I have never brought an issue to ANI, but there is an issue that just will never be resolved without help "from above," regarding comments made by Herzen regarding a quote about Pope Francis in the article by that name. here is the discussion I would ask an administrator to look at, which centers around what I think (and other editors who have expressed their opinion on the talk page think) is a positive statement about Francis and his relationship with the Jewish community based on his experience in Buenos Aires. Here is the quote, taken from an editorial in The Jerusalem Post: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." My understanding of that quote, as well as the understanding of other editors involved in the discussion, is that John Paul II, the pope who had the closest relationship with the Jewish community in the past, could only have that relationship as a young man because the Jewish community in Poland was not strong after the Holocaust; on the other hand, Francis had a life-long relationship with a strong Jewish community in Argentina, as the first non-European pope -- and so he will be the pope with the best understanding and closest ties to the Jewish community of any pope in history. Herzen has repeatedly deleted the quote and continues to make comments on the discussion page that I think has crossed the line of appropriateness, focusing on these three major points:

• mentioning the Holocaust is "contentious" in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs
• using a quote that mentions John Paul II and Francis, without mentioning Benedict XVI, implies that Benedict XVI was a Nazi
• using a quote from an Israeli "secular newspaper" like the Jerusalem Post is inappropriate because Israel is an apartheid state.

Of course, please look at my comments as well, and let me know if I have crossed any lines in terms of appropriateness -- although I hope I have not. I have tried to discuss this issue with Herzen on the talk page, and also on his user talk page, here. I notified him that I might take this issue to this page -- ANI, and will now notify him that I have done so. I admit that I first was a little "mystified" (the word I used in my discussions) with some of his statements, but now I think they have crossed a line into the realm of inappropriateness and unreasonableness. I would appreciate an administrator with fresh eyes taking a look to see what might be done to prevent further reverts and further inappropriate statements (that is, if the administrator also deems any of his statements to be inappropriate). Thank you. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article section was changed to Talk:Pope_Francis#Relation_to_Jewish_community_in_Brazil_Argentina. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears, at this point, to be a purely content-based dispute, which administrators do not resolve. If you post about this issue on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, you will get a lot more help. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll bring this to dispute resolution, but I think the comments on the discussion page I've linked are worrisome...and now Herzen deleted the phrase based on the claim that the "contentiousness" of alleged attacks on Benedict XVI (that NOT mentioning him is a claim he is a Nazi -- Herzen's wods) or mentioning the word Holocaust (in and of itself "contentiousness" because of the views of "Muslims and Arabs") allows him to make the deletion regardless of talk page discussion. Other editors who have taken part in the discussion agree there is no contentiousness except in Herzen's mind. I have never been in a discussion where the other person made claims that were (at least to me) just...a little off-balance and weird.... Again, I'll look at dispute resolution, but if you could take one more careful look at the discussion, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, NearTheZoo (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking at the linked section, I don't see anything particularly uncivil about what Herzen has said, but I do see unnecessary hostility from NearTheZoo. I think the interpretation by NearTheZoo of what Herzen has said shows a lack of assuming good faith. For example, Herzen did not say that "mentioning the Holocaust is 'contentious' in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs". This seems written to imply he is a holocaust denier, what he actually said was "Anytime the Holocaust is brought up when it is not directly relevant, contention will likely arise", which appears self-evidently true. I think the post here has made a mountain out of a molehill by not having assumed good faith, and by the appeals to ridicule in the posts. As an aside, NearTheZoo, who primarily appears to edit Israel related articles, insisting on trying to insert an editorial from the Jerusalem Post, which mentions the holocaust (for no apparently relevant reason) in the Pope Francis article seems decidedly like POV pushing, particularly considering the edit warring: [1][2][3]. WP:BOOMERANG should be considered IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the other editors (including myself) who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote. The article talk page consensus is clear that it can be kept. I don't think it's fair, therefore, to say this is about POV pushing by NearTheZoo. Let's not make more of this than it is. Yes, NearTheZoo has made a mountain out of a molehill by bringing it here, which was a mistake, but let's not add to the mountain with a few more molehills. This is just a run of the mill content dispute, where tempers got frayed. I suggest closing this and let Herzen take it to DRN if he wants to change the article talk page consensus. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that "All the other editors ... who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote." Another editor deleted the quote twice [4][5]. – Herzen (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On his Talk page, he wrote, in response to NearTheZoo: "It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed. Furthermore, it says nothing that is not already in the article." – Herzen (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. Apologies. DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being blocked for such behavior in the past and warned multiple times, User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert edits into BLP articles without reliable sources. He has inserted that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen without any reliable sources stating so, going as so far as to rudely challenging me on my talk page when I reverted his edit. This user has since re-inserted the edit, again without a reliable source. This is nothing new and has been part of a troubling pattern. This user was blocked before for multiple violations of WP:BLP after multiple warnings so it's not like this is new. In fact, this user has just finished serving a 3 month ban for an unrelated violation and already has multiple warnings for violations of WP:BLP on his talk page unrelated to the Gegard Mousasi edit. In the past, administrators had floated the idea of a topic ban from WP:BLP articles but refrained with the assumption that he would review the policy and learn from his mistakes. Based on the continuation of this, I don't think this has occurred. Although, TheShadowCrow has shown some productivity in his edits, I believe the damage far outweighs the good at this point, and if you can't learn to abide by Wikipedia's policies after 6 blocks in a 1 year period, it's time some type of permanent sanction is imposed. A topic ban may now be appropriate. BearMan998 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I showed a link where the person in question calls an Iranian "my country man" so the debate was over and solved. Bear man has a serious problem of always pointing out my block log multiple times whenever we are on the same page. Most of the time he is practicly insulting and taunting me. He seems to think that he is in a position of power and that he is some how superior to me. In fact, he forgot all about the BLP in question and just started typing paragraphs about my block log. I think he is the one who needs discipline now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They were blocked for three months for socking, one month for ARBAA2 infractions, one month for socking, two weeks for ARBAA2 infractions, 72 hours for BLP violations, 24 hours for personal attacks. They've been unblocked for a couple of weeks now and what I see is personal attacks, a battleground mentality, and BLP violations. I don't see much of a reason to not block for really, really long, but I'd like to hear what, for instance, Giant Snowman thinks--they've had a set of run-ins with them. [Also: edit conflict. ShadowCrow, I think you should try and keep quiet, since you're arguing for the opposition. Your BLP evidence is lousy and unacceptable.] Drmies (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. I was not trying to start a conflict. Bear man is being very hostile to me and I think this is being very overlooked. And my edits with GiantSnowman have actually been peaceful and constructive. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)I see three twitter links, not reliable sources, just saying. Not going to comment on blocks or anything, but just fyi, sourcing the person for claims is almost always not appropriate. I can go start the twitter account "carieunderwood" with name "Carrie Underwood" and claim to be her saying whatever I want. But that doesn't make it reliable. BearMan looks right to have removed it as unsourced. Also, now that Drmies has said everything I was thinking, pending Giant Snowman changing my mind, Support an indef block until this user tells us honestly they will refrain from editing BLP articles, and a 3 (at least) month topic ban from BLPs to start if and/or when the block is lifted. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is definitly the real twitter account of Gegard Mousasi. He uploads amateur photos of himself and has talked to the UFC President and had contact with many other MMA noteworthies on twitter with that account. I have seen twitter be used as a source before and don't see why it shouldn't be now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the specific source being challenged? If sanctions is what ye seek, ANI is thataway.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'ahem' This is ANI? The source being challenged is twitter by the way. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I could have sworn I saw this at RSN, Twitter is crap, unless the account has been verified.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer  02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, as stated above, I have had recent run-ins with this editor, who I feel has numerous problems. They fail to understand - or if they understand them, accept - WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V - and there is a recent (still live) thread at BLPN which might be of interest. Other than their failure to understand BLP, RS and V, they also exhibit other concerning traits, such as (admitted!) WikiHounding - check who the previous editor was on each of these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4) - as well as disruptive and POINTy editing (AKA removal of masses of content with no rationale provided, while trying to prove some pro-English bias that simply does not exist) at 1, 2, 3, 4. They also seem to display OWNership issues, especially on anything related to Armenia. So in summary, TheShadowCrow has a slight attitude problem, and also displays a troublesome lack of competency in, or respect for, key Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given this recent behaviour, as well as the historical issues, I would propose a topic ban related to Armenian topics and/or BLPs (both broadly construed) - recent discussion with this editor leads me to think there is some small glimmer of hope, and I would not want to indef them when there is potential to turn this around. I am just about to go to be (1am UK time) but saw this and thought I'd leave a quick message, and I'll pick up the thread again tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No one is paying attention to Bearman's hostility or that our edit conflict (a natural, unavoidable part of life on Wikipedia) was solved when I provided a source for what Bear wanted. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd do well to heed the advice that you stop replying here. You just proved you have a lack of competency in understanding our reliable sources policy. A twitter post (even 3) is not a reliable source for any statement, much less one like nationality. Your edit conflict (term not used right btw) was not ever resolved, because you never provided a reliable source. To GS, based on this post, would you support an indef (indefinite =/= infinite) until this user tells us they will re-read and adhere to all policies, and then a 3 month topic ban from BLPs and Armenia related articles broadly construed? gwickwire^talk_editing 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I don't reply I'm going to be blocked! The reliable source page says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It also says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;", which there always is with Twitter. How can you prove that he made those statements? You can't. It also says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;", exceptional claim is basically a big claim. You're claiming this user is of a certain nationality, based on something that looks like they *may* have said it themselves, even then it's almost a bit synthesisey. More quotes, since you seem to need them: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." " This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Basically, twitter is never a reliable source, because you can't verify its authenticity. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • How was I supposed to think all that through? The rules say there can be an exception to twitter, and you say there is no exception to twitter. I honestly thought I was adhering to the rules of Wikipedia. I didn't want to cause any trouble and I'm really sorry that I did. I'm just trying my hardest to contribute like everyone else. Since my sources are faulty, I'm putting Bear's version back and won't be changing it without a proper source. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It should be added that you made the edit without any sources and didn't come back with the Twitter reference (which doesn't really prove that he is indeed a citizen) until after the fact. And this is not the first time either. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would also like to add that while I appreciate the apology, we have seen this before here and here only for you to revert back to your old ways shortly there after. In fact, after your second apology, you immediately took pot shots at other editors and an admin as seen here. As GiantSnowman mentioned, I too am support of a topic ban of Armenian related topics but would add BLPs as well as nearly all the issues are limited to these two categories. BearMan998 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• • • • • Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS? If not, this is a non starter and the account can't be use for pretty much any purpose here.  little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer  02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's when they have the light blue star, right? No, it doesn't have that. However, a source has recognized this as his official account (HMTTT is a thing where they post tweets of fighters on their website to show whats new in the twitter world. Mousasi's account is in the edition I linked). Although I think the source is credible because it's one of the most famous and popular MMA news websites, I'm not going to take the risk and say it is.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry--what are we trying to find out? Whether some tweet has a fucking blue star? This is an encyclopedia, where we should be writing articles that we wouldn't be embarrassed to publish in print. There isn't a damn thing on Twitter that we could accept as a reliable source, and I don't give a fuck whether someone acknowledges something as their official Twitter or not. RS is the name of the game, not what someone typed in on their cell phone. Also, will someone point this user to the MMA restrictions, with all this stuff about disruption and consequent blocks? Drmies (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, Bloody Elbow is not a reliable source. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'm reading "User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert in the Gegard Mousasi MMA article that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen under the claim that a twitter post supported this, therefore he should be topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of 3 months." This discussion has stalled becauase the remedy requests do not match the provided evidence, which also lacks sufficient diffs directed towards supporting both evidence and remedy. BearMan998, if you want TheShadowCrow warned/topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics or from all BLP articles, you should focus on what you want and provided evidence with diffs to support that request. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a problem. Here is the first revert without any reliable sourcing. Here is a second revert using Twitter posts as a basis. Now this wouldn't be egregious if it wasn't for the fact that this is a continuing pattern with this user who was blocked before for multiple BLP violations, so ignorance of policy shouldn't be an excuse now. GiantSnowman has had several run-ins with this user concerning BLP articles and you can see his evidence in his fist post in this thread, and the evidence that GiantSnowman should present a clear picture. It's this recent behavior fresh off a block plus historical issues which leads credence to such a move at this point. BearMan998 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that TheShadowCrow was given a clear and explicit warning for persistent violations of BLP articles on June 2012 here and here. Specifically, this was for adding content with no source or poorly sourced material and edit warring to retain such content in the article to such an extent that WP:BLPSE was considered at the time. Based on the edits I mentioned above and the edits that GiantSnowman brought up, I think these violations of adding content with no or poor sources and edit warring in an attempt to retain them have continued despite multiple warnings. This is why I think formal topic ban is needed as warnings have little effect. BearMan998 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would ask right now, if the user will submit to following the WP:COI guidelines, as the user apparently has an interest in inserting the information into these articles. Also, The user should understand that Twitter may not be considered a reliable source unless the information can be backed up by another RS. Finally, the user should consider that the WP:Consensus is against adding this information from this source. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: topic ban

I propose that TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of, say, 3 months.

• Support as proposer. GiantSnowman 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this has gone on long enough and this user has been given enough chances already. BearMan998 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I weakly support such a topic ban, though I wonder if the present thread hasn't already put the editor on notice. Their recent edits (which are in a different field) seem unproblematic. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to bring this back up again as it appears that this discussion had failed to put the editor on notice that further BLP violations would result in some form of sanction. TheShadowCrow has inserted content in the Karo Parisyan article that is not supported by reliable sources and is again edit warring in an attempt to keep it in the article. This was the first edit which lacked a reliable source, specifically, the second part which states "and nearly submitted him in a kimura twice" A kimura for those of you who do not know is a joint lock which can break an opponent's arm. I removed this part as it was unsourced and a very subjective statement. TheShadowCrow inserted again here but this time with a source. However, upon reading the source, the source clearly states that Parisyan only attempted two kimuras with none of them threatening his opponent and both were never locked in so it's not even worth mentioning. I directed TheShadowCrow to review WP:STICKTOSOURCE as this is an obvious and blatant violation of this. However, instead of doing so, TheShadowCrow has since reverted it again here and also left me a message here stating his intent keep this material despite lacking a source. This is making it very obvious that the user will not adhere to policy in regards to BLP articles and is making clear the WP:COI connection that Sephiroth storm brought up above as there appears to be an obvious attempt to insert content in order to slant towards a certain view point. BearMan998 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content is supported by a reliable sources but Bear doesn't like it. There really isn't much more to say, just see for yourself.

I think this proves that he has lots of personal feelings, no good faith, and a superiority complex. Hopfully the Admins will see this and actually research the situation this time. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban with mentorship given the user's limited understanding of Wikipedia policy (WP: RS, WP: BLP, WP: STYLE, and WP: BATTLEGROUND to name a few), I think mentorship would help them become a better editor during the course of the IB. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: Is anyone claiming Sherdog.com isn't a relible source?

WP:BLP: Unspecified

WP:STYLE: What grammer mistake did I make?

WP:BATTLEGROUND: Bearman is the true violator of this rule. He is constantly hostile with all of my edits, has no good faith or civilly, is harassful, and is eager to bring every single edit I make here, even though they are too minor.

If my edit cannot be proven unconstructive, there is no reason for any type of punishment. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowcrow:

• WP: RS: Nobody has said that "Sherdog.com" was unreliable. Twitter is definitely not reliable however. See above comments by Drmies, lgr and giantSnowman
• WP: BLP: See above comments by Bearman, gwickwire and GiantSnowman
• WP: STYLE: Again, see above comments (also, "harrassful" is not a word).
• WP: BATTLEGROUND: Your description speaks for itself. See WP: CIVIL. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. We have been over twitter already. RS gives an acception for tweets if it is made by the topic article.

2-3. There are plenty of comments. Be specific.

4. Bearman is extremely hostile and uncivil towards me and you and the other Admins turn a blind eye to this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cue In regards to twitter being a reliable source see WP:UGC I myself prefer (and I think most wikipedians do too) WP:UGC's view on twitter "whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." compared to WP:RS but I do agree that the policies/guidelines are somewhat confusing in regards to twitter as a reliable source
• In reference to number four your accusations makes it seem at though you are not Assuming Good Faith

--Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowCrow, I'm going to sum up here, since it seems unclear to you:

1. Your Sherdog link does not say he "nearly submitted him," it says quote "Parysian immediately went for the same exact kimura he won his initial UFC match with but St. Pierre defended it and got the top position and held it the rest of the round." He never even successfully performed the move. You can't call that "near submission" any more than you could say "Mike Tyson nearly defeated Boxer X by TKO" if Tyson never knocked out Boxer X even once.

2. The Twitter account is not verified, meaning anyone could be posting on it. Impostors are all over Twitter, so you can't just quote a tweet and call it a reliable source.

3. You cannot interpret the phrase "my country man" as proof this person is Iranian. He could be mistaken on the other person's nationality, just expressing friendship, and so forth. We need a solid third party source, or a verified, unambiguous statement from him before we could add that.

4. BearMan998 is obviously frustrated, and I can understand why. I believe you're editing in good faith, but instead of asking "Is this a valid source?" you're plowing ahead and putting more stuff on that page that doesn't meet criteria.

You need to slow down and listen to people explaining the rules. Wikipedia is pretty strict when it comes to statements about living persons. And you can't re-interpret a source ("near submission"). If you'll take some time and get second opinions on these citations, things will go much smoother. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go again. Today TheShadowCrow made this edit with a very misleading edit summary stating "no flags." However the edit not only removed flags which I am okay with, but also restored unsourced POV content into the article. This involves the statement "The judges may have given the fight to Lawal because he was on top of Mousasi for most of the fight and because of a point deduction given to Mousasi following an illegal up-kick" which is not found in the cited source. This was unsourced POV commentary that was removed from the article yet TheShadowCrow chose to restore it with other edits and not mention it in the edit summary. I would fully support a topic ban for 3 months as this discussion has failed to lead to any improvement in the understanding of policy. BearMan998 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at this point ShadowCrow needs a break from these articles. He still hasn't grasped that he cannot add unsourced personal opinion to an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting uninvolved admin to close

Please can an uninvolved Admin review this thread as a whole, complete with proposals for sanctions, and decide what (if any) need to be implemented, so we can close this either way? GiantSnowman 11:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs: Yworo claims harassment because of some user warning templates I put on his talk page. He made some edits, and I responded with the templates.

• First: Yworo edit 1; my response.
• Later: Yworo edit 2; my response.
• Even later: Yworo edit 3; Yworo edit 4; my two-part response. In my two-part response, {{uw-npa2}} is in response to Yworo edit 3.

Do you agree that there was merit to my responses, and that I responded coolly and calmly?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were you asked to stay off their talkpage, and did you understand the request? There are millions of editors who could place a valid warning if needed and nearly a couple of thousand admins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if Yworo has banned Unforgettableid from commenting on his/her talk page but continues to post on Unforgettableid's [20] then it's not unexpected for Unforgettableid to post on Yworo's. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You both need to avoid each other then. And Yworo, you need to dial back the "pimping", "common sense" and the calling someone an ass. Seriously, you are asking for trouble and you accomplish nothing by this type of inflammatory language, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies.

I would like to try to avoid Yworo by avoiding editing the same pages as he does. But this would currently be difficult. He has lately been looking carefully into my past contributions, visiting various pages I have created or edited, and modifying the pages. Some examples of pages which I have created in the past decade, and he has touched in the past week, include: Alameda County Study, Linux conference, Scrabble variants, Go Home Lake, Desktop Developers' Conference, Linux Symposium, and List of open-access journals. Many of his edits have been helpful. But he has sometimes reverted my work without stating why he doesn't like it: example 1; example 2; I can provide more if you like. Do the reversions seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING to you?

About WP:HUSH: Does the policy create a posting prohibition if Yworo merely requests it, or does it only apply if I have been " placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' " on his talk page?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, you shouldn't unless you really have to, and if you really have to, you take extra steps to be respectful. This is just how you would treat someone in the real world, and Wikipedia is the real world. Policy quotes aren't necessary for this. Common sense and basic respect overrule policy. This is because they are the basis for the policies. The WP:Five pillars cover this, in particular #4 and #5. If people would just treat others here the same way they would if they were face to face and knew each other's real names, most problems here would go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair explanation. Thank you. Bumping thread for 2 days — dear admins: I wonder if you could please also respond to my question about Wikihounding? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• L2j2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Formula for primes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Prime number and Lhermite's models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lhermite's models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jacob prime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:L2j2 seems determined to include his own original research on certain formulae involving prime numbers, particularly at Lhermite's models. This page was deleted after clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models where it became clear that it is original research by the user himself. Since then the material was added again at Prime number and Lhermite's models which was speedily deleted G4, and the user is currently edit warring to include it in the existing article Formula for primes: see [21] and [22]. The editor has been warned on numerous occasions formally and informally [23], [24], [25], [26]. Their last attempt to insert this material comes after all the warnings cited. The user in question has made no edits on other topics and is clearly here for the sole purpose of promoting their own personal research. Their persistence is becoming quite disruptive. Perhaps the time has come to restrict their editing privileges, maybe via a topic ban or a block until they agree to find some other topic to contribute to? Deltahedron (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: since I posted this and notified the user, a notification they have seen [27], they have yet again tried to insert this material at Formula for primes: [28]. They seem to have no interest in engaging with the multiple editors who are trying to explain policy to them. This is getting rather disruptive. Deltahedron (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again on the edit warring [29], in addition to pointlessly copying the entire article to its own talk page [30]. This behaviour is seriously disruptive: please can this editor now be blocked? Deltahedron (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again on the edit warring [31]. Help, please! Deltahedron (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again again [32]. I make that 7RR now ... Deltahedron (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it isn't restricted to English Wikipedia (see [33]) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Boing! said Zebedee beat me to the punch with the exact same block I was about to do. This is certainly disruptive. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to point them in the right direction, via WP:3RR and WP:OR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just based on experience, that won't work. In a few days, he will be back doing the same stuff. He's been pointed to those pages SO many times, and won't stop. We may wish to consider an indefinite extension until he assures us he will stop. gwickwire^talk_editing 16:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've warned him that it will be indef next time, and I'm watching the articles in question -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Gwickire, you might be right, but we try to give everyone a second chance if there is any possibility they will "get it". If it only works one time in ten, or even twenty, then it is worth the extra effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • True true, and now that they've been notified of the strong probability of an indef next time works for me. Now the only question is who speaks Haitian or French enough to take care of the messes there? gwickwire^talk_editing 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not our dept. Our admin bits stop at the gates of enwp. I have no idea what those other Wikis allow or don't allow, that is for them to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know we can't do anything on the other wikis, but it may not be a bad idea to let them know. If their situation is as bad as enwp in terms of new patrollers etc., then they may not even know this exists. Regardless, all that's going to happen has happened for now, so this seems pretty well resolved. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The French have briskly deleted all his contributions ("Tous vos articles sont systématiquement supprimés") and so have the Italians. The Spanish hadn't noticed him yet: I have started a Spanish AfD for his main article there, and alerted the Spanish Mathematics WikiProject. At the moment, that just leaves Haitian... JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to everyone who helped out. Deltahedron (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Cross-wiki vandals are dealt with by WP:STEWARDSs. You can contact them at Meta. If there is evidence this is going on across multiple WMF projects they would be the ones to do something about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Roman polytheistic reconstructionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:J Agathokles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Shelhabiron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Ragnii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:124.171.13.132 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Morning Ya'all. I've been dealing with the addition of spam links to Roman articles. It started with this article about a new movement in Roman mythology. I was drawn there by a discussion with User talk:King of Hearts's talk page discussing the scope of User:Humanpublic's topic ban of religion topics. I made a quip about allowing him to edit dead religions like Roman and Greek. Then I found out there were still practicing Romans. The article contained lists of spam links and spam references. I removed all of the external links per WP:ELNO, "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Days later, Ragnii restored one of the links and I realized there were many more in the article that needed to be removed per WP:UGC "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Since there, Shelhabiron and J Agathokles have both been reverting these spam links back in. Ragnii also started a WP:DRN discussion that went nowhere (while accusing me of a Christian POV) and I've been called by 124.171.13.132 a bully (again accusing me of a Christian POV). The irony of Christian persecution of Romans is kinda funny by itself. I'm at the limit on what I can do alone. Need admin action here. Semi-protection won't work, two of the users are auto confirmed.--v/r - TP 13:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The appearance of a brand new account (J Agathokles) reverting back to that version sealed the deal; I have fully protected the article for a month without the linkspam. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Well, that's automatically excluding jut about every single resource on the modern Roman religion, or any religion really. Off course all resources on this religion are going to be published by practitioners, and off course practitioners of the religion are going to be the most common contributors to a page about their own religion. Following your logic you'd have to remove pretty much all information on pretty much all religions. J_Agathokles 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs)

Comment. Yes, we have a pretty intractable conflict in areas of paganism between the notability and verifiability policies and the objective of avoiding entrenched bias and broadening our coverage accordingly. Unless some way can be found to accommodate religions that do not have centralized doctrinal authorities, the best advice for editors is to make as much use as possible of reports published by reputable presses, even though they almost always represent outsider points of view and as a result tend to be out of date or otherwise inaccurate. Notability within (neo)paganism is hard to establish by the criteria the project generally applies, so many spokespeople recognised within the community can't be cited as authorities. I do think editors need to recognize their own biases in such areas—many people are unaware neopaganism even exists, and others are unaware of the reconstructionist traditions—but the project can't and won't suspend its requirements; we have to work with them on a case by case basis. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"we have to work with them on a case by case basis." That's the most useful comment in this entire discussion. J_Agathokles 08:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There's another problem with Roman polytheistic reconstructionism - so far as I can see, none of the sources are about the subject of the article but about ancient Roman religion. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's reconstructionism, the cultores don't just make stuff up, they base themselves firmly in ancient practices. So scholarly sources on the ancient religion are just as relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Any "reconstruction" is going to be selective in what it adapts, that's just of nature of things when history gets recycyled. Because of this, you need to cite specific sources about the reconstruction, not just about the original culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions" by James R. Lewis, ABC-Clio, 1999, contains in the lengthy introduction a section on "Greco-Roman neopaganism." That source certainly meets RS standards. A number of other reference books relating to New religious movements might contain material as well. On that basis I tend to think that the best way to go, at least initially, would be to consult existing reference works and other more or less academic sources which might discuss the topic, and maybe add any items they include in their bibliographies in some "bibliography" section. Granted, "Greco-Roman neopaganism" could conceivably, like wicca, cover a lot of territory, and possibly not the particular territory this editor is most interested in, but it is at least a place to start. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions" by James R. Lewis, ABC-Clio, 1999. I'm not sure of the value of this source in regards reconstructionist religions. J_Agathokles 08:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the usefulness of the notion of 'reliable sources' as used here. Suppose there is some religious movement, some theological notion, of which a dozen different unrelated, unconnected people have written with a clearly common understanding of what it is, each in their own individual books, perhaps self-published or sold through some channel for which peer review is lacking (though this may be the case for most books by big booksellers as well); but no big bookseller has published a book containing content on this topic. Surely we can not sanely claim a lack of proof for the existence of the topic, when it has been commonly yet independently addressed by that dozen authors of 'unreliably' published works? DeistCosmos (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are supposed to base any sort of decisions based on that sort of "what if" scenario. Also, yes, if there has been no particular independent source discussing the idea, and there have only been as you posited multiple possibly contradictory sources, no, then there really isn't that much if anything we can say in terms of encyclopedic content. Having said that, for the US at least, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions has one of the lowest thresholds for inclusion I've ever seen, two or more congregations, not all in the same metropolitan area, and there are a huge number of other journals, newspapers, reference sources, etc., which have fairly low standards of inclusion. But, no, I honestly can't believe that simply having bestsellers written necessarily establishes notability, and, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been taken to do so. Not all bestsellers are, actually, really to be taken seriously. Some books and theories have been revealed to be clear hoaxes. We do need at least some independent recognition of any topic, and, honestly, particularly with the field of religion, there are at least two or three reference books per month being put out today. Even if we couldn't establish notability very quickly, I have no doubt in rather short time any group which really merits inclusion here will have had enough independent coverage to estabish notability. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not posit multiple possibly contradictory sources, but instead multiple unrelated but self-published sources expressing the same understanding of the thing described -- that is, painting with rough lines the same picture. Surely, though individually these sources might not be claimed to establish anything, something must come of their very multiplicity? DeistCosmos (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. A stack of bullshit is still just bullshit. Doesn't matter how high you pile it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That scenario is no different to saying that because the internet has 500 posts in forums and blogs on conspiracy theory X, "something must come of their very multiplicity". No nothing has to come of it. It's still just garbage. But if all you have on a topic is a dozen self-published books, then whatever you have probably fails WP:NOTABILITY anyway. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What should be done about all of the non-reconstructionalism articles?--v/r - TP 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is tending to support what I wrote above. We have a conflict between objectives and I don't know a good way around it. What we do have as second best is to make what use we can of sources published by reputable presses. However, these are mostly tertiary sources—general surveys or specialized encyclopedias—with the shallowness of coverage that that implies. Both they and the more focused studies of new religions/paganism by religious studies scholars that are starting to appear are almost all outsider views, frequently written from a particular point of view (either religious or social scientific) and likely to be out of date or otherwise not well informed, especially if they attempt to range over several different religious movements. Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon is a good example of a sincere attempt at surveying a very wide field that was already out of date when published; other more focused works I won't single out here, but there is a Catch-22 with defining religions as "fringe" that is hard to overcome given that our notability requirements are related to our verifiability requirements; relatively few reconstructionist pagans have acquired doctorates, let alone unassailable academic reputations such that they can publish freely as pagans, and even those who have should only be cited on the particular pagan religion they write about. The answer is not, however, to label any religion "bullshit" or "garbage" - that's entrenched bias clearly demonstrated. It's to use what reliable sources we have. But a comprehensive encyclopedia should have articles on neo-pagan religions without applying alien standards such as "Have they registered congregations" or "Do they have scriptures". The issue is how to make our coverage of the topics both accurate and well referenced. (And TParis: I'm not sure what articles you mean, but clearly recon and non-recon should be treated similarly?) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think anyone is asking for scripture or congregations; simply third party reliable sources. I'm sorry, I thought I linked the articles here already, but I guess not. Ragnii has been spamming his links on other Roman articles such as Galli, Mercury (mythology), Chlorpromazine, Lares, ect.--v/r - TP 18:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we have an article which makes no attempt to show notability for the subject and has no sources that actually mention the subject although presented as though they did. It's protected for another 3 weeks plus so it can't be fixed. I'm not sure what we gain by keeping it fully protected and am asking that it be unprotected. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. I agree we probably don't need it now, there should be enough eyes on it. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a sense of similar problems, but maybe not as severe, at Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Black Kite. I think the best option now is to remove the material about ancient Roman religion - ie to basically turn it into a stub which will probably be unsourced for at least a short while until we can find reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User mus is a category for Wikipedians who have some knowledge of the Creek/Muskogee language, spoken by a few thousand Creek people and Seminole people in the United States. The "mus" code is in the standards ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 but it appears not to be included among the languages processed for WP:Babel. The category has been empty for as long as I have been trying to use it, i.e. since about 2010.

Babel boxes for this language formerly used the incorrect code mvs instead of the correct mus. Yesterday I moved the boxes and edited the category names. I also added a description of the User mus category. I cannot tell whether I am the only Wikipedian in any of these categories because they all remain empty. I am concerned about correcting this, and incidentally with preventing the deletion of these categories because they are unpopulated. Admins, please help! — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what administrative action is requested here? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For userbox-level to work, you need a subcategory according to the language levels for each of them, and the babelboxes must have a parameter | usercategory = . These were are all missing, so I've created a few categories for the langauge levels and updated the boxes. It may take a while for the categorisation to take effect, but you can try to remove the userbox from your user page and then add it again. This test worked for me with {{user mus-0}} De728631 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a mus-0, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually these are quite common in Category:Language user templates since level 0 doesn't mean absolute ignorance but also includes speaking a language "considerable difficulties", i.e. below even basic requirements for fluency. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(lang)-0 categories are consistently deleted whenever brought to WP:CFD as being meaningless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the number of deletion notices on the talk page of User:Procrastinator16, it might appear that there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Since it seems that this user will keep creating articles about living people -- despite the fact that they keep getting deleted -- I would like to suggest that someone take on the task of explaining our rules about notability, sourcing, and biographies of living people. If that effort fails, or no one is willing to take that on, they should be blocked. Any takers? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, they don't all seem to be deleted. Several have been kept. I don't see a problem with a user creating articles, even if some of those articles eventually get deleted.JOJ ^Hutton 00:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- I think my articles are notable. I see articles written in different ways. I say this because some have just the occupations after the birthdate and name, etc, while some have that and what the person is most known for. Sometimes I do both, but I prefer just listing the occupation(s). I'm not sure if the administrators actually read my articles, but if they do then I don't know how you're not seeing that the articles are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinator16 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit tricky because we aren't dealing with a vandal here, only a badly misguided editor. That said, this has gone on for too long. I think the most sensible thing is a topic ban - for him to only create articles via AfC until he learns what is and what isn't notable. Also, someone needs to explain WP:N to him, which I can do if wanted.--Launchballer 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to raise this issue so soon after this recent incident. If I were to publish the full list of Bobrayner's disruptive edits, it would take me all night because believe me, I have seen one single issue to go back five months. I will not lie about the fact that I too am listed on the ARBMAC disciplinary register and am currently debilitated by 1RR imposed as part of a deal to unblock my account. This 1RR is severely testing me however and I feel that looking at the actions these past minutes prior to this post, something is happening that must stop immediately. Bobrayner and I have a couple of issues which we have not been able to resolve through dialogue but sadly, these few issues cascade when it comes to number of articles affected by the problem and sadly all in ARBMAC village.

For two days (5-7 April), Timeline of Kosovo History was peaceful whilst Bobrayner did not edit. On 3 April, a contribution of mine was cancelled[35]. My first action was a revert[36] when it registered but with a summary. This was followed by a part restoration in which I returned the source[37] that I removed. Labelled as "silly", my contribution was reverted once more[38]. I was placed on 1RR for a reason and one such purpose is that I engage in talk. Taking this option, I launched a discussion[39] in which I explained that the town is called Đakovica per WP:AT and by most common English, but observing historical accuracy, the town name is Yakova for the period in question. BR's insistence on the Albanian name Gjakova was down to the sources in question[40], one of which is in English and uses Gjakova. I reminded him about historical accuracy[41], then checked the sources only to discover that they themselves were later publications and not from the time in question[42]. However, by now he was gone, not to return for two days. I then embarked on a number of edits to Timeline of Kosovo History making sure I did not step over the bone of contention which would have violated 1RR. With Bobrayner out of site, I then sought advice from User:Antidiskriminator who is better versed in Balkan affairs than I am and we have held a conversation here. With efforts to communicate exhausted, no sign of BR and probably no hope of two-way agreement, I felt I had fulfilled my requirements so returned to the issue just over 24 hours later[43], [44]. More clean-up along the same lines followed when guess who's back?[45]. The same reasoning, the sickening "Let's stick to what the sources say" slogan. At attempt at justification by BR came here[46]. I explained that content from sources were one thing but titles used in sources are a different matter where Wikipedia:Naming Conventions is the case; BR's post had also provoked this reply[47] from AD. BR then replies with this[48] remark in which he adds nothing new to his previous position (ie. just following what the sources say). It now became clear to me that he is POV-pushing so I replied here where I pointed out that I had also switched a Serbian-name settlement for its Turkish (ie. historical) equivalent[49] but he did not worry about that in the least. I did revert[50] without breaching restriction, but did so after posting a huge list of sources which were all history books that addressed Ottoman-era towns and the message was that if you seek citations, you will find that sources may use any of three names, the modern Albanian, the modern Serbian or the then- and still modern Turkish. Consensus widely follows the latter option which I too was observing. So what reason had we for sticking to the non-WP:AT and non-historical name? No reply as yet...

...however, beginning here, BR began rifling through my recent edits, particularly where sensitive ARBMAC issues are the case but nothing beyond naming convention or matters pertaining to Kosovo sovereignty and made mass reverts of my contributions. My switching of Peja to Peć hardly needs explanation, the second is the target but the first is also a disambiguation page.

His next actions one by one were the following:

• This is a so-called "spelling fix" despite Berkovo being the target,
• Next comes this re-introduction of a disambiguation term, and a claim that subject has Kosovan nationality despite the article also stating that she represents Albania professionally and did so at London 2012
• Following his warning cited on intro to this section and an effort by me to clean up section in accordance with published figures, BR claims "new problems" with the statistics

Now get ready for a bit of humour

• This edit was to switch the /š/ from a word that even contains the diacritic in the article title and on its own page. The stated purpose was that this was in accordance with the "sources", as if they were some kind of literary English authority. Proof that this was the purpose is submitted here. Note how BR was never interested in the English variation, just fishing to uphold the Albanian version of the name. However he was wrong, I explained to him that the Albanian name is Korisha (with /sh/) here in second part of single comment. Nevertheless, he returned to the /s/ misnomer here, something I leave according to 1RR terms - my later edit was not a revert.

Now it gets worse, look at the following

• BR wipes the article of all article titles and replaces these with their Albanian forms. This means he switched Pristina which is NOT Serbian (ie. Priština) to Prishtinë, the Albanian name of the town not used in English. Notice also the mess on Zvečan and Leposavić on opening lines which were cleaned up but that his revert cancelled, plus the return of verbiage "for the sake of". BR in the knowledge that all his changes are consistent with the Albanian language only reverted again and cited "no consensus for change". Since when did fixing redirects or observing WP:AT need "consensus"? Yet there had been no consensus either when the section was introduced here by this user who came and went the same day and never used the talk for anything. As it stands, it is inconsistent with the rest of the article.
• Next came this mass wipe-out of my work in which every single entry is returned to its non-WP:AT/non-English variation. Note that the page is one of several controversial agenda-pushing pages based on Kosovo. Despite this, the presentation is mostly bad and the sources are negligible. He reverts once more citing "what the sources say". I've told him many times, if the sources were good enough to verify everything down to the names used then he could have the articles moved (ie. Gnjilane to Gjilan). Be that is it may, the summary is one of BR's templates and I'm sure he never even checked the sources of which he prated. Firstly they are listed without links, and secondly, they are all in Albanian anyhow with the exception of one from the Kosovo government. Please see.

ARBMAC violation
We have SUPER STRICT policies on how we edit Kosovo-related articles, and careful editors often walk on egg shells to circumvent saying anything that can remotely suggest favour towards the split in sentiment. 99/193 UN states currently recognise Kosovo's independence and the situation is fragile on how we present sovereignty. A Kosovo-note template was devised to facilitate many of the country vs province issues and you can be sure that its removal by anyone from any article is guaranteed POV-pushing. To prove that BR is most definitely POV pushing and WP:NOTHERE whatsoever to write an an encyclopaedia, I need to draw admin attention to a less recent incident plus discussion. The word "border" is a nasty issue for Kosovo. Many of us prefer terms such as 'frontier' because if anyone were to push the Serbian viewpoint, he would be referring to the border ONLY if said to be between Central Serbia and the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo held by rebels". On 2 January 2013, BR stepped onto 1RR per week Republic of Kosovo. Discarding a mountain of effort, he thought it wise to make this edit[51]. Then I, realising that text had been removed at some stage, re-instered the NPOV FULL PICTURE which gives everyone's position[52]. BR didn't like it so he began this thread[53] in which you see that I made a proposal which Antidiskriminator approved but BR never replied to.

I am not happy with "border" but am fine with the modifier administrative as it imparts the de facto status without harming content or presenting falsehood.

• BR takes issue. He refers to "administrative" as 'weasel' wording. To him, stick two fingers up at NPOV, let it be known that what there is there is a BORDER just like between Mexico and the United States, that the entity to the north is Serbia, that Serbia's borders are marked without Kosovo; and the fact that Serbia doesn't give exit stamps to persons entering Kosovo coupled with 90 odd states still not recognising Kosovo means NOTHING. If you move to explain this, it is 'wiesel wording', if you report "Kosovo is a fully fledged state", you are a good editor.
• Bobrayner reverts once more. And the summary? The greasy "sources" argument once more, this despite WP policy to be neutral - and these attempts at neutrality, agreed in the conversation of January by Antidiskriminator; Bobrayner having walked out, NOBODY having come to represent his position. And how does BR justify this depredation? The "sources" (irrelevant) defy my "TRUTH" - as if only I have endeavoured to be neutral. It would have been a different matter if my edits hinted at DENYING Kosovan statehood, but I swear I aim to be 100% balanced.

Last but not least...
The final case takes us back to Koriša bombing. My later edit (not to breach 1RR) has since been reverted. The revert shows you my revision too. All looks sweet and innoect doesn't it? I say "Yugoslav", he says "Serb" because of the 'source'. Here is a synopsis: from 1992 to 2006, Serbia was part of a union with Montenegro (FR Yugoslavia, then Serbia & Montenegro). In this time, the republics had their own police forces and Serb police units were deployed during the Kosovo crisis, as indeed were Serb paramilitaries (rogue government-backed but non-governmental private enterprises comprising Serbs from all over, eg. Bosnia & Croatia, not just Serbia), but above all there was the Army of Yugoslavia (VJ) - article: Military of Serbia and Montenegro.

This is the biggest issue of them all. Some editors work their backsides off to correctly produce accurate information (eg. Serb police & paramilitaries, plus Yugoslav army). We all know that mention of Serb troops and Serb forces per se is a complete no-no, just as would be Serb government if the body in question were the central Yugoslav government. Reasons for people wanting the "Serb" highlight in place of Yugoslavia is purely to tarnish the nation, excuses include Serbia having been so big compared to Montenegro and also Montenegro's leadership having turned its nose up at the federation from 1998: none of this affected the army and they still wore VJ uniforms. But Bobrayner has known this for many months now and has engaged in countless edit wars AND conversations trying to push his "sources" point across despite having been told so many times that there are problems with some sources and they are not always accurate. For example, This BBC source labels Milošević as Serb President when he was infact Yugoslav president when published. Actual Serb president in 1999 was Milan Milutinović, not my renedering of events, the FACTS, 'Serbia' is so often used as an unofficial name for FR Yugoslavia. However, precision trumps speculation every time, and we know it is precise that Serb can only be applied to police and/or paramilitary but "forces" is vague, and "troops" is incorrect. Any user that just reads about a battle between the KLA and Serb troops will take it that either Serbia was independent (wrong) or that within FR Yugoslavia, the republics had their own armies rather like police (also wrong).

But this has been spreading like a disease for five months:

• Battle of Lodja. [54], [55], Sarcastic comment as he even gives SERBIAN NATIONAL FLAG. Deliberately introducing factual error to push POV.
  • Two users explain circumstance here.

• Battle of Podujevo. Playing with flag again, [56], Reverts 23 editor, and again.
• Battle of Belaćevac Mine. [57], WhiteWriter, 23 editor
  • Unheeded discussion

• Izbica massacre. Hello again, [58].
• Serbian Armed Forces (active from 2006). an attempt to drag this organisation into Kosovo crisis of 1999, restores ABSOLUTE TRASH inserted by User:Keithstanton.
• Meja massacre. [59]
• 1991. In contrast to article sources
• Battle of Glodjane. [60], [61], [62], [63]
• Serbian Army (established 2006). Factually incorrect information and subject matter already on display at correct target, Military of Serbia and Montenegro. Again, [64], [65]
  • Discussion which Bobrayner abandoned
• List of massacres in the Kosovo War. Hello, false summary, second false summary on the bounce, [66], Removes source again. Take note that he uses "let's stick to what the sources say" but where I have replaced Serb with Yugoslav, it is supported by this.
• Battle of Junik. [67], [68], Five months later, [69].
• Ukshin Hoti. The See Also should have been blank, but still, [70], arrogant remarks in summary, FALSE LINK to Serbian Armed Forces, estbalished 2006 for events of 1999 and 2005, thinks that this is a remedy,
  • Discussion here, of no interest to BR
• Bardhyl Çaushi. "Let's keep it neutral" by removing links to actual entities and replacing it with falsehood.
  • Discussed once more.

Finally, I recently used a reliable UN source to explain the full Serb/Yugoslav situation to BR here, it begins here. Now you can only imagine my disgust at this slimy summary in a move that plays on my 1RR.

Bobrayner is unequivocally a highly disruptive user who plays with fire in the ARBMAC area and has NO interest in dispute resolution and does not respect consensus. These are my issues, other people have other things to say about his poor behaviour. I would not object to a block but may I recommend a temporary topic ban if nothing more. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious case of Tl;dr here, but judging from another related dispute between these two editors that Bobrayner just reported at WP:NPOVN, my impression is the tendentious editor is clearly Evlekis, and a heavy boomerang is in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the tendentious editor is clearly Evlekis" is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Not very reassuring for me however that the first external editor attacks my position and insults me with a blatantly unfair term in light of the above evidence which took more than two hours to compile and account for my experiences only. We are dealing with a user who is pedaling a "sources" myth but evidently doesn't know how to use them. He doesn't understand that there are WP policies and agreements, such as how to present military operations from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If I move away from this section just for a moment then perhaps I'll make myself clearer: there is an article called Republic of Macedonia, it contains many sources and equally the country is mentioned in many other articles which also contain sources. Now a lot of the sources will refer to the country as FYROM (or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The sources may be reliable and the content valid for use; the source would not however present an editor with the licence to go amending Republic of Macedonia to FYROM anywhere he sees fit, yet this is exactly what has been happening with Bobrayner. Concerning his report, I made one edit which restored sourced material that involved a removal of several hundred characters and this type of change normally requires consensus, I also observed that TWO, not one, TWO editors had approved the version I was restoring. Even so, I will not sport the label "tendentious" when it is not true, or when the descritpion of me is confined to gross POV-pushing editors working alongside each other, therefore I will not go near that article for now. Just as many of the pages are intact per Bobrayner's revisions. However, some answers from the accused would be nice before we start slinging mud at submitters. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed something else. When I was blocked for breaching 3RR back in March, the announcement[71] by ItsZippy requested users restrain from edit-warring on the pages mentioned and do more to prevent others from doing so. Here is how Bobrayner responded to that request: while the cat is away, the mouse will play. And although I never said this when defending myself or requesting unblock, the announcement that was I blocked contained the following passage, "I am also concerned by the long-term disruption caused by Evlekis". I contend that this is itself an opinionated statement because I am only considered "disruptive" by specific editors never seen working against one another. From others the feedback is warm and inviting. It's time we put a stop to this protection racket and started focusing on who is here to build an encyclopaedia, who observes consensus, who negotiates when circumstance is stale as opposed to who simply performs blind blanking sessions over and over per own opinion and interpretation of source when he doesn't like something. I don't required a Boomerarg block - if I'm not welcome I'll quit anyhow. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns requiring arbitration enforcement action should be reported at WP:AE. In a much more concise and less inflammatory manner, preferably.  Sandstein  09:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both FutureP and Sandstein on how this should be handled and Evlekis can take his report there. That being said, I think that Evlekis has violated his 1RR[72] restriction on Koriša bombing: first revert (includes removal of the term Serb, second revert (removal of the word Serb), which had been readded by bobrayner and which had also been removed and replaced again about a week ago by Evlekis [73]

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to go to AE. I wil have to drop it for now. To answer ZjarriRrethues, I did not spot what I did - and before you think of any funny replies, I don't give a monkey's toss what your opinion is or whether you believe me. All you need to know is two things. First is that I could not have reverted myself anyhow because Rayner was already edit-warring and restored his own apologetic excuse for a revision, the second is that I made the following edits with 1RR in mind just not realising that I did on technical grounds violate the principle. The term 'Serb' now stands and it would have done had I self-reverted, but having read the sources or what I could get access to, nothing was said of "troops" and we know to which entity troops belonged. I know you are personally sad about the loss of another of your Sinbad Barron allies (Neutral Fair Guy) and your personal friend Keithstanton but that's bad luck. If your latest buddy 'Hope meets success' who seems to know more about Wikipedia than I do doesn't take a back seat, he'll be joining the rest of your proxies. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Tiderolls 13:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Malcolm seems to have fallen through the cracks. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting myself for this edit, which another user found to be inflammatory. There is already a hostile atmosphere there. Intervention in whatever form is appropriate would be appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the need for the strike. We aren't censored and people are free to express themselves in a variety of ways assuming they stick to the merits of the article. It isn't necessary that you or I like the phrasing. Sometimes discussions are heated, which is why you need thick skin if you participate in a collaborative project. The rest of it needs to go to WP:DRN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material.

Hi there. Recently, I came across Male Privilege and found it to be lacking encyclopedic quality. One section in particular, Male privilege#Male privilege in the U.S., had multiple issues: it is poorly sourced, appears to be a copy-paste from a college-student's essay with inline APA style citations and no actual references, and it solely covers the topic of Gender pay gap, without any sources clearly linking pay gap to the concept of male privilege. I attempted to delete this section, stating that it was inappropriate subject matter for the article, even if sources were found, because it belongs in the Gender pay gap article. I also erroneously removed primary journal articles that were used as sources, attempting to follow WP:RS, which was discussed on the talk page and I conceded that they should be re-added. Anyways, user:UseTheCommandLine, proceeded to revert all of the edits I had made, and then complained that I removed sourced (no it wasn't) content. She also still seems to fail to understand that inequality does not always mean oppression, and that a whole section on gender pay gap, which has its own article, doesn't belong, when it does absolutely, positively, nothing to demonstrate how it relates to male privilege.

When I proceeded to then go through the article, not removing any content, but instead adding inline tags on the material I wished to discuss on the talk page and remove or cite, User:UseTheCommandLine again reverted my edit, without first discussing on the talk page. She also went on to edit content that I had written on the talk page, which I find deeply offensive and also worthy of administrator intervention. It is not appropriate for another wikipedia editor to edit my signed content on a talk page. She appears to have reverted it, though refused to apologize, and decided to instead fork the discussion into a new topic because she felt the word "terrible" was too "hostile" (Essentially, "I don't like you, so I'm just going to ignore you"). I have tried to AGF through this entire thing, but frankly she has been violating WP:OWN the entire time by not allowing other editors access to the page, demanding that I run every edit by her before making them, and then making her own edits without discussion on the talk page first. She has a history of displaying this sort of behavior on the similar page, White privilege, which recently was locked for a week due to her edit warring, immature behavior, and inability to reach consensus with the other editors on that page. She appears to have a strong feminist ideology, which she has been POV pushing onto these two topics and possibly others for quite some time, without offering anything constructive. I would very much like to be able to edit Male Privilege so that it meets the basic criteria for encyclopedic standards, and I believe User:UseTheCommandLine has been actively opposing my ability to do so, not because I have violated any wikipedia policies, but because she has an agenda to push. Although there is a pending WP:DRN, which I started, I felt that her continued behavior following my request for dispute resolution has crossed the line into something an Administrator needs to be involved in.

Kindly, Rgambord (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: as this is now under discussion here I have closed the WP:DRN case as per DRN guidelines Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. I just read over Talk:Male_privilege#This_article_is_terrible. and it appears to me the editor may lack knowledge of some of the intricacies of encyclopedia writing. For instance, when you mentioned you wanted to remove the gender wage gap section because the source didn't discuss the link between that and male privilege, he or she didn't seem to understand this was problematic, which indicates they might be writing the way they would a research paper. The editor also seems to have opened two separate AN/I reports at the same time, including one on his/herself. Perhaps a bit of mentoring would help. Sædon^talk 10:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:UseTheCommandLine has decided to take an extended wikibreak. I would like to revert to my most recent edit prior to the beginning of the edit war, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&oldid=549106687 I am aware that this leaves the article POV (critical of the concept), but I intend to continue editing it to add more balance. I feel that the bad parts need to be cut out before I am ready to start adding in content; after some basic editing, I will attempt to find an interested editor on one of the feminism groups on wikipedia who will be willing to collaborate with me to provide a balanced and informative article. Also, I would like to request that User:UseTheCommandLine be blocked from editing this page, so that we don't end up with another edit war should she decide to return to wikipedia. I will attempt to collaborate with the editors on White privilege and Christian privilege to reach a consensus on how to format these pages. As I stated on Talk:Male_privilege, I also think the most neutral and encyclopedic thing to do might be to rename articles to: Gendered privilege, Religious privilege, and Racial (or ethnic) privilege. Though I do agree that white christian males enjoy a great deal of privilege in the western world, I would argue both that this does not adequately cover other regions of the world where these groups may be a minority, and also that white christian males experiencing privilege does not mean other groups or minorities do not enjoy certain privileges, and that those privileges aren't detailed in credible sources. I await input before I take any action so as not to further inflame the situation. Thanks! Rgambord (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it has been 24 hours since my previous edit. I'm going to go ahead with editing the page as I detailed above, and add this to the article's talk page. If any objections are raised, please notify me on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Thank you, Rgambord (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM at White privilege

Apostle12, despite having been on WP for many years, consistently breaks WP:NOTFORUM or WP:SOAP, and has just done so, again, at White privilege with these edits. This is a consistent, recurring pattern over that this editor engages in over many different pages. The list is far to extensive to delve into here, but these these examples might be sufficient to establish a pattern. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I should also mention that I have many, many times called this behavior out as WP:SOAP, which seemed to be the appropriate guideline, though perhaps in retrospect WP:NOTFORUM might have been more clearly applicable. Mea culpa. But in no case was the response anything other than a flat denial of violating any of WP's policies, either in spirit or letter.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I read the first diff and I'm not seeing what you mean by WP:NOTFORUM. He seems to be clearly discussing the article and proposing changes.--v/r - TP 12:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with TParis. Seems to be using sources to discuss the merits. He is sharing some personal experiences but acknowledging they don't belong in the article. These are controversial topics, and I don't see fault in his attempts to discuss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the mention of sexually transmitted infection rates is clearly off-topic. Honestly, I'm tired of the thinly veiled racism he displays at every turn. So, fuck this place. I'm gone. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So based on your new user page, I'm guessing that in "UTCL Land" that folks who do not explicitly agree with your viewpoint are racist and sexist? Clearly your POV is beyond ranges that allows collaboration and open discussion. The user is trying to discuss statistics. Statistics do not tell racist stories, they don't tell any stories. It's what you interpret from the statistics that can become racist. Discussing the topic, even proposing to discuss it, is not automatically racist and sexist. But that's beyond your alarmist and extreme viewpoint so what's the point of trying to reason with you?--v/r - TP 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior dispute at Male privilege Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material. Rgambord (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rgambord. Looks to me from the edit history like you were the one in the wrong removing masses of sourced material from male privilege under flimsy (probably POV-driiven) pretexts. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will make two last posts before commencing my wikibreak. This will be one of them.

If you have any doubts as to whether I an simply a WP:POVPUSHer, or whether I can WP:AGF and come to consensus even on contentious topics, then I urge you to review my edit history. It will speak for itself, either reinforcing the judgement you have clearly made about me already, or, I hope, undermining that preconception.

I have tried my hardest to listen and operate within the stated boundaries of policy. I have asked for help, I have asked for input on my behavior, and have not found it forthcoming. For instance, I have had a request for editor review up that is as-yet unreviewed, that has been there since my third or fourth month of editing. I have been diligent in my attempts to become a better editor.

But this is all a moot point. I happen to edit sometimes at topics which some people take offense at. I have a thick skin, but have been accused, upthread, of needing to be moreso. This is dismissive of the very real and corrosive effect that a hostile editing environment has on the fundamental goal of WP, to produce an encyclopedia. Tone matters. I try and give every possible opportunity, when faced with a hostile environment, for everyone, myself included, to ratchet down a hostile tone. And then I go to noticeboards, which by and large have proven to be less than useful in the face of concerted POVPUSH.

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paolo Freire

My last edit for the time being will be at Talk:White privilege pointing to the discussion here. I will also note that another editor there who has in the past been quite critical of this concept has taken Apostle12 to task for the statement I reference in my initial posting. I do not expect to edit at WP for at least 3 months, if not longer. I have found many people here to be intelligent and good hearted, but I have no time or inclination to continue dealing with racists, sexists, or trolls of any stripe. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking on the cabal, brother! 'luck. Basket _Feudalist 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, you opening this thread makes you part of that hostile environment. You are having an effect on another editor that is hostile. Do you want to try again with them in a way that is more welcoming to their POV?--v/r - TP 16:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. The "POV" expressed here (for example) by Apostle12 (talk · contribs) is racist. Why should we be more accommodating to people who use this site to express racist views? Perhaps I'm alone on this one, but it seems to me that the problem here is that our articles on racial topics are being heavily edited by people with racist views - to the point that other editors are being driven off. We're pretending that UTCL is the problem, and demanding that he be more "accommodating" of people who say things like:

If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men... Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior. ([74]).

People here talk endlessly about WP:CIVILity. Here's what civility actually means in the real world: it means that racism isn't acceptable, and we don't ask people to "accommodate" it. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amen.Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. This isn't the kind of POV we should be more accommodating of, and suggesting we should be shows one of the many problems with Wikipedia. AniMate 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, in the above quote box you have artificially, and I believe disingenuously, compressed my statements, eliminating anything that does not support your erroneous premise that what I wrote is racist. For the record, here is what I wrote:

This article (Criminal black man stereotype) fails adequately to address some unfortunate realities.

I and other family members have been the victims of violent crime on a number of occasions--both on the street and in our homes. On each and every one of these occasions, the perpetrators of the violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, rape) have been black males. When I look at the statistics for violent crime in ANY large American city, black males outnumber any other group as perpetrators of violent crime; this disparity becomes even more striking when one looks at the percentage of violent crimes committed as compared to the percentage of black males in the population of those cities.

The "criminal black man stereotype" exists, not for historical reasons, and not because of racial prejudice, but because black males commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes--in other words the stereotype is NOT wrong. In the private sphere, I am committed to judging all individuals based on what I can learn of their characters; in the public sphere (on the street, for example) I do not have the time or ability to discern character, therefore I cannot afford to give unknown black males the benefit of the doubt. If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior.

It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

It might be accurate to call me a pragmatist when it comes to considerations of race. It is not accurate to call me a racist, and in fact my own heritage is multiracial. Apostle12 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This edit, isn't. As for that edit, I continue to hold that discussing racial stats on racial topics, although controversial, is not racist by itself. Apostle12's error was in adding in his own personal commentary and mixing it in with claims of statistics. My suggestion would be that Apostle12 should remove his personal remarks and fill in the blank spaces with links to these statistics he is referring to. Other than that, a warning to Apostle12 maybe that he is stretching good faith. Except for pedophilia, I haven't seen blocks for editors having opinions. I've seen blocks for racist actions, I've seen blocks for racial slurs, but I've never seen a block because an editor (on a topic about crime based on race) made a comment that was personal and contained racial remarks. Hell, we have neo-nazis editing around this place and the topic has been brought up a few times of Nazi or national socialist (however the name ends) userboxes on user pages. Thanks to all the worthless "yeah me too" comments that added nothing of substance but edit conflicted with me x3--v/r - TP 18:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But TParis, it is indeed racist. The worst kind of racist original research: the cherry picking of (unsourced) statistics purported to dispute the existence of "white privilege", culminating with claims about the high level of STDs in African Americans. Do you not see that something here does not compute here?

And I am sorry about your edit conflicts but actually, showing that there are several admins who disagree with the way this has been going down is extremely important. Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the differential outcomes (white people v people of color) I referenced, S1p1, could be interpreted as complimentary with respect to African Americans, some not--I offered no such interpretation or analysis. My point was merely that so far the White privilege article has cherry-picked differential outcomes that could plausibly be linked to privileges that white people enjoy. My point is simply that many such differential outcomes do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege; I believe some relevant discussion should be included in the article.

With respect to original research, I am a stickler about that. If I were to create a section within the White privilege article discussing differential outcomes that do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege, I assure you that impeccable sourcing would be included. Apostle12 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your very statement here shows that what you are doing is the epitome of WP:OR. Here and elsewhere you are discussing the truth or otherwise of "white privilege" using your own arguments (in this case cherry picked statistics). If you want to create a section about differential outcomes that do not fit into the conceptual framework of white privilege in the article, then you need to find sources about white privilege that discuss precisely that. If it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims.Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that "if it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims." I assure you that any section I write will be based entirely on RS. Many of these sources, some of which already appear in the article, caution against over-reliance on the white privilege conceptual framework and point out the limitations of this framework. My original comments had to do with UsetheCommandLine's proposal to change the first sentence of the lede, which I generally supported. My only objection was that the first sentence not include a reductive list cherry-picking those topics where the impact of white privilege might be plausible. So I spot-lighted a few examples of differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible. Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking my rule already. You say you've seen people blocked for racial slurs?

While I'm here, two points.

1. statistics are not immune to criticism or judgement simply because they are numbers. statistics can be collected in a biased way, or presented in a racist manner. taking statistics out of context is a big red flag for this, which is exactly what this editor was doing. It was not in any way germane to the discussion about the content of the article.
2. you seem to be suggesting that goint to DRN or ANI is prima facie evidence of hostility. that seems to imply that my options when dealing with hostile editors are either to tolerate them, or to leave. why, then, do we even have a noticeboard, if it is not to have some kind of enforcement mechanism for acceptable behavior?

I also want to call attention to the other filing about Male privilege, above. It seems to be to be mostly the same issue.

I am seriously gone now, for real, no takebacks. olly olly oxen free. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis Actually, I think much of what you wrote here is pretty worthless, and if you're concerned about edit conflicts, the "worthless" messages were posted 8 minutes apart. That's hardly a deluge that would stop you from replying in a timely manner. As for your reaction to the original complaint, it looks like you only read the first link, which I agree is the least problematic. However the other three are, each relying to some extent on Apostle12's real world interactions with scary black people, are problematic. Looking at those three along with the edit that MastCell brought here make me distinctly uncomfortable about this editor's interactions in race related articles. A block may not be in order, but a topic ban certainly may be in his future. I get that you are apparently super sympathetic to Apostle12 for some unknown reason, but I think a firm clear warning about keeping his personal life and personal opinions about other races off article talk pages is much more helpful than the hand-holding you've been giving him here.

And for the record, I worthlessly agree with what Slp1 wrote above as well. AniMate 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still with TParis. The comments may be unintentionally inflammatory (and worded awkwardly, note the last of this comment admitting it was a stereotype), but some saw the Pound Cake speech in a similar light. Anytime someone has an opinion on the culture surrounding race, they are treading on thin ice, but not the same as racially motivated vandalism either. Was it insensitive? Perhaps. Was he intentionally claiming one race is inferior to another? I didn't see it that way. Like TParis, I think he is pushing the boundaries a bit more than he should, and maybe more than he realizes, but when discussing statistics and race, this is always a risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Animate, for more nonsense. Anytime a sensitive topic is approached from an unpopular viewpoint, labels are thrown out. Pause for a moment and consider that maybe fear of unpopular opinion has contributed to bias in the popular direction. I'm going beyond the topic of racism here, whether it's religion, sexism, racism, sexual orientation, politics, you name it, there are degrees of opinion. Folks are too quick to draw a line and say your one side or the other. It's a load of crap. If Apostle12 has actual statistics to refer back to, they should be discussed in the context of those articles. If not, then he's as you describe him. But until you know which one it is, hold your labels. The correct response, from UTCL to Apostle12, before coming here should have been "Hey Apostle, put up or shut up." Instead, UTCL ran here to scream racism/sexism because their viewpoint is not being explicitly agreed to. That is what makes Wikipedia hostile. Has anyone yet asked Apostle to show us what stats he is referring to? Hell, we're being accused of being hostile to Christians, Pagans, and atheists at the same time because no one stops to think they should have to get along with whatever labels they can come up with to throw at the other person.--v/r - TP 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisI couldn't disagree with you more. He's cherry picked statistics to make a point and has made several really inflammatory, completely unhelpful or encyclopedic remarks about black people, from how often he and his family are victims of crimes by black people to his college girlfriend who lived across the street from the Black Panthers. Not only are his actions completely inappropriate, they also make for a hostile editing environment. For someone so interested in editor retention, I'm surprised by your reaction here. UTCL hasn't behaved perfectly by any means, and I would advise all involved to kick this up the ladder of dispute resolution as it may be to complex or a noticeboard. In the past, surveys have shown that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. Dismissing a report like this and minimizing the actions of someone who appears to be pushing a racist POV does nothing to make this an environment any minorities would enjoy participating in. Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you.

@TParis Ironically, I received a couple of edit conflicts while trying to post this reply. I'm tempted to characterize what you wrote as nonsense, but I don't think that's going to be helpful. Also striking out where I called your statements worthless. Attacks like that aren't helpful, so I'll let you be the only one that throws them out. I think most people reading the links provided by UTCL and MastCell can see how problematic his personal stories are and that they do nothing to help the articles or editing environment.

I again encourage those involved in the dispute to kick it up the steps of DR. If an RfC/U has been tried, why not go to mediation. Getting rid of civil POV pushers can be a hassle, and I know it can be frustrating when the admins that happen to be active don't see what you see when you lodge a complaint. Unfortunately, I don't think there is something immediately actionable here, so I'm going to recommend closing this. AniMate 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I had hoped someone would ec with me. You don't know he's cherry picked anything until he points out what he's looking at. Please put the argumentative tactics away and ask the guy to support his claims before you throw them away. He's probably wrong about the stats, he's definitely wrong about his personal perspective (stats show that white males commit the most gun massacres), but the primary issue here is that he hasn't shown where he is getting his stats and instead of addressing that, you're rolling over it at racist instead because it's easier to ignore him that way.--v/r - TP 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to put what you say a different way, if you don't mind. I actually don't doubt that Apostle is right about the stats- in that he could probably find citations showing that his claims are true. But the problem is, as you point out TParis, that it is equally possible to find stats proving the opposite point. That's why I strongly disagree that asking Apostle to support his claims about the statistics is actually productive. WP needs and wants secondary sources about white privilege that analyze, contextualize and draw conclusion from all the various statistics. Then we summarize them. The talkpage of the article is simply not the spot to discuss personal experiences of black violence or to develop one's own research about whether white privilege exists or not. And, as an addendum, if anything shows what the intent, it is, as I pointed out previously, the inclusion of the STD stats of African Americans which has absolutely zero to do with even the topic Apostle was claiming to be proving. Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the talk page is the wrong place for discussing his personal opinion; all of Wikipedia is. But the first diff wasn't about his opinion, for the most part, and that was the diff UTCL highlighted as problematic. If he has reliable sources, he should produce them so their value can be considered for the article. They shouldn't be dismissed as racist having never seen them. If he can't produce them, or if he has misconstrued their context, then we shrug it off as racism.--v/r - TP 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I agree totally that sources are required. But it is critical that the sources be about the topic, not just sources that "prove" the individual points Apostle wants to make about "differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims". What was inappropriate about that edit was that it was cherry picked original research, and unhelpful for the building WP. I can do the same thing with golfball dimples. I can easily find sources for the fact that there are between 350-400 dimples on golfballs [75][76][77], but that would be ignoring those that have fewer [78] and those than have more [79]. That's why we need secondary sources to bring it all together for us. Answer for the record: typically 300-500 dimples, up to a max of 1040). Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that some of the commentators here have chosen to focus on the last point I listed (the over representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year) while discussing the fact that many differential outcomes (white people v. people of color) do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege. Was I racist when I referred to the over representation of black females among those who enjoy very high levels of self-esteem, with more positive outcomes (fewer eating disorders, less depression, less suicide) than other ethnic groups? Or was that merely sexist? Was I racist when I referred to the overrepresentation of Japanese, Chinese and Korean students at American institutions of higher learning - or was I merely demonstrating "inter-asian" racism for contrasting them with Laotian and Cambodian students? Perhaps I was stereotyping Ashkenazi Jews (as opposed to Sephardic Jews) for their overrepresentation in the sciences and among Nobel Prize winners. There also seems to be an assumption that I must be white (actually I am multiracial), or that family members victimized by black criminals (the discussion from "Criminal black man stereotype" talk page) were not "people of color" (some are). Lots of assumptions, all intended to paint me as a racist. I am particularly concerned about MastCell's distortion (see above) when he created a quote box that excluded any of my statements that might detract from his apparent intent to portray what I wrote as racist, especially when I wrote about the tragedy of the criminal black man stereotype for the majority of black men who are not criminal.

The fact is I seldom reference personal history on Wikipedia talk pages, despite UsetheCommandLine's efforts to create the opposite impression. When I do so, it is to explain why I might be committed to a certain editorial perspective that relates specifically to article content. As for personal opinions, it seems to me that talk pages are the appropriate place to express such opinions. Almost all of what appears on this page has to do with the sharing of personal opinion. In my opinion, entirely necessary and entirely appropriate, as long as opinion and original research stays out of Wikipedia articles. Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look dude, your rants are getting annoying at this point. I am trying to defend your position, so it'd be helpful to me if you could just go ahead and start backing up your remarks with reliable sources.--v/r - TP 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, as multiple editors and administrators have stated here, the talkpages are not the place for your personal opinions, and that the specific personal opinions you expressed were inappropriate in the context of building this encyclopedia. And no, racism has not been the main argument for why that edit was inappropriate. See above. Anyway, that's my last here. I agree that this should be closed, as no administrator action is required for the moment. Hopefully Apostle12 will take note of the various comments here.Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be assured, S1P1, that I have taken note of the comments here. With regard to my comments on "White privilege" Talk, I could simply have eliminated the last example I gave, and next time I probably will. Even though multiple sources support the facts I offered (e.g.http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/AAs-and-STD-Fact-Sheet-042011.pdf), it seems apparent that truth is no defense here.

In this regard, TParis, I see little point offering reliable sources for each of the points I made. It would not be difficult to do so, but the primary objection seems to be that I spotlighted realities that have negative connotations for certain ethnic groups. If you truly believe backng up my remarks with reliable sources would still be useful (other editors thought not), I will do so. At this point I don't think it even matters that I am indeed a member of some of the ethnic groups affected--as Dennis Brown pointed out, Bill Cosby discovered this unhappy fact when he endured intense fallout after delivering his "Pound Cake" speech. I am surprised that you saw my attempts to defend myself as "rants." In any case, thank you for defending my right to frankly discuss controversial topics here at Wikipedia, even if it riles certain sensitivities. Apostle12 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I concur.

As a rule the problem has not been UTCL. I was an editor at White privilege for over four years, and during that time I encountered only one editor who was more abusive than Apostle12. Besides violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP Apostle12 has shown little regard for WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CANVAS, among others. After a recent RfC/U went nowhere, I decided to take a step back from editing White privilege; frankly I was exhausted from getting bullied.

Personally I think this is a loss. UTCL and I both made a lot of uncontroversial edits (e.g. spelling changes to conform to Standard American English) to help maintain the quality of the article in addition to the ones that drew Apostle12's wrath. But whatever you might think of me and UTCL, it is hardly unthinkable that allowing Apostle12 to continue to violate Wikipedia policy, especially those that are aimed at protecting other users from abuse, will drive good editors from the article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to step in here and mention that I am not siding with or lumping myself in with any of the editors on White privilege. I'm fully interested in collaboration, however. I'm not going to entertain UTCLs accusations that I am sexist for my edits to Male privilege. I have edited numerous articles on wikipedia and I have not treated the topic any differently than other articles. I removed content which was unsourced or dubious, with the intention of recruiting an interested editor to add reliably sourced sections concerning privilege, but UTCL immediately reverted my edits and violated WP:OWN in her actions and language. There is no requirement that I leave poor content in an article until good content is found to replace it. UTCLs actions have been, on the whole, unhelpful and bullying, and she refused to AGF from the outset, or to follow WP policies or common sense, because she immediately characterized me as a sexist without any basis for that claim. For someone like her, who is so concerned with a hostile atmosphere, she sure doesn't mind contributing to it. I have never before had a problem with another editor, or found another editor's actions to be so childish and unprofessional. UTCL epitomizes the angry feminist stereotype. I will copy my most recent post from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine_violating_WP:OWN.2C_and_reverting_removal_of_unsourced.2C_biased_material. to Talk:Male privilege, and I'd appreciate if those involved in this discussion would civilly comment on my suggestions. Thanks,Rgambord (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people who try to bring a POV'd article to the center are the ones most often accused of being "POV warriors" (and other wiki-nasty things) by POV warriors, because they are much more credible and harder to "get rid of" and thus a much bigger threat to the imbalanced status quo at an article than actual POV warriors. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Animate, your comment " Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you." could be construed as calling me a racist, as if my objective is to retain only white people. (That I'm relatively white is already known since I publish my image on my user page.) Am I going to make a deal of it? No. It is called opinion, and in the heat of a discussion and I allow for such things. It is also wildly inaccurate. We retain editors by allowing them to express and discuss freely, without shoving political correctness down their gullets. As long as discussion is focused on the merits of the subject matter and not overtly and intentionally offensive, I'm pretty tolerant of opinions I disagree with if they aren't founded in hate. If you want to run people off the project, the quickest way to do it is to tell people what to say, what to think, and make damn sure they don't color outside the lines. Or insinuate that someone who disagrees with you is a racist.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In no way did I mean to insinuate that you're a racist. I should have stated more clearly that the project has real problems when it comes to outreach to and retention of minorities. What Apostle12 is doing here seems absolutely crystal clear to me, and I was honestly stunned to see more than one administrator defending it. What I was trying to suggest, poorly apparently, was that this situation needed to be looked at in a different way than you were seeing it. I think it was a wonderful opportunity for you to attempt some editor retention. I also think you blew it. That doesn't make you racist, and I reject fully that you have done anything racist here. I also think if you had read all of what Apostle12 wrote and tried looking at it from UTCL's position, you would have had an excellent opportunity to retain an editor. AniMate 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, a comment is accidentally worded so that it sounds much worse than the original intent. I did have to look at your comments twice, but I've seen you around enough that you weren't trying to insult me, it was just worded poorly. The timing was perfect to demonstrate my point, however, that we all word things poorly in our rush to communicate from time to time. Honestly, I don't know his history, but I'm not prepared to take strong action based solely on the diffs presented here. What I do focus on is getting people to overlook simple things, and the comments presented here were not so strong as to demand action. Sometimes, we tend to overreact as a community and push people away by over-policing, and we do this too frequently. Again, I don't have the full history but I saw reason to slow down and have doubt. Perhaps it is so subtle is requires looking deeper, perhaps we are not being as tolerant as we should. I'm not condoning anything, but before we block or topic ban someone, I think we should be damn sure it is the right choice and the only option, and the evidence is more solid than just the diffs presented here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic-ban

Based on the foregoing and his overall record of contributions, I propose to topic-ban Apostle12 from editing in the area of human race and ethnicity, in light of this principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems like a complete no-brainer to me. Apostle12 has absolutely no business writing commentary like this on article talk pages. When somebody posts long screeds on talk pages about how such-and-such an actor is obviously the best actor in the world, it's irritating. When another editor spends volumes on trying to defend their country's ownership of some disputed territory, it's troublesome. When another editor, here Apostle12, uses our talk pages to interlace personal (i.e., arbitrary and capricious) commentary with cherry-picked statistics, without reference to secondary sources (or, given the nature of this topic, ideally tertiary review articles or really high quality academic books), and then lumps all of that together to draw a conclusion that (surprise!) proves that, in fact, there really is a legitimate justification for racism, well, that person should be shown the door. Quickly. If a topic ban will get rid of the problem, fine. If it won't--if this points to an underlying attitude that will simply be perpetuated in other, similar topics, then a block. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone where whoever wants to rant is given a forum and a microphone. We have a purpose: building articles out of high quality sources (and the topic itself will indicate what types of sources are needed). Apostle's editing directly hurts that goal, by 1) demanding an answer, thus transforming a talk page into a waste-of-time battleground and possibly trapping other editors, 2) creating a hostile environment that makes others less willing to contribute, if they know they have to wade through thinly veiled racist crap to actually get to the article. I could imagine a commitment that Apostle12 could give that would make this unnecessary, but me feeding it to him won't work--if he can articulate what was wrong with the aforesaid commentary and specifically state what he won't do in the future, I could see him avoiding the need for this. But, if not, he needs to be stopped, ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Where's the evidence of wrong-doing? I see some borderline comments that I find questionable, but nothing that warrants a topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The personal commentary about his first hand knowledge of how bad black people are has no business on Wikipedia, and he clearly shouldn't be editing in the area. As Qwyrxian said, this is a no brainer. AniMate 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you please provide some diffs where Apostle12 talks about "how bad black people are? If we are to topic-ban someone, there needs to be concrete evidence of wrong-doing.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The best example of the commentary is his story about his family's experience with violent crimes here that apparently justifies the criminal black man stereotype. Stating that non criminal black men they need to emulate stereotypical asians.... if you can't see the problems there, you must be blind. AniMate 00:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for sustained breaching of the required focus on reliable sources and the arguments of reliable sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Apostle12 has a long history of using White privilege as a forum to voice his political viewpoint while choosing words that hurt others. With the addition of racial bias we can see that Apostle12 has not learned from previous warnings and is instead getting bolder. My only question is why none of us proposed a topic ban sooner. (Qwyrxian and A Quest For Knowledge, if you need examples, read UseTheCommandLine's initial post to this thread, and be sure to read all the examples he gives.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The editor has been misusing WP as a platform to air his own positions. "No-brainer" sums it up nicely. Surprised that the proposal is only for a topic ban. I would have supported a community ban. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Defense

I offered no "personal commentary about (my) first hand knowledge of how bad black people are." I referenced the fact that I and several members of my immediate family have been victims of serious violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with deadly weapons, and rape) and the perpetrators were all black males. Some of my ancestors were white, some black, some native American, some Ashkenazi Jews; and various family members are white, asian or, like me, multiracial and multiethnic. The only thing we have in common with respect to the "Criminal black man stereotype" I was discussing is that we have at times been attacked, held at gunpoint, robbed, threatened or raped by black men. As an early participant in the civil rights movement (efforts to expand voting rights in the American South, 1963) I have supported all efforts to end race-based discrimination in the United States and I continue to be committed to racial and ethnic equality in all realms. I do not believe black people are "bad." Quite the contrary, I am an admirer of black culture and its contributions to American life, both in general and the contributions my many black friends have made to my own personal life. I do lament the violent subculture that has taken hold in every American city, beginning with the Black Panthers during the late 1960s and continuing to the present; in this respect I am no different than most black conservatives. At the risk of sounding like Archie Bunker ("Some of my best friends are black"), I have maintained close friendships with blacks since my youth, our children have grown up together, and all of my children and friends know that I am a person committed to judging people solely on the basis of their characters. That said, as I pointed out in my commentary, I have found it necessary in the public realm, where I do not have the ability instantly to assess character, to be wary of black men who present themselves, through dress or demeanor, as members of violent subcultures. This necessary caution does not please me, and I wish it were not so, however I do not think it is racist; my wariness merely represents prudence, learned through long, harsh experience.

When it comes to editing Wikipedia articles having to do with race or ethnicity, I challenge anyone to point up instances of wrongdoing. Even in my editing of controversial articles, like The Black Panthers article I have consistently guarded against any editor who attempts to insert racist content, or who strives to bend the article in a non-neutral direction. Sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with mitigating harsh judgments of the Panthers by adding more supportive material (many Panthers were good people committed to racial justice), and sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with adding sourced material that is highly critical of Panther methods (anti-white rhetoric, criminality and violence).

But, I am getting off-topic. My point is that I am capable, despite certain negative personal experiences and defined perspectives, of editing without racial bias here at Wikipedia.

With respect to the objections UsetheCommandLine originally raised regarding some examples of differential outcomes that would be difficult to attribute to white privilege, I can see that the last example I offered, while true and easily sourced, came too close to that invisible line where offense can be taken. The other differential outcomes might be interpreted as congratulatory of positive black outcomes (high self-esteem among black girls), supportive of positive black outcomes (majority black presence among NBA and NFL players), or more or less neutral with respect to black outcomes - I should have stuck to those.

I do believe it is counterproductive to penalize Wikipedia editors who are willing to discuss racial matters frankly. Apostle12 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss reliable sources and represent them fairly in our coverage. These representations of your experiences are simply not germane. There is nothing there in your experiences for anyone to reply to or comment upon. Your friends, your assailants, your activism, your race, your family's race, are all off-topic (as you note). So long disquisitions on them are bound to be disruptive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - AQFK pretty much sums it up, but I wanted to point out that the editor has supplied a RS that supports some of the comments he's made ([80]). I propose an alternative: this editor is warned to keep his personal opinion to himself and stick strictly to reliable sources which he is required to present at the time of comment on racial topics.--v/r - TP 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they haven't supplied a reliable source for the comments in any way. Precisely the opposite in fact. Exactly as I predicted, they provided a source simply showing that African-Americans have higher levels of STD. But that is exactly like me providing a source for a golfball with 350 dimples... the question is does the source support the notion that there are "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" as claimed by Apostle12? No. In fact the text says the exact the opposite: "While everyone should have the opportunity to make choices that allow them to live healthy lives regardless of their income, education, or racial/ethnic background, the reality is that inadequate resources and challenging living conditions make the journey to health and wellness harder for some, and can lead to circumstances that increase a person's risk for STDs. African Americans sometimes face barriers that contribute to increased rates of STDs" and goes on to list as factors (amongst others) the higher levels poverty, and poorer access to health care of African Americans as compared to other populations. It finishes up with the statement that "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." This source does nothing to support Apostle12's use of the talkage to speak about theories that "the impact of white privilege is less plausible". It says the precise opposite. --Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still. He supports "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" with this source by this line "The quality and consistency of STD care can also be affected by the fact that African Americans tend to use medical care services and treatments less than whites, which research suggests may be partly related to mistrust of the medical system." He is arguing that it is not white privillage, but mistrust of the healthcare system which affects the STD care of African Americans. A counter argument is made in the same sentence, "In addition, research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." But the point he is making is supported by that source.--v/r - TP 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still! It is disingenuous to claim that this sentence is making any claim abou that "white privilege" is less plausible. Why do you think that "mistrust" is there? If it isn't clear enough for you, the article actually spells it out for you "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience" --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After ec: I'm sorry, but that's your own WP:SYNTH about what the author means. Before (edit conflict): Striking oppose. I'm fighting a barely defensible case that I barely believe in on principal grounds and it's just not worth the effort when Apostle12 continues to do the crap we're discussing here. I'll save my efforts for a user who is legitimately interested in the topic and not trying to toe the line while pushing his own agenda.--v/r - TP 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The editor has a COI but has attempted to bring some sources to it, while the personal history and preferences of editors are something that come easily, Apostle12 just went to a great deal of trouble with the 'defense' statement and at least tried to keep personal matters out of it. The subject matter is going to be a nightmare for just about any of our editors. This has gotten the attention of more eyes and as a result might introduce a better atmosphere. Warn Apostle12 as per TParis's suggestion and I second that any controversial (not just racial topics) be backed up with reliable sources pre-emptively and doubly so for contentious material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per TParis. Unquestionably, he has ruffled some feathers and many of his comments leave much to be desired, but I think TP's idea is more likely to have a lasting positive impact here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I will limit myself to saying that I agree with Brad's proposal for a topic ban, and that some of the responses in this thread make me ashamed to be part of this project. We're talking about someone who goes around talking about the criminality of black men and how they should try to act more like Asians. In any reputable volunteer organiation, someone like that would politely but firmly be told that he or she was no longer welcome. But here, the first admin responding couldn't be bothered even to click on the supplied diffs before dismissing the complaint, and the second views this as simply a matter of "ruffled feathers". MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. What he wrote on those talk pages was insanely offensive and the response here is embarrassing and shameful. AniMate 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, it comes down to this. The threat of being called a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot, fascist, elitist, ect has the exact same chilling effect as legal threats. When you use them unrestrained (because some people, maybe even the subject, do deserve the title), then you are biasing Wikipedia to popular opinions. I'm not saying unpopular ones deserve equal attention or weight. I'm saying the OP didn't even both asking for sources and immediately started this thread calling the subject a racist and you've propagated that name-calling. So, Animate, yes, you should be ashamed.--v/r - TP 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein's warning of WP:ARBR&I sanctions to Apostle12 seems appropriate. Various sanctioned users, some subsequently topic-banned, extensively edited articles like Race and crime in the United States. The articles might have been slightly different, but the general drift was the same. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, but mine as well let the proposal run it's course.--v/r - TP 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I agree that terms like racist can be used too cavalierly. But this is a case of "If the shoe fits, wear it." Honestly, can this be taken any way other than racist?

Seriously, which part of this isn't racist? That black men have not met his standard of speaking out against crime, so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety? Or the bit where he says they should "emulate asian men" because their stereotype is "studious reflection and harmlessness."

Yes, he points out that stereotypes don't fit everyone... but he still treats them as valid. That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals and, besides, they should act like another group's stereotype!

I just don't see any way to avoid the fact that this is a racist statement. And it should not be endorsed on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response by Apostle 12

The request for sourcing at time of comment on racial (or other controversial) topics is an easy one to observe. While I am a stickler for sourcing when editing articles, this is the first time sourcing has been requested for Talk comments. Perhaps this should become a WP policy for all Talk commentary. Question: Would it be useful for me to go back and provide reliable sourcing for each of the examples I gave on White Privilege Talk and on Criminal Black Man Stereotype Talk? I can certainly do so, however I suspect it might turn out to be more disruptive than not.

For the record, I have never referenced personal experiences or perspectives while editing any article, especially those having to do with race; at most such experiences have served as a reality check, and the emotions associated with such experiences serve only to increase my commitment to racial impartiality.

There is also no need to relate further personal experiences on Talk if the consensus is that such storytelling is objectionable. I have done so only rarely (UseTheCommandLine mined my edit history to provide examples) and this is the first time anyone has objected. Except for UseTheCommandLine, other editor comments have been positive. I do believe occasional storytelling is a positive endeavor, as long as it is not heavily laden with agenda.

I have observed that legal sanctions against racial commentary have been counterproductive in repressive societies (the former Soviet Union and Singapore come to mind), and those societies tend to make little progress in this area. My personal preference would be for more open dialogue. Apostle12 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to dialogue about race. This is not a blog or a chatroom. This Project is not about your personal opinions of the Soviet Union or Indonesia, or how their societies deal with race, nor is it about your opinions about how black men, or asians, or urban areas, are or should be. The Pedia has a specific mission and your purported autobiographical material, personal observations, and the conclusions that you draw from them (your "storytelling") are getting in the way of it to such an extent that it has wound up here. However this goes, the advice you have received is to discontinue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of how this community sanctions discussion concludes, the conduct at issue here is also within the scope of the discretionary sanctions provision at WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended), that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". On the basis of the talk page contributions linked to initially, which are at least prima facie problematic in the light of the principle linked to by Newyorkbrad, I am issuing Apostle12 with a discretionary sanctions warning as provided for at WP:AC/DS#Warnings. This allows any further potentially problematic conduct to be reported and sanctioned via WP:AE.  Sandstein  10:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was earlier prepared to let this off with a warning, but two factors lead me to see that this is not enough. First, Apostle12 has continued to use this very page as forum for their personal experiences and for arguments that "racial commentary" and "storytelling" should continue. Second, and much more seriously, despite the extensive comments above about the kind of reliable sources required to avoid OR, and promises from Apostle12 that they are stickler for good sources etc etc, the source they have come up with to support their cherry-picked statistic about "white privilege" being less plausible, [81], while confirming the statistic about STDs in African Americans, draws precisely the opposite conclusion from the one Apostle12 was trying to use it for. It is this misuse of sources to make a completely different point, despite extensive and recent coaching that tips me over the edge. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I haven't seen any evidence that would warrant such a drastic sanction as topic-banning. I think that a reminder that talk pages are for improving an article, not for telling personal stories or general discussion should be sufficient. @Apostle12: You've ruffled a lot of people's feathers. While I don't agree with them, the fact is that this is a collaborative enviroment. You have to figure out a way to get along with everyone. If you're saying things that are pissing other people off, stop saying them. Otherwise, you will get topic-banned the next time around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to consistent soap boxing and consistently using his own personal experience for the basis of profoundly negative comments on talk pages. as an aside; I'm generally sympathetic to a very limited amount of off-topic posting if a person has a particularly salient point which may have some possible relevance, but the editors comments are determined from his own limited experiences with little critical analysis. There is a reason why people shouldn't base arguments off personal experience; it's subject to "hidden persuaders" like cognitive bias, hidden variables etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban On all race related topics at Wikipedia, editors with unpopular viewpoints are sanctioned for far less than their opponents are. If Apostle12 is topic banned, he will be another example. He has done much less than what people with the opposite perspective can get away with. For the diffs presented in this thread, Sandstein's warning is enough. Akuri (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The one instance that is being discussed is over eight months old. At this point I believe any sanctions would become punitive, instead we should take him up on his offer of not having any more personal commentary on these articles, and remind him that he should stick to talking about article content. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theropode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making badly formatted and promotional edits to OpenMusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) such as [82]. While they cleaned up their latest version, it still feels promotional. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Theropode's edits were promotional. At the contrary they would have brought precious information about the history of CAC and OpenMusic software, which many people wonder about and can not find anywhere else. 81.64.238.62 (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not long after you posted here, they added some info to their user page detailing their connection with IRCAM declaring a potential conflict of interest, which would explain the promotional sounding text. Blackmane (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, User:Biala Gwiazda persisted in edit-warring at Rutgers-Newark by trying to move the page to Rutgers University, Newark and retitling the schools name in the article. I sought third opinion, page protection, and ANI last time and the result of that discussion was that Rutgers-Newark is the right name per WP:COMMONNAME and other policies. Apparently, despite just warning him on his talk page that further attempts to rekindle an edit-war would be reported and to advise him to seek a consensus at the talk page, the user seems to want to get back into edit-war. Request administrative assistance to "nip this in the bud" once and for all.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, after looking at the user's contributions, this is his recent return to editing after the edit-war concluded in mid-March (SEE: [83])--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in question: --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At 00:07, 9 April 2013 by Biala Gwiazda [84]
• At 00:33, 9 April 2013 by IP user 71.172.142.178 who I suspect because of the MO is Biala Gwiazda [85]

This user, posing as a PhD student, has been spamming articles with links to en.wahooart.com (a commercial site). After his (presumably) first account was caught, he apparently stopped editing and came up under a new account. For reference see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#A large number of articles need checking and User talk:Drmies/Archive 47#The best way to check all of the articles by an editor. I'll be starting an SPI shortly to look for other socks, but something needs to be done about all the articles at User:Writ Keeper/sandbox and the articles created by Stonex201 and any other accounts. I'd also like to see wahooart.com put on a blacklist (or better yet create an edit filter so we can easily detect future socks). Ryan Vesey 01:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering all of the problems (OR, copyvio, factual innacuracies, etc.) I think our best solution might be to nuke all of his articles and those of his socks. One article made it to DYK after extensive work by other editors, so I assume the nuke function would pass on that one. Ryan Vesey 01:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just cleaned up Mandola (painting). It was bad. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• And I just deleted The Morteratsch Glacier, Upper Engadine Valley, Pontresina as a copyspam of this here. I'm about to block Stonex as an obvious sock: same challenged syntax, same spam link, same (odd) way of doing infoboxes (note the parameters for other languages), same incorrect initial capitals in headings ("External Links", above the "References" section). I'll look at the other two mentioned in the SPI in a minute. I do invite further scrutiny, as well as ideas on what to do with those articles. For me, kunst is een konijn dat kut zegt (as the Dutch might say--well, one particular Dutchman) and I can't judge notability, or whether it's worth keeping and cleaning. Where's IP99 when you need him? Drmies (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Alison458 and Wikipriest78 blocked as well: obvious. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Ryan Vesey: one article (Young Man at His Window) was thoroughly rehabbed and is worthy; a few others have been scrubbed of copyvio and gross errors but what remains is usually negligible (e.g., The Seducer, The Meaning of Night (painting), The Blue Room (painting)). A few of the articles—particularly Gilles painting (sic)—are about works so famous that I'm surprised they didn't already have articles, but in this case the Watteau article actually says more about the painting than the painting's own article does. Eventually somebody may develop some of these stubs but until then these are mere placeholders with (perhaps) too little content to reward the reader's search. Ewulp (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. See also the wahooart favicon. Coincidence? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking at a bunch more, including Christmas in the Brothel (whose incomplete reference points to a source, this), I'm done with this editor. Perhaps their user page is not a lie; if it is true, good luck to Stanford, because one of their graduate students is a sock master, a serial copyright violator, and a spammer. Esp. the copyvios are just too much, and I will block indefinitely. Now, this master hasn't been on in a week or two; should they return they can explain themselves. In the meantime another admin has requested CU for sleepers over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavdiaravish; I hope someone can get to this quickly. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I mean, shit, what program would allow their students to write stuff like this, "is based on Expressionism style by use of painting genre"? Update: Stanford my ass. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marble Directory India. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'all, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavdiaravish. DoRD has found two more accounts, each with a list of similar articles. Not all of them are spam, not all of them are copyvios, but all of them are bad. I'm inclined to nuke them, but the user/master is not currently banned. Any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Nuke them. It's the only way to be sure. I can't say about all of them, but all of the ones I've looked at so far have contained substantial copyright violations. What material isn't copyrighted is of poor quality, in both form and substance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ankushk (talk · contribs)'s contributions are now gone as well. I found evidence for about ten of them, and deleted five more on your advice, so to speak: there is no doubt that all these contributions are tainted. You decide on what you want to do with the ones in that sandbox of yours, but leave Christmas in the Brothel--that's mine now, and User:Mandarax will turn it into a DYK, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, I'm going to let the ban discussion sit for a little bit to gather some more comments. Assuming no dissent, I'm then going to go through the list and delete anything that a) hasn't had significant contributions by other editors (so y'all's stuff will be safe) and b) hasn't been stubified. Not all of it is showing up on a quick Google search, but at this point, all of the stuff with decent grammar has read as if it came straight out of some other book, and I have little doubt that that's in fact what happened, probably from the very books that have been listed as sources. No doubt that the OP thought citing the source makes the wholesale copying okay; it does not. (As an aside, what's in my sandbox now is really more Ryan's show than mine, but I'm going to use it for this anyway.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ban discussion

I just looked at the contributions of Amritj12 (talk · contribs). If you have that powerful admin tool in your pocket or thereabouts, have a look: I deleted all of their contributions as blatant, and I mean absolutely BLATANT, copyvios. I would like to see a ban, de facto and de jure and de rerum naturae, so we can (more) easily delete the many contributions by this editor and their socks. Having placeholders is one thing (personally, I feel it's a very good thing), but all of them would have to be pruned for spam and copyvios, and by keeping the articles, and the master's name, we're in fact rewarding them for breaking the rules. And sheesh, these are just bad, bad copyvios. Know how you can tell if one of their sentences isn't copied from a book or some art site on the bad? Cause they can't write English worth a shit. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as above. All of the articles I've looked at (ones by Ankushk) so far contain significant copyvios. It's pretty easy to tell the difference, as Drmies said: in these articles, it would appear that a sentence is grammatically correct if and only if it is a copyright violation. (Plus, a ban would let me reclaim my sandbox.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Writ, can you make an edit filter so we can discover any new instances of wahooart being used as an external link? I think that would be the best way to catch future socks. Ryan Vesey 18:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per all the above. Ryan Vesey 18:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I noticed a malicious anonymous edit on the OpenMusic page (aggressively stating a "hijacking" of another software) and I tried to get things objective and serene by writing a very detailed history of the generations of composition software at ircam and the way they have influenced each other (PatchWork was influenced by many preceding softwares, had some influence on OpenMusic, which created its own new ideas and influenced in turn PWGL which is another descendent of PatchWork, so there's no point in diffusing hatred, all these are great musical softwares with their own qualities and everyone builds up on preceding history) However this detailed history was reverted because it was perceived as promotional. So in the last version, which is rather minimal, I just removed the malevolent and aggressive edit (the hijacking stuff), as well as the promotional-like material for PWGL that had been introduced by the same anonymous person. So the page is short again, but it is objective and free from aggressivity and hatred. These aggressive or promotional edits had been introduced by 91.135.3.132 then by 83.156.246.215.

Theropode Theropode (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theropode (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy. Cite some sources for the information you know. The promotional tone can and should be stripped down to the plain facts, but to revert everything you did was probably a bad idea. The only problem I can see, even if you do not agree, is that you did not cite where you got the information from. Do this and your edit will be fine... its an improvement, but we just want it to be cited. Though this revert seems heavy handed as even a cursory glance shows that the edit was not entirely promotional, and it was inadvertent.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – I unblocked

Can we get an admin to review a unblock request. I initially filed a vandalism only report which I withdrew [[86]]] on a user as it was stale and the disruptive behavior had stopped completely. I guess i didn't withdraw in time so he was blocked indefinitely. Well it's been over 24 hours and no admin has reviewed his block so I would like an admin to visit his page. I am alerting the blocking admin to this conversation but there is no issue with his conduct here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the user per your comment. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading an article that has 'pen15 pen15' added in for no reason, which is l33tspeak for 'penis'.

I undid their change from today, notified them and posted this. I'm not Wikipedia savvy, but took the time to alert in case there are further actions to be considered.

This is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavski%27s_system

The offending editor is: IP address 24.179.217.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.207.190 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing to revert the vandalism, and to notify the vandal, but there's really nothing else to be done now - except that I'm going to back up your comment there with a more formal warning. No admin is going to block a first-time editor for their first edit, even if it is clear-cut vandalism, which this was, so there's no particular need to file a report here.

In the future, if you run across an editor who is vandalizing multiple pages, it's best to file a report at the AIV noticeboard, and an admin will take care of it there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – blocked by Master of Puppets  7  06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary looks like a legal threat. The user is becoming disruptive at any rate. Please look into it. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats are generally threats of bringing another editor to court. However, threatening to alert people to the authorities is certainly not welcoming. I'm going to try to leave him a message on his talk page explaining why his edits have been problematic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to block for 3RR on Battleship, but they've been indeffed...  7  06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to shorten/reconsider the block if the user retracts (what I see) as a potential legal threat. For now, they're staying indeffed. m.o.p 06:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the last two edits. Virtually identical and incompetent "assessments" of the two films as box office "bombs". Not competent to begin with, IMHO. Doc talk 06:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did "what you people are doing is illegal,i will have to report you for tampering evidence" become a legal threat? I thought this was just an empty threat and "legal threat" meant using litigation as a threat to get ones way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any threat that implies legal action (in this case, reporting us for doing something 'illegal') is a legal threat. We are not here to judge whether or not said threats are empty. m.o.p 06:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

57 edits; and five of them have had to be completely redacted. Probably only because they were just too damned good to be included. Archive this one. Doc talk 06:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All contributors involved have been notified (except me, I sorta know that I've put this here already!) Humblesnore (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]