/NPA parole (God knows he's had enough warnings.) 3) Requiring him to temporarily exit the fields in which he repeatedly comes into conflict with other editors, viz. BLPs and community noticeboards. I think the latter is the most proportionate and best-suited approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic" - that'll mean no BLP topic ban then? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Talk about "back-asswards logic' - Wikipedia needs more who will make sure that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are fully followed. Saying that WP:BLP should not have anyone who will seek to enforce it is absurd. And I need not point out that some who egregiously violated WP:BLP in the past per ArbCom decisions were not given this sort of overarching ban. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I was a little shocked to see this outburst from Rob (I'd seen outbursts before, but not with this terminology in this area). Accusing someone of a "queer agenda" it really not kosher (Johnuniq, this may be the first time I disagree with you) and in this context I think it is homophobic. Then again, I probably also have a queer agenda, and I think Mrs. Drmies does as well; you don't need to be queer to have a queer agenda. Anyway, Rob is a valuable BLPitbull and I oppose a topic ban. I don't know what measures would be appropriate. Rob, will you PLEASE take the commentary here to heart? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks like I am out of step. In real life I have inadvertently offended people with plain talk that I thought was just asserting an opinion, and I have sometimes completely missed comments made by others that were apparently an insult of some kind, so perhaps my opinion is not the best here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I keep hearing all this praise for what YRC/O2RR does in the BLP area, but the only instances of it I've actually seen have been his campaign to delete or vandalize articles related to santorum (neologism) and his attempts to delete sourced information on non-heterosexual orientations. What is this so lauded BLP enforcement, other than a convenient excuse for people who think homophobic abuse on Wikipedia is perfectly all right and/or necessary? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you haven't seen it because you haven't looked. [18]. Do you want a list of all the non-sexual-orientation-related BLP issues that YRC has worked on? Frankly, that comment is unworthy of you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing anything that outweighs the destructive edits he's made in the BLP area (but I do see POV-pushing under the banner of BLP, what else is new). Perhaps he was a good BLP contributor in the past but he has ceased to be one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are a mind reader now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose In general there needs to be more support for those who enforce policy, not enforcement against. The behavioral/civility issues can and should be dealt with, but not at the expense of disallowing enforcement. aprock (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Wehwalt. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Andy, Wehwalt, Drmies. BLPN had tumbleweeds blowing across it before Youreallycan showed up. If it's a functioning board today, it is to no small degree due to the effort and application he put into it. --JN466 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Andy:' Andy, I am a post-reader, and came here to comment. I have already capitulated in good faith because I myself was out of order with the comment I made that I have since redacted. I suggest you do also begin to assume good faith. Now, I am outta here. Please do not place ANI notices on my page, or anything on my talk page, which I have specifically asked of you already.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See the top of this page: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so". I'll AGF when you withdraw the comments you've made about me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely not. I'm conflicted about the LBGT Topic Ban, and feel that weighing in there would require a lot more research than I want to do, but, for me, BLP-enforcement is nearly synonymous with Youreallycan (and former names). That "position", if you will, requires bluster and aggression, because I see YRC all the time have to put up with dozens of editors who simply don't understand that BLP is policy, that it is equal in policy to NPOV, V, etc, and that, no, they cannot site a gossip show to talk about an alleged scandal from 5 years ago that never actually turned into an established fact. This is extreme and unwarranted by anything I see above. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "Requires bluster and aggression"? From the dictionary closest at hand: Bluster: "loud, aggressive, or indignant talk with little effect." Aggression: "1. hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another. 2. The act of attacking without provocation. 3. Forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests." With the possible exception of the third definition of "aggression", are these really attributes to value in an editor? Are civility and patience unwelcome in certain areas of Wikipedia? Come on. Just over a month ago on this noticeboard, Youreallycan (after losing his cool, being reported, and immediately announcing a wikibreak) claimed to have "no topic focus at all". If that's actually true, then it shouldn't be too difficult for him to avoid either LGBT-related topics or BLPs across the board. Rivertorch (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Any ban proposal made by those who have had past altercations/disagreements with the subject is D.O.A. as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - the "queer agenda" comment was completely out-of-line, and I'm considering supporting the LGBT topic ban, but this proposal is completely wrong-headed. This is not the solution. LadyofShalott 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this is too blunt a solution. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I wouldn't object to the discussion of an LGBT topic band if any further comments are made in the future, but this issue has spiraled into this from something much more specific than BLP issues writ large. Though the history is admittedly checkered, the user has done enough positive for BLPs, which is probably "backlogged" more than any other problem on WP, that I simply can't support such an action as this point in time. Kansan (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm sorely tempted to support this in recollection of some comments like at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Fleming Facebook post, but I don't want to set a precedent of suppressing WikiPolitical opinions, and I think it's overthinking the problem. We already have enough policies; we don't need new theories for action. When somebody violates a civility policy and a block under it is reversed as an error, it gives the impression that he's above the law, so why try to make new ones? Wnt (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I really do wish Rob would step away from the keyboard when his emotions are running high. But, if you watchlist WP:BLPN for any length of time, it is apparent how much gruntwork Rob performs in this area. Many, many violations of BLP policy would still be up on WP pages if not for his decisive (unfortunately sometimes divisive) edits. BLP issues are often intersections of the world's most contentious and insoluble ideological differences, and it's not surprising that they divide editors here, too. But, Rob, please, pretty please, stop dropping F-bombs on other editors, and try to be more sensitive in regards to sexual orientation. The Interior (Talk) 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per all of the users that have remarked on Rob's presence over at BLPN and have had interaction with him, a lot of people try to twist WP to their advantage and one of the most shocking areas is BLP vandalism or just plain defamation, POV pushing or fanlike obsesssion with trivia, Rob is an enforcer, sometimes gruff, apparently over the top in some cases, but does good work. Quite honestly, I walked away from WP after some serious BLP wrangling on the Dominique Strauss Kahn article, personal attacks and plain nastiness, and at the time advocated a BLP dedicated patrol because of all the shit that you have to put up with, some people just don't get it policy-wise and need to be firmly told to fuck off with their POV pushing, albeit in a more civil manner. CaptainScreebo Parley! 09:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this proposal had suggested sanctioning him for acting as a patroller - rejecting it does not suggest confirming such a role for him. His positions in pursuit of BLP policy are extreme, and I disagree with him almost always; I just don't think his opinions about policy should be the issue here. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

    Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) figured in the departure of Blnguyen/YellowMonkey in late 2010. Since then, his persistent attempts to skew Wikipedia's coverage of South Asian history in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories has repeatedly sapped the time and morale of knowledgeable and/or expert contributors. As seen in the latest episode (and again in a previous iteration), YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial. Time and again in YK's career, this problematic editing programme is backed with non-pertinent and non-specialist sources in intense bursts of repeat reverts and talk-page spamming of questionable sources. He backs off for a time before returning, often to the same article and the same issue. This sporadicity has perhaps allowed him to dodge the blocks and other injunctions that befall other disruptively tendentious or revisionist editors not savvy enough to strategically time or space their spurious content challenges.

    Nevertheless, the damage is done: again and again, as exemplified most recently at Talk:India#Aryan_Invasion_theory_oops_read_migration, experienced editors must tediously refute each of YK's formulaic challenges: fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic rewrites and removals backed by marginal or non-specialist sources. This would perhaps be OK if the editor in question were newer or less familiar with core content policies, but the episodic recidivism of YK is a different matter: a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite but otherwise of duration not less than six months, renewable upon occurrence of further disruption, would be a solution that would save time and foster more policy-compliant content contribution on both sides. Saravask 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some additional points:
    • I recommend that the closing admin interpret "a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite ..." as taking the form of the first restriction placed on Zuggernaut (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log): "topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia." Presumably, as with Zuggernaut, a mentoring admin would step forward to guide/police YK with respect to the topic ban.
    • Below, editors suggested that the proposed editing restriction should have been stronger, for example stating that YK's source misrepresentations and undue referencing and tendentious editing not be merely decanted from one topic (South Asian history) to another (British literature). Some seemed to hint that an indefinite site ban is required: "It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go."; "... but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke." In light of the further evidence of YK's persistent pattern of disruption (more detailed and disturbing than mine) presented below, short of a unequivocal promise to reform tendered by YK, I'd support a site ban, whether now or in future YK-related damage-control discussions.
    • For now, the spirit of the proposed topic ban should ideally inform uninvolved admins dealing with YK-style disruption, whether the strict letter of this proposed ban cover the affected pages (say, on Pakistani or Indian history) or not (Dickens). If YK returns to disruptive editing (which, given his on-and-off history, is likely), the consensus that emerges here should help enact stronger future restrictions earlier rather than later in YK's next disruptive cycle.
    • Several editors with greater sourcing expertise than I or more experience dealing with YK have corrected/clarified/expanded the observations above. Johnuniq, Truthkeeper88, and others point to the harm YK has done to the Charles Dickens articles by giving undue weight to sources or positions, driving away responsible editors, etc. Had I known, I'd have recommended a more wide-ranging editing restriction, perhaps by proposing enactment of point four of the Zuggernaut restrictions with respect to the Dickens articles as well as point three, allowing uninvolved admins to spot ban YK from talk pages/articles where he has been or is being disruptive.
    Saravask 05:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I have been watching this latest sequence and did on a couple of occasions try to explain to those who were getting drawn in by YK's fringe theories, but my experience of YK's methodology, which Saravask explains well, goes back for quite some while. Nothing is changing, nothing is being learned and the time-sink aspect is phenomenal. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This gives an idea of just how many times Yogesh Khandke's POV-pushing/undue weight theories etc have been referred to this noticeboard. There are plenty of other instances that did not make it thus far and he was, of course, involved in the politically-oriented protest at the India Wikiconference last year when he tried to obtain a legal resolution to an issue relating to WP's depiction of maps of India. He disappeared when that failed and has only recently returned to editing. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources never say that they are 'fringe' theories by 'cranks'. These are assertions from editors on Wikipedia. I am little puzzled how Sitush is silent on this facet, even if that goes against his vote.
    Also Sitush and other editors are well experienced to let know if content disputes can be taken to ANI or not. My understanding says that content dispute has to be dealt with first before concluding that these are 'fringe theories'. Considering your expertise on sources, could you present sources please that state clearly that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories'. Unless it is proven that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories', such assumptions can be made against views presented by YK.
    I don't think that much of what User:Saravask states such as "in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories" etc holds unless any content disputes, if any, are resolved.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Saravask describes it well. I've seen editors spending huge amounts of time trying to explain to Yogesh Khandke how we use reliable sources, how we evaluate sources, how we can't add improperly sourced fringe ideas, can't add nationalist POV, etc, but it's just not getting through and a lot of time is being wasted repeatedly going over the same kinds of things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry to say that there are no sources presented by the involved admin himself that state the sources presented by YK are exclusively fringe theories. Per me, this is in contradiction to his statement above about his own idea of reliable sources and loses much weight especially in absence of any discussion as such on 'fringe throries' which could not be discussed on this noticeboard.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be confusing the original content disputes and this discussion of YK's behaviour. Saravask has provided links showing evidence of YK's behaviour, and the sources/fringe/POV issues are covered at those links. In order to evaluate YK's behaviour and Saravask's recommendation, I do not need to restart the content arguments here and now or provide any content sources of my own (as the sources used were presented and discussed at the time), I simply need to evaluate the evidence of YK's behaviour in those content discussions. (And by the way, I really don't think your badgering everyone who supports this recommendation is doing you any favours, you know). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify as per Johnuniq's request below, I am supporting an indefinite topic ban on editing in any topic areas related to South Asian history, in any Wikipedia space. I note other editors' opinions that there is a wider problem, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with any other areas of contention to offer my judgment on that, so I have to remain neutral on any proposals for wider sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - My understanding here is that the views per YogeshKhandke are not 'Hindu nationalist theories' or 'fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic' etc. I can say this by words present in the discussion itself such as 'contemporary scholarly debates', 'some Indian scholars', 'Some historians and Indian nationalists', 'The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists', etc. Words like scholarly debates, Indian scholars, Some historians, archaeologists etc. can hardly be described as 'fringe' groups etc - I think all the participants here in this debate need to understand this well. In any case, this is about history long ago which no one can directly prove much at all directly with certainty; much less if there is indeed a debate on such topic ongoing - more so hotly debated topics such as this. Also, western sources per my understanding do not represent exhaustive views, and quoting someone of higher repute is considered sufficient for substance, without actually going into details of all sides. For me therefore this does not merit such action, especially when sources can have diverse views and are not bound to present all views (- this needs to be better discussed per me). As far as other edits are concerned, undoing an edit is no big deal especially compared to edits put in especially with sources mentioned. I would also suggest people here, learned and experienced too, to avoid name calling on personal perceptions. An example would be 'crank' which is per individual editor's (here Fowler) choice of words to describe what he calls nationalist historians/archeologists. While being experienced and reputed on Wikipedia, this wouldn't affect the seniormost editors but it would definitely affect any not-so-senior ones in case views from one side is made to look worthless, leading to bans etc. If senior editors do it, others will learn to repeat the same behavior. I am reminded of one instance when I was involved in an ugly exchange with some senior editor who suggested something like I have sympathy for 'saffron terror' or 'saffron terrorism' or whatever, while reopening a closed vote in my absence; and got away without even a warning and that lead to a ban on me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Sitush, I didn't see that. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about this topic ban [| link], the one mentioned by Sitush is incorrect. It is where I was accused one the lines of saffron terror as a reason reopening a vote which I think is not a correct way to reopen a closed vote. No one corrected either the editor not the reopening of voting.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic ban link to which you refer appears to be the same ban to which I referred. Am I mistaken? The fact that you more or less sat out that ban and then returned to similar topic areas and, in a fairly short space of time, end up here ... well, it does not look great. I would not have raised the issue if you had not volunteered it. My suggestion would be that in future you do not refer back to that topic ban: it had consensus and it is over and done with. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check again, these are two messages with same header for some reason! Also, my ban is over. Per instructions of the person who banned me, I am discussing this on talk pages, I have not indulged in any edit war which you may imply. I have presented my views on talk:India page too. If you have anything against it, please reply there because I have neither edited anything on that page currently, nor edited even if sources requested by me are not presented, even here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made my position clear here. I will not make any further comments other than saying that I think this discussion has turned rather fragmented, with little smaller discussions on sourcing when it is not being discussed at reliable sources board even for dispute, and more. I could have said a lot more with sources on various topics on each topic but but I think that won't be possible here with an open mind for all sides so I won't regardless as also that this looks too confusing to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I dont see anything wrong being done by Yogesh, first you may argue that he had edited the article before discussing but that action alone would not merit a ban. He did not push aside the sources presented by other editors all he displayed was that there are other theories so the sentence needs to be changed. Editors like fowler are considering few historians a cranck case and thus not considering those historians work, now this is something that can be debated. Coming to the point of Yoges pushing few Indian nationalist theory; Yogesh did provide few other sources and none of them were Indians, if he is wrong you can discard the sources but not initiate a discussion to ban him.--sarvajna (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is going no where and its getting murkier with every reply from either side. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Its high time he is topic banned. His POV pushing is wasting everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what can be added here and what cannot. This is not the first time he is doing it. He knows well that the POV he pushes cannot get consensus through discussions, so his method is to first add unilaterally, then edit war without breaking 3RR. When thwarted he will try to argue it in the talk page. He usually doesnt get his way and comes back a few months later repeating the same point or similar points. He is a colossal drain on the community's time and resources.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Yogesh Khandke replies:(1)Some of those voting here Soda, Sitush, and admin Zebeedee, a long history of conflict with me regarding content, Sitush has been hounding me for many months but I have ignored him, not to create conflict. (2)ANI isn't the forum to bring content disputes so I will not justify my edits unless asked to do so. (3)Regarding gaming the system: I don't have computer access at work, so my editing is subject to the time I have leisure, that cannot be held against me. (3)Since it is year-end, (financial year), I have limited time, so that should be considered, I mean I will not be able to watch this page, I could know about this discussion only because I received an email alert because of the message left on my talk page. (4)This ANI is used as a tool in content disputes, which is unfair. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holocaust denial: Saravask writes: "YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial.", which is nothing but a lie, all I wanted in the article was the mention that the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is disputed for which I have presented evidence, I repeat my position which is that the India article which mentions the Aryan Migration theory should also mention that the theory is disputed by academics - historians, archaeologists, experts on genetics, cultural and language scholars, I am not disputing the mention of Aryan Migration in the article, my position is that this theory is diputed by numerous NON-FRINGE, RELIABLE SOURCES, for which I have presented evidence which I have collected on a sandbox and so the India article should take cognizance of the dispute as it is NOTABLE. (sorry about bringing up the content dispute but the fatuous reference to Holocaust denial needed to be scotched.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Fowler I should add his name in the list of content disputers and one who has been frequently abusive and uncivil, however since I don't believe in formal action against fellow editors I dropped the issue after he tendered an unconditional apology - twice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The language that Fowler uses: "Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars" ", "Indian cranks" in the latest discussion.[19], when administrator Regentspark was requested to reign in the abusive Fowler (for an abuse a short while before the edit presented by the diff), admin Regentspark excused himself as an involved editor,[20] here he has no qualms in rushing to support a topic ban, he was an opposite party made by me in the historic YellowMonkey case and was admonished for batting for YellowMonkey. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that Mr. Khandke is cornered he has suddenly turned saintly and is accusing me of being abusive. He conveniently forgets his own transgressions. Long before I entered this latest fray, when user:AshLin asked for my input on the current state of knowledge on the Indo-Aryan migration theory, Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested. Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Perhaps someone else who knows Marathi could translate it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know Marathi, but found the proverb here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Not sure what to make of it, but YK has a history of using vernacular expressions (which I don't understand) in exchanges with me. See, for example, user:Sodabottle's post at the bottom of this ANI thread titled Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Fowler even before you entered the discussion YK had suggested that you would ardently oppose the inclusion of the other theory(that is what the proverb mean but indirectly) which proved to be right. Yes there are incidents were your language can be very objectionable for example [[21]] where you say that it is the last time that you would consider ppl bringing other sources, I guess if I had pursued it may be there would have a been a discussion about banning me as well, calling historians whom you don't consider worthy as crank case is also objectionable anyhow the discussion here is not about Fowler's language but about YK. I feel that this whole discussion is biased against YK--sarvajna (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more likely to be the case that the comments here reflect an emerging consensus, but time will tell. However, even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully. For example, compare this new article by him with its current state. I am still trying to fix the gross slant that he put on the thing, using for now just the sources that he has identified. It is the usual subtle "all the fault of the Brits" stuff in which he seems to specialise. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that everyone is being vindictive of YK and everything that was edited by him is being dug out, this discussion was started after he had given some evidences of sources on the India talk page. Few admins/editors have declared that nothing would change as long as they are the administrators and I feel the point of banning YK has come up because he annoys few admins POV(This is what I think after seeing the talk page of India and few other AN/I involving YK, I also know that this would not matter a lot) --sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From Sitush "even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully", does this mean that opinion of User:Sitush is more likely that the editor YK is not indulging fringe theorists in this case? just for clarity. In that case, the entire discussion may be seen in another light - perhaps a content dispute, and not what this looks like.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask for clarity. If I could understand the rest of your message then perhaps I could provide it. Can anyone assist? Perhaps I am a bit more than my usual dumb self today. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that YK has failed to observe WP:SPEAKENGLISH with me more than has any other editor I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. His command of English is not that poor that the vernacular (Marathi) is his only option, that he can't provide a translation, when he knows perfectly well that I do not understand a word of the language. How come he is not using Marathi (with offhanded remarks about translation) in the frenetic edits he is making on the Charles Dickens page? How come there are no "frog in the well," or "wrestling with a pig" expressions there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Further from Yogesh Khandke:(1) "On the Ganga move": www.fastcompany.com quotes Sue Gardner Wikipedia's CEO thus

    She likes to tell the story of the Ganges/Ganga argument playing out now on English Wikipedia. In India, the official name for the country's second-largest river is the Ganga. The British have long called it the Ganges, a term that bears the stench of colonization for many Indians. Since 2007, there has been a spirited back-and-forth between editors about whether a search for the river should redirect to Ganga or Ganges. "There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And it's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side."

    I am one of the two she mentioned. (2) The Charles Dickens' article is refered here - the result of my edits on that page was that we have a wonderfully sourced new article, whose major contributor has been user:WickerGuy, so much for non-collaborative editing accusation made by user:Spanglej, considering the sensitivity of the subject. One of my recent edit's[22] has been called

    It's an excellent and worthy addition to the article. Thanks for keeping us a bit less Anglo-centric.

    (3) Those who are after me with knives (metaphorically used) have company at Metapedia where I am called a "Dravidian troll", for bringing the numerous non-fringe, scholarly, notable, sources mentioning Dickens' racism to the table. (4) Closing admin Please look at this carefully (a typical example of the flimsy and false accusations): In his opening statement Saravaska calls my edit Hindutva-sympathetic, (see the very racist term used Hindutva - Hinduness, do we use terms like Christian-ness sympathetic or Wicca-ness sympathetic on Wikipedia?). What is my edit?: I removed the internal link that led lower-caste communities to Shudra; I explained in my summary: Shudra is not a community it is a Varna, the bloke cannot distinguish between a community and a Varna. (The other change was deleting the wp:Weasel most and quoting the source as per wikipedia policy - state opinion like a fact) (5) Regarding Child marriages both child and marriage are wrong in the quote –as (a) Is 18 the threshold for defining the status as child? (b) I had given many sources that explained that marriage doesn't mean that the relationship is consummated, there is another ceremony called as Gauna, which follows "marriage", "marriage" is more like a betrothal. (c) I had mentioned the Gillick Fraser competence, that allows doctors to advice and supply contraception to 12 year olds, in the United Kingdom, and wondered whether "Child marriage" was a notable mention in what admin RegentsPark lately called a "summary article". (In my opinion the skewed male:female ratio is more alarming and notable.) (5) @ALL: Sitush is trying to connect alleged real world actions with Wikipedia editing, is that allowed on Wikipedia? Is my honesty in using my real name in editing here, and in other contributions on the Internet, to be held against me? What action could be taken against an editor who levels such charges? I use my real name because it acts as an implicit censor, I can only write what I can associate with as my own work, I don't spew vitriol hiding behind an assumed name. I like to "play with my cards on the table". 6) I am happy EyeSerene's blocking action has been mentioned here, that was a kangaroo court type of decision in which I wasn't even allowed to put my point across, I wasn't editing while it was enforced, I wrote to EyeSerene, but he went for a long vacation and when he returned I just didn't have the time and energy to pursue the matter, about user:Qwyrxian he in course of a discussion extrapolated his experience with Asians he encounters as a teacher, to all Asians, making comments to the effect "Indians don't have a culture of questioning scholarship and implicitly follow persons in authority". (also see post script) The "cabal" he "modestly" confesses (NPOV and RS warriors), is a load of nonsense, the persons mentioned by him, have been demonstrated to, that they simply lack competence, they have been called "google scholars", I don't say that you need to be a "rocket scientist", but you need to know a little about the subject, so as not to confuse "varna" for "community". I must add that their incompetence is not just related to the subject that they write on, but surprise of surprises for those like administrator Zeebeedee and Qwxryian? also extend to Wikipedia policies. (7) Similarly Johnuniq, Jaga and Seb 86556, were on the winning side of an article move debate, which won because at least in that instance wp:NOTDEMOCRACY failed. @John: Kindly spare us the original research on this page, please find RELIABLE, NON-FRINGE, NOTABLE sources and make the necessary changes to the page, instead of indulging in disruption. (8) I will explain my editing pattern - I am a self-employed person, I don't have fixed hours or days, I edit whenever I have time, I have a school going daughter who needs my help with her studies, there are other social responsibilities in my community, where we have lived for about 60 years, I volunteer for a Luxembourgian NGO, helping them in their campaign; a kharicha vata (squirrel's contribution) to enable the Roma people in Europe to be able to have the same rights that other humans living there have. (9) I could reply to more insinuations but I request the closing admin to hear my side in any other matter before closing (please a note on my talk page I get email alerts), and also see the 30 odd articles I have created, to ascertain for himself/herself whether they fail NPOV or are not supported by RS, or contain UNDUE or are FRINGE, I have been verbose enough, my prose has been called obscure before. I must hang up. (Post script: see point no (6) above) Considering here, the repeated harping about "experienced editors/experts..." to me expectation of "implicit subordination” seems to be the culture of some Wikipedians. I have been called "aggressive"; if you want a submissive, fawning Indian, you are at the wrong door. If you want me here, be prepared to accept me as an equal. I have clear understanding that editing Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right, and I am careful in not abusing it. Au revoir!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support an indefinite topic ban for one of the most bizarrely tendentious editors I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. user:Saravask has eloquently and precisely summarized what many of us have felt about YK's edits (most of which are on talk pages) ever since he first arrived on Wikipedia. People have cut him more slack than any definition of slack allows. It is time to end this; otherwise, productive editors will feel disheartened and be rendered unproductive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think User:Fowler&fowler needs to rethink his stance on various issues he considers as fringe. His views are consistent that many theories are projected by 'by Indian jingoists', 'cranks', etc. Examples: [| 1], [| 2]. He is not ready to consider that there are debates on it ongoing even though sources mention so. About this comment from "The minority is too small and, in many cases, unrecognized as scholarly, to gain mention in the summary history section of a Wikipedia FA. None of the people you have quoted including Edwin Bryant or Laurie Patton are historians. As scholars of India none are even remotely in the same league as Colin P. Masica, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Burton Stein], Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Patrick Olivelle or Stanley Wolpert, all of whom have lent their support to the notion Aryan migration." I am not sure if this is the place to reply to this comment as discussion is also going on talk:India page in parallel. The sources themselves mention 'scholarly debates' etc.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is hardly any discussion to support the assertion that the views presented by editor YK are 'fringe theories', etc. The discussion is still going on on talk:India page. If the user regentspark finds sources that say the theories are from 'cranks' & 'Hindu nationalists', please mention sources here or on talk:India. Such assertions from experienced users without sources, without going to reliable sources noticeboard, without concluding discussion on talk:India are hardly considered appropriate on a vote according to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned about this user just adding one-sided comment here without being involved at all. Examples of his talk page are: [| 1], [| 2]. I would therefore have comments from this user ignored.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed the whole discussion is being conducted like "my way or the highway " as mentioned above by me few editors are hell bent to ban YK --sarvajna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, attack the editors taking part in the discussion - that's sure to get people on your side ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this right, people who haven't been involved with the dispute can't add their opinions; while those who have been involved with their dispute but are in support of a topic ban are "hell bent" on getting their way. Riiiight. If anything I think its the defence that is going overboard... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1st Boing! said Zebedee if you think you are being funny you are not 2nd. I did not say that people who are not involved should not add their opinion all I meant was "they should not form an opinion just on the basis of what it is being discussed here but rather check out the matter properly" (apologies if I was not clear) --sarvajna (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This part, started from the user User:Abhijay nowhere involved in this and apparently not too well versed with Wikipedia, is going nowhere. Look just two topics above this topic [| here on the same page], which perhaps has led to the other user User:Strange Passerby here. As an admin User:Boing! said Zebedee who is on one side of discussion here could have avoided passing comments on someone on the other side like this, when it is clear which side which editor belongs to.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment here had nothing to do with Abhijay so you'd do well not to assume. I've watched this from afar for a long time, having previously had pleasant interactions with Sitush and Boing. Wait, I suppose in your eyes that makes me involved. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about User:Abhijay, see where this is going? Editors on one side writing about editors on the other side and then more!!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't. You're not making coherent sense. You suggested that I was "led here" because Abhijay posted about me to the board. I'm saying my taking part in this discussion has nothing to do with that. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I stand corrected then. I suggested that perhaps you were checking on his edits and then saw this discussion and then added your opinion. In any case, it does not affect your view. Though still I am not sure how much weight is carried by the opinion of User:Abhijay. Perhaps your could clarify about it, even if his comment does not support your view.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys c'mon. Abhijay is a good faith, but new, editor. He has obviously not long found this board and has tried to comment and contribute. Any competent closing administrator will be able to see that train of events and weight his contribution accordingly. Piling on each other, based on his comment, is not going ot help either him - or you. In fact it's probably pretty off putting all round. Lets chalk this up and move on. --Errant (chat!) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as I have seen the POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period—it will never end voluntarily. However, I am concerned that a topic ban from South Asian history would leave YK more free time to cherry pick negative commentary to inflate stuff like Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism—the central problem is not so much South Asian history as a misunderstanding of what is DUE. When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place, and an article highlighting alleged racism and anti-Semitism of Dickens completely misses the point, and should not be tolerated at a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The editor himself says that "When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place", but does mention the topic here, without commenting on whether the editor disputes any sources and how the sources 'inflate' stuff etc.. The topic in that era, 'inflate stuff', etc. do not matter in any case; and so would be the editor's perception of POV based on Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The central problem is that for any major topic like India or Charles Dickens there will be literally thousands of sources that could be argued to satisfy WP:RS (and similar sources might be adequate for unsurprising text in other topics). However, when a thousand sources have written about Dickens, it is inevitable that some of them will have chosen to interpret Dickens' writings as racist or whatever. It is not satisfactory for an editor to find such sources and create articles based on them (that is undue cherry picking, aka WP:SYNTH). For major topics like these, there are hundreds of high-quality scholarly sources written by acknowledged subject experts, and it those sources that should be used for a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that YK has stopped anyone from editing the page. If you think it is biased, then use the talk page of that article. Have you added any content or made any efforts at it to dispute sources etc. before claiming that he is cherry picking, even without any discussion.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is this discussion heading to? Some dispute that needs to be settled on the talk page is being brought up here in support of a topic ban --sarvajna (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to "POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period" and explaining that it is easy to cherry pick POV commentary from sources for major topics—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: Really? You imply here that 36,031 bytes page size with 39 references used in it is a baised point of view? Forget the page size. I can stretch articles to huge lengths (just like Dicken's writings). But 39 valid independant references does not seem like something that can be ignored and not included in an article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Johnuniq has consistently made, for which he has not provided any sources, the similar/same assertions about all users with views on the side of YK on the topic Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism, his opinion would have weight per me. Otherwise his views are not consistent w.r.t. editors.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Two points i want to say....
      1. As i see, most of the comments by editors here are complaints based on content dispute on various articles. I have observed a few threads here at ANI which keep on saying that content dispute should be addressed on a seperate forum assigned just for resolving those and ANI shall not be used to deal with it. So... if all the complaints are based on content dispute, this is a wrong place! Furthermore, I do not understand why the editors against YK's edits are actually against YK. Most of his edits which are called as "Undue" here actually are well referenced. 50:1 ratio will be called as undue. But i dont see such a huge ratio here. He clearly cites more than one references about various points he includes. I dont call it undue. All editors here should understand that Wikipedian editors should be neutral about the subject, but at the same time keep in mind that Wikipedia's aim is to be information bank which can be used for research. If contradictory views of reliable sources present on the topic are not mentioned in the article, i will call that as undue. Also, wikipedia articles are never complete. One must hence always assume good faith in other editors and not disregard the chance that something more of same sort might exist in other places which is yet not covered and brough to wikipedia. Building of articles might take long time and as wikipedians are not bound to do anything for wikipedia, it is unfair to assume that facts mentioned are Undue.
      Come on! Isnt it really good to have all views about a topic mentioned?
      2. As few ediotrs have pointed out above, other few editors who have not been involved in these topics should not vote here as Support or Oppose. I request them to change their views from Support or Oppose to "Comments". Although i do trust that admins who go through this would "read" carefully, i also trust in errors that humans can do. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) No, this is not itself a content dispute, it is about YK's chronic tendentious *behaviour* in content disputes and his repeated attempts to push his own POV against policy and against consensus. As a behavioural issue, this is a perfectly valid venue for it.
    • Meant to add - A Wikipedia article is not a repository for every opinion ever aired on a subject or a place to publish all views, with each given equal weighting - that's not what balance is all about. A Wikipedia article is supposed to balance various views in accordance with the weighting given to them in the real world, by academics and experts as published in reliable sources. Fringe theories and minority views should only be included in proportion to the support they get in the real world, as support by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2) Anyone is allowed to support or oppose the suggestion as they please, even if they have not been involved in these topics. In fact, previously uninvolved people examining the presented evidence with fresh eyes can be of great benefit - if YK is innocent of the charges, surely that's what they'll decide when they review the evidence, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We live in an age when even the craziest assertions can be traced to someone who has already made them in a public forum. It doesn't make the assertion sourced, especially not to a reliable source. I have written most of the history section of the long-standing FA India. It is sourced to impeccable sources. I have tried to use textbooks on the history of India that are used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the best universities around the world and published by well-known academic publishers. The reason for this is that such textbooks have been vetted for balance. Many editors try to insert one-sided points of view into the India article, sourced to poor unreliable sources. They are usually dealt with on the article talk page. However, when an editor does this relentlessly, dozens, indeed scores of dozens, of times, it becomes a behavioral problem. When an editor does this with full knowledge of what he is doing, it becomes a behavioral problem. I don't appear at ANI that often. Perhaps one or twice a year. Let me state very definitively: Yogesh Khandke is likely the worst (and certainly one of the worst) of the tendentious editors I have had the sad privilege of encountering in my six years on Wikipedia. If editors here seem against him, he has only himself to blame. He has wasted an enormous amount of time of law-abiding, content creating, editors. It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that these days we can find source for assertion made but who is to decide what is crazy and what is not? call it crazy if it not in match with your POV? --sarvajna (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia would not exist if this sort of solipsism were the norm here. Figuring out what to include and what to exclude is not a question of "matching with your POV" (unless a POV is the only thing an editor brings to the encyclopedia). Rather, it is a question of incorporating whatever is the consensus view amongst scholars. "Most historians" captures that adequately. However, the larger issue here is Khandke's tendentious behavior rather than what is "right" or "wrong". I'm perfectly happy to discuss insertion of new material but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's decided by consensus in discussion (see WP:Consensus), and once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    you are right Boing! said Zebedee, but a consensus was never reached, all the sources provided were discarded by few editors neither there was any third opinion on the matter --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus does not mean a unanimous decision with everybody agreeing, it means an evaluation of the arguments made in accordance with policy. Having re-read a number of previous disputes, I see YK repeatedly trying to misrepresent sources, and pushing minor sources against arguments made in full compliance with Wikipedia's Reliable sources policy. And I see far more than three opinions offered in those disputes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was extremely dramatic of HumorThisThat to over-react about my comment about Yogesh. Do not assume things the way you think them to be HumorThisThat. So stop being such a dick. Ab hijay  ☎
    sarvajna, The history section of the India page was rewritten during a few months in Spring (April through June) 2011 during a lengthy FAR of the page where dozens of experienced FA and FAR hands were watching, and finally supporting. If that is not consensus, what is? Where were you guys then? It has been a year since. All the Hindu nationalist fringe theorists whose opinions you are impaling us with had already had their various epiphanies about the topic by then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fowler you are talking about a discussion that had taken place almost a year ago, are you suggesting that nothing should change after the edits that were made? Consensus was never reached during the last discussion, I am not referring to something that happened over a year ago. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies to Boing! and Fowler: "Once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again" is wrong. Consensus can not be necessarily permanant. New experienced/inexperienced editors keep on coming to newer topics. Newer sources can be found. Thus consensus can very well change. (Its written somewhere in some policy. You all probably know where.) I dont understand how re-raising an old point again is a problem. You all very-well give references to age-old fights when you want someone blocked! You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you? An editor who believes in something and wants in it the article has every right to discuss it to introduce the content he wants. He ofcourse needs consensus. When YK (or anyone) re-raises the discussion, the editors who said no to it last time jump in again and again say no. The intention of re-raising the subject is to partly see whether old editors' views have changed and partly see if new editors have arrived who agree with him. If old editors' views are still same, they need to say that. But that does not mean they close the discussion and not allow newer editors to ponder. Hence i find you all also faulty here. It takes two to fight.
    As to my 2nd point above.... Editors are surely welcome to post their views here. But the main topic here is discussion on "topic" ban. Its not a montly meet of I-Hate-YK Club. User:Abhijay is supporting ban for some reason. I havent understood what the reason is. (& why is he now poking in my space?) User:Johnuniq is also supporting ban for some Dicken's article. How is that related? Its like, "Yesterday he bumped me and my icecream fell. Let me say that this has nothing to do with the topic. But i say Block him!" -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is a good point about consensus not being unchangeable - and yes, past consensus decisions can be revisited. But when it's the same points, with the same old arguments, and the same old sources, brought up again and again and again, it really starts to move away from the fair re-examination of past consensus and towards tendentious disruption. As for "You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you?", if they really were bygones I'd be delighted to let them go. But the whole reason for this proposal is that it is YK who won't get them go, and instead keeps starting up the same old POV-pushing and refusal to follow sourcing and NPOV policy over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And PS: As for why User:Abhijay has offered an opinion, I can't answer for him, but how about the possibility that he clicked on the links provided, read what they linked to, and formed his opinion based on that? You know, try a bit of WP:AGF? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the hell is the matter if I just support a ban. It's my account (yes, i just renamed) , I have the right to edit, so what on earth is the big deal. I've had a view of Yogesh's contributions, and you have to admit that they are extremely disruptive in nature. Now let's stop creating such a huge battleground situation here. It is purely unethical. Arguing all over and moving all over the place isn't helping anyone, nor it is helping yourself. Oh god, this stuff just turned a lot more all-over. First a discussion about a ban about Yogesh, then some guy over-reacts about my comment and then moves on to a blocking of another editor. Good grief guys. Well done for screwing up this whole thing. I will contact an admin about your behavior if this condescends into a more stupid matter. Soviet King (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (Moved this comment up to the appropriate section so it's clear what it's replying to - hope you don't mind, Soviet King -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boing! and also others: Lets take this example.
    User:Spanglej on 22 February 2012 says at Talk:Charles Dickens "Yogesh, you have banging this drum for more than two years. It seems you are advancing a personally held political position. The article is not a soapbox nor a vehicle for political promotion."
    What we have after YK's so called "drum banging", "advancing personally held political positions", "persistent and tendentious modus operandi", etc. is Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism with numerous reliable sources and a completely valid self-standing article. Various editors opposed him when the Dicken's discussion started. But looking at the present condition of the article we see how YK's editings were right and other editors were just not ready to accept that. I know that they still disagree with points of undue weightage and POV. But numerous independant references on that article give different image than what these other editors hold. The conculsion here is, all the so-called YK's views on Dickens are not really his views. Had other editors been considerate enough to view this material properly at the start, YK wouldnt have needed to be tendentious. Again, it takes two to fight! And after proving himself right at Dickens one should seriously think that others, and not YK, can also be wrong. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not about "right" and "wrong". It is about consensus, reliable sources, correct quotations, balance, cherry-picking, pov-forking and numerous other issues. I'd wager a bet that there is much that is dubious in the article to which you have linked, simply because that is YK's modus operandi (and it can be seen in umpteen comments he appears to have made a various blogs, news websites etc). However, any review of the article by me will have to wait until Sunday. Suffice for now to say that his recently created articles concerning Indian news media/people have been pretty woeful and, yes, non-neutral. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, it is about being right & wrong. Other editors repeatedly said he was wrong and these were his own opinions on Dickens. When given time, he proved his points were not his own but of other reputed writers backing with sources. And to his modus operandi of being tendentious and sometimes aggressive and annoying one should blame opponent stubborn editors. Frankly speaking, if YK is able to fight all these obstinate editors he is doing a brilliant job. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Animesh, you're generally a reasonable editor. But, classifying misquoting and cherry picking sources as a "brilliant job" does not become you. I don't see any problem with reasonable discourse but, when an editor cannot be trusted to correctly quote sources, then we're better off without that editor. It is this 'no holds barred in getting my POV across' attitude that is detrimental to this encyclopedia. And, when that 'no holds barred' editor also calls the theory he does not like a fairy tale or attempts to recast it as an obviously discredited theory, then there is little doubt of that editors intentions (and little doubt that the net result is going to be not good for wikipedia). I should also add that Khandke's tendency to frame debates as an 'us Indians' vs 'them colonialists/westerners/whatever' is also extremely bad for the encyclopedia. Not only does it make otherwise well meaning editors think that 'India' is under attack, it also leads to a tendency to discount scholarly sources and research. And, scholarly sources are the only independent yardstick by which the quality of this encyclopedia is measurable. --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @RegentsPark: Firstly sorry that i did not reply to your upper post. I did not notice it. Usually when debatable discussions get this long and non-followable i quit them and say do whatever you want. That is a reason for me calling his work as brilliant. Cherry-picking and misquoting is obviously wrong. But thats what other editors can check and correct. That doesnt mean indefinite ban. I dont see "We have to rework on whatever he does" as a reason for ban. As to tendentious behaviour towards a group of editors i have already said before that those editors are to be blamed for it. It seems to be natural that he has to be aggressive while fighting alone against many others. That is not a reason for indefinite ban. But that can very well be a reason for controlling/monitoring discussions on these topics between YK & those editors. Does it mean over work? Yes! But over work is not reason to ban. These matters are all content disputes which can be handled without ban. Considering the fact that all of his edits are well sourced, we know that he is usually not writing something wrong but is surely bringing a contrasting view than the one that dominates the whole article. I see that as a good thing as it makes article unbiased. If he is banned, how do you propose to handle these points when he is not supposed to talk about them? Wont that be a lose?
    When i read Wiki articles i mostly consider them to be full. Even after becoming an editor here i mostly find it difficult to add something to an article which seems full. If YK is being able to add something new to a long standing FA (which one can call as stagnant and something that the then-editors thought of), it is a good thing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support solely on the basis of behavior. User's modus operandi is persistent and tendentious; had experience with YK on the Ganges-move odyssey. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have just reverted the latest personal jibe from Humour Thisthat2011 against User:Soviet King (formerly Abhijay), which raised events that were nothing to do with this discussion. I would caution Humour Thisthat2011 to remember his previous bans for aggressive behaviour, and stop the unwarranted personal criticism of a good faith editor who has every right to offer his opinion in this discussion. Humour Thisthat2011, you need to calm down and stop throwing mud at people, stick to discussing the issue at hand, and try assuming good faith occasionally. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Boing! said Zebedee I would like to disagree, Humour Thisthat2011 had to support his previous argument about Soviet King's unwarranted display of support for the ban without really looking into the matter properly and it was also very much required in view of Soviet King's indirect threat(as written above by Soviet King) and its very much required now--sarvajna (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are guilty of exactly the same kind of Bad Faith behaviour - there are no justifications to the accusations that other contributors have not "looked into it" properly, and nobody has to satisfy you or him that they have. If your only tactics here are to throw dirt at those with whom you disagree, then you really are only damaging your own case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Boing! said Zebedee Humour Thisthat2011 provided proper justification but you reverted it --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know? Because that's all that's happening here with the attacks on Abhijay. How about discussing the actual arguments people present here rather than trying to throw dirt at them personally? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already given my closing comment under my vote but I felt I have to reply, what do you mean by "Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know?" please refrain from using such language. I was referring to the evidence(the page history) that was given by ThisThat2011 which atleast shows that Soviet King made a decision in a hurry. I will not drag it further, I feel I have made my point. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "You people" is a second-person plural phrase, referring in this case to you and ThisThat2011. What on earth is wrong with that? And no, the "evidence" given by ThisThat2011 showed no such thing - no number of diffs can possibly show anything about when somebody read something or whether they were previously aware of an issue. But having said that, I've spoken to ThisThat2011 on his Talk page, and I will accept that he did not mean it as an attack. However, if you wish to carry on criticizing someone else's ability to form their own decisions, then I'll leave it to the closing admin to judge. The closing admin will be someone uninvolved, and will judge consensus based on the policy-based arguments presented on the subject of YK's behaviour, and I would strongly recommend that that's what you should stick to if you wish to influence the outcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarvajna, stop using such language against Boing. He's clearly trying to help mediate, and I did not use a indirect threat. If I gave you a threat, I would end up getting blocked by Boing! right now. I've wasted enough time here. Good luck to the next person reviewing this.

    Arbitrary break

    • Comment - can't comment on the topic ban, but something needs to be done, and I think a RfC/U might the direction to take. Yogesh's edition style is clearly tendentious and off-putting. Charles Dickens is a page with between 8000 to 10,000 views per day, yet his edit warring there and the pattern of his contributions to the article and talk - page has driven away editors who would have pitched in for a rewrite of the page [23]. This goes far beyond a content dispute, it's a pattern that drives away editors who are willing to make useful contributions. That's a problem in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the number of times YK has been here, I don't think an RfC/U is needed. Specifically, I call attention to the comments of the last person who blocked YK:

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

    An RfC/U would ultimately just waste time, since they can't result in any formal sanctions, and the ANI history alone should be sufficient for a full topic ban. And if that's not enough, then I strongly recommend reading the discussions on Talk:Charles Dickens. I'll admit I've only read part of them, because it's extensive.
    Disclaimer, just to save YK and his defenders time: I'm one of those involved editors who is unfairly prejudiced against YK from the past, who has been engaged in a long-standing witch-hunt against him and others, and who is a part-time member of the Sitush-Boing-Fowler-MatthewVanitas cabal (you know, that cabal that wants Wikipedia to follow devilish rules like WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Qwyrxian says, a RfC/U is not likely to achieve much. We've gone past the point where it would be useful. Yogesh knows exactly where he stands with regard to his Wikipedia life and has known this for some considerable time now, but nonetheless chooses to continue with more of the same. Classic battleground stuff, in fact. As with Zuggernaut and MangoWong (both of whom seem to have decided to retire), he holds some very firm anti-colonial etc views and they massively affect his ability to understand that there are other viewpoints, let alone that his own are fringe-y. His cherry-picking and misquoting is also not a new thing and does rather suggest that it is a deliberate attempt to subvert our policies. RfC/U will merely result in another visit to this noticeboard at some point in the near future. If we're lucky, it may not be until July but past history suggests that he is likely to be around in April and then absent May/June, so I wouldn't bank on it being so long before we are back here. This might be interesting, although I am deaf & cannot hear it. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you suggesting there is something wrong with having firm anticolonial views, or that such views are "fringe-y"? Last time I looked, colonialism had decidedly gone out of fashion. I will not stand by and watch people who have their own NPOV problems take out an opposing editor through summary justice at AN/I, just because we have more Western than Indian editors here, and each group comes to the topic with their own favourite literature and perspective. --JN466 06:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's not it. I understand Sitush's mention of "very firm anti-colonial etc views" to be a coded way of saying that certain editors are overcompensating for past oppressions, and they look for ways to poke the former colonialists. That would be excellent if it were confined to giving a WP:DUE summary from typical scholarly works. However, as noted above, with enormous topics like India or Charles Dickens there are literally thousands of marginally reliable sources that have written from just about every conceivable angle, and cherry picking from those marginal sources allows an editor to insert almost any desired slant. For example, it is extremely undue to pick Dickens out from all the people alive worldwide in 1850 and assert that Dickens was racist—the truth is that the world is a very different place since then, and while an article on how views have changed in the last 150 years would be good, using cherry-picked dubious or primary sources (rather than comprehensive scholarly works written by acknowledged experts) is not satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, here's my take on this. I consider myself pretty strongly anti-colonialist, and I am of the firm opinion that the British in India committed massive abuses and atrocities. The British Empire was not glorious and heroic, it was a shameful episode of history - as were the colonial conquests of the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. But the answer to that is not to re-write the history of India from a Hindu Nationalist POV - that would be no more acceptable than having, say, the history of the UK written by a British Nationalist group. We need to write our Wikipedia articles on India in as neutral and well-documented a way as possible. And to do that, we should weight them based on the best academic sources we have available. We should not allow cherry-picking from all manner of minor and fringe sources to try to right past wrongs or change unfavourable history, and we should have no room for anyone who repeatedly edit-wars to adopt such a tendentious approach. That's what I think is meant here, and it really is the only way an encyclopedia should be written. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Frankly, I get worried if the first diff given in evidence of an editor's malfeasance sees him citing Cambridge University Press and the Times of India, the second cites the University of Michigan Press, and I then see him accused of citing fringe sources. Fringe sources? If you want to make a case that he cites fringe sources, don't come with University Press sources that actually happen to bear out what he says. --JN466 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nobody here is claiming that *all* the sources he has ever cited are fringe sources - but much of the criticism here is that, amongst other things, he has frequently misrepresented reliable sources (and again, nobody is saying that *every* citation he has given is misrepresented). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Johnuniq: Why do you call "picking" Dickens by YK as undue? Because Dickens is non-Indian and YK is Indian? Is that the reason? Is there some rule that editors cannot edit articles related to other projects? And whats wrong in writing about Dickens' racism if it existed? Being 150 years old doesnt make it go away. Its like saying after 100 years we should edit Hitler and remove all material related to Holocaust because the world is a very different place since then. As you are free to edit any article here, so is he. Wikipedia is not compulsary. If he edits about Dickens' racism he is not bound to write about how racism has reduced in 150 years. Nor is he bound to right about everyone's or anyone else's racism to prove he hasnt unduely picked Dickens. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't care where editors come from. In a 100 years there will still be lots of scholarly sources that accurately describe Hitler and the Holocaust. It's getting off-topic so this will be my final explanation here regarding my attitude towards Dickens. What would be very interesting (if suitable sources are available) would be an article on how different are the attitudes between typical people from 1850 and today. If a time machine transported a typical person from just about any country in 1850 and got them to live in society today, it is highly likely we would be shocked by their toilet habits, table ettiquette, views on gender and race equality, and opinions regarding a wide range of human activities. However, to pick one person from 1850 and declare that their attitudes were unacceptable is UNDUE as it fails to mention that something similar could be said for most people from that period. It would be fine to state that Dickens was racist if that is the conclusion from scholarly sources written by acknowledged experts in the topic of Dickens and the history of the period. This is very similar to the Shakespeare authorship question where hundreds of arguably reliable sources have written just about every conceivable conclusion about Shakespeare, and one editor could easily "prove" that Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works, while another could do the same for Oxford (people claiming to be expert have supported seventy different candidates as being the author). The only way for progress to occur at Wikipedia is for major topics (where hundreds of marginally reliable sources are available), is for articles to be based on the major scholarly works written by acknowledged experts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The Ganges move debacle was a long time ago. If Yogesh hasn't learned how to contribute constructively by now, he must have decided not to change. Tendentious editors like Yogesh are a poison to the community, as Saravask's evidence shows. --JaGatalk 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request Please make it a bit clearer what is being supported/opposed. Obviously those opposing want no sanction, while those supporting are wanting a topic ban per the original request, namely South Asian history. However, subsequent comments have claimed a wider problem, and some of the more recent supports are worded in a way that suggests that something more is being supported. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Fowler&fowler comments above; the danger of the disruption moving elsewhere is also noted and it might be best to add probation on disruptive editing to the ban proposed here. ----Snowded TALK 06:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. He doesn't seem to want to work collaboratively. I would suggest general ban. Span (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user AuthorityTam, who thrives on dispute and antagonism

    Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

    The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [24], [25] and [26] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

    I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[27] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [28], [29], [30] and [31].

    I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [32].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[33] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [34]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

    Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[35] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

    If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [36]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[37], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[38] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[39], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[40], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[41], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[42], and falsely attributing comments to me[43]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[44][45], after indicating something was only his opinion[46][47], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[48][49], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[50].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [51],[52]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
    Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [53] and "windbaggery" [54]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[55]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

    • It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
    • It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).

    For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [56],[57],[58],[59]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [60]
    Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [61] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.
    AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.
    Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".
    AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AuthorityTam claims above that the reason he doesn't properly address editor disputes at User Talk is because of a guideline stating, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do." However, AuthorityTam's constant belittling and attacking motives of editors with whom he does not get along absolutely constitutes interaction, and not in any way that can be seen as conciliatory. If AuthorityTam were to actually apply that guideline, he would stick to content, and rely on the merits of content-related arguments at article Talk pages, and he would follow correct avenues of dispute resolution if there are problems with editors. If he feels so unsure that his views can be supported on their own merits without making attacks on other editors' motives, then he should review the quality of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.
    The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Assumption?? There's nothing to assume (or presume). AuthorityTam linked to this ANI from an article Talk page, with a false claim that other editors are trying to have him banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Fazilfazil, AuthorityTam has extremely weak defences to my accusations. He has provided a very lame and unconvincing excuse for repeatedly using the "aka LTSally" phrase; he does escalate arguments by constantly referring back to events from years earlier (often twisting comments and misrepresenting editors to inflame the situation); his level of invective, bile and taunting are proof that he makes little effort to collaborate harmoniously with other editors. I do not expect other editors to always agree with me, and I have disagreed with you in the past. Yet we remain civil and respectful. AuthorityTam treats editing here as a sport and craves conflict. That is the conduct I want him to stop. BlackCab (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through all this again, it's obvious that AuthorityTam sees nothing wrong with his antagonistic and hostile behaviour, is completely unrepentant and very clearly intends to continue in the same vein. He refuses to put the past behind him and views historic offences as justification for more combative and inflammatory conduct. All this in a community that demands cooperation and collaboration to work properly. His ongoing comments and his responses in this thread strongly suggest personality and behavioral issues: where others try to identify issues and resolve them, he flails out with "you did it too!" accusations, refuses to engage with other editors and simply escalates problems. The initial trigger for this ANI notice was his strange "aka LTSally" tactic and despite the observations of others that it serves no purpose -- and my direct appeal to him to cease -- he has decided to continue to do it. The lack of admin involvement in this complaint is disappointing and AuthorityTam will almost certainly read this as a green light for more of his ugly and infantile behaviour. Where to from here? BlackCab (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment Though I am somewhat uninvolved in this discussion and haven't read the particular comment thatBlackCab has found to be offensive, I did run across the ANI and after reading most of it, I thought I would interject a comment as a personal observation. I apologize in advance, as at least two editors will likely find my comments to be somewhat offensive and objectionable, but in consideration of the setting, I will make them here only. I would have to completely agree 100% with AuthorityTam's observation that " For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia" as looking back at the edit history and actions of editors Jeffro77 and BlackCab they have demonstrated a Pattern of working as a tandem force in not only attempting to add negative POV spin to Jehovah's Witnesses related articles, but also in being disruptive towards other editors good faith, well sourced edits, which they seem to consider not negative enough to suit their personal tastes. Examining their edit histories, I have noted a pattern of both editors bringing ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses, accusing them of numerous offenses [62][63][[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. I could go on and on but it would be tiresome to look for all the instances where these two editors have worked in tandem to discredit and harass editors who they deemed pro Jehovah's Witness, either with reports to ANI or through reverting good faith edits with nonsensical excuses such as "too much detail" or "belongs on a different article page and not this one"(paraphrase) These two editors have shown a "historical pattern" of being both disruptive and also uncivil. Personally I think they are more than just a tandem working in conjunction(WP:Meatpuppet), I personally have a suspicion they may be the same editor(WP:Sock), but have no solid evidence to demonstrate this. I also have a suspicion they may be using several other user id's to give a false impression of consensus and to aid in the harassment of others on a continuous basis, but again an lacking in evidence to truly present such as an accusation, thus I have only my own suspicion to rely upon. As a very new editor I was even reported by these two editors, falsely I might add, for sockpuppetry the very day I established an account[75], because a friend of mine signed up for an account and used my computer to complete an AFD nomination I had started as a IP address. I explained to them the situation[76], but they reported me as a sockpuppet regardless, because their intent is to be insidious to editors they perceive to have a pro Jehovah's Witness stance. Personally I think these two editors should be at a minimum barred from editing the same page, talk or article, within a 31 day time frame. I further, think that consideration should be given to barring them from editing Jehovah's Witness related pages altogether, and quite possibly barring them from editing pages associated with religion in general is not out of the realm of being reasonable as they have demonstrated a historical pattern of uncivil behavior, as well as disruptive edit warring and WP:tendentious editing on these particular type of pages. Willietell (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable. If Willietell would like to examine each of the ANI complaints listed (of which I think I have only ever made one) he will find the complaints were about clear cases of vandalism and sockpuppetry and generally strongly supported by other editors. The JW pages have certainly attracted a range of very oddball editors over the years. His comments are ignorant in the extreme. He is very welcome to examine any edit of mine in the past year and report me for either uncivil or disruptive behaviour if he sees it. He is also very welcome to request an investigation into his allegation against me of sockpuppetry. His suggestion that Jeffro and I are the same person is fanciful. It's disappointing to see him offering unquestioning support to an editor who is so clearly working in a manner that is contrary to Wikipedia principles of collaboration. Evidently whether one is "for" or "against" the JWs determines whether one is a cooperative and productive editor or not, and whether one's appeal for improved behavior has any validity. BlackCab (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits aren't listed to show, right , wrong or indifferent, only the tandem relationship of the two editors. Willietell (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Willietell is not "somewhat uninvolved" at all. It is unsurprising that Willietell has also come to attack my motives, and he is really not a stellar witness in support of AuthorityTam. It is also entirely unsurprising that Willietell would support a pro-JW editor and oppose editors who do not support every positive statement about the religion. He began editing in December 2011 under anonymous IPs, making claims that the entire Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article is "POV spin" and that it should be deleted, and later made false claims that it is "an attack page", and then made a false allegation of a copyright violation, showing he's not above lying to suit his ends. He claims that any statement about JWs he doesn't like to be "POV spin" (he uses this stock phrase incessantly, particularly when he has no real other argument against something) though the many responses at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#This_whole_page_should_be_deleted to his initial barrage of claims were shown to be completely unsupportable by a wide range of editors. Willietell claims above that I have reported editors on the basis of them being in favour of JWs (though this is particularly irrelevant, as I didn't report AuthorityTam). This claim is entirely false, and examination of each of those cases will show that user conduct was the problem in every instance. Willietell also conveniently ignores cases I have raised against editors making negative false claims about JWs and other issues. I don't have time to trawl for an exhaustive list as does Willietell, but for example see [77].
    I had to stop to laugh out loud when I read that Willietell is actually claiming BlackCab and I are the same person. I really don't know how I would manage edit conflicts with myself while logged on as a different user (let alone change residence). I can type pretty quickly, but not that quickly. Please, please do a CheckUser, then Willietell can publicly apologise. It's quite clear that Willietell's many strange (and conveniently vague) suspicions that I (and/or BlackCab) am a sockpuppet of "several other user id's" is a fairly desperate attempt to discredit me—this allegation really sounds like "tin foil hat" stuff, and I look forward to hearing from the other editors whom Willietell believes to be me. If/when Willietell proposes any actual username(s) or any actual evidence, again, do a CheckUser, and then Willietell can apologise. Willietell's own case of being reported for sockpuppetry was entirely reasonable—after he could not complete an AfD of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as an IP editor he 'threatened', "Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really?", and then shortly after, Spudpicker_01 was created to complete the AfD, in support of the new editor, Willietell. A sockpuppetry case was lodged, and confirmed. It was entirely reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry. Religious subjects often become heated, and I acknowledge that I have at times been as uncivil as other editors involved in such disputes. However, this is not a "historical pattern", and Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors.
    Willietell's (false) attacks on BlackCab and myself do not in any way nullify AuthorityTam's inappropriate behaviour, about which Willietell has decided to remain silent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the many links Willietell provides what he claims are "ANI accusations against editors who they seem to feel have sympathetic views towards Jehovah's Witnesses", only two were raised by me. The first was uncontroversially given admin support[78]. The second was in regard to AuthorityTam's attack on my motives at three AfDs, which I already cited in discussion above.[79] Notably, Willietell's further inattention to facts is shown by his inclusion of an arbitration case against User:Alastair Haines (which I did not initiate), against whom I had argued in favour of JWs in regard to their definition as a Christian group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollbacker abusing powers, tryed to warn me about something I did not do

    Mtking (edits) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) warned me for WP:3RR, except I did not break that rule, when I confronted him about it he said: "you were fast approaching it". Clearly an abuse of his rollbacker powers. As well as he has been repeatedly trying to delete credible MMA related articles, and harassing people on Afd to sway votes. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, you need to notify users about ANI threads. So, I've notified Mtking.
    Mtking mentioned 3RR but didn't accuse you of violating 3RR. The warning Mtking gave you had the eminently reasonably statement:
    Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
    Ideally, you should have both proceeded to the talk page to have a sensible discussion about improving the article. The warning was perhaps slightly OTT, but I don't see how this as an abuse of the rollback functionality. Mtking gave what look to be basically reasonable edit summaries for his reverts; this isn't a rollback issue at all, just a simmering editing dispute.
    The best thing would be if both of you were to try and explain your reasons for the article being the way you prefer it on the talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I fast concluding that Glock17gen4 has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT with regard to the notability requirements for MMA Events (see WP:MMAEVENT), the whole rational behind the creation of 2012 in UFC events is as a replacement for the articles on the individual events (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and the section Omnibus articles) the intent being that the articles on the individual non-notable events will be redirected to this new page. There is no reason why wiki-links back to the soon to be redirect pages should be added, which will need to be removed when the redirect are put in place. This was explained in the edit sum of the first revert I made Reverted to revision 484482820 by TreyGeek: Actualy no, as the pages will be redirected here. - if you disagree take it to the talk page... As for the claim of "abuse of his rollbacker powers" that rather requires rollback to have been used which as the page history shows, was not the case. As for the template warning {{Uw-ew}} was used, and I stand by it being appropriate given the situation where the edit sum I used pointed the editor towards the talk page if he should disagree. Mtking (edits) 08:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As with others, I'm confused how warning you (correctly or not) is an abuse of rollback powers. Was the rollback function used to try and keep the warning after you'd removed it or as part of the edit war? Note that anyone can give warnings, even anonymous users (IPs), it's not restriced to people with rollback powers. The only extra functionality rollback powers gives is the rollback function.
    Also as has been explained above, warning people before they have actually violated 3RR is the norm, as one of the key purposes of the warning is to try and stop people from violating 3RR, particularly since it's can be seen as unfair to block people for something they weren't aware of. It's far less use warning people after they have violated 3RR, as by that stage it's somewhat too late. (Remember there's a difference between warning someone and reporting them.) And as has also been started, you can be blocked for edit warring without going over 3RR.
    Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't edit warring, thats the thing, I was fixing the page to be in the correct order, but he is still trying to throw the rule book at me, I did nothing wrong. And I believe his intent is not to warn me of anything but to try and flex his online muscle and make me look bad, and make it look like I dont know the rules. I have been a great editor on here for awhile, I know what I'm doing. Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is purely an extension of editors with an interest in MMA filling pages full of crap; for example, this AfD resulted in a result that dozens of articles that failed numerous policies should be redirected; instead, MMA editors have merged those articles, resulting in a smaller number of articles that still fail all the policies that resulted in the original AfD. Example; Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Five. Frankly, all of those articles should be AfD'd as well - it's just a shame they couldn't be deleted as G4. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats your opinion, why not attack boxing though? We the people all voted to keep the articles, our voice was ignored, why have a consensus vote if they dont matter anyways? That makes no sense at all. And MtKing kept pestering those who voted to keep the article, even tho the article was legit. The UFC is listed as a notable organization under the rules, I point that out to MtKing, he trys to twist the rules in his favor, if the rules are that vague, then they need to be changed. But if wikipedia keeps attacking MMA related articles, expect many people on wikipedia to get angry. Some of us just dont care for boxing or baseball or basketball or football or what have you. Yet how come those sports arent under attack? That proves how biased MtKing and his cronies are. Another thing: My so called "vandalism" and "edit warring" was me trying to fix MtKing's C-Grade page, look: [[80]]. See that page? The events are listed from latest at the top, earliest at the bottom. Look at MtKings page! [[81]] It's backwards, latest at bottom, eariliest in 2012 at top. So I try and do him a favor and fix that, and then he ACCUSES me of Vandalism and edit warring. Really? How is FIXING something so it doesnt look like utter crap, vandalism? Yea. Thats what I thought, that is a blatant abuse of his position. And he knows it. Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We the people all voted to keep the articles, our voice was ignored, why have a consensus vote if they dont matter anyways? - WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see what I have done to abuse anything. The rules are not vague, there is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER : most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion there is also WP:MMAEVENT :Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature. To me that is as clear as clear can be. Mtking (edits) 20:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrongfully accused me of vandalism and edit warring when I was IMPROVING your article, thats what you did. If wikipedia articles can be improved, not replaced by a worse article, I'm all for improving. But this [[82]] is just terrible looking and disgraceful. And if I try and IMPROVE the article I get wrongfully accused of stuff. So I dont know... Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    please provide the diff where I accused you of vandalism or retract the statement above. As for 2012 in UFC events it is a vast vast vast improvement on the 100's of fancruft stuffed event articles. Mtking (edits) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok WP:DE and WP:3RR I guess not Vandalism, but in no way was my editing disruptive, and in no way did I break the 3 revert rule. Another thing, yes the fights that are upcoming and fights that already occur SHOULD be listed, or you dont have much of an MMA related article to work with. So yea, not a vast improvement. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I will take that as a retraction then. It was disruptive, you continued to edit after being pointed to the talk page, as for the WP:3RR notice, did you not read Nil Einne's contribution above ? If you want a wiki that has all the fight stats, why not create your own MMAWiki, the MediaWiki software is available as open source and if you use a CC-BY-SA licence you can even have transwiki copies of all the deleted articles. Mtking (edits) 20:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To throw my two cents in, if 2012 in UFC events belongs to anyone it's mine as I wrote it. Glock's complaints seem to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything. He says the events are listed in a different order than List of UFC events. There is a difference between a list-style article and a regular article. 2012 in UFC events is intended to be read from top to bottom discussing, in chronological order, the UFC events of the year. It makes perfect sense to me, but maybe I'm just weird. Back to the point of this ANI, User:Mtking did not use the rollback function to revert User:Glock17gen4's edits. When Glock reverted the revert, he got a warning about edit warring. It's a warning, nothing more. Glock wasn't reported to admins for edit warring, there was not request for his editing privileges to be taken away. I started a discussion on Talk:2012 in UFC events in regards to the ordering of events, apparently Glock isn't interested in pursuing that discussion. To me, this seems to be a non-issue in terms of User:Mtking's actions. This discussion should, in my opinion, be closed as such and a reminder to all parties involved (including myself) is that if you are going to complain about someone else's behavior, be sure that yours are clean first. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, how was I supposed to know that I had to go to the talk page to edit the article 1st? There was no lock on it. So yes I assumed it was ok to edit. And MtKing, I'd do that, but I am a very busy man. Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    MtKing, there already exists a number of Wiki's focusing on MMA according to this WT:MMA discussion. Glock, if you get reverted, it is generally advisable to go to the article's talk page or at the very least provide a descriptive edit summary (and no "fixing" is not descriptive). --TreyGeek (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I'm done with all this nonsense, I'm gunna stick to my favorite pages that havent been corrupted and thats that. I give up... Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be blunt your comment 'I know what I'm doing' doesn't inspire much confidence when you've 1) Said someone was abusing rollback when rollback was not used. 2) Apparently failed to notify Mtking when starting this thread (as the orange box tells you to do). 3) Even after multiple people have explained it to you, you seem to keep talking about how you did not make 3 reverts when regardless of whether or not the warning was justified or even whether you were edit warring, no one ever accused you of making more then 3 reverts but simply gave you a warning about our policy. 4) Keep talking about the 'rule book' (see the fifth pillar). 5) Seem to be failing to WP:AGF when you claim 'I believe his intent is not to warn me of anything but to try and flex his online muscle and make me look bad' without any apparent evidence (and frankly if you hadn't brought this issue to ANI, few people would have even been aware you'd been warned). 6) Made an accusation of WP:vandalism which as I understand it you now agree was incorrect. (P.S. The rest of dispute I haven't looked at, as it doesn't seem to concern ANI as no administrative action is required. P.P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not saying all this to attack you or put you down. Simply to point out that as an editor uninvolved in the dispute, going by what I've seen here I don't see any reason to think that it wasn't resonable to assume you weren't aware or had forgotten about our policy and therefore it may be helpful to inform you of it.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How many personal attacks do I need to tolerate from a user?

    Is there a policy-based limit on how many WP:Personal attacks I need to tolerate from another user? A few days ago I notified user:Lung salad to avoid vulgar language and personal attacks in the context of this uncalled for personal attack which he had performed. He called my warning "spam". This personal attack was made when other users reverted his changes. And yet other users have since condemned his actions thereafter.

    As a background point, I should state that User:Lung salad is on a final block warning issued by User:Bwilkins due to his general disruptive behavior, and he was characterized as "one of the most obtuse and disruptive editors I've come across in my 7 years and 10 months contributing to Wikipedia" by another editor during that ANI discussion. So this issue has been ongoing and he has been blocked before, etc.

    My day today started with personal attacks here and here. He had been told to "address the issues related to content" yet continued to attack at a personal level. Why should I tolerate these? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that I should just tolerate these continued personal attacks, just because a user feels like making them?

    But then the personal attacks continued today. User:Lung salad then "followed my edits" to make a similar attack on an Afd page I had started fixing a few days ago based on an Afd. My fixes there were in the context of that Afd, as clearly indicated on the Afd page. I was adding references to that page because users such as user:DGG had suggested that the page needed to survive and user:Bearian directly requested that references be added, so I started adding sources. Yet I received this personal attack again as I was adding references to the page, per the Afd discussion. I did not even express any opinions on that page whatsoever, all I was doing was adding sources. That was all. Yet I received a personal attack again.

    I think this user needs to be blocked. He can not just attack other users "at will" then follow them around and attack them again for adding references which have been requested on an Afd page.

    I have notified the user about this ANI thread. But my frank question here is: how many of these personal attacks do I need to continue to tolerate? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states I have to continue to tolerate personal attacks? History2007 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I dunno, 37? Mr. Salad is going a bit over-the-top with the anti-Catholic tirades, though. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus Christ and this information is given in books written by conservative christian scholars - yet this information cannot be given in a Wikipedia article without a fight. Wikipedia articles should be free from Religious Fundamentalist agendas. Lung salad (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that matters; you need to stop this shit. Plain and simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this notoce board is not the place to "discuss content". Content should and can be discussed on article talk pages per policy. This discussion is about the ongoing personal attacks which have continued across pages. This thread is about inappropriate user behavior, no content. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Allegations of not understanding logical argument - that's an ad-hominem attack, yes? Lung salad (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you are either too dumb to understand what the problem is or you're playing dumb and thus will continue to launch your personal rants. In that case, we can discuss your topic-ban right away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone is a religious fundamentalist that's going to be reflected in the editing, as it transparently clear in this case. The deletion of cited content from verifiable sources that fits in with Wikipedia guidelines is one example. The verifiable source in question being The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies Lung salad (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will just point out that I added the criticism section yesterday, when user:DougWeller asked for it. But that is enough now and I let other users comment now. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across this when "patrolling" recent changes. The previous characterizations of Lung salad are spot-on from what I've seen. He reminds me of the "Time Lord" who was fighting the great "Time War" against WP:ERA, except with a religious ax to grind instead. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I should note that Lung salad was blocked for 60 hours for personal attacks. But I would suggest that the topic ban discussion below should continue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah sorry, you edit conflicted with me coming to say I've blocked Lung Salad for 60hrs for this, which I consider an outrageous attack on one section of the community. Sorry if that impedes your discussion on a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what's so terrible about that particular diff, which seems like a (marginally) acceptable statement of opinion about biases that may affect our articles. I disagree with what ArbCom ruled about Will Beback, and here this editor wasn't even pointing the finger at a specific individual. Other diffs cited by the original complainant above seem much more objectionable, as they specifically dismiss and disparage his point of view. Wikipedia is not here to decide whether God exists or not; all properly sourced points of view are welcome and should be documented impartially, side by side. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Thanks for your attention. But I think the topic ban discussion can continue anyway, so we do not have to do this again. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, the number of personal attacks one must tolerate is widely variable. Three are three factors that influence this limit: the editor making the personal attack, the editor at whom the attack is directed, and the nature of the attack. To take the last of these first, if the personal attack is of a nature that is in opposition to the strongly-held personal political/ideological views of certain admins, the attacker will be blocked as soon as their comments are noticed. On the other hand, admins may dismiss the attack if it corresponds to their own strongly-held views and berate the complainant instead. If the person doing the attacking is out of favour with the community, they will be blocked (and this is often used as leverage for further sanctions such as topic bans or full bans). If the positions are reversed, and the person being attacked is in the bad books, the personal attack guidelines are ignored and any complaints made by the target editor are taken as more evidence that the attacks must be deserved. For example, feel free to call me a homophobe. I am not, but editors can suggest I am (or even make things about about what I have said or done) with absolutely no fear of admin action. In my case, the only limit on the number of personal attacks I must tolerate is the amount of time I choose to remain active here. I hope your experience is better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find personal attacks very counterproductive. The time spent in this discussion could have been used for more productive purposes. If personal attacks can be somehow stopped the whole operation of the online encyclopedia will become more effective. Personal attacks also make editors unhappy at a personal level, and less productive. So I really do not like them, needless to say. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban

    As seen above, user doesn't even understand why these personal attacks are unacceptable and will likely continue. Propose topic ban concerning anything related to Jesus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand the definition of personal attacks. Lung salad (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OH, so you understand the definition, but vow to continue? Or you know what personal attacks are but haven't understood that they are not acceptable here? Which one is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, to me it sounds like you're doing exactly the same thing he just did. As we're telling him to do now, please, focus on the edits, rather than demonizing the editor. Perhaps he'll have a Pauline conversion. :) Wnt (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the nature of edits and the patterns are discussed at length in this ANI complaint by user:Eusebeus. The point user:Loremaster made there was that user:Lung salad stops for a while, then comes back and it is Déjà vu time. In the past he has crossed the "11RR line" (yes, 11 reverts in one day) and as User:Bwilkins stated, he can suddenly "bombard" administrators with emails, etc. So the edit patterns do speak plenty. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's valid criticism; cite the problem and hope it will be fixed. It's the "holy warrior carrying the anti-Catholic banner" bit that sounded like an echo of the contested comments. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But you know, the problem is all this wasted effort. This user's contested edits do not usually survive for very long because multiple editors will oppose them on different pages. But by the time all is said and done chaos has set in, life has been wasted, personal attacks have taken place, etc. and that is not the way to do cooperative editing. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of a topic ban is that an editor cannot be trusted to edit constructively in a particular area of Wikipedia, while there is no such perception in other areas. It makes very little sense to entertain that notion out of context; why, exactly, can an editor be trusted in some areas but not in others? Either an editor has demonstrated a particular bias or he has not, and the reasons we feel he does not only merit discussion, but they're the point of the discussion. Do you feel that my characterization of Lung salad's views is inaccurate? If so, I expect that you would oppose any topic ban. Ravenswing 07:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of issues with respect to that editor, but one of them has been (and continues to remain) the position that 19th century (and at times 16th century!) scholarship is superior to 21st century scholarship. We do not seem to have succeeded in making the point that Wikipedia needs to use modern scholarship. I do not see how that issue is going to go away. We have repeated "Wikipedia needs to use modern scholarship" too many times now, to no avail. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, but that's a content dispute unsuitable for ANI, even if you buy into the Newer Is Automatically Better shibboleth. Ravenswing 01:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 119.237.156.246 hasn't learned from previous blocks

    119.237.156.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked twice for generally being disruptive, but also being a sockpuppet. He denies being a sock, which is neither here nor there considering the disruption. He came back yesterday evening and immediately began revert warring where it left off last time. This restored invalid move requests that involved ArbCom issues, restored invalid CFD headers to discussions that have never existed, and other general disruption that has generated 3RR warnings. I don't see a point in warning an IP that has already been blocked twice for this behavior. Based on talk pages, he knows ins and outs of policy and expected behavior (as you'd expect by an accused sock) and just doesn't care (as you'd expect by an accused sock). Based on disruption and stench of sock, can someone put a long block, like a month, on it please? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    SchmuckyTheCat is disrupting Wikipedia. He removed a the consul-general-designate from the British consulate-general article, and the names of two ordinances in the flag desecration article, and insist to add the same picture twice to the article on Tung Chee Hwa but with a wrong caption, to name a few. I was only acting to revert his disruptive edits. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is either Instantnood or someone doing an incredibly good impersonation. As I'm the admin who blocked it twice, I won't do it myself, but someone block the IP again for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fine, I'll do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks, disruptive conduct

    during a discussion over the format of an article, MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks calling me "either stupid, or a liar" [83] and responding to serious comments argumented in policies with mocking, he even admits his attitude "Of course I'm mocking you" [84]. i've tried to maintain a normal discussion with the guy but my arguments have been countered with mere ridicule, personal attacks and provoking phrases.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Belongs at WP:WQA. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. This thread belongs here, MarcusBritish, because unless you tone it down a couple of notches, I'll block you. Consider this a warning. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks." Seems you're wrong. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 18:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always distinguished general incivility from personal attacks. Here you were not simply uncivil, you insulted your interlocutor. And wikilawyering about the venue is not going to divert my attention from that. Now you've been warned; the next insult you hurl, no matter the recipient, will result in a block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Salvio, did you read the discussion? Maybe he's not "stupid or a liar", but he sure seems to have a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Mojoworker (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My, what a charmer. Salvio's spot on ... and beyond that, insistence on WP:WQA is a bit specious, isn't it? You're scarcely sounding as if you regret your comments. Ravenswing 07:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, mild incivility and difficult communications belong at WP:WQA - significant violations of WP:NPA do indeed belong here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    National Autism Society

    I request a block on the National Autism Society (NAS) IP address for a period of one week (as agreed with the society's computer manager). The address is 217.204.11.194.

    The society's network is open to both staff and to patients. Recently there have been a significant amount of "reordering" of junction numbers on various British motorways (see contributions page at here. I telephoned to the society's computer manager and both he and I are of the opinion that these changes are being carried out by a patient who is suffering from autism (and who therefore will not respond to normal reasoning). The manager quite reasonably challenged me to "prove" my assertion that the NAS network was the "guilty" party and after I led him through the Wikipedia audit trail, he proved very cooperativce. He is quite happy that there be a one week block on the IP address so that the patient concerned will get bored trying to make any changes. A study of the changes associated with that address suggest that few changes, if any, are appropriate to Wikipedia's aims and therefore neither Wikipedia nor the society will be harmed. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What might work better is if the Society's IP address(es) are indefinitely soft-blocked, thus allowing those with accounts to continue to edit while avoiding vandalism from unregistered users. IIRC, this has been done before for other institutions, particularly schools. However, the technical officer/manager/whoever you're talking to should probably email such a request to info-en@wikimedia.org or functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org from an official email address, so if any questions arise from the IP we can be confident in saying "ask your manager, they're the ones who requested the block." Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second, you called them? Whoa there Nelly, let's back the truck up a little bit here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Hersfold's suggestion of an indef soft block. That way genuine editors can continue editing from that IP, and anyone minded to engage in vandalism can be dealt with individually. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm finding this somewhat disquieting. As far as I can tell, the National Autistic (sic) Society doesn't have "patients" and would not use such terms as "suffering from autism". It does provide community and residential services for people with autism. There may well be a range of constructive and respected Wikipedia editors among its service users. I can't see that it's constructive to deter any future such editors by confronting them with an indefinite soft-block placed because of a batch of edits of motorway junction numbers made in late March 2012. NebY (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If a soft block comes with an automatic notice something along the lines of "You must create an account to edit from this address" if someone tries to edit, then I can't see it being a problem. (And yes, I'm an Autie, too!) Pesky (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    2012 in UFC events—Battleground disruption

    Hi, folks. 2012 in UFC events and related articles seem to have evolved into virtual battlegrounds regarding some new change to a relevant guideline. Thinking it's best to let the lot of you know before things get out of hand. There seems to be a small coordinated attack on these pages by multiple users engaged in multiple facets of disruption—vandalism, personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, etc. I believe there is also a discussion in progress on the main article's talk page. Good luck. NTox · talk 00:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned above, there hasn't been a change in policies, but an actual enforcement of the existing policies (most of the discussions are linked above). I think what may be important for the ANI board are issues such as the repeated vandalism of 2012 in UFC events which is current waiting for page protection and the comments at Talk:2012 in UFC events which has already had to be amended to remove personal attacks. (I honestly don't mind being called a "motherfucker", but I don't think it fits the bill of being constructive discussion about the article.) There may also be a surge of reverts of redirection of the UFC articles to the 2012 article, which Mtking and I can fix only so many times before being in violation of 3RR. I'm currently in the process of writing 2012 in mixed martial arts events which could lead to redirect of more individual event articles which will draw the ire of more forum fans. So, it may be good for admins and other Wikipedians to know what's going on in our corner of Wikipedia and that some of us may be under the virtual gun at the moment. If there is a possible need for page protection across the board, at least currently for 2012 UFC articles, (temporary/semi or permanent/full or somewhere in between) that may be something that needs discussing. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    there is also an ongoing discussion at afd2 for that article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination). Whatever the merits of expanding our coverage of individual sports events as greatly as some people want, there would need to be a general consensus for it, which I think from what has been said that it certainly isn't present. This is one Wikipedia, & the enthusiastic fans of a particular thing do not get to dictate what they want unless the community accepts it. I would have closed afd1 as a redirect to TreyGeek's article had it existed at the time. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is exactly what I felt you would say DGG, TreyGeek's & Mtking's efforts are 100% in line with your close, the consensus in other AFDs, and I believe, the guidelines here. And I wouldn't worry about getting into 3RR territory if you are reverting obvious vandalism or disruptive edits that are clearly outside of the concensus, that isn't what 3RR covers. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all of the context. In any case, I think some level of page protection is pressing. NTox · talk 02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We're still waiting on page protection for 2012 in UFC events but I personally want to thank those who have helped keep it in shape. When UFC event articles were redirected to it today I knew a shitstorm was going to happen. (I love that Wikipedia has a link for that.) I think it will increase as the weekend continues and I'm mostly welcome to let the IPs and non-established editors vent at the article's talk page. (Though it may need to be archived as the din dies down.) I'm going to wager that a week from now people will start to rely on MMA news media for the latest and greatest updates on UFC events and not Wikipedia as they have been accustom to. As the writer of the 2012 in UFC events article (through the vandalism I don't see any many changes from what I originally wrote) and the soon to be created 2012 in mixed martial arts events article, I welcome suggestions and feedback on how to improve the articles themselves. I'm going by the seat of my pants as to trying to make them conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as best as possible. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to calm things down on the talk page, not much progress yet though. As one of the persons pushing this idea it would probably not be appropriate for me to protect the page, but I agree it needs doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, 2012 in UFC events has been put up at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events). --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing

    It has now been made clear that there is offsite canvassing going on, and one user is threatening to do more of the same in order to cause a "shitstorm of epic proportions." It's getting late and my wife just opened a bottle of wine, so I am going to be absent for a while here, but more admin eyes are needed as this situation is going from bad to worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Or wikipedia could just listen to the outcry of the people and go back to the old individual pages, just a thought! Glock17gen4 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So members of the Sherdog forum get to ride ruff-shod over established WP polices that we are not a news service ? Mtking (edits) 07:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point, everyone loved the individual articles, there was no problem with them. If it aint broke dont fix it! This new article does not cut it. Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's 'everyone'? It seems quite clear that's it wasn't everyone who preferred the old format or we wouldn't be where we are now. Clearly some people did feel there was a problem, did think it was 'broke' and felt it better to fix it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I and everyone I know prefer the old format MUCH more so than the unhelpful changes. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that mean's your not an active editor in the subject matter then Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Glock, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is not determined by voting. "The outcry of the people" is not, and should not, be used in any way, shape, or form to determine Wikipedia content - policy should be, and the format you've so vehemently opposed to has been determined by consensus and policy. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two observations come to mind about the tidal-wave of SPAs coming from these couple of MMA forums. First off, that I'm quite bemused a bunch of alleged sports enthusiasts have such a problem with policies and guidelines; sports, in my long experience, are pretty rigid when it comes to doing things according to the rules. Secondly, for all their disruption, I wonder if they've yet noticed that they haven't accomplished anything, other than to perhaps provoke some experienced editors to join the scrutiny of these unqualifying articles? Ravenswing 16:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia exists not for the sake of a few editors, but for humanity. And far more members ofhumanity find this content worthwhile as individual articles than a couple anti-MMA accounts trying to merge or delete it. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have known you had something do to with this Bushranger, please explain how that meaningless wall of text was determined by consensus and policy? Maybe your policy... The old format was perfect, and did not violate any policy! Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Really, you aren't a news service? So what's that on the right side of the mainpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.131.3 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban from MMA articles of Mtking

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Not going to happen. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mtking has certainly and unquestionably violated WP:TROLL, WP:DICK, WP:EDITWAR, WP:TEND, WP:BULLY, WP:DISRUPTION, etc. with regards to MMA related articles. I therefore call for an immediate block of Mtking and a topic ban of this account from MMA related articles to stop the disruption and dishonesty. --Spyder Grove (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Shut up, Spyder Grove, or you will be blocked from editing here. It is unacceptable to create a new account and on your third edit start calling people names and demanding blocks. Go be productive, or go away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    attack section header redacted

    WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point in time I am inclined to agree with Glock that sanctions made need to be put in place against at least one user. However, we'll disagree on who deserves the sanctions. In the last 24 hours, Glock has been combative, disruptive and has not made any constructive comments. I'd individually link to the examples but it'd be the same as looking at their recent edit history. In fact, he's current taken to spamming the two policies above everywhere he can (here, on user talk pages, at AfDs, and on article talk pages). I know blocks shouldn't be used for allowing people to "cool off", but allowing to someone whine all the time isn't productive to Wikipedia. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind.... it's been taken care of already. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "(edit conflict) Side note 2, I blocked Glock for 31 hours for disruption. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support block — clearly becoming extremely disruptive. I see this as preventative and not 'cool off'. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I see the whole band is here. I would support the short block to let him cool down. I've tried to be a voice of reason (I don't edit content on these articles) but there are many, many users involved who are confusing what they think Wikipedia should be, and what it actually is. Glock is one of those, cherry picking sentences from guidelines to cobble together a rationale that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and being disruptive in expressing it. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to communicate with him, and get him on the right side of events. He doesn't know it, but he already agrees with much of the changes, he is just fighting "change", but I think he is coming around. He does have a tendency to over-react to events, but I'm trying to work with him on that. As to the effectiveness, who knows, but I think I should at least try. Not sure that traditional mentoring would be effective. We are always better off if we can convert disruptive but good faith editors rather than losing them. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Things seem to have calmed down a bit now that the most disruptive users are blocked and the page is semiprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has only calmed down because User:Anna Frodesiak and others have revered the redirects, so the members of the Sherdog forum have got "their" stats pages back, the debate over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability is not offering any poilicy or guideline reason to keep the articles other than we don't like it or WP:IAR. Mtking (edits) 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The question remains, are the individual articles notable? If not, then AFD is the solution. Keep me in the loop if they go that way, I would be happy to look at them. Some of them did get enough WP:RS coverage (sport illustrated, etc.) but those are rare. The point of the new system isn't to eliminate all individual articles anyway, just most of them, ie: the not notable ones, while still maintaining much of the content. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The point in creating the omnibus articles was to not have to AfD articles. At least that was what User:Beeblebrox suggested when he opened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability#Omnibus articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And User:DGG independently came to the exact same conclusion when he closed the first AFD, 149. Likely, this will need to be dealt with, one article at a time, by selecting the weakest articles (lowest hanging fruit) and working toward all the weak article becoming redirects. But there will be a few more AFDs, I would bet. Not really what AFD is for, but it is the hammer that is often needed to get a merge. It may take a few weeks to first week out the redirect, which is ok, and maybe some of the editors will warm up to the idea as you go along. It isn't a race, just a destination. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing...not sure what to do

    The unformatted text content of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Disruptive editing...not sure what to do was copy-pasted here by the original poster User:Smm201`0 with a comment [89] saying "deleted before completed". I came here in response to a help desk post [90] by Smm201`0. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bradley Manning BLP

    Would someone mind taking a look at the Bradley Manning BLP, specifically with regard to the subject's gender being changed from a "he" to a "she"? Thanks. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, yes - the article seems to be stating that Manning is transgender, without making the source for this clear. I think we are firmly into 'citation needed' territory here - and the only appropriate source for this would be a direct statement to this effect by Manning, I'd presume. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear, moreover, that the wholesale use of "she" while the military specifically considers the person as male, and federal law appears to aver that "non-op" transsexuals are legally their original gender as a rule, would seem improper. Conviction would likely result in imprisonment as a male as federal prisons do not perform MtF surgery AFAIK. Collect (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that may be a side-issue, Collect. As far as can be determined from the article, we don't have a source yet for Manning actually wanting any operation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi'd the article and reverted it back to before the BLP violating edits. Whether Manning wants to be transgender is beside the point - As far as I can determine, Manning is still male, so that's where the article should stand. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that "wants to be transgender" is quite the appropriate phraseology here - but without a source, we have no idea what Manning wants, needs, feels, or identifies with. The issue doesn't arise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was hurrying, but the wholesale changes from male to female pronouns and "Bradley" to "Breanna" without a reliable source is entirely inappropriate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 04:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue would be best dealt with at WP:BLP/N however some of the above comments appear to inconsistent with policy. As in many matters, we rely more on self identification or preference then 'official' or legal acceptance, or editors personal views. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style which says
    Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun
    So if Bradley Manning has expressed a clear preference to be referred to as 'she' or has clearly identified as female, then we would respect that (no matter if some people think 'he's still male' or the military or 'federal law' still considers Manning as male and regardless of the lack of any operations). However the above comments suggest there are no WP:RS stating Bradley Manning has expressed a clear self identification as female or for the 'she' pronoun, therefore the conclusions are likely correct (stick with the male pronoun) even if the reasoning is not.
    Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Where a person has made no legal change of name, is not living as a female full-time, and reliable sources do not call the person female, it is an insult to readers to call a person being prosecuted as a male, female. If the person is living full time as a female as called for by protocols relating to transsexualism, you might have a case, but that is clearly not the case at hand. The particular case would, in fact, be insulting to genuine full-time MtF transsexuals. And I found no source stating that Manning intends at any point to have SRS, much less live full-time as a female for a full year per the official protocols. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems you've failed to read what I wrote, including the quoted MOS. As I've already stated, we don't require a person to have an SRS (which would illegal in some countries and in many others has to be self-funded so is not always possible even if legal and desired) or even want one (as our articles make clear, not all do), nor to live a full year as a female (which may be very dangerous in some countries) nor do we require them to follow any official protocols, nor do we follow what people are being prosecuted as (which in some countries even with an SRS would still follow what the authorities consider their gender at birth based on physical anatomy), nor do we require a legal change of name (which may be impossible in some countries). Nor for that matter do we care if some of our readers are 'insulted' or if some transexuals are insulted (although I think most are far more accepting then you seem to give them credit for). As I've stated, what we do care about as self identification and as I've also said, since there's no clear self identification as female in the RS then it's likely correct to keep referring to Manning as male which appears to be in concurrence with most RS. (What we seem to have are some chat transcripts which as I understand it, weren't intended to be publicly released and precisely what Manning means seems disputed. Given the current status of Manning, it's seems unlikely RS can seek clarification from them and it's possible they will refuse to answer such a question anyway, which likely explains the unfortunate uncertainty.) But your rationale remains inconsistent with policy. BTW, our MOS policy is fairly consistent with a number of highly reputable RS MOS, hence why we usually don't have problems of having to go against them. As I'm sure you know, if you want to change our MOS, you're at the wrong place. P.S. One thing I perhaps neglected to make clear until this second reply is that in the absence of a clearly expressed preference, we do have to fall back on other considerations like RS usage. I apologise for any confusion because of this. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly read what everyone wrote. And have noted in this post and in other posts that the sources do not use a female pronoun for him, and per the genral manuals of style will not use the female pronoun unless and until some conditions are met - some of which I presented. I am quite familiar with the topic, and frankly I doubt he is a transsexual under the Harry Benjamin standards of care. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to speculate about whether Manning may, or may not, be transgender: we have not a scrap of sourcing that Manning identifies as being trans in any regard. Nor indeed should we feel the need to come up with some sort of bizarre burden-of-proof rule under which we change gender pronouns, as they should match those used by the subject themselves — or, for that matter, under which criteria we refer to BLP subjects as being transgender. Despite the subject being an utter non-sequitur, however, I feel forced to comment that I find the debate above — about whether BLP subjects live full-time as a particular gender or desire SRS in a way implying a connection to how Wikipedia presents gender of BLP subjects — both disappointing and saddening. Do the editors commenting in this thread feel it would be appropriate to demand BLP subjects send photographs to OTRS? Even though Manning is nothing to do with this; please, people, show some sensitivity, for God's sake. --Tristessa (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an admin please have a chat with User:Luciferwildcat about Wikipedia guidelines?

    This user is having difficulty with maintaining NPOV in the article pink slime, specifically recent edits [[91]] [[92]] have been so blatantly inappropriate that I call it vandalism. As it seems this user has been involved in edit wars with other users in the past, I do not believe I can reason with this user. He also made up the term "salvage meat" in Wiktionary for use in the article. Rip-Saw (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I listed some of their redirects at RfD, and prodded the salvage meat page, as they are clearly on some kind of anti-pink slime crusade. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 08:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Prod removed, so I listed his dictionary article at this AfD. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 08:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As it turns out, his behaviour has been previously been the subject of an earlier discussion at ANI. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 09:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is highly suggested we check user all hardcore opponents of adding any negative material about pink slime and I have suspicions BPI PR people are afoot here, some have tacitly admitted it already or have Iowa IP address and single purpose accounts. The users here have repeatedly attempted to whitewash sourced material (from independent third party news sources) that pink slime was originally only a pet food product. In an encyclopedia that covers the entire history of a product I thought it was important to note. I also added a quote from the pink slime microbiologist whistleblower to balance the quotes from BPI but those were removed as well. This article needs to reflect the truth about pink slime, not just the official BPI company version and without sanitizing or whitewashing or sugarcoating. I am not on any crusade, I have been a long time editor and usually work to improve and expand articles related to the San Francisco Bay Area or languages in addition to making major contributions to wiktionary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just came across some of LWC's recent edits on the talk page and I support the OP's take on the matter. LWC seems emotionally involved in the issue and doesn't seem to be editing neutrally. He has answered valid sourcing problems with logical fallacies (sources calling it "scrap" doesn't mean that it's not "waste" and since "waste" is better than "pulverized cow anus" we should use "waste"), has insinuated that those who disagree with his position must have some sort of industry motive, and all around has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I mentioned on the talk page that he should keep WP:COOL and I hope others here will reiterate this advice. For the record, I am generally in agreement with LWC that this stuff is gross and have said as much on the talk page, but that's not an excuse to lose neutrality. SÆdontalk 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    @LWC: Please note that our article is not supposed to reflect the WP:TRUTH, it's supposed to be verifiable. SÆdontalk 10:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand, it's just that when I first arrived at the article it was mimiced some of the company's talking points and structure and framed everything bad as some sort of witch hunt or lie so I just did some complete copyediting. But you are right and I will make sure I can verify the truth as much as possible if not keep looking for not inserting. I think at this point the article is free of any corpcomm and I am more than ready to collaborate with any other editors that think things should be reworded. Some editors have a "no no no" mentality even to verifiable additions instead of "but" "well" "no" "ok" "maybe" which honestly is what I endeavor. I have asked some other editors that I am familiar with and have more experience to come take a look as well they have a history of collaborating with me and chastising me and sometimes praising me as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to hear you understand, and please don't take my comment here to mean that your work at the article is not appreciated - it is and I generally agree on your take that the article was too biased before. Stick to sources and follow the guidelines, comment on content and not contributors and the page will look great - just don't make the mistake of tipping the bias in the other direction. SÆdontalk 00:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too am quite concerned about LuciferWildCat's edits on the topic, both in tenor and in frequency. There is no semblance of neutrality on the primary article page at this point, and the 59 edits in the last 12 hours is a bit extreme. I have deleted one of his redirects, and note that another is up for deletion (I would have summarily nuked it too if it wasn't being RFD'd). As for the assertions of bad faith streaming from him towards anyone who wants to maintain NPOV, I think that needs to be curtailed as well. I don't think a topic ban would be out of line at this point. Horologium (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely disinterested and impartial observer chiming in here. I just took a cursory look at the discussion and do not see the blatant battleground issues that are being depicted, rather a series of content disputes is underway. Neither of the parties, and I see it as mainly two editors that are primarily involved, are willing to moderate their positions, however, the interplay remains courteous and tends to remain on topic. Bringing an issue like this to ANI is a concern, can't editors work out personal differences through discourse on their talk pages? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    I agree. I'm seeing rational discussion on the article talk page as well. Editors seem to be too quick to bring trivialities to the Dramah boards. Someone should just close this before it wastes any more editors time looking into this issue. Mojoworker (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, me too. I think Luciferwildcat has been somewhat unjustly demonized here. Pesky (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like "Only a bias minority with a stake in profits is disputing that and the use of pink slime has already been voted on and approved" are inappropriate because they attempt to categorize editors who disagree with him as corporate shills. It's an insinuated personal attack plain and simple and it's what I was referring to when I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND. SÆdontalk 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiSkeptic's disruption

    Unresolved
     – User blocked for 1 week. --Tristessa (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier in the month, while observing the recent changes, I discovered some articles authored by WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs), and I nominated them for deletion because they were bereft of any sources and they did not appear to be notable. He naturally opposed these changes, and repeatedly asserted that because he was on Wikipedia in its early stages (a common claim is that he is the original author of Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or he is responsible for a disproportionate amount of the content on the site based on mathematics of how much he has written, and the level of traffic the most visited articles receive), it is not necessary for him to adhere to the current guidelines and policies when it comes to sourcing and other issues.

    His reaction to this is to either unnecessarily disparage the preferred subject areas of editors he finds himself in conflict with, or to directly attack them. He has in the past used his user page to host these comments. My latest AFD on a series of articles on books he wrote was met with disparaging what he assumes is my topic area, while also insulting my intelligence (part deux). He was blocked in 2008 for these later reasons, but there's something more pressing than personal attacks or ignoring WP:V that may be more damaging than just to inter-user relationships.

    In the latest edit to his user page, he claims that he has violated the core policy of WP:No original research, and his statement was published in a textbook and then used to cite his own original statement. This damages the very reputation of this project and the summation of human knowledge and this should not be allowed at all to continue. It is clear that WikiSkeptic cannot keep up with the times or play well with others anymore, and in order to protect the website from his possibly false information, we need to find out what he put on Wikipedia that has since become a falsely cited fact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The bit about ArbCom and how many articles he wrote is very bad. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Cat was created in 2001, and his account was created in 2007. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/WikiSkeptic See the log). ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a clear case of childish disruption that needs addressing, and there's no sense in just letting him carry on this sort of behaviour. I'm going to go ahead and block him for 1 week; if he persists, I'd suggest an indefinite ban, since I can't see any substantative project contributions that would be lost. --Tristessa (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While the block certainly helps, it does not solve the ultimate problem here, which is the fact that WikiSkeptic claims he has possibly negatively affected a published work because he added his own personal opinions into an article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My gut feeling is that that claim is weapons grade bullshit, no more credible then his claim to have pwn3d arbcom. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While that may be true, his account has less than 300 article edits, so it cannot be that hard to ferret out the content if he is telling the truth.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree the claim is probably bullshit, judging from the user's editing history. Even if it wasn't, though, Wikipedia cannot control external information sources and there's really nothing to be done. What matters is he's being incivil and trolling, and we're giving him way too much limelight by giving his bait a single iota more of our attention than it deserves. He's blocked and, if the block doesn't make him stop, I'll indef him as a trolling account. Whilst at that stage he could then appeal the block, I find it unlikely an AN/I discussion would think the cost-benefit ratio worth having. --Tristessa (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong: If the block doesn't resolve the thread, what can I do to resolve it for you? --Tristessa (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I'd say indef and WP:DENY immediately. Nothing of value will be lost. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The block is fine, Tristessa. It's just that this disruption of his has been ongoing, and I don't think 7 days in the timeout corner is going to solve anything in the long run. If he's lying, fine. This BS of his needs to stop. This is not his first time in trouble, and the only thing we lose by getting rid of him completely is an unsourced stub factory.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:FTN#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action.3F

    Could someone close this RfC? It's rather malformed, being put on the main noticeboard, instead of the talkpage, and seems to have fairly clear consensus. 86.** IP (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    End of RfC to issue 10

    On 23 August 2011 I rised, among others, issue 10 in War of the Pacific's talk page and after fruitless discussions I rised the RfC issue 10 and, at the end of the day, the editors were (see current part of the discussion in Issue 10 Grau's gallantry)

    For inclusion of the gallantry text

    • MarshalN20
    • DonaldRichardSands
    • Ian Cloudac
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.131.3 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For exclusion of the gallantry text

    • Alex [93]
    • Keysanger (believe me, I am against)
    • Noleander [94]
    • Ludwigs2 [95]
    • John Carter [96]
    • Chiton Magnificus [97]

    I deleted the verbose peacock [98] according to the majority of the editors. We know that Wikipedia isn't a democracy but, it is the only way we have until now to resolve such impasses.

    Now, editor MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverts the consensus change and wants to discuss the issue further.

    I don't know what to do. I will not begin a edit war, the pros and cons have been explained in a RfC and a consensus reached.

    I ask to an admin to take measures to end the discussion and to impose the consensus.

    --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No consensus has ever been reached. This user has already been warned (by another editor in this board) not to bring content disputes in here, but Keysanger is not listening.
    His deletion of material includes content which describes the Huascar's actions in the war, a matter which has nothing to do with the discussion on Grau's gallantry. This is not only noted by me, but also by user Chiton ("what is at stake is not all of Huascars actions").
    Here I diminish the disputed content into half a sentence ([99]). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    2012 BRICS summit

    Despite warning the user twice, and explaining the problem, the user Ruledouted refuses to stop removing valid and relevant content from the article. The article is currently in WP:ITN and I am having great difficulty managing the editor. He refuses to stop, and I have been forced to identify the edits as unconstructive at first, and later vandalism (twice). He has again removed the content a third time and I fear he may do more removals from the article; I have not reverted a third time or else I violate WP:3RR. This and this are the changes he keeps making. I request administrators to intervene and find a solution. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as a note to administrators, I will not be online for another three hours due to prior commitments; if anybody has any queries for me, please wait until 1:00 UTC for a reply. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cat Creek, Montana

    Would there be any sysop that would like to deal with the hoax repeatedly added to the article on Cat Creek, Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by the user Catcreekcitycouncil (aka Catcreek, Timothyjohnson12 etc.)? He also constantly deletes the hoax tag and has added an obviously fraudulent source to support his claims, which even if had existed would likely not pass the RS criteria since, as the user claims, "there are only a handful of copies still floating around in the rural Montana area", thus the information given is merely unverifiable. --glossologist (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could an administrator please rein in Arzel's disruptive editing?

    I am reposting this because it was archived before it was resolved. There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time. Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    I have had similiar problems with Arzel. If you look at the page Talk: Seamus (dog), editors have repeatedly asked Arzel not to remove infomation that is relevant and sourced to mainstream media sites. We have tried to talk to Arzel, but he continues to remove material that his doesn't like.Debbie W. 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, it does look like a similar issue. Also, to clarify a remark above, the environmental page was split off from HF without discussion, so I brought it back and started a discussion. There were also other attempts to remove negative environmental info from HF page. I agreed to condense the environmental info on the main page and have been working at that. Disruptions delay that work.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    Arzel is continuing to make disruptive edits on the Philadelphia Water Department page and is leaving messages at my talk page rather than discussing the article on its own talk page.Smm201`0 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalized file version found in someone's userspace

    Resolved
     – now under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deanybabeh/India Wharf International Airport. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Clearly, something will be considered vandalism if the author intentionally did something like that to the actual article. In this case, it's confined to the user space. Soviet King (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam

    Resolved
     – No problems here from what I can see The Cavalry (Message me) 17:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.87.0.137 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What I can hardly see is the IP is awarding users with smileys; thus promoting WikiLove. If the IP flooded a user's talk with lots of WikiLove; it was going to be spam. Otherwise; this IP is perfectly OK, and he/she needs to be given a innocent warning asking for contributing positively rather than only distributing WikiLove. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What would be the correct template to post?
    kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 15:20, 31 March 201

    The "not a social network" is the only one that makes sense ... which I have done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning? What for? I posted a WikiLove instead. Such a nice job he has been doing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanking the month's most active contributors for their contributions seems positive to me as well. The IP is even going to the trouble to vary the messages from user to user. Personally, I was happy to get mine and didn't consider it disruptive. Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    About 30 folks (including me) received barnstars from what's obviously the same person yesterday. I don't know about the others, but I'll take whatever I can get. Deor (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not that active an editor, don't want smileys I don't deserve, and if the are deserved I would prefer they come from a registered user, not an anon, and not in conjunction with 30 others getting this same nonsense. Thanks to all, though, for listening.
    kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe they're just in love with the whole world today, and wanted to spread some good feelings around ;P Pesky (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed, another IP is doing the same thing. (See User_talk:Tomtomn00#WikiThanks). Automated? ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Gross incivilty by User:Evlekis

    Brings the edit war from the talk-page [100], to [101], you may NOTS ets. Majuru (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a note to say that the matter has since developed and a consensus has quickly been reached to reverse my original action on the article target page. Majuru is not a new user and is aware of the procedure which is why I had to point out that editors do not have the right to remove sourced information except if observing consensus or other very rare occasions. Majuru's reason for removing the text with three citations which are unequivocal in their purpose was because the inclusion does not fit in with his Albanian nationalist outlook. The article itself however has since been modified by me to feature the title per Majuru's move request which I also hope will follow shortly. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Majuru, I see no incivility in those two diffs (in fact, one of them is one of your own edits). If you wish to make such allegations, please provide some evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he refers to the second citation, the heavily stressed "not". I admit it was a curt summary but the squabbles between Majuru and me are ongoing, we have debate but I assure all admins that I make no comment in bad faith. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have now fulfilled my pledge to restore the artcle in question to its rightful place[102]. Come what may, I foresee no conflict with Majuru. This was indeed his proposal. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This was just a content disagreement, already concluded in a civil manner - there's nothing to complain about here, and no action needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Bong, I'll remember not to use block caps when editing the summary. Regards. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive move of articles to diacriticless versions by Cerrot

    User Cerrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally moved a host of articles from diacriticized versions to their diacriticless versions – see user's contributions – in contradiction to guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". S/he has then edited each redirect, effectively blocking any attempt to revert the changes.

    Such behaviour has previously resulted in blocks. Can anyone with rollbacks rights wave his/her wand?

    User is notified.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • No edits in many months, then returns today and all their edits have been doing this. Is it safe to call for a block as a possible compromised account? Especially with no prior such contributions. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User has only 127 edits before this move spree (even with the replication lag taken into account). HandsomeFella (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that he has 4 pre-move edits today 1 2 3 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agree, it does look likely that it is a compromised account. Did someone have a tool that undid all of Dolovis's page moves? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A thought: anyone trying to hack a user account is likely to have to try a couple of times with regard to the password. Is there any mechanism in place to log the ip address for failed attempts to logon? Or maybe that would not be appropriate? HandsomeFella (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed from his contributions that, outside from the page moves and talk page creations for previously created articles, he has zero non-article space contribs. There's an outside chance that he is unaware of the controversy surrounding diacritics and this is just an innocent but extremely bold group of edits. I talked about a situation like this recently at Wikipedia talk:Don't be a bull in a china shop.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prior to this spree of moves, Cerrot never moved any pages. In June 2011, there was, however, a curious bout of prods of Czech sportsmen BLPs, most of which sported diacritics and were soon after undiacritically moved by Dolovis.  --Lambiam 19:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is almost certainly a ban-evading sock of Dolovis (talk · contribs) (the two topic bans on diacritics are logged at WP:RESTRICT). There has been a strange interest in Dolovis's stubs by new or almost new accounts:
    Counting Cerrot, that's four inexperienced users doing an obscure task on obscure pages. All the accounts have somehow managed to contribute to Dolovis's cause to keep "his" articles diacritic-free. Prolog (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, and SPI with CU is warranted. - J Greb (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And an SPI submitted - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, it would be nice if we could actually discuss this topic and come to some decisions without pulling out the knives. Getting opponents blocked and/or topic banned is hardly a satisfactory form of arriving at a consensus, and the harassment and name-calling directed at anyone who dares to open a move request over the issue is no fun to deal with at all. And then, of course, there's the issue of certain Wikiprojects coordinating "patrols" in order to ensure that article titles (and content) retain the use of diacritics.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be. But since both sides are engaging in snark, snipe, and ignore, all we can do is play fire brigade. - J Greb (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not about the diacritics issue, it's about 1 user dropping out of the sky and making a series of BOLD page moves. Is the account compromised, is it a partisan sock, or is he just an exopedian with little or no experience outside of article space doing what to him makes sense? (though I think the last possibility is now unlikely) Whatever the case I would love to hear what Cerrot has to say. He's definitely got some splainin to do. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          But the diacritics issue is still the root cause (and I'd characterize the behavior here as "pointy" rather than "bold"). I agree with J Greb too though, in that both sides are (still) at the point where all of the comments are "snark, snipe, and ignore", which is what's rather frustrating to me. I believe that the problem is that the largest cross section of articles that this issue impacts are sports related personality articles. Sports topics especially (and other pop culture topics to a lesser extent) seem to be prone to overwrought emotional confrontations, and so my hope that this will ever be settled to most people's satisfaction is remote.
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran a CU on the basis that it was a compromised account, but nothing came up. I don't think it's Dolovis - although the edits are identical, they are constrained by the interface so could not be different and achieve the same result. Let's see what he comes up with anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (sigh) Missed this... sorry Elen... - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry, I was wrong. They are all Dolovis, on his annual holiday from the look of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would think all of the relevant edits from the 4 socks be reverted and all of the redirects created with them for the past week or so be deleted. These were done in breach of a ban and should not stand. - J Greb (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you are right, but I'll wait until morning before trying my luck with Special:Nuke. All those redirects are going to have to be deleted, and the articles moved back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspect image over at commons.

    Hey all.

    I don't really have much to do with commons ever, so I don't know who to bring this up with - but I'm a little suspicious of this image which was added the the arse page recently: [103] anybody know what to do? Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Contact an admin over at Commons? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated it for Speedy Deletion over there. Hopefully an admin will get rid of it soon. Since Tpmorrell1 (talk · contribs) uploaded it and attempted to introduce it here, I'm sure many more constructive edits are sure to come from them. Doc talk 19:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    zomg, I am a sad individual ;P My first reaction was to wonder who it was ... Pesky (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hounding by an adnministrator

    The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Administrators should behave in an exemplary manner and assist us mere mortal editors, and the goal of WP. Sadly this is not always the case. I am being hounded by The Rambling Man for some inexplicable reason. Here are some of his recent caustic edits:

    I want to him to stop this pathetic, unconstructive behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a garden-variety conflict, and does not involve the use of administrator tools. What you are going to have to do is use WP:DR. In cases like this, I highly recommend WP:MEDCOM to mediate interpersonal conflicts like this. Otherwise, however, there is no intervention by admins that needs to be done here. --Jayron32 22:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DR and WP:MEDCOM is part of it but I am mainly concerned with his behaviour towards me. It is WP:UNCIVIL. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)::I can vouch for that at least one action of The Rambling man was entirely helpful, Alan, removed categories, he should have replaced and not removed. For someone like me, who is a little thick as far as categories go, gross categories come handy, if Alan does not like them, he should replace them and not remove them, leaving article uncategorised. I support The Rambling Man in this edit of his[108]. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully agree that incorrect categories should be removed and where possible replaced but there is method to my madness. In the case you mention I removed Category:India from maybe three articles. The Rambling Man reverted at least one and maybe three of my edits by putting the articles inappropriately back into Category:India. My rationale for removal rather than replacement was because I did not know where to re-categorise them and by leaving them uncategorised it brings them to the attention of other editors who will know how to categorise the, Also, as far as I recall the articles needed other work so leaving them uncategorised is a sort of alert to have them fixed up. This technique seems to be effective and since categories are not a major means of navigation for readers there is no harm in leaving them uncategorised. It tends to be for the short term anyway. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad rationale, really. Better categorized to some degree than uncategorized. Again, there was no use of admin tools, and something tells me you didn't even approach him about it first, especially as per WP:BRD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence of data it is only an opinion from you and I. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but I don't know whether it is right to do so or not? Nobody likes tags on "their" articles is all I can say. Which bugged me. I think you have put pressure on me to be a little less lazy with categories. Perhaps a template which says that the category selected is too vague, that will solve the problem. Someone would have to make such a template if it isn't there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't like the tags but use them if a make a judgement that they will be effective. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See you can use this template it will solve your problem and won't leave the article uncategorised. Win-win? {{cat improve}} Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI edit page vandalism

    You win a balloon for spotting it
    Disregard
     – Looks like it's fixed SÆdontalk 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    When you edit this page there is a large red note at the top that reads "Welcome to Purgatory, the giant morass where anyone can suffer." I'm not sure how to fix this as I don't know where edit page code is located. SÆdontalk 00:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe it was a short term April Fool's joke. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was me. Only admins and account creators can edit editnotices, although I was only half-joking about this page being like purgatory. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    New Statesman

    This article has seen repeated deletion of fully sourced circulation figures from New Statesman article by IPs User:2.25.67.29 and User:82.132.239.90.[109][110][111] Semi protection was put in place and as expected User:Tottingham123 appeared within 3 hours making exactly the same type of edits, something he previously[112]. IPs failed to engage in discussions or give reasons for the edits despite a discussion being opened on the talk page, the user's only comment is that having the circulation figures is "malicious" and has now even started removing mentions of circulation in the 1960s.[113] User:Robbyyy also looks to be a previous account though not presently active. There may also be COI issues.[114]--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by user

    Inception anyone?

    This user and I have been engaged in a minor edit war at an article I recently created. Any help would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No names and no links other than your own sign. The diff[115]. April 1st?--RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, much cleverer than that. Mouse over "article" and watch the cursor spin (hence Inception). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK that explains that explains the tie to Inception. I liked that movie!--RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to suggest a 24 hour boomerang block for confusing everyone. And the mouse doesn't spin on Chrome/Win7, just an hourglass. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another reason to use Firefox. →Στc. 02:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible misuse of Wikipedia

    I don't really know if this violates any policies or what the right place to discuss it is if it does, or, indeed, whether it's been discussed or not, but I figured I'd just drop a note and a link here to see what others think of it. Possible WP:NOTHERE?

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-sbu-awards-contribute-higher-wikipedia.html

    --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You think Barnstars violate WP:NOTHERE? Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or moreso, someone did a study which may show a way to increase participation in Wikipedia! NO, stomp this out. We cannot have better editor retention at any cost! We need to work harder at driving away new editors, not being welcoming! Fuck them! --Jayron32 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if they like being fucked? It wouldn't work! Pesky (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But there are so many people actively involved in driving away new new editors. Do we have to notify them all of this discussion?--Shirt58 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We should rejig ClueBot to issue them a standard notification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fascinating! 60% more productivity? Wow! Pesky (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromised account?

    I have reason to believe that the cats have hacked into the boa constrictor's account. The dog told me. Pesky (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm blocked

    Why is my account blocked? I can't edit from it.—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=484940851

    Leave a Reply