Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Inappropriate responses to socks

This ANI is being opened in order to call attention to recent responses to sockpuppetry in the A/I and I/P topic areas that are potentially disruptive or that run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. It's universally acknowledged that the A/I and I/P topic areas suffer more than any other topic area on Wikipedia from intense daily sockpuppet incursions into articles, discussion pages, and user talk pages. These socks vote at AfDs, edit war, provoke flame wars, and generally interfere with the healthy functioning of the Project. The problem, though, is that sometimes users' responses to sockpuppets can be nearly and even more disruptive. Below are some specific incidents:

Deleting Discussion page comments ([1])

It will sometimes happen that a sock will initiate a discussion parallel to a content dispute at an article. Another user will engage the sock under the impression that he's an innocent anonymous IP contributor. Later, though, certain clues will alert the registered user that the IP is a sock, whereupon he will delete all the comments, including his own. Meanwhile, though, the dialog will have attracted the involvement of other contributors such that deleting the preceding conversation interrupts the flow of the page.

A query at the Help Desk ([2]) suggested it may be best to simply leave the discussion intact.

Deleting or striking out Talk page comments ([3])

Other times the sock will be active at a user's Talk page – not necessarily posting vandalism in the strict sense, though WP:BAN does suggest that there's no difference. Ordinarily, users aren't supposed to edit each other's Talk pages beyond leaving comments on them. Can ordinary users edit the comments of socks at other users' Talk pages without the Talk page owner's consent?

Personally attacking socks ([4])

The worst problem is when a user will lash out at the sock with vituperative insults. In the case cited directly above, the attack was prior to the sock's formal conviction. Is it alright to personally attack a sock while an investigation into his identity is pending? Is it alright to personally attack a sock after his identity has been confirmed?—Biosketch (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's socks of blocked users you are talking about, they are of course not allowed to edit anywhere. I would remove threads started by such users also. In your example above, the only one to respond to the discussion started by the sock, was the person who ultimately removed the whole thread. I don't see a problem with that. Of course, when multiple people have answered, it is often better to not remove the thread.

As for the personal attacks, of course it's not alright to attack socks, per WP:NPA, whether it is before or after confirming their identity. I hardly consider calling someone compulsive and unethical an attack though. It's certainly not the nicest thing to say, but unless it was a completely baseless assertion, we generally don't have such a low threshold for invoking WP:NPA.--Atlan (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I may need to move Biosketch to my naughty list of the many editors in the I-P conflict topic area who apparently seek to protect and facilitate the actions of sockpuppets that do so much damage to the proper functioning of the topic area through the use of deception. As I tried to explain on my talk page, there is in my view a rather important difference between objective evidence based statements of fact using terminology that conveys accurate information and evidence-less derogatory personal attacks. There is also a difference between the set of legitimate contributors here to build an encyclopedia based on policy and banned users who cannot be here and cannot do or say anything and a difference between legitimate editing and meatpuppeting for sockpuppets. It seems to me that Biosketch cannot recognise when I make personal attacks probably because I don't make them. They would look quite different from the entirely accurate comment I made on Nableezy's page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that the examples Biosketch gave are all about socks supporting one side of the I-P conflict? DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@SH: Although I agree with what you are getting at, the tone of the comment was close enough to a middle finger that you shouldn't do it. It only served to foster the battlefield mentality and bait the guy. If another editor raised an eyebrow at it, it shows that it caused some unneeded waves. Consider ow much easier it would have been if you would have not made the comment at all. Getting a lecture on decorum from me. Yeah, that must be getting a snicker.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded waves indeed. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill and is way too much attention Ledenierhomme deserves.--Atlan (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the particular sock (Ledenierhomme) that I made a comment about cannot be characterized as simply as supporting one side of the I-P conflict. They have broad areas of interest, part of which involves advocating on behalf of the State of Israel, but that is really neither here nor there. A sock is a sock. @Cptnono, a lecture on decorum from you is fine. I take your point but I disagree. What I do in the topic area can't depend on Biosketch's eyebrow movements. I considered simply deleting the sock's comment immediately since it was clearly cynically made to influence a discussion about the overturning of the unjustified indef blocking of an editor who had identified the sock and had them blocked on several occasions. I decided to leave it be, provide context and contact an admin to implement a range block. I've done it again for the same sock since then. This guy will not stop unless everyone helps to make him stop. I'm not fostering a battlefield mentality. Like many others in the topic area, he already has a battlefield mentality. I'm not a combatant in a battle, I'm an editor trying to stop sockpuppetry, one of the main catalysts for conflict and disruption in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch; nothing there looks problematic, simply normal responses to socks. What specific administrative action are you requesting? (otherwise this should probably be closed for WP:DENY reasons, no need to give these socks another platform) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - these are standard responses to sockpuppets. It's standard practice to remove material added by socks in order to discourage them from returning under a new account (as by removing the material it means they've wasted their time writing it). Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX (talk · contribs), the lack of names in my original message was deliberate: no action is being sought against a particular editor. Perhaps I ought to have mentioned that a Talk page discussion preceded the filing of the ANI here. I felt that I and another contributor weren't seeing eye-to-eye vis-a-vis Wikipedia's policies and brought the matter to this noticeboard for Admin input to avoid unnecessary friction. (Appealing to RfC did occur to me, but that process is intended for resolving content disputes, not policy ones, and anyway the issue involved more than just a single incident or a single editor and seemed to me to have wider implications.) If the bottom line is that it's fine to delete or strike out comments made by socks, regardless of the circumstances, and that calling a sock "compulsive" and "unethical" doesn't constitute a derogatory comment, then I'll raise no objection to this ANI being closed.—Biosketch (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa (talk · contribs), I don't know the answer to your question. I've become somewhat familiar with the Drork sock owing to a number of articles and discussions he's contributed to lately where I was also involved, but I'm not acquainted with the one that left the comment on Nableezy's Talk page. If you're concerned that I'm pursuing this ANI because of bias on my part, even though I don't agree the concern is valid WP:COI may require that I disclose that, for reasons that are too complex to get into here, I do have certain sympathies toward Kurdish people and some of their separatist struggles against the Turks, Syrians and Iraqis. I only mention this because the sock at Nableezy's page edited from an IP in Kurdistan (or at least that's what I remember someone saying; the WHOIS places him in North America, so maybe I've gotten mixed up). But if this had been an anti-Israel sock, I think I'd be protesting with equal vigor. Understand, it isn't just the fact that it's a sock being called names and having his comments deleted from a user's Talk page. I think that personal attacks should have no place on Wikipedia no matter what the circumstances are. And if an anti-Israel sock were to leave a comment on my Talk page, then yes, I would like to be the one to decide how to address him and not have a random editor with a personal vendetta to settle come and make changes to my Talk page without consulting me first.—Biosketch (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Atlan (talk · contribs), thank you for the succinct reply. Actually, upon further contemplation, I can kind of see how calling a sock "compulsive" and "unethical" would not qualify as a personal attack (although those words do still meet my threshold for "Derogatory comments," a la WP:NPA): a sock is by definition unethical, and one who makes repeated and frequent appearances over an extended period is demonstrating compulsive behavior. That matter aside, however, I do have one other question. When you say you would remove threads started by socks of banned users, does that mean they must be removed? If one editor demands that comments by a sock be removed from a discussion but another editor insists that they remain, does policy favor the demand of the first editor?—Biosketch (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I said blocked users, not banned. There is difference. Anyway, just try to apply WP:DENY with some common sense and this should never be an issue.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), as the user who was instrumental in facilitating my transition from an IP editor to a registered account back in the Mairead Corrigan days, your perspective matters to me. You are the one who instilled in me the importance of deferring to what WP:RSes say even when one's own intuition instructs one otherwise. That's been a valuable principle that continues to guide my contributions to the Project. So when you say I'm in danger of slipping into your Naughty list, I don't dismiss that criticism lightly, even though sometimes it's a sentiment that's also worked the other way, I have to admit. But if you think that soliciting advice from Admins when there is reasonable fear that Wikipedia policies are being undermined is naughty, then perhaps you need to consider that your Naughty system is flawed. I don't think you're approaching this issue from the right angle. There's no question that socks shouldn't be editing or otherwise influencing the edits of other contributors. You seem to have formed the impression that I condone sockpuppetry, though I have been nothing but unequivocal in my condemnation of it. But look what happened at Majdal Shams. The sock made a comment on the Discussion page, another user replied to him assuming good faith, and the end result was that the Etymology section was changed by registered users in good standing – that is to say, the article was improved. In a case like that, why delete the conversation that started it all from the Discussion page? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it there for future reference? And like I asked User:DeCausa, if a sock leaves a comment on my Talk page, shouldn't I get to decide what becomes of it once it's already there? Lastly, on the matter of the personal attack, your explanation wasn't clear on your Talk page. It sounded more like it was issuing from a place of vindictiveness than from Wikipedia policy. Not every sock is compulsive. You can't expect me to have known the Nableezy sock's psychological profile like that. And regarding the "unethical" comment, you should have just said that socking is ipso facto unethical, in which case pointing out that it's unethical was merely stating the obvious.—Biosketch (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is actually banned (not merely blocked), then any edits made by that editor since the ban are subject to removal on-sight, as per this:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, help!

I don't know is this the right place, but here it is. I have a problem with user Nedim Ardoğa regarding the List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent. Now, this problem can be seen as a "Content dispute", but it isn't. IMO, we are talking here about WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Now, all of mine 'good faith' is now 'gone with the wind', and I need professional help from Administrators. From the first day when I started editing this article (I left him a message on his talk page and the article didn't have any inline citations), I was constantly "sabotaged", although I informed user of any significant changes (edits, Peer review, changes and submission to FL). I have removed almost everything from the article which he has asked me on the talk page. I also left the article some time without any edits from my side (I only used talk page for discussion). On the talk page, his answer was this, and he left me editing. After I have informed user of submission to FL, he started edit war, IMO only to disrupt possible FL status of this article. Now, I am frustrated! What should I do? I can't solve this even with the quality sources, per his reply on the talk page "...But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable..." Please, can somebody look the talk page of this article, and give me some solution to this problem. All my talk has no effect, and while I am trying to improve the article the best I can, he is acting like an administrator who approves some of mine edits, and deleting unacceptable ones (per his opinion, not per sources). He is acting as the owner of this particular article, and he disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (I guess that I should have asked for his permission to start editing, since just notifying him wasn't sufficient). Now, I am long on Wikipedia, but this is mine first encounter with 'Administrators' noticeboard', so please excuse me if I have made any procedural errors while doing this complaint. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First thing, no, you have not made any procedural errors when bringing this issue here. Secondly, without reviewing the various histories of the article(s) or the user talkpage, it appears that you have not exhausted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes; you may suggest Wikipedia:Mediation in the dispute, or request a Wikipedia:Third opinion, both to try and initiate a resolution between the two of you editors, or you might try a Wikipedia:Request for comment at the article talkpage to try and get further third party opinion on the validity of your edits and the removal of same by the other party. Only when dispute resolution is either exhausted or when one party does not follow the consensus arrived at during the dispute resolution process should Admin intervention be considered - because admins cannot act to resolve content disputes, but only conduct concerns. Until it becomes apparent to other, uninvolved, parties that there are WP:OWNership issues, or other possible policy and guideline violations, there is little admins can do (except where such actions are obvious abuse). I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard for your reply, but the user showed all "Signs of disruptive editing" per WP:DE. I acted exactly per instructions on WP:DDE.

• 1. First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor - I assumed good faith and I didn't attack the author.
• 2. If editor unreverts - none sourced information did appear from his side, yet he reverted. I ensured that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted at the article talkpage.
• 3. If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information - he continues reverting the article with only his opinion as a tool (with no sourced information whatsoever), nevertheless I suggested a compromises at the talkpage and showed will for discussion. BTW, he openly speaks of this article as his own and. After I stoped editing, and only tryed to solve the problem, he refused. After I start editing and made the submission to FL, he started again. Per this final point, I reverted and requested an administrator help via this ANI.--Kebeta (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this was a content dispute, I am sure that he would discuss the problem thru the end, as that is in his interest. Also it's interesting that he mostly engaged in slow edit war at two occasions: when I made a request at peer review, and when I made submission to FL. Now, if he continues, I guess he will get what he want - to disrupt progress toward improving an article (FL in this case) and maybe drive me away from this (his) article. Thanks anyway for your time!--Kebeta (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I have not reviewed the article history in depth so I do not know if the page is habitually edited by other contributors. What I am suggesting is that you ensure that this is not an issue between two editors, but a question of compliance with editing guidelines by bringing in other viewpoints. Requesting a RfC is an obvious way of garnering more opinions and, if this then stops being a struggle between two people, may lead to an agreement on how future editing may be conducted. Only when this or a similar approach has failed to resolve the issue should the matter be brought here, because the only think an admin can do that other editors cannot is block an account or protect the article - and doing so as a first resort may aggravate a party to a degree that they evade the block to continue their behaviours. It is unfortunate that good faith editors are required to exhaust such options before a possible bad faith account can be dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard, I will request a RfC if he continues (which may be tomorrow or in a month). I do hope that he will present some sources than, instead of his opinion only. Anyway, I do not wish you to block this editor or to protect the article, I only wish to continue normal editing. Thanks for help!--Kebeta (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am accused of sabotaging an article. This accusation is clearly a defamation. I have created about 400 articles and my total no of edits is over 16000. I was involved in many discussions and up to now absolutely nobody accused me of sabataging. Just the reverse, in most cases whenever I feel someting is wrong with an article I prefer to warn the editor instead of editing myself. And now what makes this editor calling me a saboteur ? Maybe I should point out that I started the article The basic idea, design, the table as well as the images of the opponents and the duration table were created by me. Kebeta contributed by adding some sources, campaign routes and symbolic images in the table. I thanked Kebeta for these. And than Kebeta began adding some opinions (by coloring) which clearly contridict with the historical facts. I reverted these incorrect information and I explained the reason. But still Kebeta keeps adding these opinions. I am sorry to see the issue is brought here. But I want to see an article created by me is free of incorrect opinions. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Kebeta, when two editors dispute the validity of content or the source then there are steps that can be taken - all of which involve getting other, outside, opinions. It is as wrong for one editor to refuse to allow content from another contributor as it is wrong for a contributor to insist that their content is included; consensus must prevail. Further, and this also relates to the other point raised by Kebeta, there is no allowance for the fact that one editor may be the major or only previous contributor to an article - all edits that are policy complaint are allowable and only reference to policy and guideline may be the grounds for rejection or acceptance. Preferences in style, layout and anything else must all ultimately come second to consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as I understand with Nedim's some edits like 1, 2, 3 Nedim believed in the invincibleness and unbeatableness of Suleiman I. I think that my many Ottomanphile friends find the term defeats something difficult (I don't know whether Nedim is Ottomanphile or not.) and changed Suleiman's military defeat to Sulaiman's military failures with using reliable soruces (Even with Turkish sources. I can also give sources for "Suleiman's military defeats". For example Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay, Feodalite ve Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Üretim Tarzı, p. 358..... As long as I know, no scholar claims Suleiman's military victory at these battles/seiges. But Nedim insistently continued his edits without showing any sources and moreover he removed reliable sources 3. I recommend Nedim to edit with showing sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

IP personal attacks

An IP, 82.41.92.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been attacking me (see [6] & [7]) in response to my reverting his vandalism. He also attacked Thecheesykid after he also reverted. ([8]) Would an admin please take appropriate action? WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiPuppies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You have still failed to provide any evidence that this is vandalism. Your itchy edit finger has put you in the wrong, now you are attempting to abuse a biased disciplinary system to cover up your own mistake. These 'attacks' as you call them, were a request for such justification. Way to propagate the stereotype of totalitarian information control. "Wikipedia : The encyclopaedia any mindless puppet with no sense of individuality can edit" more like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.92.182 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd bothered providing a reference, a link, or something to show the actual team name, instead of just snapping out "you fascists" because your unreferenced edit got reverted, this conversation would be unnecessary. Dong ma? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read this page before 'requesting justification'. WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced edit got reverted to another UNREFERENCED EDIT. As I originally stated, if I had been asked for a citation instead of met with this arrogant wall of superiority, maybe this discussion would not be necessary. And do you even understand what an attack is? I've said nothing offensive or degrading, I have merely remarked upon your actions. If I was to say "hey, you're an idiot" That would be an attack. Observing that your uncompromising approach to a situation regarding information you have no grounding in is akin to that of a totalitarian government? That is just relaying an opinion. But hey, you guys obviously have no interest in considering evidence. Crying to administrative boards because you screwed up. And I no longer have any interest in attempting to contribute to a farce of a community that operates on a shoot-first-never-ask-questions policy. So I guess everyone wins here. Oh, apart from those wanting accurate information. But I guess no one really cares about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.92.182 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

...Leaving a NPA warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, attacks are more than what you gave as an example. Things like 'fascist' are enough to be considered attacks on Wikipedia. Again, please read this page before replying. WikiPuppies! (bark) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipuppies - The IP editor does have somewhat of a point. WP:BITE applies here, in that several people including you seem to have assumed bad faith rather than ask them politely for a citation.

I agree that the contribution makes me skeptical, but unless it is clearly vandalism (and this one is not, imho), you're supposed to constructively try and engage first.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on Dare 2011, there is no "Team Stupid Head" nor anyone developing games for the Atari Jaguar. I'll add the citation to the press release with the team details and if Captain BadEdit keeps at it I'll keep fixing his clearly deliberate attempts at trolling. Hyperspacey (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to make doubly clear, I think this editor needs to be singled out for particular special treatment for both making "bad faith" edits and trying to make a scene by claiming he's some poor, put-upon Wikipedia martyr. Hyperspacey (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jasonstackhouse.com legal threat

Threat to sue editors here and here by Divinhighbird. Article currently CSD'd and the creator made several blatant personal attacks on the talk as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked them indefinitely. That was some foul language. That article, I deleted it before as a hoax, borderline vandalism. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I found his grammar and spelling to be entirely amusing, with interesting rhythmic devices that seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor...so there were at least a couple of redeeming features. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, that is a very astute reading. It's original research and as such we can't allow it in article space, but you have a future as an English major. I'm going to give you a sticker, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is some good to everything. The creator even made their own blog entry with the text, citing "Wilipedia" in the title as the reason they were making it; to disprove a hoax.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good block - and a hilarious read. Their only other edit, a deleted item on Deion Sanders, makes clear their intentions on the project. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I love "deformation of character" - obviously a flexible chap -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the full quote, "delete the post, and have your non profit company get ready for a deformation of character/minority subjective, and racially specific law suite filed. Please delete this, I dare, you." No one has dared yet. But I just have to ask this: Is it technically a legal threat if the guy doesn't speak English and might just be reading from the Hungarian Phrase Book? "law suite" sounds like something they might put on sale at the furniture store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a law suite is, but I hope the documents will be made public and include many grafts and statistices for our edifaction. I like visual AIDS. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

These suites look pretty nice. This character looks fairly deformated. Meanwhile, somewhere, Norm Crosby's ears are burning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of how he was the CEO of his blog. Can I be the Senior Executive Vice President in Charge of Canadian Operations for Wikipedia? Resolute 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got my vote, eh! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hereby appoint myself to the office of Minister of Special Projects and Second Liege of the Wikipedia Shadow Council. Doniago (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that title is taken. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (First liege of the Shadow council)

Problems at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

We have a persistent IP editor, User:24.187.8.149, at Talk:Ayn Rand who seems to be doing nothing but spewing personal insults and allegations of bad faith, and has failed to offer constructive suggestions despite repeated prodding from other editors, including myself. This has gone on for about two weeks now. I will also note that Objectivism related pages are also under an ArbCom ruling, WP:RANDARB, which specifically enjoins admins to help ensure a productive, civil editing environment there. As such, at this point I think a 24 hour block is in order. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is in fact Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Paul B (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm a moron. Sorry :/ TallNapoleon (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a number of different 24.* IPs which are too far apart to rangeblock. (Different /16 ranges). They look to be the same person. In my opinion, the only admin action that would do any good would be semiprotection of the talk page for some period of time, say one month. If the IP wants to continue theorizing about Ayn Rand they should create an account. WP:NOTFORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't theorizing about Ayn Rand, the IP is engaged in a content dispute about the article's tone. His/her own tone is careless and insulting, so a warning or block is fitting. There's no need (yet) to semi-protect the talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual Mediation freezing an article in place for 14 months

This nonsense has imo gone far enough. I'd like to bring up the issue of the perpetual RfM on the Draža Mihailović article. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic was started on 6 April 2010, exactly 14 months ago. While I will not here go into the reasons behind the length of the mediation, its failure is, in my opinion - self-evident. The mediation is incapable of drawing any conclusions or of any dispute resolution. Its only product was an article draft written by one user - unfortunately since no agreement whatsoever has been reached on the actual dispute, this draft has virtually nothing to do with mediation, and will certainly not solve any disagreement (which is already all too obvious). While I am sure users will claim that the mediation is "nearing its end", I must point out that this is what was repeatedly claimed several times months ago. And indeed, even were the mediation closed right now perforce, it still would not solve anything, and will have failed anyway.
It is hard to express how utterly useless and pointless the mediation really is: the actual dispute is not even being discussed, and actively avoiding the main issues (the "difficult areas") is the actual policy of the mediator(!)

Realizing that I might well finish medical school before the mediation makes even the most insignificant progress, I withdrew months ago, did the research, gathered the sources, and expanded the article lead with a carefully referenced lead paragraph (see the second paragraph in the lead and its sources, here). I must emphasize that every word of the text in question has been referenced with secondary sources of the highest quality (university publications), and its veracity is essentially beyond any serious dispute. Now, however, the paragraph is being continuously removed by the admin User:Sunray, solely on the grounds of "No major changes until the mediation is completed." [9].

Now, reading WP:M I struggle to find where exactly is it explained how an RfM and its mediator, are empowered to edit-war and remove any changes at will, without any coherent explanation, sources, or even a talkpage post? And even if this is the mediator's perrogative (which I am certain it is not), since the mediation started the article in question has been edited beyond recognition - and only the recent edit, the addition of a single paragraph, is being subjected to double standards and apparantly constitutes "major changes". The edit is now essentially being edit-warred out of the article by the mediator.

Could it be that an RfM has the authority to effectively freeze an article in place for no less that 14 months, and is it possible that the mediator gets to pick and choose which edits (by non-involved editors) are "allowed" in the article. This feels to me like I'm being bullied. In any case, more admin attention is undoubtedly required on the recent happenings in that damnable article.

(P.S. Bear in mind User:FkpCascais, my "arch-nemesis", is likely to stalk me over here and attempt to disrupt this discussion.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• First, the mediation has found much difficulties, correct, however every offer of discussion assistance has been provided to you by the mediator (User:Sunray) who has been more patient with you than with anyone else. Even so, you rejected participating further in the mediation. The mediation is actually coming to a closure. Is that the reson of some aprehension on your side? Anyway, I don´t see any reason whatsoever for you to proclaim unilateraly the mediation as a failure.
• Second, it is important to remind all here that the version "frouzen" was actually the one that you mostly edited, and that was so much disputed by the side against you (should we go to the edit history to check it?). Is all this recent panic actually because you are about to see "your" version replaced by the mediated one?
• Third, all mediation participants (including you) agreed that during the time of the mediation duration, no major changes were to be done on the articles in place. As I remember you so enthusistically reverted every single user on that article that made edits you disliked (even sourced and correct). Now, for some strange reason you find yourself with the unique right to edit it. Wrong. Clear WP:OWN.
• Fourth, you actually edit warred on the main mediated article the mediator itself!
• Fifth, you got me sanctioned recently [10], without a notice about the report (something you often do), and where you manipulated so much the administrator that he didn´t even noteced that you broked the 3RR: [[11]]. I really hope someone corrects this situation.
• Sixth, you give up mediation, and you try to push the precise diputed edits which you refuse to discuss under mediation. Either you discuss them under mediation, either they are disruption and POV pushing. Other users refrained to edit the articles until the discussion is complete, so should you. You even tryied to convence me (!?) to leave the mediation [12]
• Seventh, it is incredible to notece how you are even unaware that you fail under BRD on the edit war you are doing against the mediator. You push the dit, you are revrted, and you edit war and ask Sunray to discuss?

Here is just another exemple of your recent behavior: revert with prejurative edit summary, and the discussion afterwords. Similar or identical pattern is seen everywhere DIREKTOR has a dispute, however he just slowed down in this case because he is counting on Timbouctou for support in some other edits, so he just backed down. However, this is a tipical exemple of blatant disruption where, without that users intervention, DIREKTOR would have created nonsensical eternal discussions making all possible (and impossible) claims, allways reverting to his version.

Resumingly, he leaves mediation that actually started because of his edits, he edit wars everyone who oposes him including the mediator, he blatantly missinforms admins on reports including failing to provide noteces (me and Sunray previous reports are clear exemples), and he refuses to put his edits trough mediation, beside the fact that he clearly disrupts the mediation. I mean, what else? FkpCascais (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, well the "No major changes until the mediation is completed" edit summary was a bit of a joke (not the funny kind), as I quite frankly don't see much mediating going on. A 14-month mediation would be kind of absurd even it was an active discussion, but it appears that that page has only seen minor fits and starts in the time period. 3 of the 8 parties are inactive, a 4th has withdrawn, IMO it is time to mark the mediation as failed and move on. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is not a complaint against User:Sunray specifically. In my opinion the mediation was focusing too much on user agreement and too little on the facts and sources, as I pointed out several times: one cannot solve a factual dispute without promoting a careful adherence to references. I do not doubt, however, that Sunray's actions were in good faith, and his commitment to this issue is beyond admiration. I guess it is possible to be "too good" of a Wikipedian to solve a dispute, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Mediation Committee is considering this complaint, and will respond when we reach a consensus. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the admin User:Sunray is still edit-warring to remove the paragraph [13], this time with no stated reason (as opposed to "no major changes until the mediation is completed"). The text in question is sourced completely and in detail. It is the result of literally months of work on my part: I researched the matter, found the sources, and inserted the information quoted almost verbatim from high-quality references. Now it is being removed for no reason; I cannot imagine what has posessed Sunray. I invite anyone to check the sources (the second lead paragraph). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, missinforming. The main problem is not your source (you repetitively use just 2 sources that favour your POV and ignore all the others), but it is a matter of WP:UNDUE. You are refusing to go trough a mediated discussion where that can be solved. A non-mediated discussion with you has been prooven as useless every time in the past. Only a mediated discussion can solve this. The situation is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am using two sources, among the best ones available, which is more than enough. One source is enough. There are no "other sources" I am ignoring, because most other sources agree with the two, and NO other sources disagree. Your acting as though there are these mysterious "other sources" which support you is getting rather ridiculous. You have been asked time and time again to post anything, anything at all. You just keep acting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually comment at ANI during a mediation, but since DIREKTOR left the mediation following his topic ban and is now making many accusations, I will clarify one point: I do not edit war. I did restore the stable version of the article (reverting DIREKTOR's major addition). The tags on the article clearly caution editors as follows: "Before making substantial changes, please verify on the case page that your edit does not relate to the dispute being mediated." DIREKTOR'S addition did relate to the issues under mediation and he did not discuss it. An edit war seemed to be brewing over this, so the article has now been locked. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you must certainly be aware that such a moratorium has no basis in policy, and there is no way you can enforce it from on high if it's not kept voluntarily. You were edit-warring, and went right to 3R. One more, and 3RR would have been held against you, just like with any other editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As a personal comment, I have to agree with Future Perfect that it was unseemly for Sunray to try to enforce the parameters of a formal mediation case by reversion. Formal mediation is never binding, and members of the Mediation Committee have almost no authority to force the parties to a case to respect any consensus, or even to abstain from editing the article pending discussion or an agreement. I do understand why Sunray reverted Direktor today. The edits by Direktor were grossly disruptive, because consensus for or against his view is very plainly still being formed, and to jump the gun by revert-warring is unprofessional. But I cannot condone the actions of anybody concerned here, and confess myself somewhat disappointed. On a practical note, I have protected the article indefinitely, pending some kind of consensus being reached, because I do not imagine that this kind of behaviour will not be repeated. I think the best way forward now would be for the mediator and all the parties to return, calmly, to the mediation page and pick up where they left off. AGK [•] 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• This comment, unlike my own one immediately above, is made in my capacity as the Chairman and representative of the Mediation Committee. We are disappointed that Direktor has vacated the mediation proceedings, and is re-entering the disputed material into the article. The purpose of mediation is to resolve disputes about article content, where discussion and other dispute resolution has failed. We remind Direktor that, although he is not obliged to participate in mediation, he is required by site policy to discuss all contested changes. Mediation is an effective form of dispute resolution if the parties engage in the proceedings with professionalism and an openness to compromise, and Direktor is invited to resume his participation in the case. But if Direktor is opposed to mediation, then he invariably must find some other way to establish a consensus in support of his changes.

  In relation to Direktor's complaint about the mediation proceedings being unsatisfactory, the Committee has examined the progress of the mediation proceedings, and finds that it is satisfactory. Progress on the case has admittedly been slow, but that is to be expected with a dispute as complex as the one in question. We note that, thanks to the professional approach of most of the involved parties and the patient, structured approach of Sunray, the mediator, there has been a substantial degree of progress made so far. A re-write of the article is being finalised on the case talk page, which is an enormous achievement in itself. Furthermore, the re-write will be put to the community in a request for comments in the near future, which would be a still greater achievement. It would be more helpful if Direktor were to engage in those commendable efforts, than unilaterally continuing to edit war, but it is ultimately his choice. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the entire mediation I would agree. Although it is irritating that it is taking so long to post the mediated article, we are all volunteers and the pparticipants have indeed accomplished a great deal in this vexed and difficult area. After the mediated version is posted - ongoing issues can be discussed on the talkpage - hopefully in a structured way and to some purpose. It was entirely DIREKTORS choice not to continue to participate in the mediation.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, mediation has failed; the only other option is Arbitration, at which point, given the evidence presented by all parties, it would then be up to the Arbitration Committee to take the necessary actions, usually in the form of sanctions, topic bans, and even sitebans. –MuZemike 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As an involved party, and new to mediation procedures (although I appear to have picked a doozy for my first time out), would it be appropriate once we can return to the article to farm out some of the issues to other noticeboards, such as RSN and WQA, rather than pursuing the matter with ARBCOM? I confess I'm not hopeful regardless of venue, and simply curious about the best course to follow here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make my closing comments, if I may.

• Firstly, this is not a complaint against the mediation itself. And not that I disapprove nesessarily, but I myself was very much surprised when the mediation page was blanked. The purpose of this thread was (originally) to inquire as to whether it is a mediator's perrogative to freeze the article and revert article edits of his own choice during the course of an RfM.
• Secondly, even though the article draft is often being cited as some sort of "progress", I must once again point out that it does absolutely nothing to solve any of the disputes the mediation attempted to solve, and as is already the case - nobody opposes the draft, and yet the disputes still continue strong as ever. This is simply because no agreements of any sort have been reached, and the only thing the draft may in fact do, is improve the quality of the non-controversial segments of the article. With that in mind, I fail to see how the draft could not have been written (by essentially one user, as was the case) - without an RfM altogether. Its an admirable piece of work, to be sure, but it does not do anything at all towards settling the conflict. I have frequently appealed to the mediator to center on the very simple question that is the core dispute here.
• Thirdly, the reasoning behind my departure from the RfM was not that it was making slow progress, it is simply that no progress was being made. At all. And this as a result, partly, of the policies of the mediator. As I said, upon my urging to concentrate on solving the actual dispute, the mediator simply urged me to join in writing the article, while avoiding the "difficult areas". Understanding that the draft is not really helping, and that it is impossible to start a real discussion on the main issue, I left. Having invested a year of effort into this, I assure you AGK, I feel no lesser disappointment that you fine gentlemen.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Bizovne at it again....

I have a feeling (ok, it's more than a "feeling", but more on this later) that Bizovne doesn't seem to be bothered by WP rules and policies or thinks that they don't apply to him. If you check his block log you'll see that he's been unblocked 4 days ago and resumed his edits (and also his tactics & schemes) yesterday. He resumed his revert campaign of removing everything that's Hungarian from various articles, especially town names (especially at the Ányos Jedlik articles which seem to be one of his favorites: [14], [15] and [16]). Truth be told this time he's shown some willingness to discuss his reverts by adding some notes to various talk pages. He asserts in these notes that since Hungarian became official in Hungary only in 1867 (which's not true, because it happened way before than that, in 1844), essentially in any articles dealing with events before that date the Slovak term should be used instead (which has NEVER been used officially before 1919 at all). I've tried to explain to him that his asserts are wrong, but he hasn't replied (so far). Instead he just mobilized his good ol' IP socks, namely 195.28.75.114 and 193.87.75.82 to continue the reverts (today) as if nothing would've happened. Therefore I think that he's lacking any willingness of some calm discussion and it's apparent that he won't relent no matter what (after all it's considered to be a weakness by these types which they'd never let to happen). He also seems to use his socks when "necessary" in the "battles" against his "vicious enemies" on WP regardless of the fact that he shouldn't.
There's one more interesting thing about the way Bizovne behaves: when doing his "reverts" he's marked most of them as "minor edits" and stated that he's reverting vandalism, just like Iaaasi did. It's also apparent that at least two of Bizovne's edits ([17] and [18]) were reverts of one of Stubes99's socks, which's also Iaaasi's favorite "hobby" on WP. These two clues seem to point to meatpuppetry..... CoolKoon (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've only added an ANI notice on Bizovne's talk page because the IPs are his confirmed sockpuppets so I didn't feel necessary to add the template on their talk pages as well.

Any possibility of a block? -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The contributions of User:Anguilano.f

Hi. I noted a couple (here and here) of copyright violations by this user. As it turns out, he's also created a whole lot of other pages which appear to be the same. I cannot find the relevant text, which may well actually be in another language (does copyright still apply if directly translated?), however many all of these pages have a "Written by" section which can only really mean it's copied from elsewhere, I'd have thought. (See this, this, this, this too, and this one, and this, yup, more, etc etc etc. They're also very undersourced for the amount of information presented and I'd say need to be re-worked from ground up. Thanks! Nikthestoned 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User account is less than 24 hours old. I hear quacking in the distance... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The quack of a misguided but otherwise productive and well-intentioned duck. Let's keep it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just remembered, an AFLAC agent moved in next door last week... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a copyright issue, yes I saw the written by, but on each link it's exactly the same three authors, same order, and one shares the same name as the account. That looks more like three students working on an article than a copyright issue. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 16:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys & Aliens redux

Resolved

 – User blocked one week for edit warring by Kuru. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive701 § Cowboys & Aliens

Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 48 hours for pushing his draft of the "Marketing" section at Cowboys & Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After he was unblocked, he reverted the consensus-supported draft back to his own. He has been the dominant editor of the film article with over 330 edits. He has failed to comment on the article's talk page and denies that there is a consensus for the draft that I provided. His conduct makes it impossible to edit the article without his permission and goes against the notion that one should expect his contributions to be edited. [EDIT: He reverted another editor and still fails to engage in discussion. It's clear that he is content with edit warring.] Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, on the face of it, but Altitude2010's conduct is troubling. Might not be a bad idea to limit him/her to 1RR for undiscussed edits, if only to force discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And he appears to be edit-warring again over his verson now. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Altitude's Contrib history and the article's edit history, I'd say Altitude has ownership issues, and doesn't want to consider consensus. Still, I'm wondering if this would be better handled at WP:ANEW, considering the back-and-forth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the back-and-forth sufficient for that? I wasn't sure if he was really in 3RR territory because his reverts are spread out. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, 3RR is the "bright line" limit, at which point an editor can be blocked with no questions or commentary required. What I'm seeing here is a "slow-burn" kind of edit war, one that never quite pushes up against 3RR, but is still an edit war by any other name. Maybe a bit more commentary or asking the editor to explain or justify themselves, but the end result may still be the same. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mike and I pretty much submitted reports at the same time. I detailed mine a bit more with Altitude2010's conduct before the block. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that Altitude has been blocked for one week by Kuru. I almost boldly marked this thread as "Resolved", but given Altitude's history, I think UltraExactZZ may be onto something by proposing a 1RR. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I am able to support a 1RR restriction as an involved party, but I think it is a good idea. Some exchange on his talk page shows the possibility of discussion past the stubbornness. It would help for him to discuss with other editors on the talk page (and especially not just me). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and mark this report as "resolved", since Altitude has been blocked for a week for edit warring. If he starts editing tendentiously again, the 1RR proposal can be revisited, along with a (likely) longer outright block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tofaan

This user is vandalizing the article Ghurid dynasty. He has absolutely no qualification in that topic, has an obvious nationalist agenda, and he has no idea what Wikipedia is. This is not constructive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of posting the required ANI notice on Tofaan's User Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The user with the IP-address talk is the one with nationalistic agenda. He edit articles without discussion first on the discussion page. as follow edits have been made by this IP-address user.Here, Here, here, Here, Here, and this one HereTofaan (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The academic sources are absolutely clear on the subject. Authoritative standard reference works on the subject have been cited: Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc. And all of them totally disprove the nonsense by this user. He, on the other hand, is posting YouTube videos (!) as a "counter argument" and insults other Wikipedians. I can't believe that YouTube videos are being used as "arguments" against experts such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth. This gotta be a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to explain to User:Tofaan that unpublished websites do not care as much weight as published sources. Instead User:Tofaan responded with, "Whahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaah, just get lost men. Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!! Your story smells to ignorants.."[19], hardly helpful to the discussion. This was not the last time User:Tofaan would use the term "ignorants".[20],[21]. Along with ignoring the current references in the article, Tofaan has insinuated I was lying about a previous discussion concerning the ethnicity of the Ghurids.[22] I also informed Tofaan if he/she could not remain civil that I would not be participating in the discussion.[23] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just declined an unblock request for Tofaan, they are blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring (I count at least 7 reverts to the article in 24 hours). I looked at their contributions before declining, and there's a serious problem here. I don't think this editor is capable of collaborating with others, their approach to anyone who disagrees is a constant attack. I offered a little advice when I declined the unblock but I just don't have a lot of hope. I think the statement, "he has no idea what Wikipedia is", is the truth. -- Atama頭 21:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

He (self-IDs as male) submitted another unsuccessful unblock request and continues to plead for an unblock, with no sign of understanding why I blocked him and why no one else is overturning that. He just doesn't seem to get it—why what he did was unacceptable, why he's been blocked, etc. If the block runs out and he continues as before, we might just have to block him indefinitely, or at least topic-ban him. I don't see him coming around. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism to article: List of current National Basketball Association head coaches

Resolved

 – Mathematical error, assuming good faith on part of original inserter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone inserted an incorrect entry under the career win% column in the article List of current National Basketball Association head coaches - when I divided 272 into 410 I got .663 NOT .744 as is shown in the article. I couldn't find out who inserted it so I can't provide any links or diffs or notify anyone. Is that vandalism?

--ILikeWatchingFights (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, could just be incorrect arithmetic. – ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff that put the original info in. I've changed the win% to show the correct maths result. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Nation of Gods and Earths

I don't really know whether this is the best forum for this problem, but here goes anyway. We have had discussions on the The Nation of Gods and Earths talk page with an editor called user:Bornking7 who says he is the editor of the Five Percenter, the journal of this group, which is an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. I should say that Bornking7 is clearly trying to engage with Wikipedia through the talk page and that he has accepted the reversion of his own earlier highly POV edits, no doubt made in good faith. However, myself and other editors are finding it very difficult to communicate with this editor who still seems to believe that Wikipedia's article is part of some concerted campaign or plot against the group he represents. I have tried to incorporate content he has proposed, within an appropriate format but he still adopts an "aggrieved" position which I'm afraid might again erupt into POV edits. If anyone can bear to read through the walls of text there, I would be grateful of some help in communicating with this editor, who has so far restrained himself, but does not seem to fully understand how the encyclopedia should work. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've notified Bornking7 of this discussion and had to change many mis-formatted ref tags on his talk page to get it to show up. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace this is Born King and i do represent the NOGE professionally through the National Office Of Cultural Affairs (NOCA) and personally. I am and have been a a part of the Nation of Gods and Earths for many many years. It is my asseration that wikipedia through no fault of its own has been supplied with information that met its format but had no basis in truth. As Paul B has so boldly stated in the edit above "an offshoot of the Nation Of Islam" that is simply not true. The other edit which i give Wikipedia credit for removing was the one on the NOI page that stated the NOGE is the subsidary of the NOI. Both statements are wrong, however if i were not telling you this now, you still wouldn't know. More importantly the world is connected on the world wide web. Google and wikipedia are online resource centers used by people all over the planet. Right now those people have access to demeaning and defamatory information about the NOGE supplied as verified information by wikipedia. So when i became aware of these mistruths on your site,I went about the business of correcting them. I am not the expert on wikipedia use, policy procedures, editing techniques, and the like, but I am an objective expert on the NOGE. The editor who submitted the introduction to the NOGE that wikipedia is fighting so hard to keep intact needs to be revealed. He needs to be held to the same standard I am being held too. Furthermore with someone like myself now aware of what is going on in this site, it wont be as easy to fool me like they fooled those of you who knew nothing about the NOGE before., I want to see the sources wikipedia accepted to validate that editors misstatements--Bornking7 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I also offered to help him. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I dropped a comment on his page which will give him a headsup as to being a bit more concise as well. Reading through his walls of text, well intentioned and informative that they are, is quite a strain on the poor grey matter. --Blackmane (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments as well. As a writer my thoughts run faster then my fingers and so it is reflected in thoughts that I save without editing. They tend to run on but I have went back over them and edited them somewhat. I trust that they are now more understandable.--Bornking7 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

James Thomas Aubrey, Jr.

There seems to be a slow-motion edit war going on in that article. I'm not sure why it's on my watch list. Maybe it's been here before? I have not notified anyone yet. I want to get the opinion of an admin or two as to whether something needs to be done administratively, or if it's strictly a content dispute and should be confined to the talk page. If there is an administrative issue, I'll notify them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Does not need admin tools but there's three paragraphs of uncited stuff that ought not be there seeing it's a featured article. 86.146.22.108 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I recall now why it was on my watch list. It had to do with creating a link to another article. I'm not sure who's right in that content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now notified the 3 most recent editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed some fully unsourced material - a splendid example of why BLP should extend to recently deceased people for sure. Collect (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 1994 "recent", but in addition to a lack of sourcing it seemed to be a bit too detailed, even if fully true. Thanks for retaining the important bit, about his death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I rather figured that the death bit was not a problem <g>. Collect (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack

• 208.86.2.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is adding multiple sockpuppet tags to random IP address and user talk pages. I think the sockpuppet-tagging vandal has returned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Editor XXV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The WHOIS response is weird...the toolserver comes up with a /22 range, but drilling down from the geolocation server gives a different allocation, with a /29 range (a whole five addresses). I'm wondering if there's an open proxy involved somewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked the ports on this IP address, and the following came up negative: 80, 2301, 3128, 6588, 8000, & 8080. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an exit server for a secure proxy service. Technically it's a type of closed proxy, but since they allow a free trial, it could easily be abused..... No reason for it to be used on wikipedia though since logging in through the secure server serves a similar purpose. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree the whois records are confusing as it looks like that particular block has at least three different registrations. However, the narrowest one belongs to the service I refer to above. It's highly probable the 208.86.2.96/29 could be used as an open proxy. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily know who this is, but I have blocked two other accounts who were clearly up to no good. –MuZemike 07:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST MOVES and PRIMARY TOPIC

There have been a number of lengthy debates recently (here, here and now here) sparked by (what I would suggest is) an over-zealous application of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline at WP:Disambiguation.
These are producing a fair amount of acrimony, and are seeing the usual suspects (and this includes myself, now) presenting the same tired arguments.
As The guideline itself is under discussion, here and elsewhere I suggest it is not appropriate to be starting new WP:RM processes, and I also suggest there should be a moratorium on such requests until the matter is resolved. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy is representative of community practices. It doesn't tell us what to do but instead describes how the community has handled situations before, and it can (and does) lag behind from time to time. It seems to me the results of RM's would help inform the debate around the policy rather then harm it in some way. -- ۩ Mask 06:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes; and move discussions based on the primary topic question are a regular everyday affair. Just because the precise wording of the rule may be under discussion doesn't mean we have to stop applying the principle, which in most cases is fairly uncontroversial (editors just have to pool their thoughts and experience to decide whether a particular topic qualifies as primary).--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1RR enforcement requested

For the second day in a row now, Tillman (talk · contribs) is in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[24] To his credit, he self-reverted his violation yesterday,[25] but is continuing the same edit warring behavior.

Today, Tillman made a total of three reverts to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which I will only count as two total reverts as two of the three reverts were consecutive. However, the diffs show him reverting three times in 24 hours, which is a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1RR, as well an explicit violation of the 1RR altogether.

• 01:04, 8 June 2011 Tillman (Please don't add contentious material without first seeking consensus. See head of talk page. You know not to do this.[26])
  • Revert of 00:50, 8 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[27]
• 00:58, 8 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,104 bytes) (Undid revision 433119267, stable text, prior discussion at talk. Please don't edit-war.)[28]
  • Revert of 23:45, 7 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[29]
• 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,185 bytes) (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[30]
  • Revert of 16:15, 6 June 2011 version by Tarc.[31]

Disclosure: I have made one revert to this article in the last 24 hours, at 23:16, 7 June 2011.[32] Could someone please enforce this 1RR and help Tillman understand the concept of a revert? I've tried on the talk page, but he doesn't get it. Recently, Tillman even said "I'm easily confused about 1RR".[33] However, Tillman unambiguously reversed the edits of another editor three times today (two consecutive), and I would like for this behavior to stop. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified about this discussion on their talk page. I have asked Tillman to self-revert to avoid sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I'm not entirely sure this is a 1rr violation. His first 'revert' was replacing content that had been removed a couple of days ago - not within the same period. It seems to me that it would make sense if to count as a revert in the context of the xRR rules it would have to be a revert of material that had been adjusted in that same period - otherwise, everyone would be in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edited a long existing page more than three times in a day - since whenever you remove content that has been added to a page it's reverting a historical edit. Obviously that's kind of an extreme example, but it definitely makes sense to me to think that for a revert to count as a revert, the thing you're reverting would have to be in the covered period - before his first "revert" there had been no edits to the page in more than 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The first revert was a revert and was the same revert he self-reverted at 17:24 24 hours ago to avoid the 1RR the previous day:

• 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[34]
• 17:24, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Reverted edits by Tillman (talk) to last version by Tarc)[35]
• 16:39, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Undid revision 432870459 by Tarc (talk)[36]

Everyone is not in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edit. Tillman was in violation because he reverted Tarc, self-reverted to avoid the 1RR, then returned after 24 hours expired to make the same revert. Then, he made another revert at 23:45/00:50. It is clear and unambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note, policy re this situation is as follows: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Thus I don't think I've violated 1RR, and I pointed this out to Viriditas here, before he filed this report.

I'm sorry to say that this appears to be a part of a program of harassment that this user has been carrying out. Please see this report, which is only a sample. A sad situation, Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He's referring to your 22:37 and 00:58 edits as two different reverts. Your last two edits certainly count as one revert, but if reverts under the xRR's do not have to be reverting material that was added within the same period, you would have two reverts in 24 hours and be in violation of 1rr. Of course if that's the case, it sure looks to me like he was in violation of 1rr himself on the 5th/6th. Kevin (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. 23:49, 5 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Books */ Non-notable, self-published book removed")
2. 00:36, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Rv Tillman's misundersanding of the concept of "undue". This is fully supported, summarizes the mainstream opinion, and is considered an expert source on PR campaigns")
3. 13:51, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Media reception */ Remove meaningless, unencyclopedic climate change denial statements per talk")

I did notice it myself initially, but since EdJ subsequently brought it up on your talk page, I just copied his diffs here instead of grabbing them myself. You removed content twice, and performed a direct reversion once. Contrary to how you understand policy, removal of content does count as a reversion, and can be every bit as editwarry as hitting the rollback button. They are consistently enforced in the same manner, and the commonsense reading of WP:3rr supports that. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. " Emphasis mine - removing text someone else has added to a page is partially undoing their edit, and is a revert. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Removal of content is not considered a revert unless one is undoing the actions of another editor that implicitly restores the previous version of a page. The word revert means to "return to (a previous state, condition, practice, etc.)" In other words, I can remove content and never perform a revert, as I did at 23:49 and 13:51. This does not conflict with Wikipedia policies. Do you understand that one can make unique edits that add, delete, and modify content without ever performing a revert? In fact, there is no policy or guideline that says otherwise. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 are not reverts by any accepted definition of the word "revert" nor by Wikipedia's use of the word. Removing content does not mean reverting content. A common misunderstanding, but it is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Kevin posted the exact wording of the policy above, and it doesn't say what you say it says. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It says exactly what I said it says, namely that 1) undoing another editor's work is considered a revert. It does not say that a revert is defined as removing content. It isn't, and never has been. One has to, according to policy, specifically undo another editor's work, which implies restoring a previous version of the page. One does not "revert" simply by removing or deleting content, and the policy has never said that. I can add, remove, or modify content, none of which constitutes a revert by itself. The entire concept of edit warring and reversion only has meaning in terms of two or more editors. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 did not revert any editor or restore a previous version by another editor. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, "undo" does not imply "restore". Read the section where it says "or in part".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Or in part" refers to the work of the editor you are reverting. IIRC, historically this was added because editors would deliberately alter the revert (known as a "partial revert") in an attempt to evade the 3RR. To my knowledge, no editor has ever been blocked for violating the 3RR simply for removing material. They have, OTOH, been blocked/banned for blanking and edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In a technical sense, any removal of content could be considered a revert, since at one time whatever text you're removing didn't exist, so removing content means reverting to a state before that content was added. But I don't believe anyone ever treats such a thing as a revert, especially for xRR situations. An edit war involves someone actively getting into a conflict with another person by directly trying to hinder their development of the article by undoing their actions. If I add a fact to an article and 2 years later someone deletes it, I don't consider that a conflict. But it's situational. Reverts can sometimes happen with weeks in-between edits and if it's an ongoing thing, it becomes a slow-motion edit war that is just as disruptive, if not more so, than people reverting each other every 5 seconds (the former could last months or years, while the latter might end in a day). -- Atama頭 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and stop posting to this thread before I wind up getting a WP:Civil block. Have fun. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. You're getting a good taste of what dealing with Viriditas is really like. A unique experience. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You violated the 1RR, refuse to self-rv, and are now using the NB to attack me? Strange. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He did violate 1RR, but, in context, you (V) did so first, and one of his reverts was reverting your second revert of the series the previous day. And it is completely untrue that (for 3RR violations) the revert needs to be of a recent change. An outright removal usually isn't called a revert, but, in case of known edit warriors, such as yourself, it may be considered so.

And, finally, WP:AN3 is the proper venue for this complaint. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no such 1RR violation, and nobody ever claimed that a revert needed to be recent. The facts, Arthur, show that I did not revert anyone except for my edit at 00:36, 6 June 2011. The other two edits were unique deletions of content, neither reversions of another editor nor to a particular version. A revert is only a revert when it involves undoing another editor's work which implicitly restores a previous version of a page. SarekOfVulcan (and others) take issue with this particular wording, but it is in fact the very definition of the word "revert". To give you an example, Arthur, let's say I click the "random article" link over and over again until I find a page needing copyedits, cleanup, and removal of content. Let's also say that this particular article just so happens to be active, meaning the likelihood of consecutive edits (one edit after another with no edits by another editor) is low. Consider this: I make a series of four edits to this hypothetical active page involving the removal of content, whole or in part, for reasons of maintenance, accuracy, neutrality, etc. Due to activity (and for the sake of this example) the edit history shows my four contributions spaced out over four hours, one every hour. Have I just made 4 reverts? Am I in violation of the 3RR? Yes or no? For the sake of this example, assume that each one of my edits is unique and has not removed any material added by another editor or added material removed by any other editor on the page, and the result of each one of my edits is a new, unique version of the page. If you say "yes", then you are saying that no editor may remove any material from any page no more than three times a day, which is not supported by any policy or guideline. The policy on reversion refers only to undoing edits by other editors in the context of edit warring, not to the addition, subtraction, or modification of content alone. The facts show that I can delete material from an article four times in one day, and I can delete 35 different types of material 35 times from one article if I want without ever making a single revert. I cannot, however, repeatedly add or delete 1 item if another editor has deleted or added that 1 item within 24 hours. Also, I cannot undo different items from another editor more than three times in 24 hours. The two edits I made involve no reversion of any editor, and no restoration of any previous version by another editor. Deletions of content, like additions and modifications, are never considered reverts unless the edit undoes the edits of another editor. Who is the editor I have reverted in the two diffs above? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. As usual. Deletion of material is considered a revert for the purpose of 3RR, and reverting an edit (in whole or in part), no matter how long ago it was made, may be considered a revert. Specialized 1RR/0RR restrictions may have different definitions. At at least one article, a 0RR restriction means only that you may not revert a reversion of your own edit, or that you may not revert an edit without first commenting on the talk page. In your specific hypothetical: If you remove material, it must have been added by another editor, so your hypothetical is logically impossible. Even ignoring that, it would be a 3RR violation unless you put an {{inuse}} tag on the article, and had reason to make it stick, even if it were ignored by other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong about what I've said, and you can't answer the questions I asked in the affirmative because the deletion and removal of content is not considered a revert unless some editor is being reverted. Good copyediting, for example, may require many edits consisting of deletions, none of which are ever considered reverts. I can provide example after example showing that you are wrong. Editors who remove and delete material over the course of a day are never in danger of violating the 3RR unless they are reversing the edits of a specific editor or editors, Anyone who claims otherwise is misinterpretating the concept of a revert and what it means. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that V's reverts were in the same section, while Pete's weren't.

However, none this makes this notice board appropriate, either WP:AN3, or possibly, WP:AE, if the 1RR is part of an arbitration ruling. It appears not, but it says the 1RR has been superseded by discretionary sanctions which are subject to WP:AE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not need to be noted since they were not reverts nor did the edits undo the work of another editor. One can safely edit Wikipedia and remove material without ever worrying about the 3RR. Whether these edits were in the same or different sections is irrelevant. There was no edit war over the material and no editor was reverted. This discussion was brought here because the 1RR probation warning on the the talk page says to bring discussions about the remedy here. Whether that applies to 1RR violations is unclear. Are 1RR probation incidents usually reported at AN3? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 1RR (and the occassional 0RR) violations are reported at AN3. And I believe you'll find that deleting a section is considered a revert, whether or not it brings the page to a previous version or reverts a particular editor, recent or not. This page is for discussion of revising the sanction, as the sanction, itself, is an adminstrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A revert and self-revert = net zero. Sorry - no violation that I can see. Decidedly not violating the 1RR rule, and not violating any other reasonable interpretation of any rule. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did miss one. Pete had at least two reverts since the self-revert, and those were within 24 hours of each other. I don't want to add heat, but V did get something right, for a change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu at Talk:Santorum (neologism)

I noticed this comment left at Talk:Santorum (neologism), seemingly in some kind of battlefield tactic or way to make his point. User has been asked to retract or strike through [37], [38], and [39], but so far doesn't seem to want to. Suggestions? Heiro 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, I have asked you to explain where Macwhiz is offended and civility is breached. YOU and I might find the term offensive, and in point of fact, I find it to be a reprehensible and grossly insulting term, but our fellow editor clearly believes it is fine. You may not understand that sometimes we can use examples as ways to demonstrate exactly how offensive something is. I have no personal animosity toward Macwhiz, and my following comment makes that clear, but when an editor tells us in the Talk page:

One editor made the assertion that it was "an offensive slang term"; the assertion was challenged in the next reply, and that's the only mention of "slang term" in the discussion. Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one. For that matter, is it even kosher to assert that administrators have the authority to declare a word "an offensive slang term" and therefore forbidden in any context? Even if it were "an offensive slang term" in some official capacity, that's no bar to it being an article title: see WP:CENSOR. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Its hard to understand why someone would or could claim that calling another human being "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is not insulting, but Macwhiz seems to believe that. As such, I'm trying to determine how honest Macwhiz is on that point. -- Avanu (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the sourced content of that article, or breaching civility conventions, its about you and WP:NPA. Heiro 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the same exact word as the last name of Rick Santorum right? What. The. Hell? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heiro, since you aren't seeing the reasoning here, I'll invite you to look at the more complete explanation I have added for your benefit at the Talk page (diff) -- Avanu (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see your reasoning, I just think you've been treading that line between what constitutes a civility breach and a personal attack for so long, you no longer realize calling someone "a piece of fecal material" and "an anal excrement waiting for being wiped off a butt" while making a point to be on the wrong side of the line. If no one else agrees with me, so be it, I'll drop it and back away. Heiro 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, if people were trying to state that the descriptor could not be offensive and Avanu turned around and used that descriptor against someone on the talk page and people were offended, I'd invoke WP:IAR here. It sounds like Avanu is trying to make sure that we adhere to WP:BLP, and those who pretend that such a term isn't offensive are being far more disruptive to the project than a person making a tongue-in-cheek insult. -- Atama頭 06:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm not taking a stand on whether or not the article's inclusion, title, or content has merit or not. I'm just saying that if people aren't being honest about an article with serious BLP ramifications, that's not something that should be overlooked in the name of civility.) -- Atama頭 06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean "for so long"? It was one comment, specifically directed at an editor who believes the wording is not an offensive term. Its not a pattern, nor do I have personal (or any) animosity for him. I really hope you can see the difference. -- Avanu (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2) Doesn't matter. WP:IAR wants us to keep the article, WP:BLP be damned. No one is trying to state that the descriptor isn't offensive to Rick Santorum; just that Wikipedia can report on offense given to otherwise notable public figures without running afoul of WP:BLP. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think the language is offensive *just* to Rick Santorum, but as I am trying to show, I believe ANYONE would find it offensive if applied to them. -- Avanu (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the first I have ever heard of this, and I wish I had not. I actually feel pitty for Ricky for the first time in my life. I think the problem here is that this is one of those times when yuu cannot accurately convey tone all that well and so the subtlties of face-to-face interaction that distinguish something harmless from something meant to be gravely insulting are lost. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

MANY editors, including Jimbo Wales, have weighed in saying that the article (as written currently) violates many Wikipedia policies. Regardless of one's personal politics, it isn't Wikipedia's job to become a political tool. WP:BLP, WP:NEO, and simply common sense ought to tell us that this article needs improvement. When reliable sources start giving credence to this term by saying "Even Wikipedia defines it that way", this should be a clue we have a problem. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You compare someone to a piece of shit on Talk, you violate WP:CIVIL. This isn't an issue with shades of gray, and you can't turn this into a content dispute. Time to put down the stick and apologize. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not calling someone fecal matter is a NPA is divorced from the issue of whether or not the topic is encyclopedic. The phrase nigger is offensive, or chink, and when used in a way this was they're both a personal attack. However, those same topics are perfectly acceptable to cover as an encyclopedia. Realize the difference please, because the statement on the talkpage is out of line. -- ۩ Mask 06:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, dont edit my comments, I was replying to the original post with a general rule of thumb, not the post above me you indented my comment to appear to refer to. Second, if you're saying you're pretending this is ok as some giant eye opening experiment to show him he's wrong, I can only point you to Dont disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, a page you appear to have missed reading. -- ۩ Mask 06:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If I am to literally believe Macwhiz, such words are not a personal attack. If Mac doesn't feel personally attacked and if I also say, "I'm not personally attacking him, I'm just helping him see a point", then maybe you can show where a personal attack took place? -- Avanu (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if Mac doesn't feel personally attacked (and that's a big if), whether or not something is a personal attack is a matter of objective truth, not opinion. You personally attacked him. It's inappropriate. You may need a 12-hour block to reflect on that, since you're clearly not taking the point. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is a matter of subjective truth, since one cannot objectively tell the hearts and minds of others. Feel free to characterize it as an attack, but that is your subjective truth. Back on point however, I actually do hope Mac could feel some degree of discomfort from the words so that we can move forward in a collaborative effort to improve the article. On the same note, I feel like this whole thread is a bit unnecessary and thin-skinned since the main object of my 'attack' has yet to say one word about it. -- Avanu (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. A remark is judged by the community, not the person it's directed at. Administrators and/or community discussion make a determination. And since when is the other person required to persue something? Whether or not you committed a violation has nothing to do with him. Or can we put up penis pictures all over pages whose editors dont mind? -- ۩ Mask 06:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would hope community means that people would actually look at intent instead of just repeatedly quoting "pointy pointy!!" -- Avanu (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So many of my fellow editors keep quoting WP:POINT, yet in this diff we see so many editors who clearly very cavalier about how its not a big deal and we shouldn't have to censor Wikipedia, etc. The problem is that these editors are saying its fine to perpetuate an attack, but it apparently is a big double standard because of the voices we're seeing here that seem to be saying "its ok to promote an attack on Santorum, but just don't attack me". I, for one, am not calling for censoring the article in question, but as myself and many others have pointed out, as written, it simply uses Wikipedia as an attack ad. -- Avanu (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum's not an editor on Wikipedia, so WP:NPA doesn't apply. Next point? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

People keep calling out point because, by your own admission above, you violated a policy to prove a point. It's the very PURPOSE of WP:POINT. Want the drama to go away? Strike the comment and state that you understand why it's not ok. -- ۩ Mask 07:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked him to do that before coming to ANI, and as for the WP:POINT discussion, had that with him at my talk. Heiro 07:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please go thoroughly read WP:POINT. It *isn't* a catch all. It *isn't* about making points in debate, it is about targeting Wikipedia rules in disruptive ways (in order to make a point). If you want to make a point about my conduct, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are in place for a reason, but please can we try and stay on track? -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You violated WP:CIVIL to make a point, and it was disruptive (as evidenced by this thread). I'm thinking it's time for an admin to use their admin magic and make this issue go away for a while. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You engaged in personal attacks, an activity blanket recognized as disruptive so universally that we enacted policies about them most of a decade ago, in order to make a point about a perceived issue with another on an article discussion. How is this not WP:POINT, or indeed on topic considering its the edit raised in the initial post? -- ۩ Mask 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the original point of the whole exercise is being lost by people who simply can't tell the difference between an actual personal attack and a provocative comment intended to stir insight and debate. Clearly some of my fellow editors get what the point was. You can lead a horse to water, but that's all. If you feel that this is actually a personal attack, then you have failed to read my explanations not only here, but on the article Talk page as well. On that note, I have to say good night and best wishes on resolving this issue. -- Avanu (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Buck up, we can tell the difference. The former violates WP:NPA, the latter also runs afoul of WP:POINT. I'm reiterating my call for a cool-off block, because dude either is unrepentant, or simply doesn't get it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it might be a WP:COMPETENCE issue to be honest. There's been patient explanation, but your responses and actions demonstrate a complete failure to understand some of our core culture. -- ۩ Mask 07:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Quoting: "Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly -- but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent." Time to block. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there, I said issue, not indef for incompetence. For one it says 'a few times', and for two I would much rather see the comment struck. -- ۩ Mask 07:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My last comment for tonight. It appears the incivility bug might be catching. WP:COMPETENCE is an essay (not a policy) and not a terribly flattering thing to say about someone. I've taken the time to personally address Macwhiz and let him know about the discussion here. Several of you seem to be trying so hard to defend Mac, when it has been made abundantly to other editors what the actual point was. Feel free to continue discussing, but as for me, unless we can see more editors who can compentently understand the difference between a true personal attack and a simple debate point, it doesn't seem like we're going to get far. -- Avanu (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is defending some other editor. We have an actor in the system who has illustrated that he will disrupt it to make a point and given no indication that he would not do so in the future. As you comment on my citing of the essay, look at what I did. I commented on your actions and behaviors, not on you personally. This is the advice given on WP:NPA, and is the opposite of calling someone human fecal matter, as the diff in the original post shows. -- ۩ Mask 07:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC)You are far from incompetent, you just have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't about defending Macwhiz, this is about your disruptive editing and personal attacks to make a point. Not one editor so far has agreed with your interpretation of WP:POINT, take a hint from that and realize that any future repeats of this kind of pointy behavior probably wont bode well. I haven't once asked for a block in this discussion and dont feel its called for, but I would like to ask you again to retract or strike through your statement at Talk:Santorum (neologism). Heiro 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If sanctions aren't what are being requested, why is this not at WQA? Perhaps it ought to be moved there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How about a formal warning from an admin that such behavior will not be tolerated if it is repeated and we just close this? Heiro 07:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the explanation below my comments on the Santorum (neologism) Talk page, it wasn't a personal attack, but trying to demonstrate the negativity of the words we're discussing. I don't think Discussion is being killed or disrupted, we have a LOT of editors who are trucking along with comments and input, but I don't want people to fool themselves by thinking this term is not offensive and negative. We have a responsibility to do our best on an article like the Santorum one, we affect real lives here, not like the article about Twinkies where no one gets hurt, we can potentially do incredible damage. We're not simply talking about one man's life anymore, but his children and anyone else who happens to have the same last name. The way we frame the article here at Wikipedia has a lot to do with how this is perceived in the world. People turn to Wikipedia for reliable information and look at Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. Simply playing fast and loose and without regard for how our actions work in the larger society is irresponsible and reckless. Again, its not a personal attack, just working to help others understand this more deeply. -- Avanu (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, you realize this defense is 'I violated WP:POINT but it's ok because my point was really good?'. How else do we read 'Trying to demonstrate the negativity' and then a list of why its important we get what you say? -- ۩ Mask 08:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get across is that we 'get it right' as the WP:BLP page says. We have editors who are barely acknowledging these terms as offensive, or in this case, saying it wasn't offensive at all. This is baffling to me. Clearly by the reaction, we *all* feel it is bad. So my question for Macwhiz is, ok, you believe this... please explain how you can, sincerely, even if it is applied to you personally. If he says "yeah I don't mind at all", well, we're done with that discussion. If he instead says "wow, I didn't realize how it feels", then we've made progress, and any reasonable person can recognize the intention of one thing versus another. You guys keep insisting that I attacked Macwhiz, but heck, point out to me where I was angry in tone. Its easy to see that I was just saying it in an effort for him to have empathy, even more so after it was explained further. If you want to keep telling me I'm awful go ahead, but if nothing else, we can all agree that the entire exercise has become moot at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me where the WP:POINT violation happened, if there even was one. When someone makes an outrageous claim it's only natural to take the claim literally and turn it against the person who made it. This is not automatically disruptive. It can be an efficient technique to settle a case in which another editor is insisting on repeating an obviously invalid point. The disruption happened with the overreaction. Since the overreaction was predictable, one could say that Avanu carries part of the fault here. But only part of it. Otherwise we would open ourselves up to gaming: A determined core of editor could get normal practices such as citation from non-English sources outlawed by routinely overreacting to them in grotesque ways.

This is the kind of situation where a face-saving retraction is reasonable to expect, but complete submission of the "offender" and an apology is not. Hans Adler 08:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote fro WP:POINT: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently." Avanu believes the application of our rules on personal attacks disallows the santorum page, and that those who see santorum as acceptable therefor shouldnt have problems with him calling them human excrement. He's said this a few times. -- ۩ Mask 08:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well part of the "personal attack" really does involve having some personal effect on you; if the editor doesn't feel affected by it, then I don't understand why we are here. The remaining concern may be that the discussion doesn't appear collegial; assume good faith requires you to assume someone is not going to make outrageously invalid point, and sometimes a wake up call is worthwhile. So I do agree with Atama and Hans Adler. That said, Avanu should certainly take this as a "be careful...the line can become very blurred, and if you cross over the line, admin action probably won't err on the side of caution," but I don't see how any formal warning or sanction will be appropriate in this context. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you are quoting WP:POINT unless it is to remind me that overreacting to something for wiki-political reasons does not technically fall under it. WP:NPA has nothing to do with article space, of course. The analogous principle for article subjects follows from common sense, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I am not particularly interested in Avanu's background in this discussion; ad hominem arguments aren't completely invalid, but usually not the most illuminating. Here, I am interested in Avanu's specific reaction to a specific ludicrous claim. (By the way, I have no problem with the article in question. I find extreme hypocrisy more disgusting than excrements, although I prefer not to be exposed to either.) Hans Adler 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(@Ncmvocalist) Yes, to address the collegiality of the conversation, I wouldn't want that ruined. That said, it seems like many people are far too comfortable disregarding the negativity of these words when they see them in this abstract fashion applied to Rick Santorum. Sometimes in order to understand the gravity and seriousness of a situation, we have to personally experience it. That was my goal here. I wasn't literally trying attack my brother saying 'raca', but in fact said, brother, how does it feel to be called 'raca'? So many editors have a comfort zone setting that is so high when it applies to others, but I think we need to be taking these things seriously and although there may be better ways to convey this, to me, personal experience is simply superior. -- Avanu (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC

)

Ncm, thats a fair point. Im here because I commented on the last proposal on that page, and have been somewhat alarmed at the battlefield mentality going on. That said, I certainly agree its not something we should be charging after, as I've said a few times I think Avanu striking the comment is the ideal solution. The rest of it has been walking him through why the edits are an issue, and some hand-wringing over a block proposal an IP put forward. Hans, I quote it out of habit, primarily. I don't view it as all that bad together, but his inability to say 'you know, that wasn't the best thing. Let me strike that and move on' or something of the vein is something I'm trying to dig him out of. -- ۩ Mask 08:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, Macwhiz was making an absolutely invalid claim, and Avanu called in his bullshit. You have to wonder why Macwhiz isn't being warned for making such lame argument in BLP pages. Also, what Atama and Flinders Petrie say. Also, this discussion is being dominated by the editors who want to punish Avanu and rigidly enforce WP:CIVIL, ignoring all the context of the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu left out macwhiz's full comment. Gacurr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

Did I leave out something actualy relevant? I'll put the whole bit in for our edification if you like.

In case there was any remaining doubt, ANI has already weighed in that Santorum is "an offensive slang term",^link as evidenced by the block demanding rename of User:Santorummm in 2006. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I get that out of the linked ANI discussion. It looks to me like the name was challenged under WP:REALNAME, specifically, "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." One editor made the assertion that it was "an offensive slang term"; the assertion was challenged in the next reply, and that's the only mention of "slang term" in the discussion. Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one. For that matter, is it even kosher to assert that administrators have the authority to declare a word "an offensive slang term" and therefore forbidden in any context? Even if it were "an offensive slang term" in some official capacity, that's no bar to it being an article title: see WP:CENSOR. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the user they are talking about was blocked with the following comment "Your name is an offensive slang term derived from the senator's name. Please change it. pschemp | talk 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)" (link)

So, according to macwhiz, "santorum" is not an offensive slang term? And he stated this opinion in Talk:Santorum_(neologism)? Macwhiz didn't realize it, but this is practically begging to be called "santorum" just to see how offended you become at getting called an offensive slang term. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Begging for it or not, policy here is "comment on the content not the contributor" and no personal attacks, even when making a point. Heiro 09:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this avoids messy disruptions to talk pages when someone mistakenly believes someone said something they did not. Gacurr (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles on words it would be unacceptable to call a fellow editor. I linked two examples of racial slurs earlier, but I'll decline to do so again out of politeness. There is a difference between content held to be encyclopedic as to its existence, and acceptable discourse with fellow editors. -- ۩ Mask 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting report showing how mainstream Wikipedia is, and hopefully demonstrates how important it is we 'get it right'. "The online encyclopedia has become the chief arbiter of the watercooler dispute." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/43318270#43318270

You do realize this thread has nothing to do with the actual article content of santorum or the need to "get it right"? This thread is solely to deal with your behavior. You don't get to break the rules here to win in a content dispute/merge or delete discussion. Have you decided yet on whether or not you wish to strike the comment or do you still intend on leaving it in place until its intended target weighs in to tell you if they find it offensive or not?Heiro 09:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I favor stronger enforcement of WP:CIVIL in general, but this report is a gigantic case of missing the point. Yes, anyone can see that Avanu was being uncivil to make a POINT, but the action that would benefit the encyclopedia would be to take the time to get engaged in the absurd discussion at Talk:Santorum (neologism) where people are earnestly claiming that the article is worth saving, and that Wikipedia should be used to permanently define a politician's name as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Of course such prurient nonsense attracts a lot of attention so WP:N gets a tick. However, if ANI is to be involved, it should be to work out how to conduct a central discussion so the community can decide whether Wikipedia should be available for use as a weapon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's tread back a few years when I actually found Dan Savage's column to be entertaining, even though it really had little application to my day to day life. Senator Rick made some pretty boneheaded comments. Dan Savage held a little competition to come up with a definition of "Santorum" (seeing as it sounded Latin anyway). The final was picked. Now, that was like what, 5 or 6 years ago? The neologism has stuck for a long, long time (that's 4 generations of PC processors). The article itself therefore has value and clear notability, and is not a political attack against the Senator anymore (even though it might have started sorta in that way), but to refer to another editor as Santorum would be waaaaaaaayyyyy beyond WP:NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To those editors who keep saying this word is no longer a political attack, when it was primarily promoted over these years by one man, Dan Savage, who as recently as February (according to Politico) had declared his intention to renew efforts regarding the santorum phenomenon, due to the former Senator stating to Roll Call that Savage is "someone who obviously has some issues".

I just have to question what reality are you seeing, because it seems incredibly clear that this is not just someone getting a new word created, but a sustained back door attempt at taking out political opposition. -- Avanu (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, Avenu referred to another editor as:

1. a piece of fecal material
2. an anal excrement waiting for being wiped off a butt
3. a lubed up bit of poo

I have to say, I am at a loss how making a point like this at the expense of another editor is acceptable under any circumstance. Gacurr (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I could completely agree with you, but this is specifically an exchange with an editor who made it seem clear that he felt the word was not offensive. So while your argument would be generally a good one, and I would agree with it in those cases, it doesn't quite cover the situation here. -- Avanu (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The comment was used as rhetoric - if I said "you don't mind boxing, so I guess it's ok if I punch you in the face", it is a rather similar use of rhetoric. The point that you seem to be missing, Avanu, is that in this case, the rhetoric you used was a bad idea. You tried to convince someone (almost using reverse psychology) that the term was bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad. Recognize that - take responsibility that you made a bad choice in this case, because you took the use of rhetoric too far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Net result per sauce:goose :: sauce:gander is that the term is grossly offensive, and that no one reasonably can deny that fact. It was designed specificaly to be grossly offensive, and there is a real issue as to whether is is a reasonable use of Wikipedia to promote such a term. Collect (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Being offended by what someone else says should not be used by editors on ANI to justify personally attacking other editors. Gacurr (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, before this turns into the latest forum-shop of the Santorum (neologism) issue, let's correct one mistaken assumption that's being perpetuated here. In the comment I made that Avanu replied to, nowhere in the comment did I make any statement about my personal opinion of the term. It is being characterized by Avanu and others here incorrectly. I challenge anyone to take that comment and show exactly and precisely where it says that I do not find the term offensive. What it does say is that, contrary to the assertion of the previous commenter, I do not see anyplace in the cited link that "ANI found the term to be an offensive slang term". One person on ANI called it an "offensive slang term", and then another person disagreed. So, to point to that discussion as proof that it is an "offensive slang term"... well, if it were in article space, instant , no? Whether I agree with the assertion that the term is offensive is beside the point; the fact is, the assertion "ANI says the term is offensive" is not supported by the citation. Plus, for the purposes of the discussion in context, it's unlikely to be germane, either.

I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not Avanu's comment was WP:POINTy or not. I'm an interested party, and it's better for disinterested parties to decide that. Obviously, he was trying to make a point. Personally, I think the bigger issue is that the point missed the point of the discussion.

As I replied at Talk:Santorum (neologism), frankly, if Avanu's comment generated widespread media coverage now, and was still generating widespread media coverage over a decade later, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a Macwhiz's talk page problem with Avanu controversy article, and while I might not be thrilled by it, I probably couldn't argue against its right to exist, either. There's a difference between calling someone a name, and having the event of your calling someone a name gain widespread and long-lasting notability. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful and intelligent reply, Macwhiz. As I said above, I wanted your two cents on this (not every Tom, Dick, and Santorum). Thanks again, see you on the Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, did you really just refer to every person besides Macwhiz who commented in this thread as "Santorum"? ...wanna reconsider? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I expect he was referring to the Republican presidential hopeful. It didn't have quotes. Syrthiss (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this thread so long? [Avanu]

This isn't rocket science. (1) Calling someone "fecal matter" or anything similar is a personal attack. (2) Making personal attacks in order to make a point about Wikipedia policies and/or practices violates WP:POINT. (3) On-wiki behavioural allegations don't affect notability in any way at all.
And that's all there is to it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 12:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, quit whining, not every sharp criticism or comment around here necessitates a screaming run for the cover of WP:POINT. If people are going to take a stand in support of a controversial faux neologism that slanders a living person, then they deserve whatever (pun unintended) shit that happens to be flung their way. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we have to remove a link to WP:BOOMERANG that was related to a specific football player? Still, the article is not about the politician, it was kinda like Douglas Adams/John Lloyd's "The Meaning of Liff", where they made definitions of town names. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The above type of comment from an editor is the reason I felt compelled to make a strong case in this situation. Against all odds, they say "the article is not about the politician." Yet, when you read the article 98% of it is not about fecal material, but about political stuff. Go figure. -- Avanu (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we consider your belated-strikeout of the NPA-violating comment at the talk page as an acknowledgement that your conduct was wrong? Gacurr (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, that is how Wikipedia works? Editors who hold a different opinion than other editors get personally attacked? Really? Gacurr (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Those who perpetuate something like this don't get to hide behind the "well golly gee, it is just my opinion" fluffery. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Engaging in civil debate over an article is grounds for libel in the name of "how do you like it?" On further reflection, logically, Avanu's statement should have one of two outcomes: Either he was well over the line in using phraseology that he has been arguing is unpardonable when used to refer to a living person, and some form of reprimand needs to attach to that; or speaking like that of a living person is acceptable in at least some circumstances, and therefore there's a valid debate over whether or not the "it's unpardonable" argument carries any water regarding santorum. You can't have it both ways. Perhaps it was an act of civil disobedience, but as I recall, Henry David Thoreau spent quite some time in jail in the process of making his point. Avanu did not bother even wrapping his statements in a hypothetical "How would you feel if"; they were bald assertions, followed by talk-page backpedalling. At a minimum, it was a serious lapse in judgement.

Further, Tarc, I would like an apology from you, because you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my statements. As I said before, at no time have I claimed that the term santorum is morally proper. However, moral judgements are not an overriding factor in this case. There are other factors, and on the balance, it seems to me that the other factors say there's no grounds to scuttle the article, no matter how distasteful it may be. In the case of my comment that precipitated Avanu's outburst, I was specifically commenting on a prior statement that was not backed up by the given reference. You may disagree with me, and I welcome any reasoned arguments to persuade me to change my mind, in the appropriate forum. However, saying I "deserve whatever shit happens to be flung [my] way"? Well, why couldn't one make that same ridiculous argument about Rick Santorum? It's not a defensible position, it's not civil, and it's hypocritical. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The ends do not justify the means. Most editors disagree with others, sometimes vehemently, without resorting to blatant personal attacks and disruption. It's disgusting that people are defending these actions merely because they agree with the editor's opinion regarding the article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Memon_people

This article is about the Memon people, as part of the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, amongst whom are two terrorists Yakub Memon and Tiger Memon. They are listed because they satisfy WP:Notability, User talk:Kshitij85 has added the brothers and sisters of the terrorists even though they are not notable themselves and notability is not gained by being a sibling of a notable person. They were accessories but not protagonists.

Please take a look at Memon_people

--Tovojolo (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Memon_people

Here are my references for adding Memon family members on the list. User:Tovojolo knows nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case and is arguing unecessarily.

Few references:

• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-02-06/india/28130673_1_bomb-blasts-tada-court-tiger-memon
• http://www.mostwantedhoes.com/asia/indian-terrorists.php
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-05-07/india/27111296_1_tiger-memon-hanifa-memon-medical-grounds
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/memon/featured/4
  

(Kshitij85 (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

I do know a lot about it, actually, I said that they were accessories not protagonists, look up. User talk:Kshitij85 can add the details of the Memon family to the article on the actual incident, which is 1993 Bombay bombings or he can start an article on the Memon family but adding all the names, (even though the names of the two notable terrorists are already added) distorts the article as a whole, WP:Undue. The brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable by themselves. Notability is not gained by coattail hanging.

He also freely admits that he has multiple accounts, which is sockpuppetry.

--Tovojolo (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not my fault, if you don't see the links i provided. Your argument is baseless and you know nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case. You don't even know the recent developments and you say you know alot. The whole memon family are criminals as declared by Central Bureau of Investigation. You are going to be banned for vandalism if you continue to revert. (Kshitij85 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Do either of you understand WP:UNDUE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making threats on an Administrator's board? Your behaviour will be noted by all.--Tovojolo (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You started making threats first if you forgot. (Kshitij85 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

"S/he started it!" is not a valid defense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you not to violate WP:3RR and the consequences that would occur if you did. --Tovojolo (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Memon_people article is about the totality of the history and culture of the Memon people. Within the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, two notable terrorists who are Memons (Tiger Memon, Yakub Memon) are already noted in the article. Other editors have also reverted User talk:Kshitij85's edit as they too realise that the brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable in themselves [40].

Any such mention of that family belongs in 1993 Bombay bombings.

It is not a Memon vanity article neither is it a Memon bashing article. It should always be neutral in tone. Skewing the whole article around the behaviour of one family detracts from the Memon people as a whole and is undue.

--Tovojolo (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot read the links i posted here? Click on those links and you will realise. Four of the main accused are absconding Fugitives i.e Tiger, Ayub, Reshma and Shabana Memon. Four have been convicted by the Court i.e. Yakub, Essa, Yusuf Memon have got death sentence and Rubina Memon has got Life Imprisonment. If according to you apart from Tiger, Yakub rest all are "INNOCENT" then how come they have been convicted? They have been convicted because they are Criminals/Terrorists. Apart from that the entire family except for the 4 absconding fugitives have served a sentence in the prison. Just because you have made many edits on the article does'nt make you the owner of the article. And the other editors are supporting you because they are not reading the links. (Kshitij85 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Emotional outbursts have no place on Wikipedia. Stick to a discussion of Wikipedia's precepts. Do not personalise the debate and remain civil WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Never for one moment have I said that they are innocent, that is a gross distortion. The issue hangs on whether they are notable, the two terrorists (Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon) have their own articles on Wikipedia and indeed are duly noted as terrorists in the Memon_people article, the others, the brothers, sisters, wives even the mother and father lack notability as they were accessories not protagonists. The other editors, who are Wikipedia Admins, disagree with you because they too recognise that those people do not have notability. You do not understand that if you wish to refer to those people then you must do so on 1993 Bombay bombings.

For someone who claims 10,000 edits since 2004 and multiple accounts, you show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia precepts. What are your other sockpuppet account names? --Tovojolo (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The continued addition of non-notable (although possibly convicted/wanted) persons of the family have been removed. The page is right now fully protected (probably the wrong version, of course). Adding non-notable persons certainly adds undue weight to an unfortunate branch of the group, thus skewing the entire article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the issue is now resolved. Thanks --Tovojolo (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not go that far: full protection is only for 10 days. Kshitij has also been blocked, but I believe it's temporary, especially considering he admits to having another account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Troit Trolls

A few minutes ago, Troit1 (talk · contribs) created an article called Troit Trolls that says, in part, Troit trolls is a trolling group on Wikipedia and other outlets started on 17:20 GMT on the 8th of July 2011. The group has hacked numerous pages since its foundation. Troit Trolls' goal is to wreak havoc on Wikipedia. Let's disregard the obvious typo of "July" for "June". I'm not sure how credible a threat this is, or if it's just a lone kiddie looking for attention, but I thought I would bring it up here. Elizium23 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be deleted as notability isn't established, for starters. The rest is pretty obvious ofc. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently these guys have an agenda, they are upset over US activities in Libya and the rest of the Middle East. They're not very good trolls if they're angry over something as appears to be the case here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)