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 admins 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.

---

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

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have brought this a week ago and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken it to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. We need Admin intervention at this stage.Sudar123 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the DRN volunteer in the case. Never been involved with Sri Lankan articles and I have no position on the civil war, but this was straightforward WP:OR. The statement that Himesh84 wants to include isn't explicitly mentioned in the source. Himesh argues that it's implied, but that's exactly what makes it OR. The other editors involved in the case (User:Jobberone, User:Obi2canibe, User:Sudar123, User:24.177.125.104, and myself) agreed that a source was needed that explicitly stated the claim. Instead of finding a new source, he's edit warred on the article. This is worrying, given how sensitive and controversial the topic is.--SGCM (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read over the DRN discussion and looked at the article's history. Even though a unanimous consensus was not reached (Himesh84 refused to budge), it seems clear to me that Himesh84's proposed changes are being objected to by several other editors and not supported by anyone else. And even though a DRN process "is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions", I would propose there is more than enough reason here to insist that Himesh84 should carefully explain (on the article's talk page, not via an edit war) his objections to the current wording of the article, and not make any more attempts to impose his changes on the text unless he can first convince other editors to agree with him.

My first impulse was to say that this looked like a content dispute / edit war between two factions (with neither one being right or wrong) — but on further reflection, it seems to me that it's a case of one editor against several, with an all-but-unanimous consensus being rejected by an individual who is argumentatively restating his position (as opposed to discussing it) and has been repeatedly edit-warring in defiance of consensus. Himesh84 needs to step back here and consider that even if he is convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong, he needs to do a much better job of explaining why there are problems with the existing text and why he believes certain changes need to be made. Drop, for the time being at least, any arguments based on dictionary definitions of common English words, and try instead to understand why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK, and focus your comments on why you believe there are major problems that require changes. If you think there is an NPOV problem with the current text, that may be a valid issue, but it needs to be discussed (and, if necessary, escalated through established dispute resolution procedures which do not involve repeatedly making changes which everyone else objects to). If Himesh84 refuses to change his behaviour, is unable to mould a revised consensus through a genuine give-and-take discussion, and insists on going back to edit warring, he needs to be blocked in order to prevent further disruption. — Richwales 04:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely said, I strongly agree with your assessment of the dispute. DRN is an informal, not a binding, process, and serves as a noticeboard for building consensus. When consensus has been all but reached, with the exception of a single editor (the one making the edit in contention), then that editor needs to engage the other users by directly addressing the policy arguments. Edit warring and criticising others for not understanding the English language (example: "This is not something about wikipedia policy. This is about English. Even I have used my time to search meaning (sic) of the English words") are not conducive to consensus building. To be fair, it takes two to edit war, and Sudar123 should not have responded to Himesh84's behaviour.--SGCM (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this, and I concur. Both sides are already in edit-war-block territory and should desist, but it is clear that Himesh84 has failed to gain consensus for the change he wants to make, either at DRN or on the talk page, and any further attempt to make it would be disruptive. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government officially rejected this report. It is clearly linked by Obi2canibe in his edits. UNHRC is the authorized entity and country's final official responses are come to the UNHRC. UNHRC officially asked to implement LLRC recommendations(refereced). After UNHRC officially selected and urged to implement LLRC implementations , process recommended in this report has no value. But when someone reading this article that person will definitely feel lot of countries currently supporting the implementation method specified in this report. It is completely wrong. Now they officially supporting and asking to implement LLRC recommendations. This wikipedia page tries to give a completely wrong bad impression about Sri Lanka. People (Obi2canibe) who likes Tamil Ealam (Tamil Ealam is a name proposed for the separated country within Sri Lanka) trying to use this rejected report(by Sri Lanka and UNHRC) to create bad impression on Sri Lanka. That's why current recognition to this report is highly important.

I tried to clarify things very clearly. Obi2canibe was in misunderstanding and write to the discussion. "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". This is only where not using word over is correct. I clearly clarified that LLRC recommended local solution and UNSG's report recommended international solution and LLRC,UNSG's recommendations are completely opposite using facts linked in his version of the article. He didn't accept those are different when it is clearly visible. I asked from him "Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ?" Even he was in misunderstood, he didn't answered to clarify his statement. If so I could further clarified it. Instead answering they or him with multiple accounts closed the discussion. Wikipedia administrators must understand that it is very difficult to agree or gain consensus to a something by Sri Lankan and Tamil Ealam supporter. But correct thing should be in the Wikipedia without creating bad impressions on countries using not supported implementations by UNHRC. Obi2canibe said "Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report". These logic are very much primitive. UNHRC selected LLRC implementations after tabling,voting.... Why to worry about a implementation mechanism not even considered to tabled ? They chose the best one to tabled.That's it. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote or defend any countries. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to include a claim, find a source that explicitly states the point you're trying to make. There is no conspiracy going on. I and the other volunteer, Jobberone, have never edited any of the Sri Lankan articles, and don't have any positions on squabbles between Tamil or Sri Lankan supporters. The DRN case was closed because you did not make any arguments on the applicability of policy, and failed to convince any of the other editors of your position, leading to filibustering.--SGCM (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But is Wikipedia is to spread wrong image about countries using outdated reports ? --Himesh84 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the 2nd party involved in this edit war. It was between Himesh84,Obi2canibe and later Sudar123 joined to the edit war.--Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be edit warring.--SGCM (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Highly disagreed on that. Dispute solved means, all the parties involved in the dispute must agree on the solution. If all the persons except one person agreed to a solution it doesn't say it is the correct decision. Some of the Aristotle's observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the 19th century. Before that all said Aristotle is wrong. It is just an example. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus is not unanimity, which on Wikipedia is nearly impossible. When all the editors share a similar viewpoint, with the exception of one, and that one editor has failed to use policy arguments to support his position, then there's no need to continue filibustering a DRN case. My advice, which I honestly hope is helpful, is that you'll respond by directly addressing policy arguments, or by finding a new source that explicitly makes the claims you're arguing for. One of Wikipedia's core principles is that it is based on verifiability, not truth.--SGCM (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If a core principle says it is not about truth why/how the hell Wikipedia claiming it is an encyclopedia ?--Himesh84 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia like all encyclopedias is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. It does not have the resources or the editorial oversight to make claims, true or not, only to report claims made by others that are verifiable and reliable. This is why original research is not allowed, and why it is considered a core principle of the site.--SGCM (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

UNSG report has very dangerous recommendations which could severely affect sovereignty of Sri Lanka. UNSG's implementations suggest to bring Sri Lanka to an international court and give a solution in there. The final decision from the international court can be anything. Even creating new country "Tamil Ealam" is also possible. Ealam Tamils want to divide Sri Lanka and create new country with proposed name "Tamil Ealam". They tried to get the approval of the UNHRC to the report but failed. Still they used this report to spread bad impression saying this is the mostly accepted approach to solve the problem. But LLRC is the officially recognized and selected implementation. But still the Administrator approved version says there are lot of International recognition to the SG's implementations. Even it includes recognition of countries who voted to LLRC implementation in UNHRC. This version gives completely wrong idea. This wrong version can create very bad image on Sri Lanka which can later affect to tourism,... hit Sri Lankan economy and create a separated country. That's why this wrong and outdated version needed to correct.

I know why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK. Because they supporters of Tamil Ealam. They have a plan. That's why they refused to accept that UNHRC accepted LLRC implementaion over SG's implementations while even Sri Lankan government received a letter from UNHRC to asking implement of LLRC recommendations. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on talk page --Himesh84 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh, please assume good faith and do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is in a conspiracy or is on the other side in your political dispute. You have explained your position at length, on the article talk page, at DRN and here, but you have not convinced anybody. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and it is now time for you to accept that you do not have a consensus for the changes you want to make and drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Wikipedia has failed to built a system so that it says it is. They have built a system which can gathered most number of users and way to get most number of hits. This report criticize Sri Lankan court system and law. But UNHRC asked to implemented LLRC which based on local court system. It is officially asked by a letter. UNHRC even didn't bothered to consider tabling UNSG's implementations. But your Wikipedia page showing a completely wrong picture to the world. Please admit that no one talking about this outdated report except Tamil Diaspora and Wikipedia company ( I don't know who funded this company). Even the person who created this report (UN secretary) now asking to implement LLRC recommendation. http://www.thesundayleader.lk/. I am not asking why Tamil diaspora not accepting LLRC. But why Wikipedia company not accepting LLRC over UNSG's report while Bank ki Moon , the person who created UNSG's report accepted LLRC is the correct approach ? I am not changing my position since all the countries and even UNSG's author had changed their positions and accepted LLRC recommendations are the correct approach. But your site trying to mislead readers. Please revisit your policies and try to implement a good policies to become encyclopedia over most popular view. If it is not possible at least drop the claim Wikipedia is a encyclopedia to prevent readers getting mislead --Himesh84 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for The Truth, it is not a place to Right Great Wrongs, and as mentioned above you really should drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is more nuanced than simply "majority opinion rules". Wikipedia's policy is to seek a neutral point of view — which, to quote the policy, means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are not supposed to be deciding which viewpoint represents "the truth", presenting only that view and marginalizing or ignoring all other views. If there are two or more significant views represented in reliable sources, we are supposed to explain that there are differences of viewpoint and explain the different views.

There are, to be sure, sometimes still potential problems with implementing this policy. The available sources (particularly English-language sources, since most editors and readers here will be primarily familiar with English) may not cover the various aspects of a controversial foreign situation adequately. Certain kinds of sources — such as, in this case, statements by the Sri Lankan government, the LTTE, individual spokesmen or critics, other governments in the region, or even UN bodies or officials — could be inherently biased and not usable as reliable objective sources of information (except perhaps as information about what a given government, agency, or person thinks about the situation).

Additionally, we are forbidden here to engage in our own "original research" — including, in particular, synthesis of multiple separate sources to create a claim that isn't backed up by any one source on its own. Sometimes the line between OR/SYNTH and commonsense understanding of plain English can be hard to draw, but when lots of other editors are complaining about OR/SYNTH issues, chances are there is a real problem with the way someone is trying to use the source material in question. In such cases, the best answer is usually not to belabour the point by insisting that our reading of the materials is obviously correct and that everyone else is being dense.

The point of seeking consensus is not to determine "truth" by majority vote. Rather, if all (or at least most) editors are trying to follow the policies, we assume that a consensus (maybe not unanimous, but as close to unanimous as we can get) are most likely understanding how the policies apply to the situation at hand, and their collective judgment is probably the most suitable way to deal with the issue being worked on.

I would urge Himesh84 to very carefully study Wikipedia's core content policies (namely, "Neutral Point of View", "Verifiability", and "No Original Research"), and come back to the article under discussion here with a way to describe the UN report that acknowledges and explains all the various viewpoints — based on what as many different news sources and scholarly treatments say about the matter — but without taking sides, without injecting your own personal observations or opinions into your writing, and (if at all possible) writing in such a way that someone reading what you wrote (and knowing nothing else about you) would not be able to tell where you personally stand on the issues in question. Until you can do this, you are going to find contributing to Wikipedia to be frustrating, if not completely impossible. — Richwales 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rich, you didn't get me. I have understand Wikipedia policies. I understand that there is a serious problem in the Wikipedia policies which can't claim it is a encyclopedia. Ban ki Moon added the content of his report to the UN 2011 report. Two months later, after UNHRC vote , without having an option Ban ki Moon had to changed his position and supported to implement LLRC implementations. Countries officially responded at the UNHRC vote. But these Wikipedia policies still showing the picture before the UNHRC vote. Lot of countries officially changed their standard and voted to implement LLRC implementations at UNHRC. Now those countries supporting LLRC not UNSG's recommendations. Since they voted to implement LLRC at UNHRC there shouldn't be any doubt about that. I am not asking to create new policies of the private company called as Wikipedia. But with these policies Wikipedia can't claim it is encyclopedia. It can give completely opposite picture.

As this wikipedia policies can't prove UNHRC chose LLRC recommendations over UNSG's recommendations, same policies can't use to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's orders over Mr/Ms Rich's orders even Obama is the selected one in the presidential election. Sudar,Obi2canibe,SGCM can say Rich didn't participate to the US election so don't use the word "over". Can you ever find a source to claim Pentagon has to accept Mr. Obama's order over Rich's order? But what will happened in the real world when you , Obama give opposite orders to pentagon at the same time ? Will pentagon give any recognition to you ? If they always accept Obama's orders why Rich has to given this much of wrong recognition by the Pentagon ? . This is not a encyclopedia. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states the claim you want to make. Use quotations if you have to. The government newspaper is a good start, but it has to be attributed properly so that it meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. And please don't lump me in with the other editors as if to imply there's a conspiracy against you. I wasn't initially part of this dispute until the DRN case.--SGCM (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Again you are arguing for the wrong thing. I don't want to do any more edits. I given up. But I have right to give my opinion regarding some publishers who claim they are encyclopedia and they publish wrong things related to me, my country,... Use existing Wikipedia polices and show Pentagon has to accept Obama's orders over Rich/SGCM orders to prove Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every one in the world know about Mr. Obama, Pentagon and the relationship. So proving it shouldn't be a tough task --Himesh84 (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Himesh84. Rich is right when he says that Wikipedia is not a vote. Consensus is established, not by the number of users, but because of the success or failure to use the applicability of content policies to argue a position. There are many constructive ways to respond, like arguing why or how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH has not occurred or by finding a new source that explicitly states the claim you're trying to make. Quote from the source if you must. There are ways to argue constructively, and I hope the advice by all the editors here has been helpful.--SGCM (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84 has quoted a Sri Lankan Government Minister's view in the Sri Lankan Government's Official Newspaper - Daily News though it is well neutralised by User:Richwales. But the second source Himesh84 has quoted contains many important facts about the LLRC and the Sri Lankan Government. I have added some of the important facts from the second source since LLRC is quoted in the lead para of the UN Panel's Report.Sudar123 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the following.Sudar123 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The UN resolution calls for an “action plan” from the very government that is responsible for the military’s killing of tens of thousands of civilians in the communal war with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as well as other gross abuses of democratic rights. President Mahinda Rajapakse set up the LLRC to fend off international criticism and whitewash the government and the military. The Sri Lankan government lobbied heavily against any resolution calling for even limited action on human rights. Within Sri Lanka, the government has used the issue to stir up nationalist and anti-Western sentiment, claiming that the country is the target of an “international conspiracy.” After the UN resolution was passed, President Rajapakse told a public meeting that “Sri Lanka, as an independent country will not give into any arbitrary interference in its affairs.” Rajapakse’s real concern is that, if it suited Washington’s interests, his government could quickly become an international pariah in the same manner as the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Moreover, he and his ministers could suddenly find themselves facing trial for war crimes.<ref>[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/slun-m28.shtml "UN Human Rights Council passes resolution on Sri Lanka"], ''World Socialist Web Site'', 28 March 2012.</ref>

World Socialist Web Site is not a reliable source, anymore than the official government newspaper.--SGCM (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks SGCM for your advice. I want to finish my comments on the LLRC issue with this podcast highlight for the time being.Sudar123 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President and Special Advisor on Latin America at the International Crisis Group(ICG), discusses(with Kimberly Abbott of ICG) on the recent visit to Washington of G. L. Peiris, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, and the pressing questions that the minister left unanswered.

The report of the LLRC was just released in December, and Peiris has said that the Sri Lankan inquiry is just now beginning. That’s been his excuse for not allowing any sort of international inquiry into what happened during the war and specifically in the last few months of the war. Is the international community buying this?

No, in fact the clearest evidence of the unhappiness of the international community is the adoption in March, March 22, of a resolution by the UN Human Rights Council. A resolution that was cosponsored by forty different countries and that was approved 24 to 8, that essentially says wait a minute, what are your plans for implementing the recommendations of the LLRC? And then it states specifically that the report does not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law. And so, it presses the government to come forward and say what it will do to investigate those allegations and to hold people accountable for those who violated them. And remember, what we’re talking about here are very specific allegations of the targeting of civilians, the shelling of no-fire zones. Where the government said this is a no-fire zone, we’re not going to be attacking it, civilians went in there, and then they were attacked. The killing of surrendering LTTE cadres, sexual and gender based violence, disappearances, these are the kinds of specific allegations that the UN Human Rights Council, the Crisis Group, and others have essentially said to the government, you have to investigate, these are violations of international law, these are your international obligations.

What I'm going to say here will probably offend some — and I'm sorry about that, but I believe it needs to be said, so please bear with me and try to understand the points I'm hoping to make.

First, WP:VNT ("verifiability, not truth") is widely misunderstood. It doesn't mean "we don't care whether something is true or not, as long as it's 'verifiable'". What it means is "we can't say something just because we're sure it's true — we need to verify it before it can be included". Quoting WP:VNT, "Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability."

The Sri Lankan conflict is inherently a controversial topic, with strongly held views on both sides (as we've all seen illustrated here). A prolonged and very bloody (I use this word in its literal sense, though the figurative/expletive sense may also apply) civil war was fought, and the government won, but there seems to be little or no progress towards a genuine reconciliation, and I doubt anyone can really say what the future will bring to the island or the people who live there. There is a very strong drive, on both sides, for people to present their position as being right and true, and the other side's position as being wrong, evil, and dangerous.

We (writers in Wikipedia) can not allow our writing to be taken over by such partisan motivations, no matter how worthy we might think our cause is. Even if you (I'm speaking to everyone here, not just Himesh and Sudar) think the matter is cut and dried, the fact is that the available reputable sources do not view the Sri Lankan conflict as a one-sided matter, with one side obviously 100% in the right, and the other side totally in the wrong and not worthy of any justification or defence. Thus, Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we need to present all significant views represented in reliable sources, make it clear to the reader which side is making which claims, and give the reader enough information to allow him/her to draw his/her own conclusions. This is what it means for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia (as opposed to a political tract or a propaganda vehicle). If any of you cannot, in good conscience, contribute to an end product that will give readers a balanced, comprehensive treatment of the overall subject, please do us all a favour and gracefully withdraw from work on this and related articles, and allow people who are able and willing to research and write dispassionately to do so.

We need to discuss the UN Secretary General's accountability report, because it is/was a significant piece of the overall picture. We don't suppress it simply because it was not ultimately accepted, any more than (say) we would ignore John McCain's 2008 US presidential campaign because Obama won the election. And saying (please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding, but this is what it sounded like to me) that the UNSG report needs to be minimized or censored for the sake of Sri Lankan national security, the country's tourism industry, or other such considerations simply doesn't fly here on Wikipedia: we report what is verifiable from reliable sources, presenting information from those sources in their proper context, and if some people get worried or offended, we may be sorry, but that's just too bad. Material from the Sri Lankan government, or from Sri Lankan news sources that are most likely subject either to outright censorship or to strong pressure to echo the government views "or else", can be used to illustrate government positions, but need to be taken with a grain of salt if they presume to state plain facts.

And it's certainly OK to put the UNSG report in context — explaining (with the aid of reliable sources) the effect (or lack of effect) of the report, its relation to the Sri Lankan government's competing LLRC report, etc. — but we do not say (in the neutral, authoritative voice of Wikipedia) that the LLRC report was a whitewash, or that the Sri Lankan government is resisting calls to investigate its own war crimes, etc., etc., unless such claims are presented in a neutral and balanced manner and properly attributed to reliable sources. For example, material from the "World Socialist Web Site" may be used as evidence of what the people behind the World Socialist Web Site think about the Sri Lankan crisis, but can not presented as objective, neutral fact.

Finally, no one has any business here painting editors who don't agree with them with broad brush strokes and accusing them of being supporters or dupes of the other side. That is a variety of personal attack that is simply not allowed. I, for one, am willing to overlook such comments, provided they stop now and do not happen again, but I can't necessarily speak for other editors' level of tolerance for this kind of stuff. Just for the record, I have no personal or ancestral ties to Sri Lanka (or to India, in case that might matter), and I don't have any strongly held views on the Sri Lankan conflict, but based on what I am aware of, it appears to me that both sides have committed excesses and neither side is fully in the right (and if that means that everyone is going to think I'm supporting or been blinded by the "other side", so be it). — Richwales 18:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Accuracy matters, but must be verifiable. The article should be presented in a neutral fashion, with due weight, and using reliable sources. I was brought into this mess via the DRN request, and I regret continuing my involvement after the DRN was closed. It was irritating that I was accused of being part of a conspiracy for closing the DRN, when I have never touched a Sri Lankan article, prior to the DRN, in my entire span of editing Wikipedia, and have no position on the Sir Lankan civil war, which is controversial and should be represented in a neutral manner. As for the actual dispute, Himesh and Sudar have backed off from edit warring. Both users seem to be willing to discuss changes on the talk page. The conduct dispute, as it concerns ANI, has been resolved.--SGCM (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Richwales has said. I would only add that, although anyone can edit is an important principle, so also are WP:Neutral point of view and the need to edit in a collaborative and WP:CIVIL way, and sometimes these conflict. To quote WP:Competence is required: "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate." I hope this will not become necessary here. JohnCD (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support. I concur that both Himesh and Sudar appear to be conducting themselves appropriately at the present time. — Richwales 20:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Richwales, JohnCD and SGCM for your neutral comments and solved the issue amicably, but the WP:Synthesis is infected in many of the Sri Lanka related articles and it will create endless Edit Wars if we are getting involved. But I couldn't persist at this point to bring your notice one incident called, "Sahilal Sabaratnam incident" where he was arrested by FBI for his purchase of weapons to LTTE when he was a Communication Director at Canadian Tamil Congress. And the incident was quoted at the Canadian Tamil Congress page and the Canadian Tamil Congress is branded as an "Affiliate" on the Wikipedia Pages.

I have removed the above incident from the Canadian Tamil Congress page because the Congress was nothing to do with his personal actions and involvements. There is no evidence or citation to support he was authorized by the Canadian Tamil Congress to execute it. The incident happened in 2006 and still the Congress is active and for its recent CTC Press Conference and Channel 4's "War Crimes Unpunished" screened at the Canadian Parliament was attended by two parliamentarians Rathika Sitsabaiesan and John McCallum. One of the citation used is from the Sri Lankan Government's Official Media - Sunday Observer. This issue is very cleverly synthesized with Canadian Tamil Congress. It is because of one Robert Hanssen, do you think entire FBI is an affiliate to the KGB?

I think this issue also will come under your moderation.Sudar123 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Catperson12

Catperson12 (talk · contribs)

Reported this user to AIV. Long term disruption, with many of their edits necessitating reversion. No doubt often well-intentioned, but persistent change of content, always unsourced, edit warring without engaging other editors' concerns, with no use of edit summaries to explain actions. History of warnings, some final, with a block. None of this has slowed the account's pattern, nor induced a desire to discuss their edits. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As you've been here only a week, it would be best if you provided some diffs to show some specific disruptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to trust me that I've been here, in fact, for more than seven years. Later I may have the time to assemble diffs, but is there a reason that reporting this as an IP requires more specific substantiation? For the moment, your warning of May 25 underscores that this account has been receiving negative feedback for a long time [1]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with your being an IP, only a lack of context. Obviously, as you note, I had an issue with that editor also, some time back, and decided to quote Mike Ditka. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was Ditka--I've been watching baseball, in which,as we know, there's no crying. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Stop it!" is obviously not original with Ditka, but it's a short, humorous editorial segment he's been doing on ESPN NFL Today for the last couple of seasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I declined to block based on the AIV report, mainly because there had been no recent warnings. User:De728631 took the extra step of adding a warning. Catperson has madde no edits since that warning. The one block occurred three months ago. And, @76, the answer is no, the fact that you're an IP does not create a higher bar for a report here, but all editors who report misconduct here should provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Bbb23. I've been around long enough to know that you and Baseball Bugs are valued contributors, and I appreciate the rationale for not blocking. As well, diffs are helpful. I came here because I believe that this is a problematic user who has chosen neither to engage nor respect basic guidelines, and believe that numerous edits have been either inaccurate or original research, and haven't improved the articles. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If there's a continual problem with Catperson's edits, it would be good to document some of it, for the reasonable likelihood that this is not the end of this story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay. Here are some recent edits that were quickly reverted [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. These are invariably minor edits in terms of amount of content changed, but if they are not supported by references and require reversion, represent a greater nuisance than contribution. They're a time sink for those who have to trail along behind and check every edit, and for me, just to report this and list a few recent diffs. When I could be spending my precious time sampling ales. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • And this [13]; my take is that good-faith edits are occasionally sprinkled among apparently pointless, nuisance edits, the kind which can and do fly under the radar for months.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It's hard to tell whether those edits are true trolling or merely incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Comment: Catperson12 has one talk page edit and zero user talk edits. -- Dianna (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Catperson has made two edits subsquent to De728631's warning. One was fairly innocuous and has remained intact. The other was this one undone by 78. So, they've expanded their distinctions from town vs. city to harpsichord vs. piano.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• And more, including this [14] and [15]. At some point--Catperson has been editing since October 2011--it makes little difference whether it's trolling or incompetence. But, and I'm guessing they're cool with this, they are getting some attention. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• [16].... I'm going with trolling, though of the slowest and most uninteresting sort. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Because Catperson made more city/town edits subsequent to User:De728631's warning and failed to explain what they are doing, I have blocked them for a week (they had been previously blocked for 48 hours in June).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User Jagged_85 and abuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For those not aware of the background to this, Jagged_85 was previously the subject of an April 2010 RFC regarding his abuse of sources: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Summary. It was agreed that Jagged_85 had been making unacceptable edits, using references which did not support the claims made. As one of the outside views noted: "the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources". Jagged_85 essentially did not contest the case but used as his defence that he had been rushed and careless.

The conclusion of the RFC was that: Jagged_85 would stop abusing sources and would stop making such bad edits; Jagged_85 would help in the cleanup (to put this in perspective he is currently 253 in terms number of edits on Wikipedia, and has previously been much higher; a significant proportion of his edits have serious problems); and he was told to: "avoid any questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources, and in particular, avoiding edits which add exceptional claims, unless these have received strong confirmation from several reliable sources". Finally, Jagged_85 was warned: "if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban."

No further action was taken; Jagged_85 has made only a marginal effort to help clear-up the mess left behind him, but he stopped editing the Muslim history related articles where he had caused so much damage, and everyone was essentially happy to assume good faith and let him get on with editing other parts of the encyclopedia.

I came to the problem after the original RFC, when I got quite heavily involved in trying to clean some of the extraordinary mess left in articles such as Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Avicenna. As such I was watching the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 page. I then saw that a couple of editors in Jagged_85's new chosen topic area, computer games, were concerned with his use of sources and editing style. When I looked into it further I was frankly horrified, as Jagged_85 was making exactly the same sort of exceptional claims regarding computer game X being the first to have 3D polygonal graphics that he used to make about Muslim scholars inventing various surgical instruments that had existed for centuries, or suggesting Muslim scholars came up with Newton's first law of motion before Newton did.

With the help of users bridies and Indrian, who are editors in the computer games area, I have been looking into this further over the course of about a week, and the further I dig, the worse it seems. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence, which is the page where we've been collecting the evidence.

The list of provably false claims made on that page is staggering. And we really weren't trying very hard to collect examples. Over the course of investigating I looked into one article, Gun Fight; almost every substantial edit Jagged made to that article is problematic, trying to make what is undoubtedly an important game sound even more groundbreaking that it was. He makes wild, exceptional claims about things which he doesn't seem to understand and which are certainly not supported by the references he gives. I even found one edit so bad that it was specifically rubbished by a computer website: 'Even today, Wikipedia, that bastion of poor research, triumphantly declares Silpheed was "notable for its early use of real-time 3D polygonal graphics." No, Wikipedia, it really was not.'

I am of course happy to hear other people's views, but my personal opinion is that, given the previous RFC (which specifically mentioned a ban if he did not mend his ways), and given the sheer amount of damage he has done to the encyclopedia, by making so many referenced, exceptional claims which are simply not supported by the reference (sometimes directly contradicted by the reference), it must be time to consider a community ban. My personal opinion is that it needs to be a permanent one; we are surely way beyond second chances now.--Merlinme (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wowser. So, after peddling anti-Western Muslim propaganda in math and science articles for years, he now does the same for Asian videogame manufacturers usually at the expense of Western ones? And using the exact same methods? Who'd have seen that one coming? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. His editing is still very problematic as shown by that evidence, and he shows no sign of accepting the assessment of the previous RfC/U. Fences&Windows 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that diff. In it, Jagged_85 accuses anyone exposing him of having a "very explicitly obvious Eurocentric agenda". It figures. 86.121.137.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this constitutes outright lying in Wikipedia articles. With such a long history of it, this guy needs to be permanently banned.

Also, crap, I had no idea there was a Starglider 2! (I played the first game for a few years.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why WP coddles those who intentionally misrepresent sources to push their POV. Should have been banned long ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to attract new editors? "Hi, I'm Jagged 85. I've been rewriting world history on Wikipedia since 2005 (and so can you!)" 86.121.137.227 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time to block Jagged 85. Looking at the first half of the Video Game evidence, I can't tell whether xe is just unable to properly read sources, or is somehow obsessed with pushing a POV (though I can't quite see what it is, because I don't know what all of those games have in common (is it the geographic source of the company)? Ultimately, it doesn't make a difference. Furthermore, the earlier massively bad editing on Muslim science issues caused very long term problems. People familiar with the whole story regularly had to stub or at least significantly trim articles because so much of them was based on Jagged 85's work; the problem then became that users not familiar with the problem objected to what they saw as removal of sourced info, and then on article after article people would have to explain what was wrong with Jagged 85's work, insist that no, it is not salvageable in any way, etc. The reason why Jagged 85's actions are so bad is that they resemble, on the surface, very good editing--adding well formatted, fairly believable information that appears to be directly supported by specific sources. This has to be stopped, and since it is now clear that it's not just a specific topic that's the source of the problems, the only solution is to remove Jagged 85 from Wikipedia. An indefinite block is certainly called for here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the video games evidence, I've removed the autopatrolled and reviewer rights as a bare minimum. Reading the 2010 RFC/U now. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The pattern that emerges from the latest survey is that he is pimping various non-Western video games and their manufacturers (by necessity, these are mostly Japanese) with fake claims of various "firsts", "best-selling" and the like. 86.121.137.227 (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• As noted above, I was involved in preparing this (though completely unaware of the original RfC until recently), but I support an indefinite (permanent) site ban for Jagged85. As others have noted, he acknowledged that he faced being banned if he continued this kind of editing and nevertheless he continued, in a different subject area. Even if these kinds of edits constituted a minority of his edits as he has claimed ("cherry-picking" being an accusation he has often levelled at his detractors), the absolute number nevertheless means that the limited wherewithal of our video game editors cannot keep up with them. Further, in at least certain sub-areas, I hold that Jagged85's bad edits are the norm rather than the exception. The page above illustrates the kind of edits for which he was previously taken to task: making extraordinary and spurious "factual" claims based usually on the direct misrepresentation of his sources (and sometimes by using a source which goes against wider research, perhaps even common knowledge in the case of the Space Invaders claim). I also put together a second page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Video Game Genres Evidence (which has largely not been copy edited by other users), detailing his edits in-depth across just a few video game genre articles. It shows wider edits which added lesser or more subjective historical commentary, but with equally direct misrepresentation of sources. There is also a wide tendency to add purely descriptive information to history articles/sections to imply historical significance (Jagged85 denies this) and to use material and sources out of context generally. It also shows plagiarism to be a prevalent issue with Jagged85's supported edits. bridies (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• And I am the other video game editor who has been looking into these issues. I first really began taking notice of Jagged 85 in January of this year when I noticed that a few of his edits seemed really out of whack based on my knowledge of video game history. I then began examining some of his edits over the previous year to video game articles and discovered a large number that needed to be reverted for accuracy. I then began following his editing progress on his user contribution page, which allowed me to catch a fair number of really bad edits within hours or days of their commission. This practice also led me to become aware of the original RFC against him in February 2012. I was quite disturbed at that time, because his MO on video game history articles appeared nearly identical. I contacted a respected video game editor known for his policy expertise and diplomacy about my concerns, but unfortunately it soon became apparent that this editor had recently left wikipedia permanently, as he has not been heard from since January. As I pondered what to do next (unilateral action not being palatable to me) I noted that Jagged's volume of video game history edits had declined by the end of March 2012 and that I no longer had the time to fact-check his contributions too closely. I therefore decided to keep an eye on him and try to catch particularly blatant looking problems, but not take further action. When Bridies first noticed the problem and decided independently to get involved on the original RFC talk page, I decided the time had come to take more comprehensive punitive action.

I can state from experience that while Jagged has made a small number of high quality edits to video game articles and a decent number of neutral edits, these are greatly outweighed by the distortions he has introduced. In fact, I did not realize how bad some of his abuses had become until gathering the evidence for this ANI posting because he was adding material so rapidly between January 2011 and March 2012 and adding specific bad claims across so many articles simultaneously that it would have taken weeks of work for a single editor to verify all of his edits individually. I do not know that he really has an agenda (though his pushing of Japanese games, sometimes at the expense of more well-known Western products -- a topic I chose not to delve into too deeply in the evidence I presented -- does give me pause), but he appears to be grossly incompetent both in his failure to understand the sources from which he draws his claims and in his lack of understanding of the historical and technological topics he attempts to engage with. I will not weigh in on what I think the appropriate level of punishment should be for his actions, but I firmly believe that his abuse of sources and distortion of fact has done great harm to wikipedia and must be stopped. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that Jagged 85 also had a long-term interest in making fake claims about Japanese inventions, not just Muslim ones. For example List of Japanese inventions, which was almost entirely his writing, contained ridiculous claims like:

"p–n junction

A junction formed by combining P-type and N-type semiconductors together in very close contact. It was invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989.[34]"

Akasaki invented/discovered some junctions used in LEDs, but by no means invented the p-n junction (and surely not in 1989). Another related and absurd claim made on that list was that Akasaki also invented GaN. GaN was first synthesized in 1932. Akasaki was three years old back then. What Akasaki's team discovered was that Mg-doped p-type GaN was useful for building bright LEDs. (Facts source: the introduction to Nitride Semiconductors and Devices by Hadis Morkoç.) Akasaki's contribution was described in Light-Emitting Diodes by E. Fred Schubert as "the first true p-type doping and p-type conductivity in GaN". That's quite a far cry from having invented the GaN substrate or the p-n junction, isn't it? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I honestly remain unsure as to whether he is really biased or it is just a combination of incompetence along with focus area. He likes to add information about Japanese topics, and in so-doing has on several occasions distorted Japanese accomplishments vis-a-vis Western accomplishments in video game history and elsewhere, but if he chose to focus on Western topics he would probably end up doing the same thing in reverse. I still think its primarily an inability to engage in proper research that leads him astray and that it is easy to see bias in his work because that is a more believable explanation in some ways than his apparently staggering levels of incompetence. After chasing so many of his edits though, I really think he is just that inept. That is no excuse, however, and I think the community has been extremely patient in giving him opportunities to figure out his problems. The fact that he continued his sloppy research techniques in a different subject area after the previous RFC is somewhat mind-boggling. Indrian (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it's pretty difficult to read remarks like this and still not see any extreme bias. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Jagged 85 indefinitely. I'd usually wait for a response first, but given the history here, I don't think there's anything they could say that will change my mind. The evidence is clear that they have engaged in long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation. They've been more than adequately warned for this precise conduct during the RFC/U, but yet have persisted in this behavior. Cleaning up after them has already cost massive amounts of volunteer time, and allowing them to continue to edit will only cause more time to be wasted on checking up and verifying their work, especially since a lot of the problems involve difficult-to-obtain sources. In short, it is very far from a net positive to allow them to continue to edit. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's a pretty clear community consensus for a ban. For the record, although he is interested in Eastern subjects, I don't think he showed a particularly strong bias towards them in his computer edits. The connecting thread in his edits is hype; everything he writes about has to be the first, earliest, most significant, most influential example. I don't however accept the argument that it's just incompetence with sources on his part. His standard method was to find a source which said X was a Y, and then use that reference to claim X invented Y (or was the first Y, or introduced Y, or was a significant early example, etc. etc.) Jagged_85 did that hundreds or thousands of times, and I find it hard to believe he didn't know exactly what he was doing, especially when he apparently deliberately used references which were hard to check.

Claims to be first (or otherwise exceptional in some way) using bad references are what to look out for in any sock puppet discussions, which I suspect we may get. --Merlinme (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

I've unarchived this because he has posted a very long unblock rationale on his talk page. The community needs to decide if Jagged 85 is only WP:BLOCKED, thus any admin may unblock him, or if he is WP:CBANned, in which case he may only be unblocked by a consensus of editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see a few supports for a ban above, I'd also reiterate/clarify my support for a community ban (and a global one, if at all possible). His unblock request is derisory: he's essentially repeated his accusations of "cherry-picking", of which there was none this time. As I noted above, I picked the first 3 genre articles on my list of successful GANs, went through them, and posted the bad edits I found. I also covered what I left out. I'm certain Jagged85 couldn't come up with much of a list of good edits made to those pages, certainly not edits involving more than purely descriptive commentary. The edits on the main list are only cherry picked in the sense they were chosen to show he's still been doing what he's explicitly not supposed to have been doing per the previous RfC. Dig deeper and largely all one finds is more of the same involving subjective commentary, as well as original synthesis, plagiarism, and redundancy. His statement on his talk page that "the vast majority (I'm certain at least more than 95%) of that information matches the sources very accurately" is completely spurious. Aside from straight-up misrepresentation accounting for more like 50% (if Jagged85 can guestimate, so can I), often his content "matches the sources very accurately" because it's plagiarised. And if one takes into account that much of his recent bad editing is taking verifiable statements and putting them into contexts where they have no business being, it's no exaggeration to say that 95% bad edits is a more accurate ratio. Also, regarding his complaint that no video game editor came to him about systematic issues: I went to his talk page to ask him just what he'd done to First-person shooter, only to find it full of references to that old RfC, which in turn had linked to about a dozen threads on his talk page regarding abuse of sources. He further made it abundantly clear here and here, as well as in his unblock request that he doesn't feel he's in the wrong with much of his editing. For example, told me: "I completely disagree with your stance that only the "important" or "popular" stuff should be included. Sorry, but I just can't agree with such a narrow, restrictive view of history." (I never used the word "popular" and demanded only verifiable claims of historical significance). With regards to the irrefutably bad misrepresentations, he just maintains that these errors are to be expected of an editor with such high numbers of edits. On the contrary, there is no way an experienced editor can reasonable be making these kind of "mistakes" even semi-regularly. Highly active though he is, there are still hundreds more who are more active, yet aren't making these kinds of prevalently terrible edits. bridies (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban+global ban. As a certifying user heavily involved in the first RFC/U and the Herculean task of cleaning up after it, I can confirm that the main issues which have led to this ANI and which the blocking admin has aptly summarized as "long term, systematic, and widespread source misrepresentation" have remained exactly the same as in the RFC/U two years ago. I strongly support a global ban from all Wikipedia projects for the reasons laid out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Global ban for Jagged 85. The damage done already far transcends the English version, affecting other language versions through translations of Jagged 85's articles. In future, faulty material translated from other language versions may be introduced to the English WP if the user – who has shown a prodigious output through the years – is allowed to continue edit the Wikipedia in other languages. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban/global ban. This is a user who clearly doesn't get it, and who refuses to get it. The encyclopedia is, sadly, a better place without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• In case it isn't obvious from my block, support community ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And oppose the so-called "global ban" proposal for the reasons explained in my comment below. T. Canens (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support permanent site/global ban. If achievable, Jagged 85 should be banned from all projects as there is nothing more damaging to the encyclopedia than a civil editor who systematically adds a large amount of incorrect and misleading information to articles, much of it with plausible sources. When other editors have taken the time to track down and study the references, many examples of the problem have been found: "severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim" (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community/global ban. If we keep this guy around, who knows what damage could arrive in the future? ZappaOMati 22:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Regrettably, I support an indefinite ban. Regardless of what proportion of Jagged's count these bad edits represent, the scope of the damage is extensive and is much more than should be tolerated from any editor, whatever their edit count and their good intentions. Considering that these same types of problems continue to arise after all these years and periodic, time-consuming discussions, it appears that Jagged just won't, or can't, address them sufficiently. Jagged has made many good edits and should be commended for them, but at a certain point it's just time to find another hobby.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support site-ban. Disruption this pervasive after more-than-fair warning is just unacceptable and should not be permitted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I had thought the indefinite block was for all intents and purposes already regarded as a site ban by the community, and in fact I was about to add the {{banned}} template to his userpage just yesterday - only opting against doing so when I saw that someone had already added {{blocked}} instead. We have given Jagged 85 numerous chances to reconsider his approach to editing Wikipedia, but the fundamental issues that have been present from the very beginning persist to this day. It is not just an issue of competence, but of honesty. An editor who cannot handle himself with integrity has no place on Wikipedia. As such, I have no choice but to fully support an indefinite global ban of Jagged 85 from all Wikimedia projects, as a means of making his edits under this or any other account name viable for immediate, unconditional removal without further discussion. Preventing this sort of abuse from recurring again is more important than retaining any positive contributions he's made over the years. I wish it were not so. Kurtis (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite global ban. Frankly this should have happened a long time ago. Enough is enough. Further, given the damning evidence, it is important that all of his edits that have not been totally rewritten by others are deleted as quickly as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban but please note that our community alone cannot enact global bans.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Sure. As far as I know it can only be implemented at Steward requests/Global, but with a clear consensus we could mandate an admin requesting a global ban in the name of the English WP community. Even more, from what I take from WP:BAN only a global ban could make it possible for editors in other languages to remove translated flawed material from their project on sight without going through the lengthy and cumbersome process of talking through each and every removal with well-intending but uninformed users unaware of its provenience. From my own experience in the first clean-up two years ago I know that this is a very time-consuming and ungrateful process which involves a lot of misunderstandings between these two user groups. This is why it is so important to express support for a global ban or not here. Practically, it is the decision to remove Jagged 85's material from other projects or keep it there for years to come. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is entirely incorrect.

1. There's no such thing as a global ban right now. m:Global bans is a proposal that hasn't yet become policy.
2. Even were it a policy, Jagged 85 clearly does not qualify for a global ban. That proposed policy requires bans on at least two separate projects. Moreover, there must be actual crosswiki abuse; Jagged 85's misconduct seems to be localized to this wiki, though it may have effects elsewhere through the actions of other editors.
3. Moreover, any global ban will have pretty much zero effect, as Jagged 85 seems to be pretty much inactive in other projects.
4. A ban, global or local, does not affect the status of "Jagged 85 material" on any project in any manner. The "revert on sight" part of our banning policy applies only to edits made in violation of a ban (i.e., after the ban is imposed), not before the ban is imposed. A ban is not damnatio memoriae.
5. Our banning policy (including the "revert on sight" part) does not apply in other projects, and their ban policy may well be different from ours. Moreover, since the "Jagged 85 material" was likely introduced by another editor, a ban will have literally zero effect even if it applied to all edits by the banned user since there's no edit by Jagged 85 to revert on these projects.

We would sound incredibly arrogant were we to actually go to the stewards to ask for a global ban (1) for misconduct that is solely on this wiki, (2) entirely unsupported by any existing policy, (3) entirely unsupported by even the proposed global ban policy, and (4) that has zero practical effect. T. Canens (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Global bans are more than a proposal. Global bans have already been effected, they are a daily reality, see e.g. here. If you are prepared to leave the material out of fear of looking "arrogant", then we should consult Jimbo Wales personally who may rightfully fear more for Wikipedia's reputation, because the dimensions of the misuse are simply staggering. This is just the short list. The long list you will find [here]. Despite the clean-up, we are still talking about thousands of readers reading fabricated contents month and by month in the English WP alone. These distortions have already been noted by outside observers long ago. Ultimately, it simply boils down to the question: you are prepared to do something effective about this or you don't. You give the community the means to remove it or you don't. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a global lock, not a global ban. And it does not apply here either, because, first, Jagged 85 does not even have a global account for a steward to lock, and second, there is absolutely zero evidence of cross wiki abuse. Did you even look at Jagged 85's cross-wiki contributions? They have made almost no edits on other projects in the past several years.

Moreover, a global lock has absolutely zero effect on the acceptability of Jagged 85's old edits in any project. First, it is not a ban; second, bans do not apply to edits made before the ban; third, the "Jagged 85 material" on other projects are in the contributions of other editors and would be unaffected even if Jagged 85 were to be banned on those projects.

Your argument boils down to "we must do something about Jagged 85, a global ban (or lock) is something, therefore we must do a global ban (or lock)". That's fallacy, not logic. Of course I care for the project's reputation (and it's rather surprising that you would imply that I do not, especially since I am the one who blocked Jagged 85 in the first place), but what you are proposing is to make a request that is bound to be rejected, that will almost certainly cause a good amount of ill will toward this project among our sister projects ("Look, enwiki is trying to lord over the other projects again!"), and that, even if it were to succeed (an impossibility since, again, there is no global account for you to lock), would have zero effect. Count me out. T. Canens (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted below, I support a global ban as far as it is feasible; however I've not yet seen anything which makes me think it is feasible. However that does not mean "do nothing". We could, for example, at least alert other Wikis that there is a problem, and to bear this in mind when looking at pages in their wiki which may include material from the English wiki. As I understand it this is a real and current problem. --Merlinme (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Other projects (esp. Commons, a common place of asylum), tend to ignore disruption by users on other projects (at least in my experience). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. While I still support a global ban, it seems impossible because I see WP has not implemented the necessary guidelines for this yet. This means, given his proficiency in several languages, the user can continue to edit other language version, even after a community ban here. And I am certain, he will do exactly this. So for the entire WP project this community ban will change nothing. Effectively, we are exporting the problem only to another language version which will have to deal with it all over again and may rightfully ask one day why we did not more about it when we could. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't necessarily disrupt other Wikipedia languages, which are considered separate communities and projects for this purpose. However, if he does, the global bans policy may have to be speedily ratified in order to prevent more of this. But for now, we don't need a global ban.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support global site-ban. After wreaking havoc on history of science articles for years, he was given one last chance following the RfC/U, and has convincigly proved that he is unfit to edit an encyclopedia. The reasons, whether sheer incomptence or otherwise, are no longer relevant at this point. Time to go. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. I've explained in some detail why when I originally brought the case. I have also been discussing with Jagged_85 on his Talk page since the original block, and I find it quite alarming how he apparently thinks an acceptable defence, after five years of adding misinformation to the encyclopedia, is that he "tried his best" with sources he admits he didn't understand. I also support a global ban, as far as it is actually feasible. --Merlinme (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban This needs to be explicit. A lot of problems have been caused by this editor over a long period of time and I see no chance that if he were to edit again he'd suddenly be able to use sources appropriately. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Jagged 85 has failed the Wikipedia community for the last time. Giving the damning evidence that this user has done, he has now exhausted all of our patience. With that said, it's game over and as they say, "enough is enough." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Jasper Deng presents an unpopular truth, but truth it is. If there is no evidence of disruption to projects other than en-WP, then a global ban is simply not an option. A siteban from en-WP is obviously the right call (some of this stuff is amazing, and people will be fixing the damage for years to come), but until we have a consensus that certain classes of wikicrime require global bans (something that I haven't seen proposed) we shouldn't be acting as if that's already in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support community ban —Ruud 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami and Lake Michigan-Huron

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This issue came up last week, and just today scrolled off the board. [17] Unfortunately, i must bring it up again. Under contention were two issues:

• whether the concept of "Lake Michigan-Huron" (the system of the two lakes when considered together hydrologically) should have its own article or be a section of the Great Lakes article; and

• whether "Lake Michigan-Huron" was a "lake" as normally defined, for purposes of inclusion in lists of lakes, replacing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, and how should it be described in the article (or section)

After a very confused beginning where discussion were located at multiple places, the content discussion settled down to Talk: Lake Michigan-Huron, including a merge discussion, and another merge discussion at Talk:Great Lakes. The discussion on the Lake M-H talk page was actually making good progress, with most editors agreeing that Lake M-H as a construct which was useful for purposes of hydrology, but was not a "lake" per se. There were still some differences of viewpoint about relative weight of these different aspects, but things were moving forward.

However, in the past few hours, Kwamikagami has made multiple edits to Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron which have the effect of pushing the two-lake concept, which he was pushing quite vehemently before, at the expense of the two lakes each being considered individually as a lake. These edits were not only premature, they go totally against the emerging consensus, and as such I have reverted them.

This complaint is not about the content dispute, which can be settled on the article's talk page, but about the temerity of Kwamikagami editing against an obvious consensus which he will not recognize. His behavior from the beginning of this affair has been disruptive throughout, disrespectful of Wikipedia's process, disdainful of other editors, and, perhaps worst of all, intellectual dishonest -- he writes, for instance, that he is going to restore "the earlier consensus lead" to the article, when he fact what he does is to replace the current consensus lead with his earlier one in which his POV was prominent. I believe Kwamikagami's behavior deserves some kind of sanction, and it would seem most appropriate to be a topic ban from the entire area of Lake Michigan-Huron and related topics. Since it's not really his usual area of concentration anyway, this is a minimal sanction which will not greatly effect him, but will allow the process to continue without his disruptive interference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This is a content dispute, but since I got blocked when Ken made spurious charges a few days ago (for which I got an apology from the admin who didn't fact check), I figure I'd better explain myself here.

I reverted Ken's POV to the consensus lead at Lake Michigan–Huron, which everyone but him had accepted, and restored a source; I then added in suggested wording by two other editors on the talk page. I copy-edited the rather choppy summary at Great Lakes to follow, and I reverted Ken's deletions from the long-standing consensus at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

No-one is arguing that Lake MH should "replace Lake Michigan and Lake Huron". What we are arguing is that the scientific treatment of Michigan and Huron as one body of water should be given its due. There are all manner of suggestions on how to accomplish that without trampling on the usual conception of them as two lakes; the emerging consensus is coming along just fine without Ken forcing his POV on it, especially now that we have editors from the geo wikiprojects contributing.

Ken's idea of BOLD is that he makes a change, someone reverts, and he changes it back where he wants it; last time he did that over an obviously contested deletion, and it took an admin to restore the article. But if another editor does that he gets upset that they're violating BOLD: This just happened with another editor at the merge discussion. The edits I made today were the suggestions of other editors; Ken needs to learn that his opinion is not "consensus", no matter how strongly he believes it. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As can be clearly seen from my statement above, I'm perfectly happy for whatever is left of the content dispute -- in truth, there's really no one except Kwamikagami anymore who opposes the view that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a system of interest only for hydrological purposes -- to play out on the talk page. As I said, it's making good progress. My complaint is totally about the behavior of Kwamikagami in trying to force his own point of view on the articles through deceit and distraction.

The remainder of the discussion here shoudl focus on Kamikagami's behavior, because AN/I is not the place to thrash out content disputes, but it is the place to deal with disruptive behavior by editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Before I go off to sleep, I'll make a suggestion: topic ban both Kwamikagami and me from Lake Michigan-Huron. I'll be more than happy to have the monkey off my back, this whole incident has been a royal pain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what: I just took four days off, so you made your edits without us fighting. Why don't you try taking four days off, and see what kind of consensus emerges with my edits without us fighting? I can easily work with Jason, Alan, Dan, Pfly, RockMagnetist, and the rest who are making reasoned arguments for balancing the POVs involved. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand why the discussion was able to move forward so quickly, when it had been moving at a snail's pace before -- it was because you were not there for four days to hold it back. It also explains why, when you returned to editing, you felt the necessity to immediately revert to the old non-consensus article which was not supported by the sources. As for working with others - restoring your old lead and throwing in a single sentence suggested by another editor as a sop isn't collaboration, it's an attempt at cooption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on in 7 places, including my report here on Kwamikagami about a week ago. Long story short, since then Kwamikagami has gone even further off the rails. I don't have the hours it would take to summarize. A few quick decoder notes:

• A combine vs. merge discussion (which I'm neutral on) was a tangent/ distraction.
• Kwamikagami's talk page no longer shows actual discussions. In my case they deleted the points I made and said I can no longer post there because I "have nothing intelligent to say". They also rewrote their comment which I was responding to (just rewrote, not using strike marks) to make it look like something else.

This is Kwamikagami ramming their fringe view vs. everybody and an immense preponderance and probably unanimity of sources. Started with warring to remove tags, and a clear 3RR violation which was overlooked. Now certainly disruptive editing, wp:civil violations, (now throwing extreme bogus insults against me) and longer term edit warring (while more recently avoiding 3RR violations) for a start. PLEASE do something! North8000 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor - Yesterday and today, I looked over the substance of the dispute, and the ways in which the various involved editors have conducted themselves. It seems obvious to me that kwamikagami is pushing a fringe POV, and actively forum-shopping and otherwise gaming the rules in order to do so. Their attempt to drum up support on the Geology and Geography WikiProjects is especially glaring. I'd advise North8000 to relax a little; no-one is going to die if this dispute drags on a day or two longer. However, my own feeling is that (at the very least) kwami should receive a perpetual and wide-ranging topic ban, as they seem incapable of accepting the wider world's consensus that there are five Great Lakes. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(added later) BTW, on the forum shopping, Kwamikagami didn't just shop in those places, they started the same discussion over in those locations.North8000 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That was what I meant by forum-shopping: shopping around to find a forum in which the poster's view may be supported. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping? I notified the Wikiprojects that could be expected to be interested, and at the same time: It was simple notification because we needed more input. When there is a protracted dispute on a geography or geology topic, those projects should know about it; their knowledge may be able to resolve the problem. North8000 below is worried that we don't have enough eyes, and you criticize me for trying to get more? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From my end the caps on "PLEASE" and the exclamation point relate more to desperation than urgency. But one note on the "urgency" topic, above it looks like Beyond My Ken is at the end of their rope. They have been perhaps the main person who has understood and did the work of fixing the mis-use of sources, and the needed changes in wording to conform with the sources. I also have some concern about the article losing it's "more eyes" and related participation due to desperation and being "ground down" by Kwamikagami's relentless tactics. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban on the involved articles Lake Michigan-Huron, Lake Michigan–Huron, List of lakes by area and List of lakes by volume. The Great Lakes article is potentially also involved but I think has so many eyes on it that it can be kept from harm's way with less pain and suffering. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The unfortunate decision of an admin to lift Kwami's most recent edit-warring block has emboldened Kwami to the point where he figures he can win his little edit war, whose purpose is to abuse wikipedia by promoting the non-existent "Lake Huron-Michigan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The block was lifted because its rational was faulty: it was based on false allegations by Ken that the blocking admin didn't verify. The fact that Bugs would say that the lake is "non-existent", when we have multiple RS's for it, many gathered by uninvolved editors, and the consensus on the talk page is that it does exist, is astounding. What happened to the Bugs who could always be counted on to say something insightful at the ref desk? — kwami (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the block was lifted because you promised not to edit war, which was a lie on your part. And there is no valid source declaring that there is any such entity as "Lake Michigan-Huron". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you had been edit-warring with bots for days because at a time when the title Lake Michigan-Huron was not an article but a redirect to Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, you insisted that the title Lake Huron-Michigan should point to "Lake Michigan-Huron", thus creating a double-redirect which the bot came along and fixed. This can be clearly seen in the edit history of Lake Huron-Michigan [18] (a name, incidentally, which appears in no source in the article). You were unblocked, as Regentspark clearly explains below, not because there was anything wrong with the block, but because you gave Regentspark assurances that you would avoid editing the articles involved for 72 hours. (Of course, you technically violated that assurance when you, once again, changed the redirect on "Lake Huron-Michigan", but by then no double redirect was made since "Lake Michigan-Huron" had been recreated -- with the old POV lead, which I had to restore to the consensus non-POV lead.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kwami, who did you get an apology from? It certainly wasn't me. I didn't object to RegentsPark unblocking, but that was because he seemed to have secured an agreement that you would not repeat the disruptive behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bushranger, whose accusations you linked to as the rational for your block. He had repeated Ken's accusations without verifying them. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fairy snuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. I, personally, checked the edit history of the two redirects in question and saw repeated reverts of the bots apparently creating a double-redirect loop; BMK had nothing to do with it. Instead I (ironically, given things) assumed good faith that you were not edit-warring to recreate the article and then reverting the bot for the redirects to point to the restored-against-consensus article, which, the next morning, it was pointed out was what had been happening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was the restored-WITH-consensus article: when we finally got a proper RfM, opinion was unanimous in keeping the article. That was the whole problem with Ken violating BOLD. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Further comment - The more I look at it, the more convinced I become that Lake Michigan-Huron is a POV fork of material that belongs primarily in Great lakes, and that attempts to assemble evidence to the contrary are an original synthesis in support of a fringe position. (Apologies for linking three policy articles in one sentence.) That is a content problem, and probably needs external scrutiny through RfC. Kwami's behaviour in defence of that position, though, is unambiguously disruptive, and I feel that timely administrative intervention would be a good thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a merge discussion, which has been unanimous in voting to keep the article, because it is clearly not fringe or a POV fork, but reflects the scientific view of the lakes. The only question is whether there is enough potential for development to warrant a separate article: if it were merged, the material would be placed in the Great Lakes article, and so the 'fringe' issue would be the same; without a merge, the section in the Great Lakes article is reduced to a summary with a main-article link, and so is not a fork, POV or otherwise.

Disruptive? What of the editors edit-warring over deleting an article when there are multiple objections to deletion, and which one editor characterized as a giant 'fuck you'? What of violating BOLD while quoting it, and of deleting summary material that has been stable at Lake Huron and Lake Michigan for years? Why is it that edit warring to impose a new POV is not disruptive, but that demanding we achieve consensus before changing what had been a stable article is disruptive?

If you'll look at the changes that spurred Ken's complaint today, you'll see that they are (1) reverting to a consensus established on the talk page (one which I did not write), (2) modifying that consensus with concerns expressed by other editors, and (3) reverting BOLD changes he made to stable articles. — kwami (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged Regentspark to notify him of this thread. FWIW I think that reducing the block to time served was incredibly lenient and that this display of good faith has, as BMK intimates, backfired. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Or something hopeful that didn't work out. I too was more hopeful earlier in the process. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I've been watching this thread. Though I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages), he is an incredibly prolific editor who is often right and my unblock was partly to do with that (and also because kwami was right that he had ceased editing on this topic after the warning, but my offer came before I'd figured that out). While we could easily have here a case of a prolific content editor going off the rails, I'd rather assume that is not the case and rather not hasten things along. Assuming that all parties are acting in good faith, what we have here a content dispute, the facts of which appear to be ambiguous, and, even though the complaint is brought her by another prolific content editor who is also often right, I'm not sure we should be discussing this at ANI at all. Why doesn't someone just open an RfC on whether or not the 'single lake theory' needs a mention, where and how it should be mentioned, etc.? Once consensus is clear, it'll be much easier to see what's what. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is already clear from the several locations of discussion about the topic. The consensus does not support Kwami earlier today re-introducing his favorite viewpoint, that the two-lake hydrological system is "the largest freshwater lake in the world and the largest of the North American Great Lakes." Kwami's edit summary about consensus was wishful thinking or an outright fabrication: "restore consensus lead; fix MOS problems; restore ref". He is indeed "off the rails" on this topic. Better to keep him away from it and on other topics where his thinking is clear. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Regentspark. I must emphatically say that IMHO that is NOT the core content issue. If it were, this would have been settled long ago. The core content issue is Kwami editing the articles to go much much much further than that. (and, regarding it being here, in a way that is very problematic in several ways.) North8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On the content issue, and looking only at the references in the current version of Lake Michigan-Huron, I'd say that the hydrological fact is interesting and worthy of mention in the great lakes article, the two lake articles, and, perhaps, in the Lake Superior article. However, it doesn't make sense (to me) to have a separate article on the combined lake because, other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron. I'm dubious, but uncertain, about the redirect as well. I only add this content note to make it clear that I think kwami is wrong in this particular instance but, perhaps because the discussion is so scattered, it is hard to see where the consensus on this is (the discussion Talk:Lake_Michigan–Huron#An_attempt_at_a_synthesis appears to be a step in that direction). It is much easier to address behavior when consensus is clearly established. --regentspark (comment) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As I think I've said a number of times, I have no really strong views about the article vs. section part of the discussion. Yes, I Boldly moved the contents of the article to the section of the Great Lakes, leaving a redirect, because that's what seemed to make most sense, but that got undone and I haven't fought for it -- if having a separate article helps calm the waters, that's prefectly fine with me. I'm much more concerned that the contents, whether in a section of an article, reflect what you have said above "other than hydrologically, there is no Lake Michigan-Huron" This, to me, is the important point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Gtwfan has repeated on the talk page a suggestion they had made earlier, but which has been generally overlooked because of the mishegas, and that is to re-title the article "Hydrology of Lakes Michigan and Huron". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a WP:TITLECHANGES discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Process Request I apologize, (if this should be at AN because it involves close requests and move it there as appropriate), but RegentsPark mentioned yet another process, formal RfC, above. Currently, there is Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal which was begun in response to a merge that was then procedurally undone, partly because of Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron#Recheck. If a kindly and uninvolved person of standing (Admin or experienced editor) would at the appropriate time, whenever that is, agree to review and close both of these in the exercise of wisdom and judgment -- that, I think would be appreciated, and a moving of things forward. (Jump on in, the waters fine! ;) ). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As much as I would love to make the very same arguments in yet another place, I feel an RfC is really unnecessary. As can be seen from the discussion here and on the article's talk page, there is a general consensus already, all that is really needed is for particulars of balance and weight (and perhaps title) to be sorted out. If the disruptive behavior of Kwamikagami were removed from the process, I feel sure that those would be settled fairly quickly. Starting yet another process would simply be rewarding Kwamikagami for his disruption, giving him another bite at the apple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We just need to judiciously close the process we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I recently became aware of this debate. Because it sprawls over several talk pages, I was unaware that there was a merge discussion going on (also, the discussion was not at the standard location, i.e., the talk page of the destination article). So I started a new one using the standard procedure in Help:Merge. This is the only discussion related to Lake Michigan–Huron that is clear and focussed. There are 10 votes in opposition and none in favor. Indeed, I had to provide the rationale for a merge myself even though I oppose it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

I propose that Kwamikagami is topic banned from articles including Lake Michigan-Huron, Great Lakes, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron - as well as any more deemed appropriate - for a period of, say, 3 months. GiantSnowman 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support I wish that there was another more graceful way but I think that we have learned from extensive experience in the last week that there is not. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - See my rationale above. I also suspect that the merge discussion that kwami refers to did not reach a terribly wide audience; I suggest that it should be re-opened. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and several came from forum shopping where Kwamikagami opened a new duplicate discussion there IMHO to convince them. But merge issue is really a sidebar. For example, I am strongly opposed to what Kwamikagami is attempting to do to the content of the articles but I'm near-neutral on the merge issue. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to Talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal, it has reached a wide audience (but is not closed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this has gone on far more than long enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - to make it formal. All my reasoning is above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban should not be simply for the articles involved, but their talk pages as well. A significant part of Kwamikagami's disruption has been his intransigence there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as I can tell, if Kwami says he won't edit project pages for 72 hours, he doesn't; if he is given a 3R notice, he stops editing. If the editors involved think this has become such a trainwreck, or that Kwami has gotten too personally invested in the topic or whatever, why not just ask Kwami if he would be willing to step back for a while, or limit his talk page comments. Neotarf (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And Ken, who has been reverting the contributions of other editors, deleting sources, and imposing his POV in violation of BOLD despite quoting it? — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any topic ban or block proposal for Ken, and I have no idea if he would keep such a pledge if given. Neotarf (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There are plenty of reasonable voices that I'm sure could quickly reach consensus, were it not for three individuals - BeyondMyKen, North10000, and kwami. Their endlessly repetitive arguments make up about 90% of the material in several talk page sections. At least since the previous merge was reverted, they have contributed little to Lake Michigan–Huron except to keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints. Recently, DanHobley tried proposing a reasonable synthesis, and the same three editors quickly got into a dogfight that resulted in this ANI. I think that if these editors genuinely want to see this article improved, all three should voluntarily step away from it for a few weeks and let others work on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That a completely inaccurate/ mixed up description of my involvement in this. To start with a simple blatant one "keep rewording the lead to promote their viewpoints" I have done ZERO writing anywhere in the article for the entire 8 day length of this flap, and made only three edits on it in the 8 days, each reverting to something written by somebody else. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I was a bit careless in my wording there. You haven't edited the article, but the other two certainly have. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you like, I can stop responding to Ken or North8000. You're right, nothing is being accomplished there. The rest of you are providing well reasoned POVs, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to come to a consensus. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a content discussion, that's taking place on the article talk page, this is the discussion about your behavior, so something is very much being accomplished here. Might I note that almost none of your reponses here have been relevent to the point of whether you should be topic banned or not -- you're just attempting to distract others from that discussions with repetitions of stuff you've said over and over and over again, and which has nothing to do ith your explaining why you have behaved so very disruptively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there is now new blood from WikiProject Geology and perhaps others — people who have experience dealing with this type of content — why not leave it in their hands. Neotarf (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Uh, isn't this supposed to be ANI, with an A? I'm perfectly happy to work with reasonable editors such as DanHobley, Alanscottwalker, and RockMagnetist, who aren't trying to pretend that sources they don't like don't exist. I took a break for 4 days, and Ken is still at odds with the other editors; I suggest that Ken take a similar break, and see what the rest of us are able to accomplish. I've also suggested developing a consensus version in a sandbox where it wouldn't disrupt the public article. Or, as RockMagnetist proposed (similarly to Ken), the three of us who are squabbling could step away from it and see what the other editors are able to come up with (one editor even suggested that everyone stop but DanHobley, which would probably result in a fine article), but let's start with the habitual BOLD violator Ken. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• And I'm perfectly happy to work with any editor who doesn't behave as atrociously as you have. Where I think you misunderstand things is that "working" doesn't mean "giving in to Kwamikagami's ideas", it means discussing, give and take, try something, adjust, discuss, try again and so on. You just keep reverting to the same damn version you liked a week ago, no matter what anyone says or does.

  One thing that Regentspark said above struck me quite strongly "I've often disagreed with kwami, both on content as well as on his methods (particularly on moving pages)" (emphasis added) Well, we've already seen one of your methods - using your admin powers against policy on a page move - get you desysopped, and I guess here we're seeing yet another one of your methods: grinding the oppposition down by constant repetition, including knowingly misrepresenting what actually happened over and over again, never changing your mind, never considering others opinions or thoughts, just bulldogging ahead hoping that everyone else will get tired of it and go away. Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is subtle, but very much in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. Perhaps our best editor, Dan, is dropping out because of interference from you. You said you'd be willing to accept a block on this, so why are you not willing to follow me in not interfering with what they are doing? — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. User is abusing wikipedia on this subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the versions written by Alan and Dan, which everyone but Ken and North agree are good, knowledgeable editors. That's hardly 'abuse'. — kwami (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Regretfully. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not only is this abusing wikipedia the recent actions smack of abuse of WP:NOTTHERAPY. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Abusive behavior towards other editors should not be condoned. Shrigley (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Reverting while this discussion was under way was what pushed me over the edge to supporting this proposal. --John (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

He did not revert to his own version, but to the new version of User:DanHobley, a geoscientist from WikiProject Geology who was not previously involved in the dispute. Neotarf (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant; you do not revert bold changes back into an article when the issue is under discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looked to me like there was already a consensus that RockMagnetist, Alanscottwalker, and DanHobley were trusted to be NPOV. Kwami and BYK, not so much. They have already been through the B-R-R-R-R without much success at D. IMO a lot of that can be caused by editing outside the usual area of expertise, so when they hit a snag, they don't know what to do next. The next shift has come on duty, they should be able to have a go at it without interference from the first bunch who were unable to come to an agreement. Neotarf (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to think that Ken's edits are not neutral (from what I can see it has only been Kwami that has claimed that both he and Ken are not editing neutrally, an unusual claim). IRWolfie- (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at RockMagnetist's comment above about endlessly repetitive arguments, or just look at all the personal remarks here. Or look at DanHobley's comments when he dropped out. [19] Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting at all during this discussion would still qualify for a topic ban in my book, just to be clear. --John (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami agreed to stop editing for 72 hours, and he did so. In the meantime, the editors who keep dragging him here, North8000 and Beyond My Ken, were put under no restriction whatsoever, and kept making POV edits. (Just to be clear, I don't agree with the content Kwami wanted to add either.) But Kwami was right about the article, they shouldn't have deleted it with no discussion. There is now a proper discussion and a unanimous vote to keep it. Neotarf (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So Kwami has stepped back, Beyond My Ken has left the building, and the real geoscientists have rewritten the article. Is there anything left to do here? Neotarf (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't nupedia. Just because someone who identifies as a geologist (I haven't checked any of the other editors) made the edit doesn't mean it can't be reverted or the rewrite is necessarily better. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Their credentials in RL don't matter. If they are with WikiProject Geology, then they have experience with this type of content. If they were not involved in the previous dispute, they have a better chance of reaching consensus. Also you might want to glance at the rewrite: one picture is worth a thousand words. Neotarf (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Their geology area of expertise is outside the area of dispute which is naming. The main benefit is that it is extra eyes involved / handling. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think that we have seen that Kwamikagami is and will almost certainly will be relentless on this topic and at these articles. One additional less-obvious item to reinforce my point: over the last 10 months they have have aggressively deleted even the smallest of changes of mine of the type that have now been widely accepted and implemented. They are also very wiki savvy in conducting this effort including knowing how to momentarily back off a bit at the right moments to avoid any corrective action from being taken. IMHO unless something is done they WILL be back hammering these articles into likenesses of their fringe view. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That maybe true (although you are suppose to provide diffs) but from my vantage point, had you both focused on the extensive sources on the topic and taken it to DR/N or TO (or some of the other notice boards), if there was specific wording or sources you could not agree on, much of that could or would have been obviated. (Just something to think about).Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did focus on the extensive sources, and even on the specific ones that Kwamikagami promoted (but misused); they were the basis for my edits. I'm sorry that the following rant is placed by your post because it is really directed only 1% at your mild recent post and more at ineundos by a couple of others. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of getting inuendoed as if I were just exhibiting some type of dispute behavior! Here's a quick chronology. Over time other commenters at the article have all said the same thing. Also the article had sever problems regarding categorical statements of the fringe view regarding naming in the voice of Wikipedia as fact, complete mis-use of sources to make them appear to say the opposite of what they did etc.. So, instead of just saying "somebody ought to do something" I decided to be that "somebody" for the good of Wikipedia. So, on a low key basis, on and off over 10 months I tried to make a few small changes in line with overwhelming sourcing, and also the input at the page. Kwamikagami reverted them all. More recently (2-3 weeks ago) I did another burst of editing on 2 articles regarding this, (incidentally. ALL of my edits were towards where the articles are now) Kwamikagami reverted all of those edits. So then I took a policy based-approach, tagging the unsupported claims for sourcing. Kwamikagami deleted all of the tags. I restored them and Kwamikagami deleted them again. I provided thorough rationales, and Kwamikagami provided brief dismissive notes when reverting them. At one I provided 9 rationales for 9 edits and they deleted them all on one swoop with a comment to the effect of "I have reviewed them and decided that you are wrong on all of them" So, at this point, when Kwamikagami was at 2RR and I was at 1RR I took it to wp:ani on a policy basis (removal of the tags). Others got involved and carried the ball. For the next 8 days I did ZERO editing on the article except three times restoring text in different places to what someone else wrote. In discussions I have consistently taken the high road. Even when Kwamikagami was basically calling me stupid, (some which they since redacted, not struck) banned (and deleted my post) me from their talk page because I "have nothing intelligent to say" I took the high road. I did all of the above to try to help the goals of Wikipedia, I took the high road at each stage, and followed overwhelming consensus and sources at each stage. So, if anybody is going to toss any innuendos, you'd better go first look for something to back it up!!!! And, BTW, you won't find it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I would say you did many good and right things, (unfortunately the crappy part of AN/I is the one finger pointing at someone else and the rest pointing back at you school). And I have thanked you for them, and I do again. Again, from my vantage point, you both had valid points (and seemed to support some rather irrelevant or wrong points. and talk past each other) but, by your own admission, going into it two weeks ago, you knew there were disagreements with Kwami about substance, so mayhap, you should have tried to tackle that in a neutral forum? (You hopefully know what I refer to when I speak of a recent (what 18 months?) discussion where if the active parties had been more quickly disposed to all the wide array of DR, perhaps that would have been done sooner, with less strain.)) Now. I did not have to deal with Kwami, (and I never have dealt with him before) because of where I came into the discussion, so you could well be right that the Wiki needs protection. (Also, again IMO, your position was ill-served by what someone else did, which if I am not mistaken was triggered by the first trip to AN/I) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It didn't really come back at me. But I'm concerned about even the few mistaken innuendos, as some might actually believe them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about people believing inaccurate statements others make about you, may I suggest you take care not to make them about others? The tags, for example, which in several cases you conceded were inappropriate. (I saw them as being disruptive, since you tagged things as lacking sources when they were already sourced.) You continue to present it as if I were being disruptive in removing them.

However, once you decided to discuss things enough to show me that you actually did understand the hydrology (and it took, what, weeks? you refused at least twice), I realized that I was wrong in my estimation of you. I retract what I said about your ability—you clearly have the necessary comprehension, even if I still don't get what your point is—and if you point out where, I will be happy to strike out such comments as wrong and inappropriate. (Give the page and quote a few words so I can do a text search—I might miss something otherwise. Feel free to start a new section on my talk page for this.) — kwami (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kwami; you put a similar post at my talk page and I answered there. Curious on what your thoughts are on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response either place would be cool....trying to reassure myself that it's real. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Interim proposal

Both Beyond My Ken and Kwamikagami will stop participating in this AN/I and allow other editors to come to a decision without the distractions of their back and forth.

• Support as proposer. And I'll start right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary if you are aware of it; if you find yourself being drawn into a back and forth just disengage. kwami is required to respond here due to the topic ban proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - give DanHobley a chance to improve the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Rock, did you read that as stop participating in the article? Since this ANI is about me, I need to stay engaged. Last time I didn't stay engaged in an ANI I got de-sysop'd over something I thought too trivial to worry about (enforcing the closing admin's decision in a move request), and was told it was my fault because I wasn't adequately engaged in the ANI. So no, if accusations are made about me, I will respond. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you think you've learned something? Responding will only prove you have wp:battleground mentality, and that will get you banned. Mwahahaha... Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, don't do that. We don't need more sarcasm, we need less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadly Dan was not given that [20].Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Farewell, cruel world!

I didn't think I would break my self-imposed exile so soon, but immediately after I posted the above, I went back to the article to find that Kwamikagami has reverted all of my carefully considered adjustments to DanHobley's compromise version, and thst was just the straw that broke this particular camel's back.

I give up.

Kwamikagami, my congratulations to you, you have beaten me into a mass of protoplasm with your subtle but brutal "methods", and I am going away to nurse my wounds. How happy you must be to have done your little part to make Wikipedia just a little less collaborative than it once was.

For your convenience, I include here a list of the articles I will no longer be watching, in which you can insert your unsupported viewpoint that "Lake Michigan-Huron" is anything other than a name for a system of hydrology. Then you can also do your part to help spread WP:FRINGE viewpoints on Wikipedia, making it that much less authoritative and useful to our readers:

• Extreme points of Canada
• Extreme points of North America
• Extreme points of the Americas
• Great Lakes
• Lake
• Lake Huron
• Lake Huron–Michigan
• Lake Michigan
• Lake Michigan-Huron
• Lake Superior
• Lake Victoria
• List of islands in lakes
• List of lakes by area
• List of lakes in Illinois
• List of lakes in Indiana
• List of lakes in Michigan
• List of lakes in Wisconsin

Well done, Kwamikagami! Vaya con dios. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I only reinstituted Dan's NPOV edits, and your interference drove him away from the article. If you are no longer here to mess with the reasonable editors, and as I am not editing their work either, then we should be good to go: Dan, Alan, Justin, Rock, etc. should be able to craft a clear, NPOV article. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Any edit that asserts there is an entity called "Lake Michigan-Huron" is a violation of POV rules and hence is unreasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Context I am sorry but anyone looking at this should read what Ken's recent edits meant to DanHobley, who spent all day reading and writing. [21]. It's too bad that people can't be more deliberative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deliberative? On ANI, dude? You gamma editors should scurry back to your Geography Wikiproject. You clearly don't have the right stuff to play for the high stakes with the alpha boys of ANI! Look at that pathetic DanHobley. He thinks he's an expert huh? Works for a Ph.D. in this area? Reads sources, huh? Who cares? His sources are FRINGE POV by wp:consensus on ANI! Let him scurry back to writing his unreliable fringe sources in academic journals, which Wikipedia will gleefully ignore. That'll teach him to try and influence the people's encyclopedia! Tijfo098 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

F*ck yeah! You go! If it's not about personalities, get it the hell out of Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at my current Rand McNally atlas, it shows a "Lake Huron" and a "Lake Michigan". No "Lake Huron-Michigan" nor any "Lake Michigan-Huron". Why do you suppose they left that stuff out? Maybe because there's no such thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I also wonder why my 5th grade math manual or even CS101 didn't cover Krohn–Rhodes theory. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mine did. But I was in a progressive school. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tij: You are bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no such entity called "bad". To say otherwise is prohibited by the POV rules. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider bringing up the specifics of the issue at WP:FTN (in a more succinct form). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong venue, try WP:NPOV/N. Oh, wait, that has a backlog. Shit nobody cares about. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Supreme facepalm of destiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Someone tag this under the "I shit you not" category.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Is it truly necessary for this encyclopedia to have both an article on Lake Huron-Michigan and an article on Lake Michigan-Huron? The whole concept just seems like a geologica/geographic debate on the exact characteristics of the two Great Lakes from a researchers' perspective -- I happen to think that merger with the GL article might actually work, but if it doen't I think we can just pull out the most prevalent term (Huron-Michigan vs. Michigan-Huron and use that, rather than have two identical articles except for the names. Just my 2c... DrPhen (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not two articles, it's a WP:Redirect just FYI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a great demonstration as to how we might better guide a perplexed reader who, interested in that huge lake that wraps around Michigan, searches for Lake Huron-Michigan, somehow blissfully unaware that much of it is actually named Lake Michigan, and the other part named Lake Huron, each of which has an article now that links to the other, and both of which should and could easily point out the close hydrologic relationship they share. Otherwise, I think that we do this hypothetical perplexed reader a great disservice to reinforce the misperception that the rest of the world must think of them as a single lake, especially if the only purpose in so doing is to indulge the writer. Most of us are "in on" at least a few pretty obscure and fascinating bits of trivia, but not all of them really need an article. Steveozone (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In articles, readers are not told what to think; they are informed about what RS think and it is done in an article form, not scattered about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee alleges that I have abused my admin powers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bidgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alleges here that I have abused my admin powers by implementing a series of WP:CFD/S nominations.

Please can an uninvolved admin review my actions?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As stated on WP:CFDS at the very top in bold "They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal.", the IP did not tag any of the categories with the tag, therefore no one knew of of the CFDS, therefore the move is not vaild. I do sincerely apologise to you for my inexcusable outburst, I shouldn't have taken out my frustation on BrownHairedGirl. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that, in general, if a reasonable, good-faith objection against a speedy process is raised after the fact, in a matter where there are no obvious issues of policy violation at stake, it is often a good idea for an admin to just do a courtesy revert to allow discussion, a bit like an article WP:REFUND. In this case, however, I don't really see that Bidgee has raised any concrete argument why he thinks the new titles are bad (other than procedurally), so what's the case? Also, people, if you could take a step back from the issue for a minute and reflect: you are aware that these are category titles of template boxes, right? No normal reader is ever going to see them. I can understand why people might be concerned about the titling of article categories (they are displayed to readers), but template pages are not really part of the reader-directed interface at all, so why does it matter? (That said, personally I'd have a slight preference for the nominal, non-adjectival style too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for raising objections to the move, which I will do if and when the move gets nominated properly. This discussion is about the procedural issue and failing to revert encourages the gaming of the system. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, thank you for that clarification, and sorry that I did not spot the lack of tagging.

It would saved a lot of time and effort if you had simply noted that procedural oversight, rather than indulging in a series of unfounded personal attacks, and repeatedly reverting my edits to my own talk page.

However, now that you have shown that there was a procedural flaw, I will try to remedy it.

What I will do is to make a procedural listing of the relevant categories at WP:CFD, with a note that since these relate to the desired reversal of a procedurally flawed move, that the status quo ante should be restored unless there is a consensus to rename. Per the speedies. This is less disruptive than moving the categories back again, and possibly having the flawed move done again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, they should be reverted back to the stable version since the move is not vaild and having them remain is totally against the WP:CFDS. Also I wasn't "repeatedly reverting my (BHG) edits to my (BGH) own talk page", since I only reverted once on your talk page. Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee, unless there is a consensus to rename, they will be reverted.

Since they will be listed at CFD, the rename may be upheld. In that case, no change will need to be made ... but if the speedies are reverted first, we will have two extra sets of moves. That is pointless.

I did not accuse you of reverting your talk page; I accused you of reverting mine. Sorry that my comment about two reverts was slightly wrong. I checked again, and what actually happened was that you posted after I had closed the discussion, and when I reverted your comment you reverted me with an allegation of admin abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted when? It isn't pointless to restore the stable version, whether or not there is a consenus to move at a later time.

I'm responding to your allegation of "repeatedly reverting" your talk page which is not correct. Bidgee (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but the proposed procedure here unreasonable advantages the person who nominated the cats without following the rules - the epitome of gaming the system. It may be inconvenient, it may be a pain in the proverbial, but unless we are going to reward those who do not follow the correct procedure, the move should be reversed, and either listed in the normal non-speedy way, or the speedy listing should be closed procedurally for not meeting the requirements. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, unless you have evidence of a deliberate attempt to game the system, you should assume that the failure to tag the categories was a procedural error made in good faith. Bidgee has backed off all hir ABFing, and it would help if you would do likewise.

The proposed procedure does not give any advantage to the person who speedy-nominated categories. Unless there is a consensus to rename as proposed at speedy, the moves will be reverted. As noted above, that means that the status quo ante will be restored if there is no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not intend to suggest that anyone was actually trying to game the system in this case, but I do maintain that failing to insist on correct procedures in cases like this lends encouragement to those who might seek to do so. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I quite agree that the procedures are important. They exist for a reason.

When they have failed, as in this case, the important thing is to ensure that those purposes of the processes are fulfilled, rather than that every step is replicated.

If the categories had been correctly tagged, then let's assume that an interested editor would have spotted them and objected. The proposal would then have gone to a full CFD discussion, with a default to the status quo ante. That's exactly what my remedy will produce. The only difference is that the categories will not be at the old position while the discussion is underway.

If these pages were articles, I would of course have move them back as soon as I became aware of the procedural flaw. However, category moves involve so many edits that back-and-forth movement is disruptive, which is why I propose to leave then in place pending the closure of the substantive discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Full discussion opened

Please note that these categories are now listed for a full discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 17#Television_navigational_boxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparently not resolved

Please may I ask an uninvolved admin to review this again? Some Aussie editors are not satisfied with the procedural situation, and I am being subjected to personal abuse [22][23] for following a procedure which I proposed here and was approved as "resolved".[24]

AFAICS, this is all relatively simple. An editor nominated categories at WP:CFD/S, but didn't tag them all. When I reviewed the nominations and moved them to process at WP:CFD/W, I didn't spot that only one of them was tagged.

The initial reaction was a series of personal attacks on me from editors who had not spotted any procedural flaw, but criticised me for the substance of an move which I did not initiate, and in which my role was procedural:

Bidgee (talk · contribs)

1. Complaint that there was no discussion. [25] That's a designed feature of the speedy process, which allow actions to proceed unless there are objections, which I pointed out [26]
2. A further complaint that I had done this because I was Irish[27]
3. A compliant that the IP who nominated the categories was from Ireland, and I am Irish [28]
4. An accusation that I have a POV[29]
5. An accusation that I abused my admin powers[30]
   Note that Bidgee has kindly apologised for his outbursts both above and on my talk[31].

Nick Thorne (talk · contribs)

1. A complaint based on a rejection of the speedy criterion C2C [32]

At that point, I could see no procedural error, so took the matter here to ANI. It was only then that the lack of tagging was drawn to my attention [33].

When that oversight was drawn to my attention, I listed the categories at CFD [34] with a note explaining that the default position should be to revert to the status quo ante. This will ensure that the outcome reflects whatever WP:CONSENSUS is formed, and will not be prejudiced by the flawed moves. To avoid the disruption and loss of page history caused by category moves, I did not revert the moves in the meantime. This will not prejudice the discussion.

Once that was done, the ANI thread above was closed by an uninvolved admin as resolved.[35]

Unfortunately, it does not seem to be resolved. The CFD discussion is being used for a series of procedural complaints and personal attacks on me by some Australian editors.

1. AussieLegend (talk · contribs) politely says he zie is "disappointed" at my failure to revert the moves.[36]
2. AusieLegend declines my request to take the procedural issues to somewhere that they can actually be resolved[37]
3. Nick Thorne (talk · contribs) describes my failure to revert as "contemptuous", says there is "no justification not to follow the spirit and letter of the law"[38]
4. I reply to Nick Thorne[39], pointing out WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies" ... and Nick's response accuses of me of "cavalier actions" and says "suck it up princess".[40]

Since this issue came to my attention, I have been transparent and sought review here. I believe that I have acted properly in trying to remedy my oversight, and that my solution has already been approved here. However, if another solution is preferred, I am quite happy to defer to the consensus. I just want this resolved one way or another, so that the CFD discussion is not disrupted by a procedural disputer.

And whatever the procedural solution, I ask for an end to the personal attacks, particularly the misogynist abuse from Nick Thorne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was "I must admit to being disappointed at BrownHairedGirl's refusal to reverse the moves, even as a token of good faith. In the event that an article is prodded and deleted it can be easily restored simply by requesting that, because the deletion is obviously not "uncontested"." I then expressed concern that not a single affected Wikiproject was notified. This was fobbed off by BHG with "Your complaint about lack of notifications is a general criticism of speedy processes as a whole, not of these moves. Please raise it elsewhere." I explained my position with "Where exactly? This is a problem that nobody seems able to fix and is widespread. The Australian project is continually frustrated by failure of editors to advise the project of changes that directly affect the project. The only way to get the message out seems to be to make mention of it whenever it happens in the hope that the message will spread, even if one editor at a time" and THAT was it. I've made no further comment in the past 16 hours. For BHG to apparently still be stewing over my comments; well, it's the sort of thing that makes me wonder if perhaps BHG needs to take some de-stressing time away from Wikipedia. Maybe it's a response to criticism by several editors combined with the realisation that the moves have been unanimously opposed, but it's a response that I don't expect from an admin. I'm sorry if I seem blunt, but I believe it's an appropriate response to being dragged into something in which I've had minimal involvement. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Aussie, I am not "stewing over your comments". I mentioned them as evidence of dissatisfaction with the procedural solution, and noted that you had been polite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a case of gross over-reaction by an administrator who seems to think that they are beyond reproach and who completely lacks any insight into how their actions are likely to be perceived by others. The expression "suck it up princess" is not a comment on anyone's gender, it is an expression applied equally to males and females and is a comment directed solely to those who need to suffer the consequences of their own actions. I wonder whether BHG recognises the irony of complaining about alleged personal attacks and then accusing me of misogyny. I suspect not, this seems to be yet another example of this administrator's lack of understanding of how their actions might effect others. Regarding the accusation of calling BHG's failure to revert contemptuous, what I actually said was, referring to BHG's refusal to reverse the move, The refusal to do that, especially after being specifically asked to do so, comes across as somewhat contemptuous. I am sure that was not the intention, but it certainly is the appearance. I note that BHG has conveniently forgotten to mention the second sentence there, taking my comments out of context certainly seems contemptuous to me. As for calling BHG's actions cavalier, the definition of cavalier is to act without due regard to the consequences. Given BHG's pole in this whole sorry affair, I think this description of their actions entirely appropriate. I do not believe I have a case to answer and I stand by my comments here and elsewhere about this business. None of this would have happened had BHG followed the correct procedure or reversed the error once it was pointed out - that is not my doing and I will not apologise for it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, I chose a solution which I believed was the east worst option. I explained my solution here, and it was approved as resolved by the administrator who closed the discussion.

Since you and some other editors are unhappy with that, I suggested that you ask for it to be reviewed. You didn't do that, so I have asked for it to be reviewed.

That is not "cavalier" behaviour, not is it "contemptuous", nor is it "without due regard to the consequences".

All I have sought here is that the procedural issue be resolved, without personal abuse. It is sad that your reply doesn't address the procedural issue, and defend your personal abuse ... as well as trying to victimise me for complaining about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you still don't get it. Well, I don't care any more, I'm done with this whole subject and have said all I intend to say. Have a nice life, - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and before I go, I note that yet again BHG has failed to follow the correct processes. At the top of this noticeboard it clearly states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Absolutely no such discussion has taken place on my talk page. Does anyone else see a pattern here? Thought so. I'm out of here now. Ooroo. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There had been several exchanges on the CFD page, where we had not reached agreement on the procedural issue.

Given your pattern of personal abuse, I saw no reason to believe that a discussion on your talk would be productive. If you ad outstanding concerns about my conduct, you could have raised them on my talk, but chose bot to do so.

An admin trying in good faith to resolve a procedural tangle will frequently find that the solution approved by third-party review (as this one was) will not meet universal approval.

However, the personal abuse does nothing to help resolve the situation, and is a form of bullying. I want it stopped, because the abuse from these Australian editors in now becoming a pattern. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Get your own house in order before you cast around for stones to throw at others. I originally did believe that you were acting in good faith, however, that belief has been somewhat strained by your continued revision of history and your misrepresentation of what others, including me, have said. I think it is high time for you to stop and wait for the uninvolved administrator to comment on these proceedings that you claimed you wanted when you opened this discussion here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented the history.

As to getting my own house in order, I have asked for this to be reviewed. I encouraged you to get it reviewed if you wanted, but rather than seek uninvolved input you chose to try bullying me through personal abuse and misogynistic attack. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the princess comment here purely as an sign of good faith. I find your continued accusation of misogyny, especially after the context has been explained to you to be highly offensive. The ball is in your court. You do indeed need to get your own house in order. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think BHG should not have reopened the discussion. I can understand her desire to have everything be fully and perfectly resolved before moving on, but in these kinds of situations some of the hard feelings don't just automatically disappear after an issue is "resolved". There may be some residual fall-out, and unless it is truly egregious, it's generally better just to let it dissipate on its own, even if one has to ignore some of the comments one doesn't appreciate. The only post-resolution comment that bothered me was the "princess" comment by Nick. I'm not familiar with the phrase, but in the U.S., the use of the word "princess" in similar phrases would be considered offensively sexist. I can't speak for Australia. But Nick claims he uses the phrase for both genders, and I think, in this instance, we should accept him at his word. In the future, though, I'd advise him to be a little more circumspect of cross-cultural problems with certain words and phrases. Certainly, the phrase was unnecessary, so why use it? Beyond that, I think we should move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

CommentIn Australia, "princess" is indeed used for both genders. I can vouch for this being Australian myself. Its use is a bit off-the-cuff and it's one of those context-dependent local usage words that can either be offensive or just passing comment. Blackmane (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Added comment In this particular case, as "suck it up, princess", it basically means "take it on the chin". Very common usage amongst okker Aussies. Blackmane (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"suck it up princess" is a demeaning phrase: in that sentence, princess is being used to refer to someone who is "used to getting their way, but this time your not", among other things. Yes, "princess" is often used in this manner for both male and female - in Canada too. It's often said in mock sorrow: "awwwwww, suck it up princess", or with an angry tone "right: suck it up princess and get in the back of the police car". Either way, inappropriate. dangerouspanda 20:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)\

I have stricken the phrase. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Having had time to think about things and reviewing all the various parts of the matters at hand, I have a major issue with the way this case was opened by BHG. As already mentioned above, BHG failed to engage in any discussion about her complaints regarding my posts on my talk page as required. They claim to have raised these issues on the various talk pages, but what I see is just a run of the mill robust exchange between two editors of the kind you can find anywhere on Wikipedia. At no time did I take any of BHG's comments personally, and I certainly did not intend my comments to be taken so by them and in no case did BHG bring up the issues raised here. Had this been done any misunderstandings could have been dealt with on both sides. When I read BFG's post on the CFD page here I see it refers to the move discussion and taking it to ANI - no mention of any objections to what I have posted. I find it particularly ironic that in that post BHG talks about good faith yet when I come here expecting to see a discussion about the move, I find instead that discussion relegated to the sidelines with an all out attack against me about things they have completely failed to discuss anywhere else, taking my comments completely out of context which is inexcusable in someone with BHG's experience and an Admin too. I see a distinct pattern of behaviour where BHG seems unwilling or unable to understand how their own actions are likely to be perceived by others. They then exhibit a classic glass jaw when called to task rather akin to the child who cries for their mummy because the other kids won't let them win. It is not good enough and this case should be closed forthwith and the discussion about the move should return to the CFD page where it belongs. I am unlikely to reply to any further posts by BHG here short of a genuine apology. However, I reserve the right to reply to posts by third parties. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick, as I said at the top, there are two issues here: the procedural question of whether the moves should be reverted, and your abusiveness. You have chosen not to discuss the procedural issue, and that's your choice.

Nick's comments about "cries for their mummy" are again offensive and abusive, and serve only as as a personl attack. Once gain, I ask you to stop.

If an admin's actions are questioned, they may resolve the disagreement either by doing what's asked, or by seeking a third-party review. This is the second time that have I sought a third-party review of this issue, and I have clearly stated my willingness to accept the result of that review.

Nick's says that I didn't understand "how their own actions are likely to be perceived by others". On the contrary, I have accepted that my actions are questioned by some others while supported by others. Nick's position appears to be that because I seek review rather than doing what he wants, he entitled to make repeated personal attacks. At no point has Nick indicated any willingness to see the procedural issue resolved by neutral third parties, which seems to me to a gross breach of the core policy of WP:CONSENSUS; instead he simply wants to bully me into doing what Nick wants.

I am still being being subjected to personal abuse here, I think that this is a wider issue which affects all admins. Is it really acceptable for an admin to be repeatedly abused when they have explicitly sought review of their actions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BHG, I refuse to be further provoked by you. I am taking this page off my watchlist. Say what you like, I won't hear it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why there's any need for the level of hostility seen in this thread. From what I can see, when everything else is boiled away, the important parts are 1) the categories were nominated for speedy rename (as C2b?), 2) the categories were speedy renamed, 3) the speedy criteria was objected to, and 4) the rename is now being given a full discussion. Sure, a speedy change that was objected to (on criteria grounds, not on procedural grounds) probably should have been undone prior to a full discussion, but in the grand scheme of things it's really not that important since the outcome of the current discussion will determine the names of the categories in future, regardless of what they're currently called. There's no rush here and a slight grammatical error for the duration of the discussion isn't the end of the world. Have patience, assume good faith and don't get so worked up over relatively trivial things like this. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Article CBT and Psychoanalyse. Again

I was blockt two times (1d, 7d) by two admins because I violated the 3RR. The dispute began with an table the user CartoonDiablo trys to push in the article. The 1st Discussion on DRN ended with no result. After a copple of weeks the Dispute stared again. CartoonDiablo added the table again, but now he found a user, Stillstanding who supported him. After some warring and some discussions. CartoonDiablo started another DRN. The result, as I understand it, was to replace the table by prose. CartoonDiablo added a textpassage but also added a picture of this table.

Futher the "prose" was bumbling and he added Informations you can't find in the source. CartoonDiablo found this information by original research. Because I try to prevent an editwar again I just add a NPOV-Box to the textpassage and try to discuss the alteration. But CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding stated an WAR again by revert the NPOV-Box out of the article. They don't discuss my critic on the talk page and start an "incident" After I reverted again, and remember I just insist to add this NPOV-Box, a Admin blockt me for 7d.

After that proceed, I have some questions:

1. Why it is prohibited to left a NPOV-Box at articles the NPOV is doubted? Why is it possible to delate the box by editwarring?
2. I read the DRN again. I can't found any advice it was part of the resulition to replace the table by a picutre. Why was this trick not ignored by the admin how enforce the 2rr?
3. Both "mediators" on DRN say about themself they are no experts on psychotherapy research. But I'am. They can't estimate the neutrality of the prose CartoonDiablo esthablished.
4. Why CartoonDiablo and Stillstanding doesn't have to repeat my critic of the textpassage they warred into the article? [41] Why is it possible my both disputants don't have to reply the my ciritc? The result of DRN was not both can add false information into the article. It was just to replace the table by "prose".
5. In the DRN I was not ask if I'm agree with the result. On the contrary, the DRN was closed because the same arguments were repeated. I can't even answer it. So it seems to me, the admins interpreted the result as following: three useres on DRN, no one got a clue of psychotherapy research, decided, CartoonDiablo can write whatever he wants.
6. Therefore I'm not agree with the DRN-Result. It seems to me CartoonDiablo violated the DRN result also by add the picture of the table. His answers weren't really helpfull to reply my critic abouve.

So after this lesson what en:wp think a dipute resolution is: what is the next step for me to do? The text is still deficient and exaggerate an single source. The users who warred this picture and the divicient text passage into and the NPOV-box out of the articel doesn't seems to be eager to have an expert discussion about this topic. [42] [43] The admins block me, and only me, if I try to add an simple POV-box. Is this your idea of how to establish neutral and informative articles?

And the main question is: What's next? What can I do now? --WSC ^® 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You can continue to try discussion, discuss it with the blocking admin, or consider filing an WP:RFC either about the issue or about the people.--v/r - TP 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal: After the DRN fails and no admin wants to enforce the result (remove the table). Now I have to consult more instances of en:wp to ask more useres don't have a clue about the issue. --WSC ^® 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, your being an expert on the subject doesn't give you any special status or privileges with regards to the article. While that can be frustrating when dealing with Randys, please assume good faith and assume clue in other editors who genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wikipedia is for the most part written by non-experts, which is why we insist that material be properly sourced. Maybe it's a drag for an expert to have to convince non-experts, but that's how it works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the users interpretate the source wrong. As I repeatedly have shown. Of course you can always add a source, but thats useless if you not able to read the source well and interpretate the results correctley. Futher, in research areas where hourdreds of sources existing you can't pic out one single source and present it as the only one just because you like the findings or overstate it. Thats all terms you need expertise for. But it seems to me, en:wp is not interested in in-depth argumentations. DRN - one day discussed - some result no one cares about - no more questions allowed. There are similar tendencys on de.wp. But this proceed is really superficial. And the worst case is an editwar. POV, correct sources and such thins doesn't matter. The importent thing is, not to have 3 Reverts within 1 day, or whatever that 3RR means. --WSC ^® 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR is about edtior actions. It is independent of article content (except in the limited cases such as copyright violation and contentious claims about living people). -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm? I don't want to talk about the 3RR anymore. It's ridiculus that two users always "win" against one user. That maks argumentation unnecessary. Thats why german WP don't use this foolish rule. I'd rathe talk about the DRN-result and why it's allowed to CartoonDiabolo to violate the hallow result (turn the table into a picture). And why a NPOV-box is so frightening suddenly a 2RR exist, I never heard about? And what the admins to be looking to do, to implant a discussion about the issu again? --WSC ^® 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to choose what gets talked about when you report at AN/I. Everyone's conduct in the matter is open to question - including yours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it the result of the dispute resolution was both prose and an image. Thus far the only person who has had a problem with the content is Widescreen who at this point would need to appeal the DRN. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at it this morning and I agree with a lot of Widescreen's views here. The edit warring has masked a serious content issue which appears to be attempting to promote CBT by cherry picking evidence. Its now at the dispute resolution notice board, and its a content issue on three articles. But that is where it belongs not ANI ----Snowded ^TALK 04:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

1) DRN is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions. 2) Wasn't the DRN closed as "change to prose"? There may have been a misinterpretation over the consensus of the DRN case and the purpose of DRN. DRN closures can't be enforced, but DRN does offer a venue for establishing consensus.--SGCM (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The first DRN was closed as "The content in question should be rewritten in prose." Some background on the DRN: I brought up the proposal of changing the table to prose in the second DRN, based on the proposal by Noleander in the first DRN (including the recent one, there have been three DRN requests so far), or the use of an image as a possible compromise, to replace the inappropriately large table originally placed in the article. The image compromise was struck down, and most of the editors, including me, agreed that prose remained the best option. The discussion on the DRN may have been misconstrued. DRN is an informal noticeboard, consensus can be established but not enforced.--SGCM (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But it seems to me admins have take the result as serious as it was a court with judges or arbitrators. So the comment on my second 1week block by EdJohnston was: "Amazingly, this dispute has already been through WP:DRN which came up with a result, which WSC still won't accept." [44] So the admin EdJohnston prohibit futher alterations by overstate the DRN-result. Also the 1st admin, Crazycomputers (chris): arguing like that. His comment to my 1d block was: "Due to ongoing edit warring against consensus, Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours." [45]

The admins claimed a consensus which never exist. Now the article is still POV and it's prohibit to me to add a NPOV-box. Thats badly done work. --WSC ^® 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the administrators were at fault. The block was primarily for edit warring, not the content dispute. Edit warring should always be avoided, regardless of who's right or wrong.--SGCM (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard about a editwar you can do alone! It taks two useres at the minimum. But your admins blocked only one of them. Such a behavior inhibit agrumentation. Also the prohibit of adding a NPOV-box. Your admins act like bureaucrats and not for the advantage of the articles. --WSC ^® 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My closure of a 3RR report was mentioned above. At present, the reason why Widescreen has not been able to get his desired change made at either Psychoanalysis or Cognitive behavioral therapy is that the regular editors on those articles oppose his change. I assume he is not here to request that admins override the decision of the content editors. There is a process called WP:Dispute resolution. Widescreen has used some of the steps of that process, including WP:DRN, and each time he has not persuaded the others. Normally, plain content disputes are not entertained at ANI. My guess is that Widescreen won't accept the DRN result because he believes that his personal expertise allows him to know that the very large INSERM study is not a fair summary of the merits of the two therapies. Our policy allows you to criticize one reliable source by finding another source which disagrees, but you are not usually allowed to disqualify a source because of what you claim is your personal expertise (see Widescreen's #3). You are also not allowed to keep re-adding a POV tag to an article when nobody on the talk page agrees with you (Widescreen's #1). His edit-warring to re-add the POV tags was the occasion for his last 3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ed Johnston: I'm getting angry. You talk about regular editors. Who is that? I've checkt that, here and I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example. You never read the DRN result and you block me after 2reverts for 1 week because I try to add a NPOV-box. Don't you think thers somthing wrong with that.

You don't know anything about studies in pychotherapy research. So what's your contribution to this discussion? You set a unbalanced block and now you talk about such things like I try to disqualify a source. I can't believe that!

You did somthing wrong. Please accept that. --WSC ^® 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the top-ten editors in Article CBT for example - this gives you no special privileges on Wikipedia. I would strongly suggest you drop the stick and go edit other article for awhile, while enjoying a nice cup of tea to cool off, before a boomerang hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, did anyone here read coherences? Or just the last contrib? The blocking admin gives as reason for the blocking that I'm not one of the "regular editors". So tell me again: Didn't it not count to be the top ten editors? No, the blocking admin, EdJohnston, has no idea of what the conflict goes about. Thats why he blockt the one he found was the one seems to be the weekest of all. By checking the contribs. Thats wat happend. --WSC ^® 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The only edit counter that is relevant here is "reverts per 24 hours". Your contributions to the article are more than welcome but that makes you neither own the article nor does it give you any special privileges or any enhanced credibility. And I'd be happy to learn that EdJohnston doesn't know anything about psychotherapy research because that leaves him unbiased in this matter. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But I had only 2 Reverts within 24 Hours. And now? Why had my opponent "special privileges"? --WSC ^® 23:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record here. I checked through the material and the insertion of the table went to dispute resolution and the general agreement seems to have been that the table (created by CartoonDiablo) should not be there, but replaced by text. (see here and here). CartoonDiablo feels that the dispute resolution should not have been closed prematurely and its his right to raise the issue again (as is the case on Family Therapy). However when I removed it he immediately inserted the material again claiming that the "closed prematurely" argument. Ed was undoubtably right to block Widescreen as he allowed his frustration to get the better of common sense. But in my opinion the problem here is a CBT advocate pushing a self-created table that supports his/her particular position. The diagram itself is from an old study and its findings are controversial in the field anyway. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you, checking the case and have a look at the DRN-result. Not one admin was able to do that. I still don't understand how I was able to have an editwar by myself? It seems so, because I was the only one being blocked.

I'm curious about the next conficts in this field. Now WP had the luck one user, Snowded, was so attentive to read the hole conflict and had the expertise to understand it. But that don't seems to be a exception. Obstinate obey of stupid rules like 3RR, without have a look at the core of a conflict is useless. --WSC ^® 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to trust the system more. You could have raised an RfC on this to bring other editors in, Ultimately evidence will win out but you have to he patient (I learnt that the hard way on the Ayn Rand articles); WIkipedia is managed through moderating behaviour, not through content resolution and that is its strength and its frustration. Although you did provide references you just scattered them in long postings so it was easy for people to ignore them - or see you as edit warring. The dispute resolution boards came to the conclusion the picture should not be there so it was legitimate to remove it But when the edit warring started you lost it. I suggest a 2rr or 1rr limit, then you can raise the editors behaviour here with a clean slate. I've got a copy of House and Loewenthal's Against and For CBT and Critically Engaging CBT waiting for me at home. I know they challenge the way evidence has been collected and used in studies. So when I have that we can balance the text as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the german wp-system since 8.5 years. I always thouth it was unfair, superficial and controlled by admins doesn't care about the quality of articles. But en:wp is the increase of that. Bureaucratic to the bone. The DRN was a joke. It seems like the worst case is not a unbalanced article but a editwar. If I was a new author I would be up and away. And I'm sure a lot of newbys are deterred by such a proceed. But the stupidest thing is the 3RR. It's not possible to have editwar with yourself. It takes two users at the minimum. But this system pick one of them randomly and let the other triumph. A better way is to block both warriors. Doesn't matter how much. --WSC ^® 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An even better way is not to put yourself in the position where you can be blocked. Its not necessary, it weakens your case and it is more likely to result in poor articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You might think having the speed limit at 55 (or 65, or whatever) is stupid, but "I don't like the law, you should change it" isn't going to make a judge rescind your speeding ticket. It doesn't matter what anyone else has done, just you, and if you're reverting to one version and multiple people are reverting to the other, maybe the problem isn't with them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I think Widescreen does have a case that his antagonist should also have been blocked for a period. In terms of the content issue I think he was correct (and editors at the dispute resolution board overwhelmingly agreed that the diagram should go and be replaced by text which is what happened). Even now and in the face of that consensus CartoonDiablo is still inserting his diagram on the grounds that he has reopened the DRP which he thinks was prematurely closed (for which read, did not agree with him) and trying to argue that the supper for CBT is similar to that for the link between lung cancer and smoking which is arrant nonsense. Removing the PoV tag inserted by Widescreen was provocative. OK the response is not to edit war, but frustrations of experts over dealing with subjects are well known here. While not tolerating edit warring we should not assume (especially on controversial subjects) that the regular editor (plural is questionable as there was only one other) is right. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to complete this. Cartoon Diablo is claiming that he replaced the table with am image, therefore the consensus does not apply. However to summarise comments the editors who looked at this at DRP say:

1. Dmitrij D Czarkoff "the table should be rewritten as prose" and "I fully concur with all the other participants in all three DRN cases that the table should not be present in the article in whatever format"
2. SGCM "prose is still the best option because it is more neutral while conveying the same information"
3. SGCM "the image suggestion was again struck down and most of the editors including me, agreed that prose remained the best option"
4. Kerfuffler "I can say for sure that the table is WP:OR'

Its very clear that we have a case here of an editor who cannot let go of something they have created. Three DRPs, continued slow edit warring. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Links to hacked and malware-infected websites

At work, one website linked here served up Zbot Trojan horses and Blackhole exploit kit redirects and infected a ridiculous number of computers on my work's network after that website got hacked. I then found that the website was linked to at Ronski Speed. I therefore disabled all links and put up gaudy warnings about the site as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ronski_Speed&diff=511167026&oldid=497847196 . I rolled back my edits after I checked repeatedly with Malzilla to see if the site still hosted the malware and I got 404s. Did I do the right thing in disabling the link and putting up a garish warning? Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there a template or policy on dealing with malware-infected sites? Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of {{MalwareLink}}; but it's a horridly ugly tag, is currently unused, and I just noticed is also listed for deletion at TfD. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use it because I just asked my work web proxy vendor to rerate the site and it refused. Apparently, it found more malware on the site. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The site has been cleaned up, so my web filter vendor has removed it from its blacklist. I still think that the template is useful especially for cases when big websites like MySQL or Cryptome got hacked to serve the Blackhole exploit kit. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As to how to handle such hijacked links; per WP:ELDEAD, such links should be treated as dead links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that rule gets trumped when the site in question is the subject's official site in one part of that page at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Another part states that hijacked links count as dead links. The link in that part of the policy points to Domain hijacking, but this is a case of a zombie computer, not a hijacked domain. The policy therefore contradicts itself in regard to zombie computers. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, take it out, or <!-- comment it out, like so --> with an explanation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When a site contains malware, remove the link to it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the discussion here, I've proposed that we make point 3 of WP:ELNO an exception to the "official is okay" standard; if this pass, it would mean that official sites hosting "malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida" would be prohibited by WP:ELNO. Your opinions on the proposal would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Links to sites creating a likelihood that users' computers will become infected with malware should, for obvious reasons, not be included anywhere on Wikipedia. In general, it would probably be best for such sites not to be mentioned at all, but if not mentioning them creates an obvious omission (e.g. it's the subject's official site and if it's omitted, someone is going to add it unsuspecting of the problem), then it might make sense to make some notation of the problem.

Any instance of an editor intentionally seeking to inflict malware on readers should be reported to the Arbitration Committee or to the Office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat by 173.77.173.111 a.k.a. Hudsonapa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:NLT,

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

a.k.a.

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

may be blocked, for the following blatant legal threat: [46]
See also this vandalistic/censorious talkpage deletion edit related to the same dispute, in which near-identical phrasing is used, though I suppose WP:CHECKUSER will be needed to ensure they are in fact the same editor: [47]
Short version of dispute, just for background: Various parties including myself and a notable professional pool player believe that the article Andy Segal is being edited by Segal himself and/or close associates, and is abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion, including self-aggrandizing claims that do not have reliable sources. Various {{citation needed}} and other dispute tags have been in place and unaddressed in any way for over 1 month.
It's noteworthy that the anon message implies that it was posted by Segal personally.
— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"...you will be contacted regarding a slander suit." You mean that threat, after the "cease and desist"? Per NLT, block the IP per "...it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." WP:GAB is always available. CU will be unwilling to connect the IPs to the named account, but this is an unambiguous legal threat. Doc talk 07:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, that was the threat I linked to. Did you find a different one? :-) Anyway, why would CU not pursue this, if necessary (WP:DUCK was cited, below, so maybe it isn't), since these two are obviously the same editor? It seems to me that the entire point of WP:NLT and the blocks it puts into place are to deal with actual persons making legal threats not their virtual online pseudo-identities, so playing "let's pretend this is really someone different" games would appear to thwarting legal policy, which generally trumps editing and wikiquette policy. DUCK aside, why would CU be out-of-band for this? I've not been spending any WP cycles on CU and most other policy matters for some time, so I may have missed something. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

CU is not (officially) willing to make connections to IP addresses and named accounts for reasons of privacy. That's been the traditional standpoint, but perhaps things have changed. Doc talk 07:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But CU's principal function is tying various sockpuppets to a master by IP address data. I must be misunderstanding you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No CU in my personal experience has ever directly tied an IP to a named account. They've said they can't do it for privacy reasons. Maybe I only got CU's who believed that it was improper to do so. Maybe things have changed. As an aside: this is an admin board, right? So why the hell do so few admins actually deal with simple things here? At the rate RfA is going, you all better get your shit together and patrol this board so us non-admins don't have to do it for you. And many thanks to the dedicated ones that still solve things quickly here :) Doc talk 07:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm misunderstanding how sockpuppet hunting works via CU, then, despite having successfully outed a couple of puppeteers thereby. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 08:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Did any CU confirm an IP address to be linked to a named account through CU evidence in one of your SPIs? Or did they use DUCK to avoid that technical tie? Maybe I've been steered wrong... Doc talk 08:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a word on my understanding of CU - CheckUser is used to tie registered accounts via IP (and via other things), but if two accounts are linked, the IP addresses used will not be published as that will reveal information about the person in violation of privacy policy - you'll find plenty of "Confirmed A = B" results, but they won't reveal the IPs. For similar reasons, CU will not publicly tie a registered account to an unregistered IP. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my understanding as well. IP XXX.XX.XXX.XXX can not be publicly tied to (e.g.) Satan'shelper (talk · contribs), but Satan'shelper2 (talk · contribs) can be tied to the registered account. So CU can say the two registered accounts are connected (and use IP data to connect them without publishing those IP addresses), but they cannot publicly disclose an IP as either one (or any registered account). Doc talk 08:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for making clear legal threats, IP has 1 year (remains blocked for legal process) and indeffed named account as clearly related.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I imagine that Hudsonapa will make use of WP:GAB, and I wouldn't even oppose, as long as the editor commits to avoiding more legal threats, commits to abiding by editing policies like WP:V instead of adding more unsourced material to any articles, and commits to no more deleting of others' talk page posts. but I would have to oppose, because it's a single-purpose account that is clearly operated by the subject of the article or a close associate; it has never edited Wikipedia other than to edit Andy Segal in suspect ways, add Segal-related material to Trick shot, censor dispute on Talk:Andy Segal and issue the anonymized legal threat at User talk:SMcCandlish. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Updated 07:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC), after I looked at Special:Contributions/Hudsonapa. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.

• Good call. "We cannot comment on pending legal issues" is what all good companies do in this situation. Let them bring it to court. Their pulpit here is gone once they issue the threat. Doc talk 07:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potentially offensive userpage declaration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User indeffed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Please see Badud (talk · contribs). I don't think it is appropriate (political reference is one thing, but the nationality reference seems very battleground-minded). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit history also shows 5 reverts in 24 hours. Someone needs a talking to. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  20:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Badud has been notified of this thread. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good, I was just going to say something about notifying him...I am not sure what the applicable policy would be here. Wikipedia's not the place for unregulated free speech, however this was not a personal attack against another editor, yes it overgeneralizes, but I would say he's entitled to his opinion. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the goal here? Blocking? Go Phightins! (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say warning, at first. No need to get the big guns so early... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For what? I think a general note would be appropriate but looking through Twinkle I'm not seeing any applicable templates. Talk page as a forum? He's just stating his opinion. Personal attacks? It's not directed at one editor. I guess vandalism, but it's not really there either. So that brings it to a personalized note of sorts. I suppose that could work, but from whom? Go Phightins! (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to forum shop but since you mentioned his reverts: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Badud_reported_by_User:Piotrus_.28Result:_.29. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Userpages#What may I not have in my user pages? applies here. I've deleted the userpage and left Badud a warning. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He has re-added what appears to be only a wording change - meaning is the same as the original, and as such probably needs the same treatment dangerouspanda 08:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Screw this. They've done nothing but edit war, make nationalistic comments about specific editors on their talk page, and refuse to discuss their edits. This isn't a newbie, it's a troublemaker. Blocked indef, user page deleted and salted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits of the new user "Unindicted co-conspirator" in Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

Unindicted co-conspirator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hey guys, I'm seriously tired of this.

For the past several says, "Unindicted co-conspirator" makes lots of mostly really bad edits to the aticle Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Misinterpretion of sources, sensationalism, also just very poor writing on many levels. And reverting, repeatedly.

Not working on any other articles, too.

Do with it what you want, I give up. The article should be probably redirected to Innocence of Muslims anyway. --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also just to remind of the unaddressed issue at #TheDarkPyrano100's possible many IP socks. --Niemti (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Niemti ordered me to put my External links in alphabetical order and warned me to do so a few times.

I do not see anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines that this is the rule. Also, he has removed relevant, well sourced information about Nakoula being a government informant. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=513430577&oldid=513415297 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=513431801&oldid=513430848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unindicted co-conspirator (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing about alphabetical order was uncalled for, but the rest and gist of the complaint has merit. The way you go about things has been problematic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it's customary to accompany accusations with diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like the "Unindicted co-conspirator" is here to promote the fringe view that Nakoula worked for US government [48]. Not only this is fringe view (at best), but he also misrepresents the source he provided. Although title of the source tells: "Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch", it is clear after reading the entire text that Bakula only cooperating with prosecution and told about the alleged ring leader who was not even charged with the crime if I understand correctly. The "Unindicted co-conspirator" is not here to improve the encyclopedia.My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• He cooperated with the government for a lighter sentence. I put in Nakoula's own quotes to make it clear. No one says that he was employed by the government nor that it not what the references say. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I just fixed this [49]. No, by quoting him you are giving an undue weight to the words of fraudster whose credibility is less than zero. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the edit Unindicted made, which My very best wishes describes as "Nakoula worked for US government", as bad (I would have worded it differently, but so what?), certainly not anything requiring administrative intervention. Unindicted said that Nakoula became a government informant, which is precisely what the source says. Being a government informant hardly makes Nakoula out to be a good guy in this context. I agree that the Nakoula quote probably should not have been used, but I'm still waiting for diffs that justify this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry...quoting Nakoula in an article about Nakoula is giving him undue weight? This logic makes no sense whatsoever. I don't see anything wrong with any of Unindicted's edits linked here. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the concern is that Nakoula has been proven to be a liar, so we have to be careful not to cite anything he says as fact. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I doubt you'll find a single person anywhere in the world who hasn't lied at least once in their life, so stating he's a liar strikes me as pointless. But on-point, a quote is not a statement of fact. He could have said 'green space aliens from Mars told me to make a sandpit in my back yard', for all it matters. As long as his statements are attributed and relevant, they're perfectly acceptable to include in an article. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Kensho

Recently User:Suchawato Mare has three times restored newer versions of the page on Kensho to his preferred version, removing well-sourced and valuable information:

• From [[50]] to [[51]]
• From [[52]] to [[53]]
• From [[54]] to [[55]]

I have informed Suchawato Mare three times about my objections to his edits on the Talk:Kenshō page. These were answered one time, with a long story that did not respond to my first series of objections, nor give a clear insight into the reasons of his edits. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you disputing the conduct or the content? —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  06:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Both. Simply restoring your own preferred version, without discussion, is very unpolite and non-cooperative. Regarding the content, there are two problems: the removal of well-sourced info, including notes; and the use, by Suchawato Mare, of a very limited range of sources, from his own Zen-denomination. It gives me the impression that Suchawato Mare is simply not knowledgeable on the wider range and context of the topic, especially contemporary research on Zen, and does not understand how Wikipedia works. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, normally they will punt a content dispute to WP:DRN. I'm definitely not a topic expert, but my meta-analysis is that he's done several mass reverts of almost all the work anyone else has ever done on the article, back to when he started editing it 6 years ago—the first mass revert being in 2008.

—Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  07:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response from Suchawato Mare:

Joshua Johnathan seems to be acusing me of being a disruptive editor. namely, by:

• • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
  • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

However this is false.

He says he has asked me "three times, etc, etc."

making it seem like he has made every reasonable attempt to be reasonable with me but I'm just so 'uncooperative'.

The reality is, it's been only a few days at the time of this posting since he wrote any of his posts in the talk page on the article in question.

And, indeed, I did actually respond to him once in that time.

He seems to think that "Oh, if I post it three times within 72 hours or something like that" that everyone else 'must' respond to him within the timeframe of his choosing or they are being 'disruptive'.

I posted the reason for my edits on my edits summary.

I don't think it occurs to him that other people may have things going on in their lives that take precedence over responding to him on wikipedia.

Also, I could level the same accusation of disruptiveness at him, because he:

• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

He is also failing to "get the point" and "understand the point".

• "Failure or refusal to "get the point"

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

• "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement."

This above quote is a central point, just because I disagree with him, doesn't mean I didn't hear him. Perhaps it may not have occurred to him that other people simply may not have time to respond as quickly as he wishes.

• "Failure to understand the point {{anchor|Failure to understand the point

"Sometimes, even when an editor acts in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up an editor's mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed, though it is rare for them to be permanent."

This is a central point, what he calls removing "valuable" content, I call cleaning up his mess he made of the article.

Simply because he adds more information, does not make the article better.

It can make a forrest for the trees phenomenon, where the reader gets so bogged down in "trees" that they miss the point of the "forrest" (the point of the article) entirely.

Finally, I would suggest that he simply exercise patience.

And realize that it might take some days or even weeks depending upon what a person is doing in real life, to get back to him.

I have been working on this article for several years, a few days seems hardly inconsequential.

-Suchawato Mare

It's completely unreasonable to revert and then disappear for “weeks” without discussing the changes. Discussion is fundamental here; if you can't participate in it, then don't make contentious changes. Further, pretty much all of your personal attack is false; there is no “community” or “consensus” against making changes, there is only you. Nobody else has spoken up on the talk page or reverted any changes. To accuse another editor of numerous failings when you simply disagree on the content is shamelessly rude (not to mention hard to reconcile with Buddhism). —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  08:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan

• "Engages in disruptive cite-tagging": in my latest version of the article, there are two {{citation needed}}-tags:

• "In kenshō one realizes that there are no inherently existing 'things', that the world we experience is empty of inherent existing "things". But according to Houn Jiyu-Kennett, this not a 'vacuum': "It is the fullest, 'nothingness' you will ever know." Suchawato Mare gave this quote on the Talk Page; I've added it to the article, but couldnt't find the source via Google. The only hit it gives, is Wikipedia.
• "Oh Buddha, going, going, going on beyond and always going on beyond, always Becoming Buddha. Hail! Hail! Hail!" Suchawato Mare provided a source for this one; that's good. That's why we use those tags.

• "Tendentious editing": it's not just one point, it's a long list of points, which Suchawato Mare keeps removing without substantial discussion. The "opposition" has hardly been explained; requests for this have mostly been ignored. "Repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" - this describes exactly Suchawato Mare's behaviour.
• "Failure or refusal to "get the point"": Kerfuffler is correct, there is no "community-consensus", only Suchawato Mare who keeps restoring his preferred version, removing a lot of sourced and valuable information without substantial discussion.
• "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"": also when you have little time, first discuss, then edit.
• "Failure to understand the point", "cleaning up his mess he made of the article": I've exactly pointed out what my problems with Suchawato Mare's edits are. You may prefer to call this a "mess", it still does not mean you can just remove a lot of well-sourced and valuable info. First discuss, then edit.

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing incivility by User:7mike5000

• Mike was indefinitely blocked Aug 2010 for "threatening off wiki action" by User:SarekOfVulcan. He was subsequently unblocked in Feb of 2011 after agreeing that he would be civil and that a block would be reapplied if he was unable to achieve this.[56]

• On Sept 6th [57] and Sept 17th of 2012 [58] he received further complaints of incivility.

• His replies are here [59] and here [60] and are not hopeful.

• As I was uninvolved in both these resent re-occurrences I have reapplied the block. Wondering if others have comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many other example of less than pleasant comments including: [61] and [62] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Does he do anything useful? If not, indef. Otherwise ANI/warn, ANI/warn, block/unblock, block/unblock, RtFU, ArmCom, ANI/warn, block/unblock, ANI/warn, ArbCom, ANI/warn, ANI/warn, maybe he retires. It looks like he has fans. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after looking and reading some of his talk page, I have no desire to see if he does anything "useful" and don't much care. Fully support the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Mike can be a bit rough around the edges if approached the wrong way or to the uninformed (who may just have distaste for his crude but often hilarious wit). However, this user has shown great improvements since the initial block and has worked closely with his mentor to become a very productive contributor. Over a year and a half after the initial block was lifted, it is time to relax these trigger-finger sanctions. That being said, Mike, you really gotta pick and choose who you use that awesome charm of yours with, because some people are unable to cope with the artistic choice of words. Keep it to your user/talk page and out of the drama-prone discussions - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You must be joking, surely. By what stretch of the imagination can the words 'hilarious wit', 'awesome charm' or 'artistic choice of words' be applied to sentences like 'please be a fat scumbag somewhere else' or 'oh yeah, and your a dick'? Support this block, Mike should know better, considering this comment. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 06:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami on Languages of India

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

Kwamikagami removed the redirect template on the top Languages of India[63]. I put it back since I didn't see why he removed it[64]. He's removed it twice more and instead of giving a reason or talking on the talk page, argued about my calling it a redirect[65][66]. I'm bringing this directly to AN/I as this is clearly an experianced editor (an ex-admin), has been reported on this board before, knows he should just give a reason or leave it and intends to game the system to get his way. Could we just jump directly to the trouting? (Me, him or both.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The title mentioned in the hatnote doesn't redirect there, so why do you believe it should remain? --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes id does [67]. What are you looking at? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the reason is pretty accurately stated in this edit summary. I don't see what the problem is. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Don't see a problem here, except failure to assume good faith. The tag clearly doesn't belong as a cursory investigation would have revealed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Routine maintenance hardly requires a discussion on the talk page, or we'd never get anything done. — kwami (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if you had taken the time, you wouldn't be on this page. Typing "indian Languages" in the seach box redirects to "Languages of India" when I do it. So I still don't see why the redirect template was removed! I looked and looked and could not see what you are refering to. It look to me like you were just screwing with me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When I type Indian languages in the search window I get to a disambiguation page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Capitalization matters. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's because the indian Languages redirects to Languages of India but Indian languages (with correct capitalization) goes to the disambiguation page. Fixed. Communication and good faith solves all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Time for a break. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Kwami, Richard, and Maunus, remember when you change a redirect target from an article to a disambiguation page, it's good form to fix all the incoming links to that page; they were valid links before the change, but became links to dab pages (which are seldom useful) after the change. I've fixed all article links to Indian Languages, and am about to fix links to Indian Language and Indian language now, but something to remember for next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I went through dozens with AWB, but that one didn't show up. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fixing about 15 links to Indian language now; I haven't looked, so maybe they've been newly added, or maybe AWB had a hiccup. Anyway, no big deal, it gives me something to do (since I don't have AWB). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle

In his edit summary ([68] "its hard to talk to dictators - its RS sourced and your pov censoring and you know it") User:Sayerslle called me a "dictator". I was unable to report this earlier as I was under the 3-day block for 3RR, same as Sayerslle. This user apperently was already blocked for a month due to personal attacks. --Wüstenfuchs 19:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, blocked more than once for personal attacks. Civility blocks are unfortunate but really the only course of action for serial offenders. Unclear what it will take for him/her to get the point. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Given Wüstenfuchs's tendencies toward intense edit-warring bordering into the land of WP:OWN, Sayerslle's remark is uncivil but perhaps understandable. He fairly regularly racks up reverts past 3RR on pages he frequents. Spend some time looking through e.g. the revision history for Battle of Aleppo (2012) (9 and 10 September are good days to look at). It is difficult to get a word in edgewise while he monitors every bit of content added whilst leaning heavily on the "undo" button. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Understandable? He was edit-warring. I made a 3RR on Hafez al-Assad article, but before that I sent him a message to aviod edit-warring, but he contniued to revert edits. --Wüstenfuchs 20:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, because when dealing with an aggressive reverter such as yourself, it's easy to get sucked into that dangerous spiral. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agressive reverter, as myself? And it's easy to be sucked into "dangerous spiral"... I just don't think so... I don't have antention to suck aniyone anywhere. But also I think it's not nice to call anyone a dictator who censors things. The User also has history of persoanl attacks, he does understands that. --Wüstenfuchs 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

i added a sentence fom a radio 4 documentary that said hafez al-assad 'used today what would be called crony capitalism- it descended into corruption with the ruling family and their key supporters enriching themselves on a massive scale' - you said what could go in the section of what critics of ASsad have said in the lead and what couldnt- i added it - you removed it. thats what happened.Sayerslle (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. Something must be writen in the article. The lead is only a summary of the writen article. But you called me a dictator who is censoring things. --Wüstenfuchs 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry. Sayerslle (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment of User:Lothar von Richthofen. This is a non-case, and User:Wüstenfuchs has a lot of nerve to bring this matter to the admin noticeboard considering his own appalling record (he has been blocked 3 or 4 times for edit warring, and has only just been unblocked some 24 hours ago). And as a recent message I left on his talk page will attest in detail, User:Wüstenfuchs has in fact continued to edit war since his brief return to boot. While User:Wüstenfuchs is obviously not a dictator, he is however an unabashed cheerleader for authoritarian and undemocratic regimes, and a belligerent one at that. It is a fine line, but User:Sayerslle should strive for neutral edit summaries in general. بروليتاريا (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusation after accusation. Now you know whom am I supporting... do I need to say anything about that at all? Christ. --Wüstenfuchs 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do accept your apology Sayerslle, a very kind thing to do. --Wüstenfuchs 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Several SPA editors repeatedly removing cited content

Three editors have been repeatedly removing cited content from two articles associated with a company, Brookfield Asset Management. The users involved are:

AndrewWillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AndyWillis111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TracySteele00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The affected articles are:

Brookfield Asset Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Island Timberlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Given a quick Googling of the editors' names and their behaviour (removal of cited content that reflects poorly on the company), it seems fairly obvious that there's an undisclosed COI here. There are also sporadic additions of promotional content. The involved editors have both been previously warned about their behaviour, but the warnings have seemingly been ignored and their removal of content has continued for several months. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Without even looking for the name(s) in the company directory, it seems that these are indeed problematic edits. If a CU happens to walk by something interesting may come to light quickly. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please consider blocking: 75.9.33.111

75.9.33.111 (talk · contribs)

This anonymous user continued to edit the page: Baton_Rouge,_Louisiana with incorrect data. Simple internet searches prove the information to be invalid. --Revmqo (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the better venue for that request. But even they wouldn't take action yet, since the IP hasn't been warned. I'll be monitoring the IP's edits for the next while, though. —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Blatant vandals and trolls don't require warnings. This particular case is not quite 100 percent, although if he does it even once more he should be sacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

True, Bugs. There is an exception to every rule; however, the general rule is to warn and then report, and this case is one for the general rule. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Tyler Barushak

Resolved

 – Emailed ArbCom, subsequently nuked by Hersfold. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that this is relatively minor in the scheme of things, but after I posted something on his talk page and he did nothing, I didn't want to blank it without consensus. This is clearly a violation of WP:USERBIO. As recommended, I attempted to make contact with the user on his talk page and he hasn't replied, so I wasn't sure what the appropriate next step would be. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw some issues and dealt with them (see the page history and the note I dropped on his talk page). Were you talking about something else? Short biographies on userpages are generally allowed, and I'd say what remains is OK.--Chaser (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayemd (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't believe that User:Jayemd gets Wikipedia. There was a previous ANI discussion (started by me) which ended with a suggestion of mentoring, which Jayemd has not pursued. Then there was a sockpuppet investigation for WP:GHBH which was confirmed. After that, some dispute resolution suggestions at Talk:Kashmir conflict (diff) and Talk:Evolution (diff) that were anything but helpful, essentially saying "revert without discussion unless someone asks" and "vandalism is addictive". Around that time, he starts vandalizing again by creating Pieces of Both Genitalia and redirecting it to Gay (among other articles) and makes Justin Bieber jokes (diff). In the last couple days, he wrote about his "personal rivalry with Britain" (including calling Brits "attention rapists") on his User page (User:Jayemd#YouTube and issues with Great Britain). At this point, User talk:Jayemd and User talk:Jayemd/Archive 1 are filled with warnings, many by me but also by plenty of other editors. I'm wondering what (if anything) should be done at this point. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely blocking for really obvious competence issues; should he show any understanding of why he was blocked, it can be lifted, but not until then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick RFPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

If an admin has a sec would they mind checking my WP:RFPP (semi) on Water fluoridation controversy please? A dynamic IP is edit warring, has been reverted by 4 (maybe 5) editors and refuses to discuss their edits. Since the IP is dynamic I can't 3RRN it and I'm requesting here because of the high frequency of the reverts. Thanks! Sædon^talk 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Note:Not notifying the IP of this report because it is not about him/her per se, just about the PP. Sædon^talk 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies! Sædon^talk 02:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing. That user, it's worth keeping an eye on the other article they edited. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

diff Dare erase it. If you delete this article named "Sergio Urias" i will sue Wikipedia for 1 million dollars and I will not stop until I win that demand' Jim1138 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sergioandernesto legal threats

Legal threats made at Talk:Sergio Urias. Editor creating promotional articles solely in support of E&S Writing Co. and the principle players, Sergio and Ernesto. Cindy(talk to me) 02:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:218.108.168.130

The IP user has been warned enough times to halt the good faith edits it has used oni the article Sami Brady and EJ DiMera changing coerce to rape, and thus changes the edits from coerce to rape and is constantly reverting auto-confirmed users edits from their contributions and other contributions in order to make the IP user stop its edits. Please notify the user about the one good faith edits and how it can be resolved, or please halt the user from reverting other users edits such as User:Shaun9876's edits.--GoShow (...............) 03:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, somebody close this. The charge is baseless, and seems to claim that IPs shouldn't try to revert registered accounts. There is discussion at various pages (check the IPs history), and the sources, well, what can I say--they call it rape. I have reinstated the IPs edit, and this is a content matter, not something for ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although, the IP user does have a manage to believe it was rape other than coerced, as well needs to halt from deleting the Islamophobia disambiguation from other articles.--GoShow (...............) 03:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I believe that this is an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents issue, given how GoShow acted inappropriately in his interaction with me at this article. Basically, I reverted GoShow when he reverted my restoration of the text that "EJ is considered to have raped Sami." This was the original text, supported by the reliable soap opera sources, but was changed by this editor back in July of this year. I restored the original text because "per the WP:Reliable sources backing the definition of rape in the first paragraph of the Rape article, which includes coerced sex (in this case, EJ forced Sami to have sex with him by telling her that he would let a man who is dear to her, her ex-fiancé, die if she did not), and per the reliable soap opera sources in the EJ DiMera and Sami Brady article, it is considered rape."

Although this was settled with a different user (User:Shaun9876, who GoShow mentioned above), GoShow continued to revert me, even showing up as his admitted WP:Sockpuppet Mr.Goblins to do so (see my talk page for that), ignoring the sources and ridiculously insisting that this definition of rape is WP:FRINGE. The user doesn't seem to have nothing but a limited understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Despite being registered. Here is the exchange from his talk page (as GoShow). I told him that I would be reporting his conduct here. Of course, as I knew he would, he decided to beat me here first. Either way, his understanding of guidelines/policy is extremely lacking. The English barrier is apparent.

And I haven't been deleting anything related to Islamophobia. I already told GoShow: Have you never seen what it says at the bottom of IP talk pages? It says: "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address." 218.108.168.130 (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We have already, discussed this on your talkpage about many autoconfirmed users with different users without vandalism, although the one your talking about is not, and we have discussed again to not furthur escalate the article as well with your deletion of Islamophobia sources from other articles, the discussion is closed, please stop your argument.----GoShow (...............) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that wasn't my user and to stop the escalating the talk on my talk page ↓—GoShow 05:17 20 September 2012

I can barely understand anything you just stated. But using two accounts in the way you have described is sockpuppetting, unless there is a valid reason for two accounts. Especially with those accounts not publicly tied to each other. But just leave me alone already, and I'll leave you alone. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You talk the same exact way as that user and took an interest in reverting me for the same asinine reasons. But claim what you want, obviously. Just don't be surprised when you get caught. And I don't have to shut up when you say so. You could also stop talking, you know, just like Drmies advised you to do here and elswhere. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, this needs to stop. There's no socking--will registered editors please not forget to sign in? You two bickering back and forth is silly and disruptive. IP, you got your wish in the article, and continuing this here is useless. Besides, there is no doubt whatsoever that it's the same person responsible for all edits from this IP, since you edited the soap article before you moved on to other matters to remove their "extreme left-wing bias", but that's also not a matter for this board--at least not right now. Enough already, out of everyone, including me. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, that was not me. This is a WP:PROXY, and it can be used by anyone at any time. I am not a political person, and would be on the left side if I were. I understand that you or someone else will block this IP as a proxy. But this issue is settled now anyway. 218.108.168.130 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

User ZarlanTheGreen

ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The affected articles are:

Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Broadsword (disambiguation) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WQA/Broadsword (disambiguation)#August 2012 cleanup
User talk:Trofobi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Broadsword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → WP:DR noticebaord#Broadsword
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User ZarlanTheGreen disagreed with some (MOS:DAB-according) changes of "Broadsword (disambiguation)", starting 28 August 2012‎. On the talk page, he got sufficient answers to that but accused me of giving no answers, while actually he just refused to read the answers and especially refused to look in the article's history what changes he had done himself(!) and what changes others had done, but rather repeating on and on false accusations what he thought his/the changes had been. While repeatedly refusing to accept the MoS:DAB[69][70][71][72]..., he charged me with not following his own word-by-word interpretations of WP:BRD. Instead of working together on solutions, he accused me of "trolling"+[73] and opened a case against me on WP:WQA, where he got many more answers, but none of them supporting his views. My request to remove the "trolling" PA was answered by only more PAs. When WQA was closed on 15 Sep 2012, Zarlan opened a WP:DR case on the same questions, making further personal attacks there and refusing to remove them even after being asked so by the volunteer (Guy Macon). Current climax: Now, as it turns out that WP:DR, too, doesn't fulfill his hopes, ZarlanTG now starts editing the Manual of Style/DAB to his personal favour [74][75] and reverting other users there.

Additionally ZarlanTheGreen is often mixing up formats like [[ {{ == etc. not caring about the mess he leaves,[76] even if kindly asked to.[77] (As I am not a native English speaker I hope to have chosen appropriate words, if not pls let me know!) --Trofobi (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Claims of libel

User:Fairness and Truth made this new section [78] on another user's talkpage, with the text The article is libelous, completely inaccurate and blatantly biased. I've no idea if this is a legal threat or not, but he/she seems pretty heated over this, so someone who knows NLT better than me should take a look-see. User will be notified.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Victor Vancier is an article, not a user. I think it's fine to make a message on a talk page highlighting perceived errors with the article. Definitely not a legal threat, or even a personal attack on an editor. Whether it falls under a rant that we should pay attention to unless additional citations are given, I haven't checked, but don't think that would warrant action. --Activism1234 05:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my fault. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how simply using the words "libel" or "libellous" to describe material in an article can be construed as a legal threat on its own. Note the wording on Template:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. [my bolding]

Construing these kinds of comments as legal threats hampers discussion of what may be serious BLP issues. I have no idea if the claims made by Fairness and Truth are accurate, but, simply describing bits of text as libellous, is not the same thing as "I'm going to sue you for libel unless you change this.". Just my 2 cents. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I attempted to check out who this “Chaim Ben Pesach” guy is, and the web seems to have almost universal disdain for him, frequently referring to him as a cult leader, etc. I don't know him, and I don't know the editor, but this smells like someone trying to spruce up his rather tarnished image. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  05:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know about all that, but this editor is definitely pushing a rather radical fringe viewpoint. If you see the next edit after the above [79], he is justifying the subjects referenced conviction of bombing by making a claim regarding some facet of the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict having nothing to do with the subject of the article. Guessing this isn't the forum foor that, but the editor in question here is defiantly WP:FRINGE Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Any editor with "Truth" in their username is typically up to no good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Double standards against Jews

How come Muslims are allowed to make anti-Semitic comments on Wikipedia without getting any warning and their comments are allowed to stay, but Jews who call them out on their anti-Semitism get an extremely hostile warning and have their edit erased? [80] Why don't administrators erase this anti-Semitic comment by a French Muslim? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolas_Sarkozy&diff=prev&oldid=512225195. I do not think people with this kind of bias should be allowed to be administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.52.89 (talk)