Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    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)

    Repeated use of derogatory racial epithets in edit summaries by User:Calton

    Unblocked with the condition that "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block". --regentspark (comment) 19:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For at least the eighth time on record (see the outcome of an edit summary search here [1]), User:Calton has directed a derogatory racial epithet at another editor. (See this edit summary [2].) From the first time he was called out on this behavior by User:Sjakkalle [3] to the most recent use of the epithet against User:Yworo [4], Calton refuses to even acknowledge that he is being uncivil, no less using a racially offsensive epithet. The term is hardly obscure (see, for example [5].
    I therefore call on any uninvolved administrator to indefinitely block User:Calton until he acknowledges the gross misconduct involved and publicly commits to the community that he will not commit such misbehaviour again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking as a person of mixed-race parentage...if someone called me "Buckwheat" to my face, that person would shortly require medical attention. There is no wiggle room here as to the connotation. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No excuse for such verbiage. It's astonishing he's been allowed to get away with it repeatedly. An appropriate edit summary for his indef could be, "You're done here, Alfalfa." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He gone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have indeffed - his block log shows a long history of this kind of behaviour, which he just refuses to acknowledge or change, and I do not feel he has a place here because of that. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) GiantSnowman got in there just before I could; there's no place for this sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, and I see from Calton's history that he's been on the receiving end of this sort of block before. A productive editor he may be, but such attacks go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's operation; good call by the Snowman. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calton has been here since 2004 and done untold good work for the encyclopedia, especially in areas that many of us more sensitive souls are reluctant to enter; as he says on his talkpage, "mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical". He's an impatient guy, and has gone too far in his wording quite a few times. Many times I've been able to understand him, considering the aggressive SPI's he mostly deals with. But with the "buckwheat" issue, you've lost me completely, Calton. What the hell? I've never seen you be racist before (obviously I must have missed the other uses of "buckwheat"). If Calton has some kind of idea that it's not offensive, he should still have deferred to the people who told him it was — as soon as Sjakalle told him to stop it in 2005, he should have done so. I agree with GiantSnowman's indefblock for the impenitent use of "buckwheat".
    But I protest against GiantSnowman's hasty conclusion that Calton "doesn't have a place here". As soon as he undertakes to keep a civil tongue in his head, specifically with regard to the offensive term Buckwheat, I for one am willing to unblock him. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    I think I would tend to agree with your comments here Bishonen. Calton's positive contributions far outweigh the occasional lapse in his temperament that we see. I think a block is clearly needed here to give Calton time to calm down and reevaluate how he interacts with editors. My experience is that he generally does edit more productively post-block. I would suggest that we knock the block down to one week and see how he is after this. No need for an indef in my opinion. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we go with what the OP suggested and keep it as indef until he acknowledges that his behaviour is unacceptable. He's been blocked before for this sort of behaviour, and ultimately it has changed nothing. If we promise to unblock him after he has acknowledged his error, then it shows that he has learnt not to do this again. Having the block expire after a week teaches him nothing. – Richard BB 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing Calton, he will never admit he is wrong and we'll lose an editor who is productive most of the time. If we set it to a week, he will return after his block in a better frame of mind for editing (but of course, he still won't admit he was wrong!) and we don't lose him from the project. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure that's the case. He's been blocked before, and even if he is a bit more productive when he comes back, he'll ultimately end up back here again, as history has shown. I suspect that the threat of having eight years' worth of work ending with an indef will force him to admit his error — and even if it doesn't, I'd rather a good editor blocked if he's going to be racist. – Richard BB 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to defend the racism - That was bad, but we have to look at it in the grand scheme of things and see what's better for the project. As I said, he'll never admit he was wrong. I'll also suggest that he'll be blocked again at some point in the future. Looking at his block log, he hasn't been blocked for 3 1/2 years - That's not too bad a recent record if you ask me. However bad the edit summaries were, I would prefer to keep Calton on the project and reduce the block. That said Richard, I obviously respect your opinion given the severity of the misconduct. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't take a week to realise and accept that dishing out racial slurs isn't acceptable. There is no fixed time limit in which an apology and assurance is no longer needed. Fixing the block to a week achieves nothing if no change in behaviour is offered. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The change in behaviour won't be offered expressly, but it will happen. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Any editor can be replaced. He doesn't have to "admit he's wrong", but he has to pledge never, ever to use racist insults again, especially in edit summaries where they remain permanently visible. That's not a ticket to being un-indef'd, but just one requirement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) If he will never admit that using racial slurs is wrong, then I fully agree with GiantSnowman that he has no place here, regardless of the number of good edits he may have done. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, he doesn't have to "admit" anything, he just has to pledge to stop doing it. There's always a meager chance that he may honestly not know that calling someone "Buckwheat" is one step away from calling them the "N-word". If so, he needs to be eddycated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a good content producer should never outweigh someone's lack of civility and fondness for personal attacks, and it should never be used as an excuse for keeping them around. We probably lose many more potential replacements, scared off by the bully boys who think they are above the law, an opinion which is encouraged by the actions of those who defend them. GiantSnowman 15:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend we be firm. Keep the block indef, and make it very clear that he can be unblocked immediately if he simply acknowledges it is a racial slur and agrees to stop using it. I expect he will eventually do so. But if we are wishy-washy about it and reduce it to a week, he has no reason to do anything but wait it out. Yworo (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. No reason to reduce it from indef before he even comments on the matter, as that sends the wrong message. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here,[6] Calton indicates he thinks the claim of personal attack is "nonsense". He's either truly ignorant of what "Buckwheat" implies, or he doesn't care. Either way, he needs to stay on ice until or if he gets the point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But as the OP pointed out, one has to keep in mind that it was way back in 2005 that he was first made aware that it could be interpreted as an racial slur. And since then have been made aware of that fact by numerous editors. The chances of him being completely unaware of it thus seems very meager indeed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Colonel ought to be thrown out of the hotel!!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be inclined to keep the indef in place, but to lift it immediately if Calton gives a simple undertaking not to use the term "Buckwheat" again. I'm not looking for an apology or an admission of guilt relating to past conduct - just an assurance about the future. I'm uneasy about the "good content producer" defence. I don't think making some/many/thousands of good edits gives anyone licence to behave in ways that less productive users would be sanctioned for. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Any editor, with absolutely no regards to any merits they may have, should be immediately and indefinitely blocked if they insult others with racial epithets (or, arguably, any epithet, but I may be in a minority in that regard). They should be unblocked, once, only if they credibly promise not to do this again. (But can someone explain how "Buckwheat" is an insult? I'm unfamiliar with this meaning of the word.)  Sandstein  15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was reading this thread completely mystified; for once what a joy to find Sandstein, he and I must have led similarly protected and sheltered lives - what does it mean?  Giano  15:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only vaguely recall somebody using it, it isn't used in the UK I don't think, urban dictionary says "a lowly term for a black person". Either way, you'd think a long-standing editor would know not to call people racist names! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Billie Thomas.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    [7] has an entry for it. Fram (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in general. Buckwheat was also the name of one of the black characters in the Little Rascals series. Eddie Murphy used to parody Buckwheat as one of his Saturday Night Live characters. ("O-tay!") Neither the black kid Buckwheat nor the white kid Alfalfa could be described as the brightest bulbs in the Little Rascals tree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Like most derogatory terms for Black people, it's an Americanism. The name has connotations of low intelligence, use of African American Vernacular English, and poverty - the character of Buckwheat is a variant of the pickaninny stereotype. Eddie Murphy's parody, which is well known to Americans of a certain age, was intended to mock this stereotype. Skinwalker (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The use of Buckwheat implies stupidity as well; I remember the movies on TV when I was very young, and how we were always supposed to laugh at how the character just never got it. Hal Roach attempted to integrate the "Our Gang" (later "Little Rascals") series in the 1930's, when America simply wasn't ready for it, so the non-white characters, notably but not exclusively Buckwheat, were played as a series of very gross stereotypes to make them palatable. Over time, Buckwheat has come to take on the connotation of the slow-witted African-American stereotype that flourished in entertainment until comparatively recently. You basically couldn't be any more insulting unless you used a certain word that starts with an 'n'. I applaud the admin who took a stand and indeff'd. --Drmargi (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The "net positive" standard that people often mention is a reasonable guide, but you need to use it with caution. The "net positive" calculation is not simply the value of all the good edits minus the disruptive edits. If the disruptive edits are driving away other good content contributors, so that we lose all their efforts in the future, then the person who drove them off is almost certainly a net negative. For while the visible effects of a driven off editor may be a mere entry on WP:MISSING, or nothing at all if the editor driven away was a newbie, the contributions that we lost may be a very significant loss indeed. (RE Sandstein: My objection to Calton's use of the term eight years ago is listed in the original posting of this thread. It's origin is an easily frightened black character of the Little Rascals.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree completely, hence my disagreement with any argument of the sort of "but he's a good content contributor". Thanks for the etymological information. (I added it to Buckwheat (disambiguation)).  Sandstein  16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is how Calton used the word, and the meaning of "Buckwheat" nowadays. For 99.9% of Wikipedians they probably don't even know what that word means unless they look it up, and if they do, people tend to have different standards of its meaning, especially as a powerful term such as "racial epithet". It doesn't seem he was using it on that rationale but more of calling the user an idiot. We can all agree that the word is uncivil, and bordering on a personal attack, and he shouldn't have used the word in a edit summary, but an indef block is going way too far here. Secret account 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Way too far? It could be lifted in hours if he does the right thing. Maybe you are confusing indefinite with permanent. Leaky Caldron 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't wait to start slipping "schwoogie" into edit summaries then, since I'm sure not many people know what it means... Tarc (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What the fuck are you talking about?!?!? Jesus.... Carrite (talk)

    Well, the blocked editor could say "sorry if you were offended by it, wasn't intended as racist, won't use it again on here" and resume editing... Buckwheat (character) anybody?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblocking

    I see that he was unblocked, and claims to be utterly clueless about the offensiveness of that word. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have unblocked although Calton's appeal was hardly fulsome. Nevertheless I assume there will be many more eyes on Calton's future edits and I don't doubt that further problems, should they arise, will be reported here quickly. Let's hope they don't arise. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised at all he didn't know. In 30+years I have never known the term "buckwheat" (as in "back off, buckwheat") had any racial connotations whatsoever. I guess you learn something new every day. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    His attitude is that if an insult is used by a character in a movie, it's OK to use here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody should tell John Crichton to stop calling Rygel that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim, seriously ... you unblocked based on that unblock request? To be WP:GAB-compliant there has to be both an acknowledgement that the behaviour was improper and assurance that it won't recur. I'm not even sure I see the latter, but definitely not the former. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Buckwheat was re-popularized by Eddie Murphy in the 80's on S.N.L. with his portrayal of "grown up" Buckwheat. The usage here was obviously derogatory. Now that that has been cleared up, I hope the offender does not respond to OP with affirmatives in the form of "O-Tay!"  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          05:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with Bwilkins, and I feel that the decision to unblock at this point seems like very poor judgement. Calton's unblock request isn't merely "not the most gracious"; it is incivil to the point that posting it anywhere would be a blockable breach of civility by itself. In it he says of the action "This is beyond stupid", of the complaint he says "no matter how bullshit the complaint is", and finally he minimizes the offensiveness by saying "some (emphasis mine) people find it offensive". The problem is not limited to just one word, it is to name-calling in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I know people that use the term to refer to someone pejoratively, even directly to their face, but absolutely without any racist connotation. I think children of the 70s are more inclined to remember that the character was kind of goofy (like most of the other kids on the show), and not just that he was black, unaware that some of his dialogue and actions were based on old stereotypes with which we were not familiar. As adults, we probably should be more sensitive to those connotations (and I just wrote one friend an email on the subject), but it's not unreasonable to think that there are those who don't know its specifically racial connotations. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't actually matter greatly whether Calton knew the epithet he was slinging around so freely was racist or not; he was told it was unacceptable seven years ago, condescendingly dismissed the complaint, and continued regardless. He knew the term was deeply offensive to at least part of the community, so his decision to persist with its use was indicative of a dismissive attitude towards Wikipedia's editors and towards collaboration in general. Frankly, I find it all but impossible to believe that someone could bandy about the same term for that length of time without knowing that it was, at best, racially insensitive. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd never even heard of the character before this discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poor unblock - and not just because it was my block that was overturned ;) - the unblock request was as half-hearted as they come, and we should have pushed for more concrete assurances. GiantSnowman 09:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think we need ArbCom's involvement - there is increasing consensus that the unblock was poor, and therefore an uninvolved admin should be able to restore the indef without any issues. GiantSnowman 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And who's going to do that? Aside from anything else, for all the drama that was generated last Christmas you'd hope that the average bleeding heart admin would stop for one nanonsecond to consider the community reaction before undoing an indef civility block these days, but apparently that's still not the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reblocking

    This is unfortunate, but I expect it to be temporary. I also expect that any unblock is now going to include some form of civility parole. It clearly is protective in nature - especially when the editor refuses to accept the racial terms they're using, and the potential impact on editors. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I admire your guts, but the potential shitstorm that will be unleashed as a result of reblocking may well eclipse the original issue. It might have been more sensible to wait for a better-established consensus here - to that (retrospective) end, I regarded Kim's unblock as ill-advised, and would have Endorsed overturning it. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, if Calton goes WP:DIVA because he was rightly reblocked, it would actually say a lot about his character, wouldn't it? The consensus above was pretty clear, IMHO and further delays in re-implementing the block would have made the re-block stray into punitive instead of protective territory (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good re-block. In the discussion above I saw a good consensus that Kim's unblock was hasty, so I don't see the re-block as controversial. For my part, I was also unconvinced by Calton's unblock request, particularly given the warning in 2005. For a successful unblock I would like to see, at the minimum, a recognition that using the slur wasn't acceptable, and a plausible guarantee that similar behaviour won't continue in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2)The editor met the terms that had been suggested; the unblock should have remained per unblocks are cheap. Simply because an editor didn't sufficiently grovel is not a reason not to unblock. If they repeated the behavior they could have been simply quickly reblocked. Moving forward, if ya'll really don't like what they said, draft a copy of the specific words you need to see before resolving this issue with a minimum of fuss. NE Ent 11:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having "promise to never use the term buckwheat again" be a sufficient condition for unblock was a proposal by a small handful of editors, not the view of the majority in the discussion. The underlying issue is civility and personal attacks, and an unblock request calling the complaints "beyond stupid" and "bullshit" is more of the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Per Yunshui, I agree it was a very poor unblock request, but also foresee possible 3rd mover issues. You should at least drop a note on Kim's page. He's not usually the sort to get his knickers in a twist, and a courtesy note might help keep things a little cooler. (Although I do note that BWilkins did mention a revisit to this discussion) — Ched :  ?  11:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my intent of advising Mr Kim :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just left a note for Kim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)The blocking statement -- you need need to demonstrate an abandonment of the battleground mentality is vague and counterproductive. What kind of mentality would any editor have after been subject of this thread? Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion above is a much more preferable tack to take. NE Ent 11:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    NE, 99% of the time I'm in full agreement with you, but "This is beyond stupid. All right, I will not use the word "Buckwheat" -- no matter how bullshit the complaint is" seems to be quite a distance from "Battlefields" in this case. — Ched :  ?  11:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse re-block per my comments above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse re-block - as per my comments earlier in thread. GiantSnowman 11:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • About racism I don't want to wade into the wheel-drama that this has become, but as kids in the early 70s when we called each other "Buckwheat", it wasn't about race at all, it was used when someone did something dumb, like the Little Rascals character. ("Way to go, Buckwheat" when someone spilled something, etc.) We didn't think the color of his skin is what made him foolish. We also called each other Alfalfa or Spanky for various reasons. It is who we grew up with on the 5 TV channels of the time, something that 20-somethings aren't familiar with. Granted, WP:BIAS tells us to avoid terms like this, but to automatically say it must be a racist comment intended is folly, and is presumptuous. I don't know Calton, but to insist he must have racist intent is taking political correctness too far. I think that needs to be factored in when contemplating the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calton already knew that the term is sometimes used as a racist insult, and that it may be perceived that way.
        In any case, why is an experienced editor ignoring WP:REVTALK by using edit summaries to make attacks on the character of other editors? This is fairly basic stuff, and it's unacceptable whether the insult refers to race or perceived stupidity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I agree that it isn't an acceptable term in a global community. My call is only to put it in a proper perspective when dealing with the situation and not assume he was using it as a racial insult, but rather, as simple racial insensitivity. There is a difference, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. As stated above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The goal here should be to return editors to editing in compliance with community norms as quickly as possible.

    Most people's superficial notion of "teamwork" is that it is equivalent to some namby-pamby consensus and bogus good cheer.
    The only consensus worth having is a creative one achieved in the combat of fully engaged intellects.
    — Jim McCarthy, Dynamics of Software Development (1995)

    If a battleground mentality is reason to block someone, we'd have to block many active administrators, some arbitrators and at least one Ent, along with large swaths of some various wikiprojects. People fight for what they care about, and that is a good thing. The issue isn't simply battleground mentality, it's not engaging appropriately -- not fighting fair, if you will.

    When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
    — Sun Tzu,The Art of War

    The way we treat editors in situations is counterproductive; indeffing an editor and then excessively bashing them is wiki bear baiting, the normal and logical outcome will be the editor replies with intemperate language -- so we can then say -- See? We were right! There are uncivilized!

    If the goal is to ban Calton because they are a bad person, then open the appropriate ban discussion at AN. Otherwise, let's treat them with respect and, instead of vague terms like "battleground" and "awful attitude" provide specific, concrete expectations. Whether or not "buckwheat" is racist isn't a useful debate -- it's clearly inappropriate. Editors should only be addressed by their account name or reasonable abbreviation thereof: for example, Bish for Bishonen (talk · contribs) or "puppy" for LethalPekingnese, or KDB or DB. So all Calton should have to do is make a simple declarative statement they will only address editors by their account names. They they're unblocked and we go back to what they're doing.NE Ent 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with the conclusion but would note that the fact that the term is racist or racially insensitive highlights why your conclusion (and policy) regarding the appropriate narrower terms of address is a sensible one. (Also Users are still responsible for their own comments). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether he used the name in a racist manner (and the evidence is that he was previously told it was perceived that way), he clearly used it pejoratively, so the question of racism is not a necessary factor in the re-block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good decision; I agree with Mr. Stradivarius above. A collaborative project can have no use for people who persist in insulting their colleagues, especially (but not limited to) with racial insults.  Sandstein  20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with the reblocking, which clearly had consensus support. There's no wheel war here as far as I'm concerned and I certainly won't be unblocking Calton myself. The way I saw it when I unblocked, there was a feeling that Calton was unlikely to offend again having had this very public warning. I felt it was important to respond to Calton's appeal with some speed and so probably misjudged the consensus which then quickly solidified after my unblock. As it stands now I am a little uncertain about what Calton needs to do or say to make an unblock request stick - but as I'm not going to be the one to make that call I can skip that puzzle! Apologies for not replying here sooner, I've been away for the last 24 hours on family business. Now back and will keep looking at this conversation. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I think the racial issue needs to be separated from the incivility. Had he written "jerk" instead, the result would have likely been a severe warning or short block, with reinstatement simply requiring a statement that he won't do it in the future. It's clear that there are people that do not know the racial component of "Buckwheat", and that Calton is one of them. Just because someone tells you something 7 years ago in the heat of an argument, and someone else says it years (and many thousands of conversations) later under similar heated circumstances, doesn't mean you should necessarily believe it, particularly if you are generally "anti-PC" (though you probably should investigate). It's clear from the block appeal that Calton did not acknowledge the seriousness of the racial component of the term (though I'll bet he does now, or at least understands it's more widespread than he thought), but also that he clearly stated he wouldn't use it again – all that should have been required. Procedurally, the re-block is pretty ridiculous, like a court overturning a case on appeal and then changing their minds and throwing you back in jail a day later. He should be unblocked and everyone should move on with their lives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's more like a nice cop releasing the guy on his own recognizance before the court even had a chance to discuss it, and when they did, they remanded the guy into custody (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review Caltons block log. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who thinks that Calton is "productive" should subtract the amount of time wasted by other Wikipedians in RFCs, threads on AN/I, arbitration, arguments on his talk page, and arguments on article pages. They should also take into account the damage he has caused to the reputation of Wikipedia. Many of the people Calton insults are new to the project. Their first human interaction is often with Calton. He is one editor, but how many people has he chased away? How many people are commenting on this thread right now? How does Wikipedia appear to observers when someone is allowed to ignore one of it's five pillars for so many years while other users are blocked without review? The damage to our reputation is deep and will last many years. I can only hope that this is a sign that Wikipedia now takes our civility policy seriously and not just a sign that Calton's patrons have left the project.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reblock. I've looked through the block log of this user, and I see FIVE prior blocks for incivility, since 2006. If a user is still doing the same things 7 years on (even if it is 3 and a half years since they were last blocked), then being unblocked from an indef that quickly, after such a dodgy unblock request, is not the right move, to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reblock. There is absolutely no room for racism on this project, no matter how many "good" edits a person has made. I note that editors requested that Calton not use that particular term, requests that apparently fell on deaf ears. Especially given Calton's rather long history of incivility blocks, I think it's time that a clear message be sent. I would support an unblock if and only if a genuine statement of contrition is made and Calton apologises to editors who feel they've been racially vilified. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Bad reblock - Desysop for wheel-warring, anyone? Carrite (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Woah, pitchforks down, people

    While Calton's unblock request was flippant, there was something in there that everybody seems to have missed: he was making a reference to the TV show Wiseguy. Yes, that was inadvisable for all sorts of reasons, but pretty clearly not intended as racist. This is ridiculous. Can anyone give me a valid reason how the encyclopedia would be harmed if we unblock him and take him at his word that we won't use it again? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Aside from the very specific education about this particular insult Calton received and flippantly dismissed very nearly eight years ago, his lengthy block log since then suggests that this is not, as so depressingly frequently asserted at ANI, a witchhunt over a specific naughty word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But, again, would the encyclopedia be harmed if we unblocked, with the agreement of all parties that if the word is used again he'll be re-blocked, this time for good? It can't be understated that the supposed racist meaning of the word is far from commonly understood--I'm a native English speaker from the US and have never heard it used as a racist insult, though I've heard plenty of other ones. It's normally a character name and a plant used to make noodles. It really says something that we've had to use Urbandictionary to even find the insult definition. Urbandictionary is about as trustworthy and accurate as a drug-induced fever dream and would never fly as a reliable source in any article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the problem with Calton isn't the use of a single word ("buckwheat") but his consistent use, year after year, of insults: [8]. He cannot edit Wikipedia without making personal attacks. Making him agree to not use the word "buckwheat" is meaningless because there are so many other insults he can use (and has used) against other users. He will be back here again if you unblock him. He should promise to not make arguments personal at all. Even then, I would not take him at his word, because previous blocks have not persuaded him to change at all. So, yes, the encyclopedia would be harmed gravely by unblocking him. See my comment right above this sub-section for an explanation why.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, that diff is from 2007(!!!) and his block log shows before this debacle he hadn't been blocked since 2009. He's not the Wikipedia Boogeyman some in this thread have desperately tried to portray him as. Stuff he may have done half a decade ago is of little bearing to the current issue. This is at worst a minor civility breach, he should apologise for it, agree not to do it again, and everyone should move on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect too make stakes have been driven into the ground for anything to change at this point. Intothatdarkness 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Involved comment Prior to this, the last time there was a block issued - I was the one who blocked him. Yep, he can be a really crotchety old fart. Set in his ways. After I talked to him, I found that he's actually not a bad sort. I'm going on memory and a quick look at the block log here, so don't quote me - but, I unblocked him to participate in the AN or AN/I discussion. After talking it out, there was no need to reblock. I don't recall if I was aware of the 2005 stuff, but it's not like Calton is on AN/I on a regular basis. A cranky cuss that yells at kids to "get off my lawn"? .. Maybe. An unblock request with "this is bullshit"? yea, very weak. But considering that this is not supposed to be a children's playground, and tensions run high at times, I would ask this. He's here to help build the free knowledge base. When he gets back and posts a bit more reasonable unblock request - I'd ask BHG to consider unblocking. If I see it myself, I'll ping her. — Ched :  ?  04:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bewildered comment: I can barely remember what I ate for dinner five hours ago. I doubt anyone on this project can remember anything they discussed 8 years ago, barring it being a monumental event in their life ("I proposed marriage and she said yes" or "that's when they called to say I'd got my dream job" or "Mom sat me down and told me that xxx had died"), let alone something comparatively trivial. Risker (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I cannot agree that this was a mere minor case of incivility, or that enforcing the civility standards in this case is an example of "pitchforks". Also, the fact that my warning to Calton was eight years ago and that he had forgotten is hardly an excuse. In this most recent incident, Yworo specifically asked Calton not to use the term "buckwheat" against him [9], Calton's reply [10] is very rude, and compounds the damage by calling a legitimate complaint "spouting nonsense" and telling Yworo that it makes him look "ridiculous". The unblock request was not merely "flippant", it was written in a highly incivil manner using terms like "beyond stupid" and "bullshit". It does damage the Wikipedia community if we give the impression that such language against fellow editors is okay, and that using those terms are a way of getting unblocked. (I'll mention that my views on this type of behavior have evolved over the years, and I have become stricter after realizing that incivility of this type can cause a lot of damage by driving off editors who become discouraged in having to deal with editors who call them names and insult them without any sort of consequence. This damage is not easily seen, as we never see the contributions the lost editors could have given us, but the damge is just as real.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that your comment to Calton on this was eight years ago makes a HUGE difference, and nobody should be in the least surprised that he's forgotten it. EIGHT YEARS. I often look at my old contributions, especially AFD votes, and wonder what the hell I was talking about and I rarely remember actually writing any of it. Are you telling me with a straight face that if I picked out, say, 10 of your contributions from 2005 and gave you a pop quiz on them that you'd get a perfect score? Because I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn't. And while I can't claim to be indide Calton's head I'd say that being accused of racism on extremely tenuous grounds and insta-blocked for it without getting to present his side, well, "bullshit" is actually a pretty mild word for it. It wasn't the gentlest word and it wasn't exactly what ANI wanted to hear, but I can't fault the man for calling bullshit bullshit, either. Sjakkalle, you're an experienced and respected editor, but you're being uncharacteristically unreasonable and bloodthirsty here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the hypothetical quiz, probably not on 10 random routine edits. However I do remember several of the less routine edits including relatively serious conflicts such as an VFD kerfuffle with real-world political and religious implications. The exchange I had with Calton back in 2005 was not routine either and I remember quite well being taken aback by the denial and hostility. If that type of exchange was routine and forgettable for Calton, then there is a problem. Also, Calton did get a chance to present his side when Yworo asked him not to call him "buckwheat", and Calton chose to use that chance by accusing Yworo of spouting nonsense and looking ridiculous. If Calton thought that his "buckwheat" comment was innocent and that Yworo taking offense was based on a misunderstanding, his response to Yworo was completely out of line. I do agree with a part of what you have written when you say "he [Calton] should apologise for it, agree not to do it again, and everyone should move on"; however Calton has not apologised, and he only promised, in the rudest manner possible, to not use a single word again when the problem, among other things, is name-calling in general. If he had presented a better unblock request then the consensus here would probably have been for unblocking, and if he does so now he will probably be unblocked as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Un-involved non admin comment) Although there's an implicit rule throughout WP where senior editors are treated with more lenience, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I for one have absolutely no doubt that any relatively new editor (even one with a clean block log) would not be allowed to get away with this behavior in a million years. I realize WP has no real legal system but these kind of things can set a precedent, specially when all this editor has to do to get his block lifted is agree to tone it down and not use inflammatory terms anymore. Just my 2 cents. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's often the case, but this time if anything it's the opposite. If I blocked a first-day newbie over a single word that may or may not be offensive, without warning, without getting their side of the story, and without assuming good faith, not only would the block be undone but I'd likely get a stern talking to about biting the newbies and such. Here, unrelated incidents from nearly a decade ago are being presented as evidence that he's some kind of habitual meanie, which wouldn't be a problem with a newbie. Yes, we can cherrypick a small handful of ill-considered edits out of Calton's 74,000+, representing a thousanth of a percent of his total contibutions. Just like I'm sure we could for any long-term editor. But if we blocked for that, across the board, we'd have no experienced editors left! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Been here since 2004. Over 74k edits. Over 35% to articles. Just dropping a few stats. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it just because you are an experienced and/or prolific editor does not give you a free pass to be aggressive. He could have 1000k edits 90% to articles, makes no difference. Calton has been blocked at least 6 times in little more than 6 years for PAs and/or incivility towards other users. This time he called an editor what is considered by some a racial slur and instead of apologizing for it and acknowledging his mistake he escalated the issue calling the block "stupid" and "bullshit", something which would have had a relatively new editor (like myself) blocked indefinitely without a doubt. He's a long time editor which is all the more reason to expect certain levels of good behavior from him. For what I can see here he simply needs to agree to not incur in aggressive name-calling again and his block will be lifted. What is preventing him from doing so? Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is preventing it. Read his talk page. He did so. It's not good enough for some people, though. That's the procedural problem with this whole mess. Different people want different responses by Calton. He's entitled to be pissed. I am, of course, against incivility at WP, but the response to it should be consistent and proportional*. At the risk of offending marsupials, this particular "court" is about as "kangaroo" as it gets.
    Several people have confirmed that the term that was used is not necessarily known to be racially offensive by everyone, and Calton's response makes it clear that he is among those. That issue needs to be taken out of the equation, and the offense treated the same way as calling someone "stupid" or an "asshole". If there's an appropriate punitive length for a block (the first in how long? 1842 months?!), then do it. If he commits to be civil in the future, do what you would for anyone else in such a case and lift the block, and let's all get back to editing.
    *On this very page, in a different thread, another well-known admin used a direct, unambiguously offensive word in talking about another user. Nobody said a thing about it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to the original issue, let me say that I had no clue before reading the thread that "buckwheat" was a racial epithet. I thought it had connotations similar to "buster", e.g. You're in big trouble now buster. I would advocate leniency, and to drop the pitchforks... Tazerdadog (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose to unblock

    • I think he has been blocked sufficiently long, friends, and needs to be unblocked. Several people, including myself, have shown were you can call someone Buckwheat without it being racially motivated, and it seems clear with the link above that it wasn't. Maybe not the smartest term to use, but we don't block for not being smart. I don't know him, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I don't see the point in dredging up diffs over a year old, including some that are eight years old. It makes it look like a witch hunt, after the fact. His last block was 3.5 years ago, for 72 hours. This block has been for most of a week and has served every purpose it can. Permanently maintaining the indef block for him isn't appropriate considering the circumstances, certainly not at ANI. Now is the time to move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for "time served". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unless and until there is a WP:GAB compliant unblock request from Calton. The last one was thumbing his nose at the concern. The unblock proposal here contains a number of strawmen. First, "Not being smart" was not the reason for the block. Second, if it were eight years of no problems since my warning to him, and this were an isolated incident, then I would understand the time aspect argument, but in between there have been numerous blocks and warnings for the behavior that culminated in this block. Finally, the block has not served its purpose if Calton is unblocked without having to commit to a more civil approach to other editors, and that includes avoiding responding to legitimate complaints with "Don't spout nonsense, Sport, it makes you look ridiculous". I am willing to entertain a sincere unblock request, but there hasn't been one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He was blocked because of the term "Buckwheat" was erroneously assumed to be racially charged. While I don't question the sincerity of the initial block, I do question the wisdom on continuing it. Now that this is clear, making him "beg" for an unblock seems demeaning, and his previous request makes more sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That "buckwheat" is racially charged was not erroneous (nor is it "bullshit" or "beyond stupid" as Calton claimed). There are numerous places where you can see that it is considered a derogatory term for black people [11] [12]. At the very best, we can take Calton on his word that he was referring to Wiseguy, although I have not seen any evidence that this context is any less obscure than the pejorative context. And even if that is the case he should have tried to clear up the misunderstanding, instead of compounding the (assuming good faith: inadvertant) injury by accusing Yworo of "spouting nonsense" and looking "ridiculous". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It might be racial if YOU say it, as you perceive it that way. As I have pointed out, and have others, WE grew up where it wasn't a racial comment. Calton has indicated that wasn't his motive either. Reading WP:BIAS, you don't push your interpretation on others. He needs to not use the term, simply because it causes these problems, but simply because it offends you isn't a reason to assume that everyone that says it means it was a racist comment. That is erroneous. Context and culture are a clear factor here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The most charitable interpretation is that Calton didn't know that "buckwheat" could have a racially pejorative meaning, and I am willing to assume that. Yet, he was made aware that the "buckwheat" term was offensive when Yworo asked Calton not to use it against him. Calton could have tried to work out why such a term caused offense. Instead he lashed out by rudely telling Yworo that he was "spouting nonsense" and that he looked "ridiculous". (I have pointed out this diff several times already, yet none of those who are defending Calton have made any effort to address it.) That "buckwheat" has been used in a racially pejorative manner is a simple fact. Calton could have recognized that in the unblock request. Instead he chose to lash out again. If this is all a huge misunderstanding, Calton is not helping by calling the concern "beyond stupid" and "bullshit". Groveling is not needed. Begging is not needed. What is needed is a commitment to abide by the policies WP:CIVIL (e.g. "...avoid directing offensive language at other users") and WP:NPA. The unblock request was in itself a violation of WP:CIVIL. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And there is no way I would have blocked him for the statement he made in his unblock request, taken alone. He called the situation stupid, and the complain "bullshit", he didn't make a personal attack, he commented on the merits of the actions in a colorful way. He was blocked, fine, but I'm saying we are better served not by reversing the block, but by ending it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per common sense. The term in question is NOT commonly understood to be racist, and nothing whatsoever in Calton's history then or now warrants a permanent block or even comes close. The more I read of this discussion, the more I think certain editors just want to see Calton grovel and beg to be unblocked, which frankly is a little sickening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock per Dennis Brown. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock. Unless I missed something blindingly obvious, there really isn't anything preventing disruption here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. As has been stated several times, it is not the main problem whether the namecalling was meant to be racist or not (although we have several comments on Caltons talk page, the first dating back to 2005, made by other users who clearly perceived "buckwheat" to have racist connotations). The main problem is the hostility and namecalling this editor constantly engages in. A problem that has been so persistent that it has resulted in numerous blocks in their long Wikicareer, yet it doesn't seem to have changed their behaviour in any way. The hostility of Calton is on such a level that it is not difficult to imagine it can have caused fledgling editors to flee the project, negative consequences which clearly outweighs any constructive edits made by this editor. Caltons unblock request (which is just the latest example of their hostile tone) cleary shows that this is not something which this editor has yet grasped. Perhaps they never will, but at least make an unblock subject to a reasonable unblock request which acknowledges the reasons for the block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess per Dennis WP:DIGNITY or some WP:EDITORDIGNITY link, and WP:I'veSeenALotWorse. May see ya back here in a couple years, but meh. I pinged BHG — Ched :  ?  16:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And to be sure, I'm not debating the block to begin with, even though I think there was a lot of genuine misunderstanding, I'm just saying that regardless, it has exhausted its usefulness. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. You'll certainly get no argument from me on that Dennis. I'd even hazard a guess that this was partly a "in the wrong place at the wrong time" thing. Drama levels have been high, and some "WHAT did he just say" aspects to it. Hopefully we're working through the back end of much of that now, and with spring around the corner for some folks - maybe a bit less Cabin fever will be had. — Ched :  ?  17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) No disrespect intented, but this very long discussion seems to be more about a turf war between admins than anything else. Calton has not made any comment since his unblock request. I won't comment on the block, as that has been done to death already by others. Instead I'd simply advice you to end the discussion for now. If Calton makes an unblock request, then deal with request. Untill then, what is there to discuss?Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    But that's just it, Calton actually did make an unblock request, and while it wasn't exactly the most eloquent thing heard 'round these parts, it was accepted and he was unblocked. After that he was then blocked again despite having done nothing else wrong. Sure, he can put up another request, but whatever he says will be pulled apart by the pitchfork gang as either insincere or insufficiently lowly and grovel-y enough, and the drama begins anew. That's exactly why we're trying to gain consensus to unblock and everyone, Calton included, moves on with their lives. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "...it wasn't exactly the most eloquent thing heard 'round these parts"? That's an understatement. It failed all points mentioned in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and the unblock was revoked with good reason. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly oppose. The statement that "the term 'Buckwheat' was erroneously assumed to be racially charged" is absurd. The term is racially charged. If you Google "Buckwheat + racist" you get over two million hits; "Buckwheat + Wiseguy" gets about 15% as money. A Gbooks search on "Buckwheat + racist" is even more telling. The blocking and reblocking admins both indicated they would unblock if Calton committed to stop directing derisive epithets at other editors, especially in edit summaries, which is a stronger condition than I originally requested, but a very reasonable one, and consistent with blocking policy and practice. He has declined to do so. Absent some good reason for refusing to comply with such a reasonable unblocking condition, there's no good reason to unblock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblocking - the rationale for the (my) original block still stands; even the unblocking administrator admits that their actions were hasty at the least, and Calton has not provided a sufficient unblock request, nor attempted to deal with the issues at hand. Note that I am not opposed to an unblocking at some point in the future; simply not now. GiantSnowman 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock (by non-admin, non-previously-involved) per my and other supporting comments above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock until an adequate unblock request is made. Note that I have now hidden the offensive edit summary referred to in the original complaint. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - No valid unblock request filed, at ANY point. An unblock that was made in error, as consensus agrees with, is not a reason to re-unblock the user. Ask Calton to file an unblock request again, by all means, but I'm failing to see any reason for an unblock here, at the moment. I'm not fussed whether buckwheat was racially charged or not, as Calton's personal attacks over such a long period of time are enough to justify the block. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion. I was the re-blocking admin, and I think it's best to leave it to others to decide whether to unblock, so I'll remain neutral on the proposal, and support whatever consensus emerges.
      I see good points on each side here. The block/unblock/reblock cycle was a bit messy, and I can see a lot of merit in the case for an unblock based on time served. However, other editors are right to point out that Calton's unblock request was pretty awful. So how about an unblock accompanied by a clear warning that any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds reasonable enough to me. After all, nobody at all is saying insulting edit summaries are okay, just that this particular incident, buttressed with old business from literally years ago, has been blown way out of proportion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll go with that unblock, providing that he's watched like a hawk and any further personal attacks result in a hefty sanction (no pansying with 1 day blocks, those evidently don't work) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose; I don't care whether buckwheat is a racist term or slang for stupid or what Calton called his BFF from grammar school; there's no need to address editors by other than their account name. If we unblock per the conditions suggested by BHG above we have a possibility of being back here haggling over some other term and whether or not it's racist / personal attack / disparaging / what have you. If ya'll proceed with this I encourage the unblocking admin to specify that any reference to editors by other than their account name or reasonable nickname / abbreviation (e.g. BHG) is grounds for reblocking. NE Ent 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like that idea. "Refer to other editors only by their account name or reasonable nickname/abbreviation". It's clear and unambiguous, which avoids the risk of future wikilawyering over the just how bad any other term has to be to land Calton in trouble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • I agreed with the original block, and I accept that my unblock was hasty and against the consensus which emerged immediately thereafter. I would have been wiser to wait until the consensus became clearer one way or the other. However I think BHG's present proposal is a good one and actually I'd have no problem with her enacting it, provided that sufficient people here agree with this as the way forward. I don't in fact think that after this very high profile incident there is any chance of Calton using this particular term again. I suspect he's smart enough to know that other intemperate epithets are also off limits. And of course our insurance is that any of us with a block button will have no hesitation in intervening should something similar happen again. (ec) - no problem with NE Ent's addendum either. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the unblock and everyone finding something better to talk about. The original block looks to have been justified, but I have the feeling the point has been gotten across. Our drama meter is going through the roof; time to move on. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. It's not the job of admins to make editors sweet nor to make them humble. Strong support per Andrew Lenahan above, and per Wikipedia:Editors have pride and Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap. Come on, N Ent, you wrote one of those suckers, and now you suggest a talking-down-to-a-naughty-child unblock condition like you do above? Were you abducted by aliens and replaced by a pod person recently? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose. Ent has stated the best way forward (again). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible oppose. Younger users may not be aware of the connotations of the term used, but those of us who do know how vile it is. He was warned repeatedly that it was inappropriate and continued. He as a long-term history of anti-social behavior. He's made no effort to request a second unblock once more strenuous terms were laid down. This process is an attempt to side-step them by his devotees. Sorry, no dice. --Drmargi (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remain wholly unconvinced that the term is actually offensive, at least not in the US. They made a Little Rascals movie in 1994, and the character was still called Buckwheat. The early 90s were pretty much ground zero for political correctness, so if buckwheat had been an offensive term at that time they would have just renamed the character. Buckwheat noodles are sold in every supermarket, and they don't euphamise the name on the packaging even though they could call them soba instead. I've also never heard it used as an insult, anywhere, not in person, not on TV, movies, or any book I've ever read. I'm not claiming to be a walking slang dictionary or anything, but if it is indeed a racial insult (which again, I doubt) then it's by no means a common one that we might expect the average editor to recognise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no problems with BHG's terms and completely understand her desire to have assurances. As she is the blocking admin, it is within her power to implement this condition, which would allow everyone to just move forward with clarity. I will suggest that anyone that thinks a larger discussion should take place, that RFC/U, while flawed, is the appropriate venue after he is unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock While it was certainly not nice, it wasn't necessarily racist. How many of you knew Eeny, meeny, miny, moe has racist undertones? Sheesh.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer              22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - does the phrasing in the terminology used indicate the reference is 100% definitely Eddie Murphy's Saturday Night Live sketch and not the Australian sci-fi show. If the User was resident in America it might be a reasonable assumption, but his User page indicates an American resident in Japan. He might have been mixing with Australians or seen the Australian show. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve any hint of racism, if anything en.wp is too lax. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There doesn't appear to be anything in the phrasing or context to suggest what Calton meant, but he says he was referring to Wiseguy, a US cop show. The editor who he was addressing says on their user page that they're Native American, so comparing them to Eddie Murphy would be a bit of a non sequitur to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then unblock - I have never seen of any of these TV shows bar an episode of Farscape, a quick check shows the episode "Hello Buckwheat" in the 1990 Wiseguy does not appear to be racist, but doesn't mean a time-served block wasn't justified for using any adhominems in summaries. (FWIW I have made a loosely related request at WT:NPA so I in no way support any unblock if a clearly and unambiguously intended ethnic/national slur was intended). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an aside, that Australian sci-fi show was pretty danged popular in the U.S. as well, enough to bring it back for a miniseries to close the arc after it was cancelled. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock - I suppose asking for apologies from the original blocker and the reblocker in addition would be a bit much. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock, absolutely not. No unblock request, for starters. If the user can't be bothered to commit to not attacking other users in their edit summaries, then they should not be welcome here, no matter how much other "good" work they do. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Strongly oppose unblock. Calton has long since proven himself incapable of working with other editors in a harmonious and constructive manner. Personal attacks characterize a ridiculously large portion of his interactions. This latest incident is just one more item in a long, long list. He is simply unwilling to abide by our civility policy, and therefore he has no place within our community. Everyking (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third-party unblock requests almost never come to any good. Calton will come back when he's ready. And quite honestly, anyone who thinks the above discussion (a bunch of white guys pontificating on whether a given epithet sounds racist to them) reflects well on us probably needs to get some fresh air. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The OP cites "time served". IIRC the editor was blocked, unblocked and subsequently reblocked, the reblock being due to the unacceptable initial unblock request. The concept of "time served" cannot possibly apply in a situation where a properly formatted, acceptable unblock request has not been received. That would make the re-block look like a "time served" punishment, which it wasn't. Leaky Caldron 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock an editor, they edit for a month, teach an editor not to get blocked, they edit indefinitely. Yes unblocks are cheap and editors have pride. I'm not advocating Calton be forced to apologize, admit wrongdoing, elocute their misdeeds or anything of the sort. Their unblock statement, however, is at best begrudging and too minimalistic -- the issue is broader than the use of a single word. I'm concerned the merely proceeding with an unblock will only end up with another visit to ANI when Calton uses another term for an editor which -- in some particular geolocality, age group, and cultural subgroup -- turns out to be offensive. In Wikipedia-as-it-should-be the block log length wouldn't matter, but in practice it becomes a weapon for other editors to attack Calton with. So I think it would be highly preferable if Calton simply agrees to address editors by the account names going forward, rather than continuing a destructive in the long term cycle of blocks, warnings, unblocks, ANI discussions etc. NE Ent 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unblock an editor, they edit for a month", huh? You are aware the last time he was blocked was 4 years ago, right? I would hope so, since you linked to his block log and presumably actually looked at it. Again, this isn't the WikiBoogeyman. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree. An indef block seems a bit excessive (I admit to never having heard the phrase could be racist before this discussion) and my personal experiences is that Calton is a valuable user. If a unblock request is made, I would hope it is granted.Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    We have a now long-running battle going on over articles about Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and his theories and related organizations. The subject first came to my attention in a FT/N notice back on 10 January concerning Progressive utilization theory (also called PROUT), which appears to be Sarkar's central socio-economic theory. This quickly ballooned into concern over other pages, and I set up a page listing all articles relating to Sarkar simply to make it easier to keep track of things without having to re-search constantly.

    My personal assessment of these articles is complex. Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga and a few related articles are plainly notable on their own due to involvement in Indian politics and a couple of incidents abroad; there is also an economist at SMU who published a bestselling and spectacularly wrong book. These articles suffer greatly from being written by Sarkar's followers from primary sources, and they tend to be promotional in large part. What has really kicked up the conflict, however, is the constellation of minor articles surrounding these. For instance, Sarkar wrote lots of books and pamphlets, many of which had articles and none of which has any significant footprint outside of the movements. These have been put up for deletion and all have either been deleted or redirected back to Sarkar's article. These deletions have been fought doggedly by a group of editors, all of whom apparently have some connection to Sarkar.

    We very quickly fell into two camps. First, there was FT/N camp:

    and possibly others. These were opposed by the second camp:

    Joining these, however, were a group of SPAs, all with almost no edits outside these articles and especially the AFDs for the various books. Not surprisingly this raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, and that led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda, which was preceded by an earlier check. Both of these were technically inconclusive, but that didn't stop a lot of people from raising meatpuppetry and canvassing accusations all around. My index of articles has been accused of being a hit list aimed at deleting all of these articles.

    As I said above, I don't intend to have everything deleted, and I've largely stayed out of the AFDs to try to lessen the ganging up impression. For the same reason I haven't gone after the various articles with a machete as by rights I could have. But it seems clear to me that there's some sort of canvassing going on to get more votes on the deletion discussions, and the pro-Sarkar camp has buried us in walls of text and other "policy is not going to get in the way of delivering The Truth to the world" tactics. This needs to be brought to some sort of resolution that doesn't involve so much Wikidrama. A simple RFC isn't going to do it because the scope of the problem isn't one well-bounded issue. Eventually someone is going to have to go after all the extensive primary sourcing in the articles which we all agree ought to stay. And behind all of this is a huge navbox template which promises the creation of many more articles which are also likely to be considered for deletion or merger. We need to stop the madness. At a minimum the SPI needs to be closed and archived, but from my point of view the pro-Sarkar side needs to be made aware that the articles are going to have to be brought into line no matter how true his teachings may be. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This seems like an obvious question, but what are they trying to accomplish by creating all these articles on WP, at best rewording all the info from their own publications and websites? Do they just like the wiki style of editing and presentation? If so, is it possible that is hasn't occurred to them that they could establish their own wiki installation? It's free and they would have complete control over its policies and presentation, versus trying constantly to work around and defeat WP's policies (which are necessary to keep it from becoming a pile of crap). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe, how do we get to awareness "that the articles are going to have to be brought into line"? As I'm very sure you're aware, we're tripping over really basic levels of policy: what is and is not an independent, reliable, secondary source, the idea that articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources, that canvassing is bad and so is removing talk page comments written by others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is this the time and place to propose bans? Are you looking for 1RR on the remaining Sarkar-related articles? What, specifically, do we need to do to move forward? Garamond Lethet
    c     17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment & complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I repeat here what I've repeatedly said even here. I created the two tables below (the 1st is on a collapse box) to show the "persecution" of one group of users against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. These users are user:Mangoe,user:bobrayner, user:Garamond Lethe, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:DGG and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints. As everyone can see from the summary table (the second below) they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic in about a month. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author on a sandbox of user:Mangoe. We have an evidence of the strong connection of these users' follow-up in the revision history of their "agenda" here and in some of their thalks.

    1st Table: all the 21 AfDs on the same topic proposed by the same users. (Click on "Show" to display it)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Date bobrayner Garamond Lethe DGG Location Mangoe CorrectKnowledge Zananiri Dougweller North8000
    Current edit counts 36575 4145 109627 11183 18657 5281 719 96754 29836
    Neohumanism in a Nutshell‎ 6 January 2013 AfD proposal merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete or merge Delete or merge
    Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) 6 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete Delete Delete or merge
    Shabda Cayanika 10 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Delete or merge Delete Delete or merge
    Namah Shivaya Shantaya‎ 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Merge Delete
    Discourses on PROUT 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete
    Problems of the Day 21 January 2013 AfD proposal Strong delete Delete Delete
    Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy‎ 24 January 2013 Delete Strong delete AfD proposal Delete
    Microvitum in a Nutshell 25 January 2013 Delete Delete AfD proposal Delete or merge
    PROUT in a Nutshell 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal
    The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism 29 January 2013 Delete Delete Delete or merge and redirect Delete
    Prabhat Samgiita 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Redirect
    Subhasita Samgraha 29 January 2013 Delete or redirect AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete or redirect -
    Idea and Ideology 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete -
    Ananda Vacanamrtam 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete
    Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) 6 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete
    Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete
    A Guide to Human Conduct) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete
    To the Patriots 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete
    Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete
    Yoga Psychology 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete
    Namami Krsnasundaram 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete

    2nd Summary table: Total number of AFDS and deletions proposed by these users on 21 articles

    bobrayner Garamond Lethe DGG Location Mangoe CorrectKnowledge Zananiri Dougweller North8000
    AfD proposals (successful) 4 (4) 12 (9) (one undecided) 2 (2) 2 (2) 0 0 0 0 0
    Delete/merge or redirect 17 5 8 11 8 11 7 5 4
    Keep 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect". Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:

    • Examples of disruptive deletions
    1. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
    2. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.
    • Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting
    1. On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.
    1. User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.
    • Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks
    1. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet.
    2. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: ..on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"

    I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop, Cornelius383. The walls of text are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Ditto for the misquotes and the distortion of other people's comments. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is the only interpreation any reasonable person would make. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a "single-verse" user. I started editing on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact. Of course I understand and I agree that the text I had to produce in order to defend myself was much. Of course it was not my intention to create a "Text wall" but sometimes the tank is full and the water comes out! What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? And if a group of users (almost always the same) had always voted compactly "Delete" or "Redirect" in all the AfDs? And if those group even created a "Deleting Agenda" on a sandbox that they are strictly following to delete all? And what if some of those users have an improper behaviour as I said in the three points I have outlined above? Please try to understand!--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV is an editing policy I follow regardless of personal POV. There's many editors here with personal positions I find distateful, perhaps even repulsive at times - but their opinions are theirs to hold freely, and as long as we all edit neutrally, we're one big, happy, dysfunctional Wikifamily. I honestly find it more than a bit dissapointing that you would decide that, based on my personal opinions, I would choose to suggest that articles be deleted regarding other practices. Policy is policy regardless of spiritual path. As for the dates, as clearly stated and disclosed, User:Aerobird is my legitimate alternate account. I established it in 2005, when I first joined Wikipedia; in 2007, being a bit burned out for personal reasons, I went on a lenghty Wikibreak. When I returned, I simply abandoned the old account, and created a new one, using the new identity I preferred using for things online, while clearly establishing and disclosing my previous Wikipediaing. When I became an admin (at which point the previous account was disclosed, as required), I re-adopted it as a legitimate alternate account as allowed under policy, as using my main account, which has the tools, on a public computer is potentially risky due to the possibility of password keylogging and such. That said, however, if you cannot trust my neutrality on this position, I can accept that, and will bow out of this debate. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    C383, All of us have long and more or less uninvolved careers here. As far as I know, the only common link is through FT/N, except that DGG and I run across each other because we are both active in category maintenance and AFDs. All of us except GL have at least 10k edits. If there's any "conspiracy" between us, it's simply the common objective of preventing fringe crusaders from using Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their causes. Other than the list of articles, there has been no coordination with me and anyone else, and I haven't sought out other people who were not already participants in the issue. It's obvious that someone among Sarkar's supporters here has fetched up more participants: five new accounts are registered as the AFDs begin, and all of them quickly settle into voting on these AFDs, with two making such votes as their first edits. Given the course of these thus far, this tactic isn't working. But we are going to have to deal with the main articles themselves, and the policy-ignoring obstruction will be a much more severe problem there. Already Progressive utilization theory is full-protected because of this.
    I want to repeat what I've said every time something like this has come up: I think that in-movement editors can be very helpful in this kind of article, because they potentially are more aware of secondary sources about their movement than us outsiders are. But the price they have to pay for participation is letting go of the crusade to bring their important knowledge to the world. We are not here to evangelize Anandamurti's teachings. To the degree that they are presented, that presentation must be neutral, and we certainly are required to present what the world thinks of those same teachings. If they are going to treat these requirements as persecution, it will go badly. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put a collapse box around the table. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my view of this was best expressed in my question at the afd on Prabhat Samgiita. I will support reasonable articles for which there is good evidence, and even make allowances for the difficulty of finding conventional sources for esoteric material. But I do not support unreasonably detailed articles on multiple books of an individual thinker that in the whole serve the interest of promotion of their views, and I think the introduction of such articles even foolish viewed as promotion, for nobody not already in the group of supporters will read them. I've said this consistently for the 6 years I've been here.
    I don't approve of promotional editing--I is the biggest threat to the encyclopedic for if it is full of advertising nobody will take us seriously. Paid editors we can cope with: since they work for money, if we reject their improper editing consistently they will decide it's not worth the money. Zealous promoters of a cause do not stop, because they have a message. The sensible ones stop after they've achieved a reasonable article, and will take advice on how to get it. If we can turn attempted promotion into encyclopedic articles on notable topics, I will work hard and long with an article or an editor to get there. If they are not sensible, they will not take advice, and they will continue defending their material until we force them to leave, and even then it has sometimes been a problem.
    I have repeatedly urged Abhidevananda to let me help him condense this material; he has politely but consistently declined. If a person will not accept help, nobody can help him. It's hard to be patient with such an editor. Still, it is possible, and we can politely but firmly edit and delete the material without insulting him or his cause. On the whole, I think we have done that, though I would not have used the word "sarkarspam" however I may have thought it.
    In short, I approve of what Mangoe has said and done. He has made every possible effort to help, and he has done this with great courtesy. Perhaps even with too great courtesy--I would have taken a much shorter route with some of the articles, and I would not oppose a neutral editor making careful use of speedy deletion. With the PROUT article, if we cannot get a shorter reasonable article when protection expires, we shall have to consider whether we can do a redirect, which would be a shame. I do not think we need take any admin action on the editors, provided they do not try to reintroduce the articles, but it always helps to clear away any sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have made the page [User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles]; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please DGG read my answer to The Bushranger above (the one that starts with: "I'm not a single-verse user.."). This is my reply to you too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitive proof that Garamond Lethe and DGG aren't socks comes from one of the AfDs linked above: I don't think the DGG I know would have ever made this categorical statement. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, suggesting DGG is a sock (or a master) is beyond silly, so much so that I can't even come up with a witty simile. Second, the comment was "References (still) don't count towards notability." Perhaps this is shorthand for "these references (still) don't count towards notability", but having looked at the references I doubt that DGG, who knows academic publishing like few other people here, would have said that. So--have you taken back those suggestions yet? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be better that you did it. Frankly you seem to be the most suitable person for such suggestions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving forward

    Garamond Lethe asked above what I wanted moving forward, and looking at the direction the discussion is taking that is a question which really does need to be addressed. I suppose my first step is going to be to end my tolerance for the use of primary sources, so I expect to cut down most of the major articles drastically based on their reliance on Sarkar's own writings. I don't know that we've gotten to the point of 1RR-style protection, but it would be nice to get some assurance from uninvolved admins that they aren't going to protect this material from the deletion/redaction it most roundly deserves. I notice that Abhidevananda hasn't responded at all here, which is a problem. I personally am not so concerned about the puppetry/canvassing issues since in the end they don't seem to be having much of an effect on the outcome of the AFDs where they figured most strongly, but I would really like to see some responses from the pro-Sarkar side that show they understand the rules and are willing to play by them. Otherwise I don't see how we are going to avoid arbcom. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    On Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory I've made a few attempts at a modest proposal that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV in future, but the article's defenders have avoided the question completely. This is quite frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, this is my statement on moving forward:
    Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR.
    The weight of consensus favors one side, so I think 1RR-style protection would be very useful in moving forward. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's a request for 1RR at Progressive Utilization Theory, Ananda Marga, Neohumanism... anything else? Garamond Lethet
    c     03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
    c     05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
    c     15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda

    I did notify Abhidevananda of this discussion, and as you can see he hasn't responded. Instead, over at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory he has simply been reduced to complaining about User:bobrayner's admittedly less-than-tactful edit summaries, as in these edits: [13] [14] [15]. This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: [16], a proposal which the pro-Sarkar side utterly ignored. Instead, Abhidevananda dropped a huge and essentially irrelevant 8kbyte wall of text (including a gratuitous image) on us: [17]. In the period leading up to the article being locked, he made almost no forward edits, instead repeatedly reverting bobrayner's attempts to cull the article of primary-sourced material (too many examples to list them all, but for example there's [18]). I can only conclude that he is intent on protecting an advocacy-laiden version of the article against any attempt to force it to conform to policy, and will bury us in walls of platitudinous text and nuisance quibbles about the behavior of now-frustrated editors in order to delay the inevitable. He is absolutely uncooperative and shows all the signs of being an irredeemable POV-warrior. I ask therefore that he be topic-banned from anything having to do with Sarkar including all articles about PROUT and Ananda Marga. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to concur with this. Although Abhidevananda has always been polite, he has never been willing to edit cooperatively, and has blocked essentially every attempt to compromise on a more reasonable article. Thinking correctly I would be sympathetic to anyone adding information about small religious or related groups, he asked for my assistance, but has not been willing to follow it--he has not yet seemed to realize I am sympathetic to reasonable articles about such groups, but only reasonable articles. Others here are also sympathetic, but not to the sort of redundant articles he insists on writing. I am always reluctant to remove the principal editor for a specialized topic, but in this case I think the rest of the editors involved can do it justice without him. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also concur. After 20 AfDs I don't have any reason to think that Abhidevananda understands the notability guidelines, and after weeks of page protection I don't have any confidence he understand that articles need to be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Sarkar-related articles might be improved despite him, but I think the question here is whether a topic ban will happen now or after another two months of obstruction. Garamond Lethet
    c     21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to agree with the above editors. Would the implementation of 1RR – rather than topic ban – bring this under control yet allow him to contribute to the subject matter? Location (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Demiurge1000

    In November, Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) was blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. He was shortly thereafter unblocked with the understanding that he would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated."

    Yet just three days ago, Demiurge1000 falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Their comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and Demiurge1000 was given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn them a block.

    Demiurge1000 has made many, many negative comments over the last few months about the participants in an external website, labelling them "the boxcutter crew" and the like. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after making another such comment yesterday, I left a note explaining that his constant on-wiki taunting of these people is unhelpful and likely to backfire.

    He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which he then followed by trolling my talk page.

    As I told Demiurge1000, this is completely unacceptable behavior, and as such I have restored and extended the NPA block to 1 month.

    Normally, I would not feel the need to bring such obvious NPA and trolling block to AN/I for review, but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about, I am requesting community input. As far as I'm aware, I've never had any disputes with Demiurge1000 before, but when it comes to WP:INVOLVED it's better to err on the side of caution, which is why I'm bringing it here. Any admin is welcome to adjust the block as they see fit, and as I told Demiurge1000, if he makes a credible commitment not to repeat the behavior, I would support a unblock. I believe it would be unwise to unblock absent such a commitment from the editor, but as always I defer to community consensus.

    I have notified Demiurge1000 of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    28bytes, as you put it, "but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about...", perhaps a neutral third party should have done the block. Your block seems harsh (a month) and punitive.--MONGO 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Demiurge should be unblocked without consensus here. Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that I think he should have been blocked. I'm not especially up to speed on all the ins-and-outs of that ArbCom situation, although it looks like a fiasco to me, so I won't pretend to know who should or should not be blocked. However, let's keep in mind that blocking and unblocking without consensus has caused significant unpleasantness in the not-so-distant past. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Righteous block, would have preferred another admin make it, in context. NE Ent 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you provoked him a tad, though Demiurge needed little provoking. The most unsettling thing for me were his constant references to members of WO as the "boxcutter crew", but he seems to have committed to not using that term again. My thought is that it could be shortened to a week.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boxcutter crew" What does that mean? The Admin should have discussed with the User, why the User thought he was being personally attacked. Did he think you were impugning his motives? Also, someone else should have done the block. But there may well be an argument for a block of some length, but this is not clearly justified here, if you were arguably provoking him in the view of TDA, who was also involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    TDA, when you say a moderator said that inappropriate comment, are you saying a Wikipedia Sysop said that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • If this [19] is correct, "boxcutter" refers to some threat made on an external website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a reasonable explanation, but most many readers seeing the term "boxcutter crew" are going to associate it with 9/11. NE Ent 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original context of Demiurge's famous box-cutter quote is here. Now, that comment was inappropriate. It was removed from the forum as a result a few hours after it was made, and the moderator who made it got a royal bollocking from the rest of us. Having said that, to describe it as a "threat" is nonsense. You only need to look at the context. It's a figure of speech. Lizzy Caplan e.g. once said in the New York Post, "I don't think you should be allowed to eat in a restaurant if you haven't waited tables at least once. It's so irritating when I see people being rude to waiters, like, it makes me want to slit their throats! Like, really? You're really this inconsiderate?" So the whole thing is overblown, just like the fuss that was made about the comments that sparked the Twitter joke trial. Not nice, not to be repeated, but not worth the fuss Demiurge has made over it. Andreas JN466 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    .

    • I'm not a fan of Demiurge1000, but this seems like a rather long block handed out because their response to the warning, not because of the incident itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opinions of the IP above notwithstanding (and it's rather curios to see an IP posting here), it appears that making personal attacks against some of the people at Wikipediocracy probably should not be a sanctionable offense. As for the IP, he does not seem to know what he is talking about, as boxcutter is almost certainly a reference to an inappropriate comment made by a sociopath on another site. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I agree with Demiurge when he says, "On a minor technical note, I'm not at all convinced that when one "resets" a 24 hour block that would have expired nearly four months ago, a proportionate extension of it can sensibly be said to reach the region of one month." Therefore, I support an unblock. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fully endorse block This editor has been politely given advice on multiple occasions by multiple editors. The continuous postings across multiple venues, from arbitration related pages to the village pump, complaining about "people talking about me" and all the drama that ensues in a mature environment is a bit of a mystery to me. Frankly I would have considered an "indef" until the user could display that they understood the reasons that this project exists. — Ched :  ?  19:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional note: Being unfamiliar with the term being tossed around, a bit of researching the meaning of "boxcutter", I was unable to find anything positive; but plenty of negative and derogatory explanations. — Ched :  ?  19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Month long block is sort of excessive (as have been almost all sanctions related to this recent wikipediocracy mess). Perhaps reduce it to one week?--Staberinde (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think the period of the block (at least a couple of users have suggested reducing it) is of any significance. The issue is what kind of "credible commitment" (28bytes's phrase) must Demiurge make to be unblocked? As usual, I'm unfamiliar with the background mess, but even in trying to follow the latest mess, I see little clarity. As a procedural aside, I don't believe 28bytes is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • additional note I see that the blocked editor is now hosting a picture of some rather young people who are said to already be the targets of internet harassment. Considering the already mounting concerns over WP:OUT; I have to wonder if that is a particularly wise idea. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we are using bolds, here's some more. Now, in all seriousness. 28bytes is just mad that we removed a comment he made on my talkpage, which is fully within guidelines. Furthermore, he's now told me that I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances, which means that tons more users deserve a block as well. This block was inappropriate, especially because Demiurge had never attacked anyone directly (afaik), and I feel that this may be an attempt to just cool down the ArbCom case before it explodes. Regardless, Demiurge does not deserve this block, as everything they've said so far is completely founded, and we both offered to provide evidence in private if asked to. Nobody's asked us for evidence. Therefore, you can't say this is unfounded and personal attacky, because it's all deserved. Block should be overturned and the blocking administrator should be seriously admonished. Oh, p.s., for those of you who want to know, the comments in question were by the blocking admin themselves, making them extremely WP:INVOLVED. gwickwiretalkediting 20:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment in question[20] looks to me like good advice, not a personal attack, and I don't see that it makes 28bytes involved to the extent he couldn't block. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, given the situation, I hope you understand that seeing him come and tell us to basically "stop sniping" when it's fully warranted seemed a bit bad, given the concerns me and others have raised about the attempted silencing going on. Looking now, I don't think anyone made a personal attack, not demi, not me, not the blocking administrator. I think we should just unblock, all say sorry to each other, and move on (and I won't say fuck so much anymore, oh fuck I just fuck I'm still fucking saying it! Ugh! So hard!) Humor for those who didn't catch that. gwickwiretalkediting 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support-ish - While long overdue...the boxcutter jibes were getting a bit overdone and tiring...perhaps there is wiggle room here. Perhaps a length reduction pending agreement of a topic-ban from all Wikipediaocracy/Wikipedia Review related discussions, broadly construed? Tarc (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about that? A Wikipediocracy contributor trying to silence someone from talking about the major issue here by proposing (implied) a topic ban? That's a great tactic, but everyone can see through it. Nice try. gwickwiretalkediting 21:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    gwickwire, you're doing yourself and others no favors here. Wikipedia is not the "Internet Police Task Force". If you have a problem with WO, then take it up with them. Quite frankly, with all the fuss you've been making about this - I think that they (WO) could not have held a better membership drive if they had tried. Nobody here cares where Tarc spends his time on the internet (no offense Tarc), as long as he abides by the rules here when he is here. If you feel that WO is doing something shady, have your parents contact a local law enforcement agency - or do so yourself if you are of age. We are simply not equipped to take the kind of action you're looking for. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that users are not abiding by our rules regarding editor conduct, and it's okay because they're not strictly on Wikipedia. We are equipped to stop this by blocking editors who choose to violate our rules, here or elsewhere. If you don't remember, I specifically said this would only apply to a Wikipedia editor who violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor. Regardless, this is not the place to have that discussion. I was only pointing out that this editor is a bit too COIy to be trusted with a neutral opinion on Wikipediocracy and Demiurge. gwickwiretalkediting 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "they're not strictly on Wikipedia" implies that they are in some way on Wikipedia. They are not. Twitter is not Wikipedia, Amazon is not Wikipedia, IMDB is not Wikipedia, and Wikipediocracy is not Wikipedia. For someone who claims not to like Wikipediocracy, you seem to be doing a great job of advertising that site here. I'm sure many people have gone there just to see what all the fuss is about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly don't hang out in the right places and am always the last to know. Until these last few comments, I had no idea the background of this was another website. I just assumed that wikipediocracy was a coined word to refer to the bureaucracy at Wikipedia, i.e., 28bytes being a 'crat and all. Obviously, I spend too much time in my own little admin hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    gwickwire, we do not block people who "violate our rules...elsewhere". That's elsewhere, and has precisely bupkis to do whether they get blocked here. Criminal conduct excepted in some cases, I believe. If somebody "violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor" somewhere that isn't Wikipedia, but remains within policy on Wikipedia itself, any block would be strictly punitive, and blocks like that go over like lead balloons. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for gwickwire (or anyone else): You claim that 28bytes said something along the lines of " I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances," - could someone please provide a diff for that? I know some people get rattled when people use "big boy" words, but I can't find where he's made that requirement of you. — Ched :  ?  01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's still on my talkpage, he told me I was being incivil somehow, the only thing I came close with was saying fuck, I guess I assumed. If he meant something else, fine. Regardless, Demiurge has apologized and has said they won't use the (imo not that bad compared to some other peoples words recently) word they used which got them blocked. Unblock is fine now. gwickwiretalkediting 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reduce duration or unblock. Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock until there is a policy requiring editors to be nice to WO. I do not see a problem that requires a block of any length in what appear to be the important diffs from the OP ("after making another such comment yesterday" ∙ "I left a note" ∙ "He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks" ∙ "he then followed by trolling my talk page"). The boxcutter reference is to an extremely offensive remark made at WO, and presumably "boxcutter crew" refers to the people who encourage such offensiveness by making participation at WO appear to be a normal procedure. Has Demiurge1000 made a personal attack against a specific editor? The "trolling my talk page" remark was certainly aggressive, but an admin should not block someone for a pointed yet civil rejoinder. If Demiurge1000 had violated a policy like WP:BLP and followed a warning with that rejoinder, a long block would be very appropriate as the rejoinder would show a disregard for the policy. However, I see no policy breaches. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock or reduction So, the drama-inducing external website (WP:DIEW?) rears its ugly head once again. As much poison as that website creates, one would think we as editors would learn just to ignore what appears to be just a gigantic a) timesink and b) trolling board. Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia. Here's the real reality: with sock accusations, either file the SPI or STFU; period - it's uncivil otherwise. Also, any further reference to boxcutters should be met with instant and final site ban; again period. As Demi has said it won't recur, this should not be an issue. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why in the world would you assume that it applied to you? Part of the original complaint against Demi related to sock claims (see the words "falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets"), so it was adminishing Demi for doing so ... I really cannot fathom why you would consider this to be about you at all when it's my specific judgement on the editor in question (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, given the recent situation and your statements about WO I thought that part of your comments was directed at me.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reduced to 1 week

    There seems to be a fair amount of support for (at least) a reduction in the block length, and I take Demiurge1000's and others' point that going from a 1 day block to 1 month isn't the usual block escalation pattern, so I've dropped it down to 1 week. And as I said at the top of this thread, if any admin is convinced that Demiurge1000 is going to cease making false or unsubstantiated accusations, they have my blessing to unblock. Judging from what I've read on Demiurge1000's talk page, I don't (yet) see such a commitment; instead, I mostly see defenses of why it's necessary for him to keep stoking the flames of the us vs. them battle. So the options now, I suppose, are for him to:

    1. make an honest commitment to avoid making stuff up about people, and get unblocked immediately,
    2. wait it out for a week, or
    3. hope someone unblocks him without any commitment to stop the problematic behavior.

    I sincerely hope he will come to realize why making false statements about other people is such a corrosive thing to do in a collaborate environment and make a sincere commitment to stop doing that, but judging from the comments here so far, I think there's a decent chance he'll get unblocked without making such a commitment, in which case I suppose we'll be back here soon enough. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Demiurge1000

    I'm creating a subsection for any comments Demiurge wants to make here. This is the first:

    I'd like to make anyone who's not seen it aware that I've posted an explanation in this section of why I (and another editor) initially perceived 28bytes' comments as a personal attack.

    --Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've avoided comment here up to now, as my reply on my own talk page gives a pretty good idea of what happened with this incident. However, there's a few points that have been made that do need addressing. I'll keep it brief Apologies for wall of text!

    Above, Jayen466 defends the comment about "slitting some throats" of Wikimedia UK members by saying it was merely "a figure of speech". If it's merely a figure of speech, why's it supposedly so appalling for me to mention it? Some editors here are, rightly, "horrified" by it, and that's because it's an awful lot more than a "figure of speech". Jayen466 goes on to compare it to the Twitter joke trial. Now, that's an incident in which a man was convicted of a criminal offence after being arrested by anti-terror police, and his conviction was upheld by two appeal courts and only finally quashed by the third appeal court after a massive public campaign supported by more-than-notable figures. Did various authorities over-react to this joke bomb threat? Yes they did, but the airport staff who originally reported it to police did so because they are told, just like WMF are told by police forces in many countries, that even an apparently non-credible threat should be taken seriously. Likewise, here on Wikipedia, if someone makes a legal threat that's obviously aimed to have a chilling effect, that's blockworthy even if a sensible adult would be confident the threatener had no chance in hell of mounting a successful legal case (or potentially, even intending to try). Why? Because as well as sensible adults, Wikipedia editors include a great many young, naive, or just completely uninformed editors who do actually have the right to edit without worrying themselves about some supposed lawsuit from some angry guy with a COI.

    Moving further down this page, The Devil's Advocate says "Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor". No, actually I did not say that. Some people may have thought I meant that; some people may indeed believe that, or have been led to believe it when they were prompted to consider the facts themselves. But I am not those people. I did not accuse, and am not accusing, Kevin of having done that. What I actually said can still be read in the history of the page concerned.

    Now, Diannaa has said on this page that it's a problem that I'm "pre-judging people based on their participation on that website". That's a very interesting point, but no, no I'm not. I don't make any judgement about Floquenbeam based on their registering an account there in order to be able to complain about the outing of certain Wikipedia editors, nor do I make any judgement about the arbitrator who said he reads the site to give insights into whether disputants on Wikipedia are being genuine or not (he also comments there thoughtfully with his own opinions from time to time, and there's nothing wrong with that either).

    What I do make a judgement about, and I expect many other people do also, is when editors who are banned or blocked on Wikipedia use Wikipediocracy to "out", harass, or attack in whatever other way their opponents, in a manner that would be totally unacceptable here, and then an editor like (for example) The Devil's Advocate proceeds to engage onwiki, in Fluffernutter's words, "writing comments laying a trail of how someone else could find personal information on a user makes it look a lot like you're gaming the wording of the policy to accomplish the same aim as Cla68 was trying to do
    ... Posting continual details about another person on Wikipedia, for no other reason than because you appear to be fascinated by them and by someone else's right to use them against that person, is not behavior we expect of an editor in good standing".

    So yes, we have a spectrum of users on Wikipediocracy; some of them make comments like the throat-slitting one, some of them collate private information about minors who edit Wikipedia and offer to give it out to other Wikipediocracy editors, some of them act in the manner Fluffernutter just described and then also turn up at the talk page of one of the people being harassed and oh-so-helpfully enquire as to whether they've had any other Wikipedia accounts. This while also engaging in the discussions on Wikipediocracy where all this harassment was being planned and discussed.

    Let's look at one of those discussions a little bit deeper, because it shows just why I might think that's not reasonable behaviour. Earlier this evening, one of the "Global Moderators" on Wikipediocracy called "Cla68" (sounds familiar somehow) suggested that a forum member called "Lone Wolf" should "Email the kid and ask him for his parents' contact info and tell him why you want to know it", and then if the child refuses to hand over his parents' details, try and use that as a way to get him blocked (or, as he nicely newspeaked it, "follow Wikipedia's administrative guidance on dealing with minor contributors"). Doesn't sound very wise, does it? To me it sounds a bit like "better hand your details over to this anonymous stranger, kid, you don't wanna get blocked, do you?" And a Wikipediocracy user called The Devil's Advocate immediately joins the discussion talking about whether this would be effective or not. The individual who has been doing the "research" on the kid concerned helpfully pipes up "I have the snail mail address, email and phone contacts", and offers to supply them.

    Now, maybe I should be so much more assuming of good faith, but when a person who acts as Fluffernutter has described above, and (apparently) participates in that manner in discussions of the nature I've just described on Wikipediocracy, is also the same person that turns up to the target's talkpage making these "polite" enquiries as to their past history, I think to myself that that is not appropriate. Not appropriate at all, nonono.

    Apparently, my rather intemperate responses discouraged that person from carrying on with those "enquiries". Well, given the situation described, I don't think anyone could argue that's a bad thing.

    BWilkins considers that "Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia", and Herostratus takes the view that "consorting with persons sworn to damage and destroy the Wikipedia is not consistent with being a Wikipedia editor", but I don't see anyone clamouring for either of them to be blocked for a month. Maybe they just have that little bit more self-restraint than me.

    Screenshots of the Wikipediocracy comments I refer to, and any additional diffs that are needed, available to any oversighter on request. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

    Comment made in this edit. -- Cheers, Riley 02:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    People should look at Demiurge's original comment about Kevin at RFAR and judge for themselves whether my characterization was so unfair.

    While Demiurge can certainly defend himself from accusations against him while blocked by getting his comments posted here, I am pretty sure it is not appropriate for him to be agitating for action against me with personal attacks in the process. Several of the claims he makes are, again, misrepresentations of the facts designed to present an unduly negative picture of other editors. Prior to my comment on gwick's talk page this is the only on-wiki interaction I had with him. I had earlier made a comment on WO similar to the last few sentences of the second paragraph in the above diff (noting that the only information revealed about gwick was what gwick had himself revealed on his user page), but that is all as best as I can recall. The other matters he refers to above either came after that discussion or concern completely different editors and so his attempt to tie those in with my commenting at gwick's talk page is deceitful. Demiurge also misrepresents the context of the more recent conversation on WO. As far as my comment goes, another poster said that Cla68's suggestion was "not a good idea" and I responded to that post by saying that I wasn't even sure what it would achieve. He presents it as though I was brainstorming with other posters about how to harass someone, when that is farrrrr from the truth.

    Concerning the warning I got from Fluff, it was ridiculous then and is even more ridiculous now. For one, several editors had already said explicitly where the alleged outing occurred without any action and since then even more explicit references that allow for a simple one-two connection to identifying information via Google have been provided, in one instance by an Arbitrator. I am the only editor of those to have actually received a formal warning, for a statement that requires people put in some considerable elbow grease to scour over information in several unnamed places on-wiki before even having the chance of getting some off-wiki confirmation, while other people got away with all but linking to the original post that contained the alleged outing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather ridiculous

    I feel like no one was paying attention at all. First off, i'll start with Gwickwire, since that will be shorter. They were blocked by saying that personal attacks had been made against them by Kevin. This is true, I saw them too before they were oversighted (they were oversighted for several reasons, really). So, it's kind of ridiculous to say that the claims are unfounded and ask for evidence when the evidence has been oversighted.

    Onto Demiurge, let's start with the warning. Now, I don't know who it was they accused of contributing to the outing of a minor. Sure, User:Vigilant was the one who very clearly did the outing on the site, but there were indeed several other editors that were involved in the berating of Gwickwire and contributing to the general attacks on them that led to Vigilant doing that. Now, whether that's considered contributing to the outing directly or not, I don't know. That's rather subjective.

    Next, the "boxcutter" comment. This is a jab at Ericbarbour, who used that comment to refer to Wikipedians in the past. Sure, not a nice thing to say, but if you're just quoting the terms they used, essentially, it seems silly to get that upset over it.

    Last is 28bytes' comments. I don't know about any of you, but being accussed of "constant sniping" sounds like a personal attack to me. Also, isn't saying "egging on other folks to taunt them" an unfounded attack? Demiurge had nothing to do with Gwickwire and 28bytes was accusing him of egging them on.

    So, please, do tell me why blocks were handed out for both of them here? If it's based on the recent 28bytes stuff, it seems to me that they are the one in the wrong, not Demiurge. SilverserenC 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really care about 28bytes, I just think that unblocking Demiurge and Gwickwire is appropriate. SilverserenC 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Silver seren, if you think that my comment was in any way, shape or form a personal attack, then your understanding of our policy on personal attacks is so poor that you really have no business commenting in a discussion about personal attacks until you gain a better understanding of what one is. 28bytes (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't a large one, but it is quite easy to see how someone could consider being accused of "constant sniping" would consider that a personal attack. Furthermore, why did you accuse Demiurge of "egging on" Gwickwire to "taunt them"? SilverserenC 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but I have to agree with 28bytes on this one. I really do not see how a reasonable person could consider that a personal attack. That was clearly and obviously a comment about 28bytes' perception of Demiurge's actions not their person. Resolute 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point is that seeing "sniping" as negative is subjective and fully understandable to be taken as a personal attack. So, holding it against Demiurge at calling that a personal attack (in an edit summary, no less) seems patently ridiculous. SilverserenC 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support block of 28bytes for abuse of admin tools in violating WP:INVOLVED by blocking Gwickwire (his block of D1000 might also have violated said policy, making the second block even worse). I'm very disappointed, as I previously had a lot of respect for 28bytes. Otherwise, I would probably say he should be desysoped. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? In what way am I "involved" with Gwickwire? Prior to blocking this editor, my only edits having anything to do with this person were to [ask another editor not to pester them and to warn them for repeatedly making stuff up about people, which they continued to do, which is why they are now blocked. Are you seeing some other edits I am not aware of? 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    28, may I ask if you consulted an OS before blocking Gwick? He claims that the comments in question have been oversighted. Considering that this whole mess started with an admin using their tools in a situation where they didn't have access to all the information, I think this would be a logical thing to do. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PinkAmpersand. That's actually an excellent question, and I'm glad you asked it. The answer is this: I didn't need to ask oversight about them because Kevin's statements are still right on the page; it was other editors' comments that were removed, not his. When I said I'd read all of his contributions since February, I was including the contributions that appear to have been oversighted. If you look in Kevin's contribution history, you will see four oversighted edits, all make to Cla's talk page. However, the oversighting was done to remove other people's contributions; it just so happens that when you oversight someone's edits, other editors' contributions will not be viewable if they happened to post after the oversighted material was added to the page, but before the oversighter removed it. I will post the content of those edits here shortly (again, these are still visible on the talk page - it was other editors' content that was oversighted.) I believe you will agree that they come absolutely nowhere close to personal attacks. 28bytes (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response, 28bytes. If only 4 edits have been OS'ed, I agree that it's almost certain that none of them had anything removed from them. However, Gwickwire seems to believe that Kevin did in fact make personal attacks that were OS'ed. I'll ask him what he thinks about your comment (which I fully believe, of course), then. I'd like to note, though, that this could somewhat explain the disagreement here about whether or not Kevin made PAs; Wikipedians often rely heavily on page histories, and without them they can become somewhat more confused than usual about what was or was not said by different users. But anyways, yeah, I'll ask Gwick if he can explain this. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the two editors (the first was Enric Naval) in contact with OS about User talk:Cla68, a full explanation of what was removed was provided on WP:AN recently. There was an external link to one posting on wikipediocracy (a message that Cla68 wished to be added on to his user talk page). That link was removed by Enric Naval with a note. I later removed that note and that was the state in which OS left the page after suppression. No content added by Kevin was changed. Gwickwire's memory is not correct. There was nothing between my two edits by Kevin beyond the 4 statements listed below by 28bytes. There seems to be no point in making any further comments about Kevin or personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The claims about off-wiki personal attacks are also quite absurd. Best I can tell the only comment being called a personal attack is Kevin's talk about Demiurge "making it up as he goes along." Given that Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor, I think Kevin's comment was well within reason.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really a strange section to read. No, warning an editor does not make an admin involved, and even if it did, the response to that would not be to block the admin in retaliation. I see that PinkAmpersand has said he's in communication with Gwickwire - can I ask that if anyone else is here because they were asked to comment or urged toward a particular position, they say so here? The level of vitriol being directed at 28bytes here seems disproportionate for uninvolved users to be putting out, and I know gwickwire was expressing his distaste for the block on IRC earlier today, though he says he has not asked anyone to comment here besides PA (as PA discloses above). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the vitriol is also distracting from the simple fact that I don't think all the facts were properly explained in Demiurge and Gwickwire's blocks and that, with this information, it shows that they shouldn't have been blocked. It really has little to do with 28bytes beyond the fact that he introduced the section in the first place. SilverserenC 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I'd like to thank you, Fluff, for not jumping to any conclusions about my motives outside of what I've already said. To be clear, anything I say for Gwickwire is his opinion, and anything else I say is mine. I consider him a good friend, but I think that in times like this Wikipedians have a habit to rally around users who they've had positive past experiences with, without considering the circumstances. I'm not fully informed about everything that's happened here, and I wouldn't pretend to be. That's why I asked 28bytes the question about Oversight – I legitimately want to know who's in the right here, and to me that seemed a crucial question. If I feel confident that I fully understand the situation, I'll voice my opinion then, but I, for one, definitely don't plan on being part of any IRCCabal plot to sway opinion one way or the other. (I don't think such a plot exists, of course.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been in contact with Gwickwire through IRC, in what I'm trying to make a helpful and friendly conversation (but YMMV), but I am not here as a result of his request, and in fact have a substantially different opinion about this from his. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)On Wikipedia, civility is ... some vague notion that we seem to be unable to come to agreement on. Last year's arbcom and over a hundred editors spent months on it to come up with the not very helpful:

    Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
    — English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

    Demiurge and gwickwire have legitimate concerns about websites outside Wikipedia; although a significant number of Wikipedia editors believe that participation on such sites is inconsistent with collaborative editing here. They are entitled to that opinion but it is not policy and not the consensus viewpoint, and it does not entitle them to attack other editors. 28bytes, doing the job the community elected him to do, made a judgement that they had crossed that nebulous line. It's okay to disagree with that, it's okay to ask him to reconsider, but it's not okay to turn around and attack him or make ridiculous comments about desysoping and the like. NE Ent 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think 28 was involved on this matter. Admins occasionally warn people in a less than genteel manner, but I do not think this necessarily makes them involved. Demiurge was "egging on" gwick, by saying things to him such as "The small but very important mistake the boxcutter people made, is that they didn't realise that you aren't ever going to give in to harassment." He was certainly engaged in "constant sniping" during this dispute. Gwick has also been unnecessarily combative towards numerous users, such as in the VPP discussion where he is posting links to some blogposts of his that simply list alleged "personal attacks" by editors.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked over every last incident, but many were being presented out of a context or otherwise misquoted. For instance, another quote is presented with "He's being . . . a douche". Those dots are called an ellipsis for those not in the now and indicate excised material. In this case the full comment was "He's being a bit of a douche now, yea, but meh" and the comment in the post was preceded with "Btw, I'm not sure I buy the 'returning editor' idea. Yea he was a bit familiar with the syntax out of the gate, but the editing history is just so terribly milquetoast that I cannot imagine this person ever being in a confrontational/adversarial situation that would warrant a ban or a need to invoke right-to-vanish." Hardly as bad when presented in full and in context right? The references to "lying" noted in gwick's blog were because of comments gwick made such as "A majority of the users on Wikipediocracy seem to have a view that is on one side of the Eastern Europe issue, and one side of the Arbitration decision there. This commonality allows them to effectively coordinate and perform harassment and outing." Another comment cited was "scumbag keed", which was in response to gwick's claim: "The site moderators, some of which hold advanced permissions with access to private information here on Wikipedia, fail to do anything to stop this outing/doxing and harassment, when it is obviously in their power to remove the posts and reprimand the users posting the material." The "scumbag keed" comment was made by Zoloft/Stanistani because he had actually removed the comments Vigilant made about gwick after gwick asked and was thus annoyed. It was redacted when gwick clarified that he had not been referring to Zoloft. Gwick made this blog post after that comment had been redacted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by repeating your claims about Gwickwire being a returning editor. Believe it or not, as much as some of our help pages suck here, it's possible to figure out things pretty fast. The epitome of driving editors away is thinking that all new users must be completely clueless, and therefore any user who isn't a bumbling idiot their first few weeks here must in fact be up to no good. Basically, we'll force you off Wikipedia for not getting our arcane policies, and if you do get them, you're obviously a troll. In my opinion, it should be a blockable offense to accuse an editor of lying about their past once they've answered your questions satisfactorily; here, of course, you're just quoting yourself, but it seems like a rather gratuitous reference to an unhelpful accusation you made in the past. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diff of a PA needed Demiurge was blocked "for making personal attacks". Would someone please supply two diffs showing personal attacks. The diffs provided by 28bytes do not show a personal attack—while referring to unspecified participants at WO as being the boxcutter crew may be irritating, but it is not covered by WP:NPA. A community discussion could require Demiurge to not use that term because it is inflammatory, but I have not seen a comment directed at another editor that is a personal attack. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it is covered by WP:NPA as it would be "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" and one should also note that the policy says "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Referring to a group of editors as being part of a "boxcutter crew" or as being "boxcutter people" because they post on a forum is using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem in an attempt to disparage and discredit them.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs then that show that he was clearly referring to you and not just WO? SilverserenC 05:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Here and here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So the term was used in response to you pestering Gwickwire about whether they have had previous accounts, which Gwickwire then noted that if you have anything to go on, then take him to ANI because otherwise its just dirt-slinging (my paraphrasing), and then Demiurge noted that the attempts aren't going to stop . You then continued to respond and pester. I see...
    Furthermore, what does boxcutter crew even mean and how is it all that derogatory? My first thought is that it's meant to mean cookie-cutter people, meaning WO is all the same and everyone from it acts the same and is the same. Or I guess it could mean that a box-cutter is an ineffectual threat? Has Demiurge's even been asked and explained what he meant? Oh wait, nevermind I found it. Right here. Demiurge's was specifically quoting EricBarbour and just throwing his own terminology back at him. That seems appropriate. So, again, what's the issue here? SilverserenC 15:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, yeah, I asked him quite nicely if he had edited previously, which can only be pestering because it is not like that is some sort of normal question to ask (we certainly don't ask that of prolific content-creators looking to become admins or long-time admins looking to become Arbitrators because that would just be disrespectful!), and therefore it is ok to talk about me as though I am part of some gang of murderous violent thugs. How lofty are your morals!--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    wow seren. another false claim from yet another editor claiming that Kevin made personal attacks. care to supply a diff, or a quote if the diff has been oversighted? 174.141.213.40 (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Gwickwire

    I'm creating a subsection for any comments Gwickwire wants to make here. This is the first:

    First of all, I've promised multiple times to not do this again without evidence. That means that now this block is punitive, as it's not preventing anything (except my opinion) bad. Second of all, I feel that since there was an ongoing discussion about the validity of 28bytes' block of Demiurge1000, which I expressed my extreme dissatisfaction with, he was too involved in that matter to use the block tool on me at the time. Thirdly, when responding to my unblock request, he acknowledged that "I have no intention of lifting this block early.", which means he isn't going to lift it after all standard unblock conditions are met. This is an issue, that's happened twice now in the past 24 hours. Something needs to be done about the two blocks in place, which are hampering the discussions at ANI and VPP, possibly unintentionally. gwickwiretalkediting 21:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

    -- Cheers, Riley 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @TDA:

    Even in context, the comments I've compiled are still rude and incivil. The reason I removed some context is to make it less tl;dr for those who don't have 10 hours a day to spend on this.

    —gwickwiretalkediting, as communicated on IRC to PinkAmpersand (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's my understanding that blocking means you get to post to your talk page but nowhere else. Why then does Gwickwire seem to have special license to comment here through proxy editors? — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not uncommon that when a blocked editor is being discussed at a noticeboard (here, sockpuppet investigation, etc.) that their comments are allowed to be entered into the record, so to speak, of the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's always how it's been done, because otherwise the discussion is completely one-sided. The only exception is if someone abuses their talk page privileges and gets them revoked, though I suppose they could always email a user and get a comment added by someone else that way. SilverserenC 00:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey SilverSeren, I see that you also have a list of my attacks on other editors. Perhaps you might post the diffs here so everyone can see. We should probably ask an oversighter to give us the gist of any diffs that were suppressed. How about it? Kevin (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Kevin for suggesting we contact an OSer for the diffs of your personal attacks. I'm wondering why 28bytes didn't do this before blocking me. Also, a good point is made above that Demiurge never attacked a specific Wikipedia editor at all, and therefore was not making a blockable personal attack under WP:NPA. Maybe you should all rethink your opinions on my and Silver seren's proposals now, because that would be blockable under my proposals. Secondly, I feel this block no longer has a purpose as a preventative block, as both me and Demiurge1000 have expressed many many times onwiki that we will not repeat the actions that made us blocked. If 28bytes doesn't unblock at this time, both of us, I hope that another administrator will see that these blocks have become punitive and are not helping anything anymore. Thanks.

    -- Posted for User:gwickwire via request on IRC. nonsense ferret 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note for those playing along at home that I actually haven't made any personal attack, and that this post was a gentle reminder that when you accuse a user of such a thing, evidence is nice. A requirement even. Kevin (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So Gwickwire actually just repeated the allegation that Kevin made personal attacks ("contact an OSer for the diffs of your personal attacks") even while he is saying that he will not repeat that allegation ("we will not repeat the actions that made us blocked")...? Wow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "special license" you mean "right extended to every user whose block is discussed at ANI", then yes, it's a special license. IMHO it's a software flaw that admins don't have the option to selectively unblock users for specific pages. King of Hearts sometimes does this thing where he effectively does it with an edit filter, but that's been controversial. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. That fact would benefit from being documented, even if only as a note in a block template, for those of us who don't hang around here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop posting comments from IRC into this thread. If gwickwire wants comments posted into this thread, he may make an edit at his talkpage specifying the text he wants copied, and use the {{helpme}} template. This will allow us to verify that it was, indeed, him who is making the comments. Posting from IRC is not nor shall it ever be appropriate - in part because we cannot verify attribution (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gwickwire has a Wikipedia cloak, which requires onwiki verification. Unless you're worried that his IRC account might have been compromised (which I can vouch for it not having been, since we've talked about personal stuff), I don't really see any reason that this should be a problem. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's not *just* that; it also allows us to confirm that his comments have been transcribed accurately. Not that you'd mess around with them on purpose, but errors happen sometimes, and other people might, so it's good practice. Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Glad to know I can still be trusted, at least. :) If this shitstorm ever blows over, remind me to start an RFC on standard best practices for blocked users whose blocks are being discussed at a noticeboard. I seriously think a selective block/unblock tool would be useful, but since that requires developer resources, I'd also like to hear what the community thinks of using edit filters as a workaround. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We tried that once, and it was a miserable failure IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin's "oversighted" edits

    PinkAmpersand asked an excellent question above, which Gwickwire and others have brought up as well: what about Kevin's oversighted edits? Did they contain personal attacks? That's actually an excellent question, and I'm glad PinkAmpersand asked it. The answer is this: I didn't need to ask oversight about these edits because Kevin's statements are still right on the page; it was other editors' comments that were removed, not his. When I said I'd read all of his contributions since February, I was including the contributions that appear to have been oversighted. If you look in Kevin's contribution history, you will see four oversighted edits, all make to Cla68's talk page. However, the oversighting was done to remove other people's contributions; it just so happens that when you oversight someone's edits, other editors' contributions will not be "diffable" if they happened to post after the oversighted material was added to the page, but before the oversighter removed it. Below are the four "oversighted" edits that were made by Kevin to Cla68's talk page. Again, these edits themselves were not oversighted and are still present on the talk page. It was only the fact that other editors' comments were oversighted that non-oversighters are not able to view these four posts of Kevin's as diffs.

    I have unblocked the account. As I said earlier, now that Cla68 has agreed not to repeat the connecting of Russavia with his real name, or to post any links to the blog entry, the reason for the block is moot. I take note of the post Cla68 made not agreeing to NYB's request, however I feel that as this block was for a specific incident, and the threat of recurrence has been removed, an agreement to cease a wider range of activities is not required, particularly given that this is not a long term course of conduct. Should editors feel that some kind of restriction is required, of course that may be taken up at the appropriate venue. Kevin (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

    Cla68 is talking about the all too familiar situation where an editor is discussed on their talk page, whilst being unable to participate due to being blocked. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

    Further to my post above, obviously there are wildly differing opinions on what should be done in the longer term, however the emergency, if it can be called that, has passed, and any future action can be debated calmly, and without a rush to judgement. Kevin (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

    No, what I have done is taken the view that Cla68 is unlikely to repeat those comments and posts re Russavia. I take no stand on whether Cla68 was right, wrong or whatever. That issue can now be debated in the full light of day. Kevin (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

    As you can see, these four edits were nowhere close to being personal attacks. Kevin has, in all the edits both "oversighted" and "diffable" done nothing on Wikipedia to attack, insult or lie about any other editors. Gwickwire has repeatedly claimed otherwise – after both Floquenbeam and I specifically warned Gwickwire to stop making false or unsubstantiated allegations about other editors or be blocked – which is why Gwickwire is now blocked. As you can see, Kevin's edits speak for themselves, and I stand by my block of Gwickwire 100%.

    With that, I'm going to bow out of this thread, and let the community decide who should be blocked, unblocked, desysopped, or what have you. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - no personal attacks here. Can someone convincingly back up claim that there was still some on-wiki personal attack by Kevin that 28bytes has missed? If not, then Gwickwire's claims about OS personal attacks are simply continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior even after getting blocked.--Staberinde (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notion that 28bytes was involved because Gwickwire had voiced disapproval about another block he made is hopelessly unsustainable. If it were true then every vandal could show up and proudly proclaim on their talk pages "all admins are wankers and all their decisions are bad" and then wreck the place, with no one being allowed to do anything about it. I can't see anything even approaching what one might describe as a personal attack from 28bytes here, either. I think some of the people here calling for blocks and de-sysopings need to get a little perspective. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just read through this little saga. Whilst 28bytes may or may not have been a bit too trigger-happy, some of the things here levied against them are surreal - especially the allegations about them being involved. If that's an involved user, then 90% of admins can't do anything... I've not seen any "blatant" personal attacks, what I have seen is a truckload of WP:BATTLEGROUND-esque behaviour, particularly on gwickwire's side, and their absurd allegation about 28bytes being involved only backs that up. I can't evaluate the warning message by 28bytes, as it doesn't appear to be visible on the talk page any longer, nor does the diff work, but I'm inclined to take their side on this. I think the one-week blocks are bang-on - one month would be too long, that I agree with, at least for Demiurge1000 - gwickwire seems to have tried hard to get their ban extended again. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock of Demiurge

    I am formally requesting an unblock of Demiurge, as the "evidence" brought against him was not properly presented. His block, as I can see it, is two-fold. The first is his use of the term "box-cutter" as a jab at WO. As he explains here, he was specifically quoting Wikipediocracy global moderator EricBarbour, who has used that term in the past toward Wikipedians.

    Specifically, EricBarbour stated,

    "I gotta stop reading this thread. It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats. These bastards simply aren't worth the effort."

    So, yeah. I don't really see throwing the term back at him being much of an issue, considering the original statement made by Barbour. Basically, he's stating that WO members are a "boxcutter crew" or, otherwise, a group of people that make threats such as that. Sadly, you can't look up the statement directly, as they redacted it. Just as sad...i've seen even worse threats than that on WO.

    Secondly, the discussion above involved Demiurge's calling 28bytes' comment on his page a personal attack in his edit summary. That comment is here. Demiurge took offense at his comments being called "sniping" and at being accussed of "egging on" Gwickwire. So, he considered it a personal attack and removed the comment. He then left this comment explaining that he considered it a personal attack.

    This is definitely subjective and neither side looks good in the outcome, but the sum total is remarkably minor and irrelevant and should have nothing to do with any block discussion ever. Ultimately, there seems to be no case whatsoever for the block, if you're basing the block on something as minor as these two things. SilverserenC 15:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Silver seren, the problem with "he's stating that WO members are a 'boxcutter crew' or, otherwise, a group of people that make threats such as that" is that anyone who has any association with that site becomes associated with a comment made by an individual poster. If Eric Barbout said it, why should an ArbCom member posting on Wikipediocracy be associated with and held responsible for Barbour's remark? This is simply setting up a battleground mentality. I understand why it is appealing -- one can simply dismiss criticism as being from "the boxcutter crew" instead of looking at what is being said -- but ultimately it just creates an artificial polarity which breeds an unhealthy cycle of attack/revenge-attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When members of the site come out en masse whenever there is a thread about them or that has a thread on WO, I think it's relevant to consider those members to be a part of the group. Aka, all the members who have posted in this thread. It's those members that Demiurge was referring too and it was quite clear that TDA was pestering Gwickwire because of it being brought up at WO. Even 28bytes noted on the talk page that TDA was pestering. It's not a battleground mentality when WO members are actually creating the battleground by group canvassing. SilverserenC 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think is going to happen when you start your silly threads about blacklisting the site and applying WP policies on actions made off-wiki? Of course people from that site are going to be attracted to those threads. It's not at all the same thing as someone attracting voters to an AfD by posting on Reddit. Silver seren, if Wikipediocracy isn't paying you for driving traffic from WP to their site, they should be. Just like you and other did with Wikipedia Review, you are turning what is really a very small forum into some kind of scary bogeyman, which only fuels the battle (and interest in the site). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the members of Wikipediocracy are at least as diverse a bunch as the editors here, running the gamut from crazies to very sensible and respected commentators. When Demiurge threw the "boxcutter" epithet at someone who wasn't EricBarbour, he was effectively suggesting that they shared the crazy notion of slitting throats with a utility knife (and mine was one of the throats in question, so I feel entitled to comment). That is a personal attack, and seems to me to be sufficient cause for 28bytes to warn and then block. Demiurge has now understood the other connotations of "boxcutter" and the degree of offence that others may take from it, and has very sensibly promised not to use the phrase again. If he can now convince an uninvolved admin that he knows it's best to step away from this sort of conflict and try to avoid it in future, then I can see him being unblocked before the week is up. I'd recommend the same to Gwickwire as anybody who knows 28bytes will see that is all he wants from this episode. 28bytes is a reasonable person and took reasonable actions. I'm quick enough to criticise admins who act improperly; it is sensible to commend those like 28bytes who do act in the best interests of the project. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly have not made any fucking death threats and I'm nobody's fucking slave. When I asked gwickwire about his early editing history it is because his conduct at VPP was becoming so confrontational that it made me wonder and his early contributions seemed to me to be atypical for someone who was just starting out. I didn't presume that meant he was doing anything untoward as there are many good reasons for someone to show proficiency in editing at an early stage (previously editing from an IP or being a legitimate clean start account for instance). Look up the term "pestering" for a moment. It doesn't mean "asking a question that someone takes badly" but refers to persistent annoyance of someone. Making two civil comments on someone's talk page does not qualify. Having to deal with Demiurge's "boxcutter" snipes there would have dissuaded me from any further discussion on its own honestly, because it is quite troubling for me to be treated like some sort of vile, murderous individual, just because I post on a discussion forum.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. About Gwickwire: I can say after having an extended conversation with them on IRC yesterday that they are very very sensitive; much too much so, I would say. They were taking offense to things that, to my eyes, were unimpeachably polite and civil, in both word and intent. In that context, I can quite easily see Gwickwire taking offense to your comments, TDA (though they shouldn't have). The only thing I can say is that Gwickwire needs some serious reflection and insight about their standards and expectations. What's happening is that they admit that their interpretations of things like INVOLVED and CIVIL are very very strict, but don't realize that our behavioral norms are based on the community's interpretation of such policies, not their own. (Indeed, the fact that there is no communnity-wide interpretation of civility is the reason why we have such a problem with it.) Basically, Gwickwire is acting (or demanding action, as the case may be) based on their own interpretation of the policies, and they need to realize that that's not how it works. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we not make this about Gwickwire? That's why I made this a separate section in the first place, to discuss Demiurge and Demiurge only. SilverserenC 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, sorry. Just had some musings after reading TDA's post that I was moved to write down. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, no one has accused you of making death threats. However, by posting on WO, you are associating with people who do make threats like that. And considering you started commenting to Gwickwire about previous accounts right after this was raised on WO, is it all that surprising that one would assume that's where you're coming from? If you came to it independently, then fine, but you can't blame others for taking the logical assumption that you weren't because of the timing. SilverserenC 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You (and Demiurge1000, based on his remarks on this wiki) are pre-judging people based on their participation on that website. That's a battleground mentality, one that apparently makes the assumption that anyone who posts on WO is okay with what Mr Barbour said. People who participate there are not "associating" with that WO user any more than I can be considered "associating" with any given Wikipedia user just because I participate on this wiki. For What It's Worth. -- Dianna (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody's right if everybody's wrong? Eh, I prefer CSNY. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Love the one you're with, baby. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I, at least, am judging people on their statements and actions. And that includes statements made on that website. There are plenty of people that are members of the site that I don't include when I say "Wikipediocracy members". That includes a number of Arbs and admins and other editors. But the moment someone becomes involved in the site in the sense that they start verbally abusing other editors...yeah, I guess I pre-judge based on that. SilverserenC 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Should you think I have "verbally abused" anyone then I would love to see your evidence.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I haven't considered you to really be a member as of now. Though...you've been heavily involved in discussion threads that are all about abusing other people, so it's kind of on the line. :/ The whole thing about showing up in the spots wherever it gets canvassed over there is also a problem. SilverserenC 22:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you still seem to have no problem with someone labeling me as a member of "the boxcutter crew" in spite of that.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get that Demiurge was referring to WO in general. Sure, he may have been mentally including you in those ranks because of your questioning of Gwickwire and the timing, but he was also commenting against several other WO members within the same time period. So it was meant to be a general thing. And, seriously, EricBarbour's comment is one of the worst things ever and it deserves to be thrown in his face as often as possible. SilverserenC 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Never to forgive, never to forget? From Hell's heart I stab at thee? For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee? Is that the kind of wiki we want to be??? -- Dianna (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you suggest that nothing is done about the harassment, outings/doxings, and threats? SilverserenC 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you have us do? Are you suggesting that calling them names is of any use? Call them bad names and throw things in their faces? How is referring to a group of people as "the boxcutter crew" helpful in any way, shape or form, no matter who is included or what it's referencing? Does it keep people from being outed, or does it just ratchet up the tensions and dramah even more, so that such things are even more likely? Would you rather us ban any mention of them or linking to their site, stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and wish them away? That won't work. Or shall we anoint ourselves enforcers of the Internet? Not content with mere banning, are we now to declare people Untouchables, such that even a casual word exchanged with them or using the same website as them warrants a ban? That's an idiotically slippery slope if ever there was one. And what about legitimate criticism? There's quite a bit of that at Wikipediocracy, at least from my chair, even if it can take some wading to find it. Any reprisal against Wikipediocracy members on Wikipedia will accomplish nothing: any that care about Wikipedia and finding its flaws to make it better will be either muzzled or banished, and any that don't will be undeterred. Some might stop being the former and start being the latter.
    I don't know what the answer is. I freely admit that. But maybe, just maybe, the answer is to actually listen to what they're saying. Not all of it, by any means, and not all of it that's worth listening to is worth carrying out, but there are things worth consideration. And not because they're threatening to out people if we don't (thought that's not what they are doing), but because they might be right. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and I would imagine those people are certainly smart enough to be better than that. Maybe if we didn't have such a knee-jerk reaction to them, they wouldn't have to turn up the volume so loud to get our attention. Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. All I can say is that I don't think that running around and saying "something must be done!" without actual workable suggestions while openly antagonizing a disparate group of editors under the umbrella of "THE ENEMY" is not likely to be helpful. Writ Keeper (t + c) 03:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BING BING BING BING!!! — We have a winner. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Create an edit filter which blocks all contributions with the letters a c c d e i i i k o p r w y, in any order. NE Ent 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By posting on Wikipedia, Silver seren, you are associating with pseudoscience cranks, corrupt politicians, racists, propagandists, revisionists, and liars of every stripe. Are you prepared to be labeled as a supporter of any of those? Because that's exactly what your logic leads to. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Illogical folks, too. NE Ent 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Silver seren is topic banned from Wikipediocracy

    Snow. Hatted to reduce drama (hopefully). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    This has gone beyond silly. Silver seren's comments have created a nasty WP:BATTLEGROUND here and he does not appear to be willing to give it up. He alternates between making blanket statements about "Wikipediocracy members" and then when confronted backs off with vague excuses that "of course he's not referring to everyone who's commented on that site" (leaving the choice of who gets to comment there without being slandered and who doesn't up to him alone). Enough is enough. This continued disruption is not serving the project, least not because this is something people WILL get defensive about. A topic ban would also not interfere with Silver seren contributing positively and constructively to the project in his usual way.

    • I'm not "thin skinned", I'm annoyed. There's a difference. This stuff just has become a totally unproductive waste of time. People who devote themselves to wasting others' time on dramaboards, and spreading the battleground across venues, after a certain point need to be asked to stop. Other ways haven't worked. This is a good way.Volunteer Marek 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, with the added observation that Volunteer Marek, as a participant on Wikipediocracy, has too insuperable a conflict of interest to make a nomination such as this. Any such recommendation should come from a non-participant able to view the issue objectively. --Drmargi (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - can't we all just cut the crap and block the majority of mentions of this site (rather than blocking people)? All it seems to do is cause a thousand different punchups... Lukeno94 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per OTT at the present time. — Ched :  ?  10:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose TOo much drama. Can we just let this all die now? Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to expand my point. I think the majority of mentions of Wikipediocracy should be blocked: it's causing an enormous amount of problems between previously very sensible editors, admins, and crats. This is EXACTLY what the proponents of Wikipediocracy want, they're mostly not interested in exposing "truth", they just want to air their own grievances. Cut the mention of them, and they haven't won - they can spout their conspiracy theories all they want, but we at Wikipedia can just ignore them as you would ignore any crackpot theorist. Nothing against the users who contribute to both sites, and no reason why this should be prohibited - just these pointless discussions that get everyone's ire up. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per PinkAmpers. "If you think that it's criticism of Wikipediocracy that creates the battleground mentality..." says it best.--v/r - TP 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Even though I am uninvolved, I've got a feeling that this is way too much drama. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock of Gwickwire

    Unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've been in email contact with Gwickwire since my comment here. We've discussed the comments xe believed were personal attacks and the appropriateness of their comments. The comments xe highlighted did not meet our definition of personal attacks, though they could be read as uncivil. I genuinely believe that Gwickwire now gets why their comments were inappropriate, and given that xe has undertaken not to repeat allegations that they cannot show diffs for, I am willing to reduce the block to time served. Since 28bytes is taking a bit of a break, I thought I'd check for people's thoughts on the matter. I've informed Gwickwire of my thoughts and hopefully they will make a statement soon. WormTT(talk) 15:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the heat of the moment, I made accusations against User:Kevin that were inappropriate, and without any evidence to support them. I'd like to apologize to him for anything this may have caused, and also apologize to everyone else that I made these accusations. I understand that it was wrong to make these unfounded accusations. I was wrong here. gwickwiretalkediting 19:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the blog, I've not heard of a real reason to take it down. I assume WTT is going to e-mail me with his opinion on that, and I will certainly read that e-mail and take it into consideration. As of now, I think the blog still serves to document some of the stuff that's been happening (from everyone BUT Kevin, in other words not from Kevin) in this whole mess. gwickwiretalkediting 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging any uninvolved

    Someone want to close this now? Maybe clean like several mega-pixels of drama of the board? — Ched :  ?  20:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Does being generally disgusted count as uninvolved? Although I suspect it would be best if you could find an admin to close it. Intothatdarkness 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, an unblock of user:Demiurge1000 is still being discussed above. So a close would be premature. Cardamon (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree that, at the appropriate time, it should be an uninvolved admin that closes this, possibly the ugliest ANI thread I have ever had the sorrow to review. The original "boxcutter" comment, in my view, must be regarded as a real world death threat, and should be reported to legal authorities, if it has not been already. This is no joking matter. Jusdafax 03:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jusdafax, if you spent any time at WO to observe the general tone of posts by EricBarbour, I can assure you that you would come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people need to get out more. John lilburne (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Off topic example per Hex: I remember back in school an experiment we did. The teacher whispered in the ear of the first student a sentence or two. That student then repeated the "whisper" to the following student. This continued through a room of maybe 20 or so students. By the time the last student got the information and repeated it out-loud, it was so outlandishly different from the original content that there was absolutely no way the two items could be reconciled. Moral: If you hear it from a friend of a friend of a friend - chances are astronomically good that you're not getting the original intent of the message. — Ched :  ?  09:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness

    Not a matter for ANI, and certainly shouldn't have been brought here when no attempt has been made to contact those involved in the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please investigate this "project" which seems to be extremely dubious and has attracted several devotees with redlink usernames and few contributions. One of them has already made inroads into a cricket article with out of context stuff based on questionable sources. Could be some kind of hoax being perpetrated. ----Jack | talk page 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's members of a college course. The instructor has just misunderstood the purpose of WikiProjects.  davidiad { t } 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Simon1252 (talk · contribs) is the course instructor, so I suppose the "WikiProject" should be moved into his user space. Am I wrong in remembering that we have people or some task force for working with these class groups?  davidiad { t } 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI
     – There is already a WikiProject Cricket.
    --Auric talk 03:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At best this should be a subproject (task force?) of the existing WikiProject, but given that this appears related to a course, there is likely another venue for this. --Kinu t/c 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What on earth is wrong with setting up a course as a Wikiproject? This is precisely what I did with (for instance) WP:MMM. I see no cause for admin action here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Correct venue?

    I'm quite dissappointed that none of the supposedly "highly experienced" admins who handle this page have ever heard of Wikipedia:School and university projects which is the correct venue for this matter. Roger (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the "correct venue" is probably the Education Noticeboard, and it was indeed brought up there, not once but twice, the second time by someone who read this thread (but not the noticeboard itself, it seems). Either way, it is at least courtesy to inform the people involved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also newbie biting and assuming bad faith by calling some of the contribution as "hoax". The editor in question was around for more than 6 years and should have known better than this. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Collingwood26: concerns about POV-driven editing and extreme talk page posts

    This appears to have run its course. Collingwood26 has committed to an effort to abide by policy. As noted in their rapidly escalating block log, the project does not take personal attacks lightly, but neither should we demand a degrading display of groveling. Let's all move on to more productive efforts. Closing note to Collinwood26, you've likely picked up a few more eyes on your work here, so please make sure that the "save page" button will reflect what you want to convey. User:Ched

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

    Collingwood26 (talk · contribs) has a long history of editing motivated by an extreme Australian nationalist POV, including some occasional edit warring. They were blocked last September for this extreme talk page comment and were blocked earlier in the year for similar abuse of myself ([21]), but this conduct continues to occur in articles concerning Australian history or race and religion. Post-block examples include:

    • Sustained edit warring to include a special claim that 15,000 Australian soldiers were "enslaved" following the Battle of Singapore (in January: [22] (edit summary of "How dare you try to erase it from history, you seem to be extremely anti-Australian Nick-D!"; I'm actually Australian), [23] (edit summary includes "over 15 thousand of us were enslaved, people like you just want to cover it up"), [24]) and this has just re-started without any talk page discussion [25]. Almost all the 80,000 Allied soldiers captured at Singapore were used as forced labourers by the Japanese, with Australians not relieving different treatment to the other national groups.
    • Accusations of Anti-Australian 'racism' when criticised: [26] ("Your going to have me banned just because I write articles about Australian battles? Racist much?" in response to a well-founded complaint about a clear copyright violation),
    • A claim that Asians somehow can't be Australian at Talk:Asian Australian as only people descended from the original fleet of British convicts are 'Australian': [27]
    • An obviously related removal of old talk page posts discussing the claimed presence of black convicts in the First Fleet [28]
    • Clearly anti-semitic trolling [29]

    Overall, it seems to me that Collingwood26 is mainly here to push his views and the blocks imposed last year have not been successful in getting him to change his ways. Can an univolved admin please look into this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Collingwood26 does seem to be pushing a nationalistic POV. The talk page trolling and personal attacks are completely unacceptable. They have made a number of good contributions though, so perhaps they just need a serious attitude adjustment. I would be interested hearing how they explain these interactions. - MrX 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What a load of bull I have been nothing but harrassed on this site by Nick D and his cohort who want nothing more than to remove Australia's roles in wars from the history books.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are those not your diffs up ^ there? Did you not write "White Race / Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race? Aren't they white themselves?" What harassment have you received that you thinks justifies this? - MrX 03:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ...or this?
    No comment on anything else, but this last link would be reasonable if there weren't sub-articles such as the ones linked in the response. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment? NickD has continually denied the truth throughout Australian military history articles. He has deleted articles in which I have said "15,000 Australians were enslaved", BUT if you look at the REAL history 15,000 Australians WERE enslaved. NickD is nothing more than a conartist, a lier, and a manipulative theif who seeks to impose his own viewpoints abusing the authority he has.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is nothing more than blatent discrimination of Australian wikipedia members. This witchhunt you seem so keen on to ban any Australian members is outrageous!--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop the personal attacks. They're a violation of our policies and they're not helping your argument. Content issues can be resolved by discussion on article talk pages, starting with reliable sources and calm, rational arguments. - MrX 05:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The funny side of this is that I'm Australian and have written about a dozen FAs on Australian military history. But this illustrates how Collingwood operates. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight, Nick-D (an Australian) raises some, in my opinion, very legitimate concerns about Collingwood (also Australian) and Collingwood's response is that it is a witchhunt to "ban any" Australian member? Sorry, what did i miss? I (also an Australian) am suggesting a chill pill needs to be taken. --Merbabu (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I see your point, but even if NickD is Australian then why does he revert my edit about 15 thousand Australians being enslaved? Do you dispute these facts because I can show you reliable sources for these!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mate, then show him those sources and have a civilised chat on the talk page, rather than suggesting there's some giant conspiracy theory about censoring the figures you've found. He saw a problem and reverted the edit - that's pretty stock-standard stuff. The next step is to talk about it, not to accuse someone of censorship or a "cover-up". My suggestion - say you're sorry, start a discussion on the talk page and move the f**k on. (By the way; also Australian). Stalwart111 08:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if 15,000 Australians were "enslaved", I'd want that noted somewhere too. But the way to do that is to present such a claim in a reasonable manner, with sources, and discuss it if someone disputes it (it's a big claim, so expect there to be some questions at least). But trying to spam it into articles then screaming CENSORSHIP! when someone removes it is about the worst possible way of trying to get that done. Stalwart111 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read some of the books by/about those POWs, albeit decades ago. The POWs were treated very badly, but not enslaved. Another Australian -- CWC 10:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m the editor (NOT Nick-D) who reverted the most recent of Collingwood26s “enslaved” edits, with a repeated request that the author take their ideas to the talk page. They failed to do this. The hysterical response that accompanies these edits is so irrational I have occasionally wondered if it’s genuine. However, other editors probably choose to ignore these outbursts, as I generally do. In my opinion there is no doubt they breach WP standards and at best they are tiresome and disruptive. (Yet another Aussie)Nickm57 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well he can show you, I don't really care as long as he shows someone instead of claiming "racism" or "censorship" when someone reverts an edit. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of crap. Stalwart111 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the concerns raised by Nick-D here (and others). Like several other Australian editors I have also found cause to revert some of his recent edits at Battle of Singapore. Whilst Collingwood26 has made some valuable contributions in the past, more recently his behaviour has only been disruptive. When he first appeared I had hoped that with some help from more experienced editors he might develop into a valuable contributor but this doesn't seem to have occurred. Claims of conspiracies against Australian editors are nothing short of embarrassing, and accusations that Nick-D is somehow trying to lessen recognition of Australian wartime involvement ignore his numerous high quality articles in this area. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the observation above, I've interacted with Collingwood26 on more than one occasion in the past and found him to be quite polite and understanding of the decisions reached by others, however his recent comments are quite provocative in nature, not only do the comments violate WP:AGF, they also breach WP:NPA and obviously WP:CIVIL. I suggest he take a short Wikibreak to calm his nerves. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well there is not much point in me arguing with all of you, do what you want whether you ban me or not.Nothing I say cn change your minds anyhow.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    True, continued arguing is counterproductive. The question is whether Collingwood is willing to commit forgoing the comments about other editors and disruptive behavior, such as removing sections of talk pages. If they believe being right about Australian history justifies behavior contrary to Wikipedians practices and norms they are not going to find Wikipedia enjoyable and should find another pastime. NE Ent 11:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Collingwood? Drmies (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I can behave myself--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Possible sockpuppet: Silviabe333 / Topfin

    Both accounts blocked by DeltaQuad. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I think these 2 users might be the same person. He/she is making changes against consensus to articles such as Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola. Would you please be able to take a look? Thanks, Azylber (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The accounts were both recently created, edit the same articles, with very similar edit summaries and are engaged in edit-warring. Why not make a report at WP:SPI for the first created account (Silviabe333), setting "yes" for checkuser? Mathsci (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Done. I've reported it there. But I'm also worried about the articles - what's going to happen with all the articles that this person is modifying? Azylber (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles like Cuthbert, Guthlac of Crowland, do not have "Saint" in the bolded title. Their editing is purely disruptive. More detail is required when making an WP:SPI report and I will provide it. Wait until there is a response at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Thanks for your help! Azylber (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Aeusetereleiea

    Would like to report a case of constant disruptive editing and vandalism against Aeusetereleiea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has constantly added unsourced material to The Mentalist (season 5) page (as can be seen in their history) and has launched several personal attacks against myself when I reverted the edits. The user has demonstrated on several occasions that they are unable (or unwilling) to learn the rules and work alongside editors and now seems to just want to cause trouble. Their latest edits here and here demonstrate that this user has now taken to vandalising both my user page and talk page. I'm not sure exactly what steps should be taken, but I have a feeling that this is the kind of user who is just going to keep on going and going with their disruptions. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected the article from editing, as there was a clear edit war going on there. Please be aware that this is not the only course of action to be justified by the editing history, see WP:BOOMERANG. Remember that next time, you should not get drawn into an edit war, even if you believe you are in the right. Remember, the other person believes that too, and you can both be blocked even if you believe you are correct. You both could have been blocked here, but I think this is the best way to handle this. Discuss the matter civilly on the article talk page, and when consensus develops, protection can be lifted. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's what I am trying to say, there is no way to discuss the matter civilly with this editor. I have tried a number of times to discuss the addition of unsourced material to the page but have gotten no response and they simply continue to add it. This has been going on for months. The editor blatantly and knowingly flaunts the rules, having said that learning them is a waste of time and has on numerous occasions verbally abused me, having called me retarded, a fucker, a loser, a control freak and once asked if I was being medicated. I take responsibility for being drawn into an edit war this time, but only because I have had enough dealing with an arrogant, self-righteous editor who flat-out refuses to co-operate or even consider familiarising themselves with the rules. That is what I am hoping to have some help with, because this is just going to go on and on. When you un-protect the page, they'll start up again with exactly the same disruptive edits. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (uninvolved, unsolicited, non-admin opinion) An admin should take a closer look at the subject user's contrib history. If nothing else, they need to be made aware that what SchrutedIt08 is trying to tell them is correct, since they don't seem to want to hear it or co-operate. An incivility cool-off for some of the personal crap wouldn't be at all out of line. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Schrutedit08 got the point, I think Aeusetereleiea should be block from editing, not the article of The Mentalist (season 5) itself. I think if we unblocked the article, Aeusetereleiea might continue what he was doing to the article. The admin should take a closer at the contributions and what he said in each of his edit summaries and then blocked him from editing and then unprotect The Mentalist (season 5). That would be fine by us. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have misunderstood me. That was what I said – that Aeusetereleiea needed to cool off and listen to what Schrutedit08 was telling them. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't referring to you, AlanM1. I was just pointing something out about what Aeusetereleiea has been doing and he be banned from anything related to the Mentalist or blocked from editing. not to mention that the article The Mentalist (season 5) should be unprotected. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Battleshipman. Hopefully Aeusetereleiea can be made to see reason, but the priority for me is to get the page unblocked (though I'm not exactly sure how to go about accompishing that) as a bunch of new episode and ratings information has become available and an edit request has already been made for the page. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, no, no. You have it all wrong. If I were to launch attacks against any editor than a lot more people would be hearing about it. I vandalised no one page, I'd happyily show you how to do that if you want. If you just adopted the same editing skills as sites like The Mentalist Wiki and actually put up new episodes ect, then you'd actually have a successful page. Anyway, you're all wasting your time worrying over what I'll do next. Unless of course your computer geeks, then it's in your nature to spend your time fixing and editing and editing and fixing and doing something else that I won't mention (sensitive topic). But if you wanna waste your time, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeusetereleiea (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We put up new episodes all the time. Right now I'm waiting for the page to be unblocked so that I can put up more information on episodes 5x18 and 5x19. Specialized Wikis are often mismanaged and do not hold to the same standards as this site. What we are trying to impress upon you, Aeusetereleiea, is that the rules are what they are and they're not going to change just because you don't like them or can't be bothered learning them. If you want to add episode titles and air dates, that's fine, but you have to provide a reliable source to back-up your additions, otherwise it will just be removed. If you agree to do that, great. There's no reason we can't all get along and edit the page as long as Wikipedia's guidelines are being adhered to. If you're just going to keep doing what you've been doing, then this will just continue on and on. Do you really want to waste your time adding information, having it reverted and getting into situations like this? I've got better things to do (in spite of your delightfully condescending remarks above). So can we come to some understanding about this or do we just have to get you blocked from editing? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SchrutedIt08 got the point, Aeusetereleiea. What you been doing, adding future episode titles was premature and you didn't provide a reliable source to back up those claims, claims that requires to have them referenced. Because of the edit war between you and SchrutedIt08, you get the article The Mentalist (season 5) blocked by Wiki admin to where the administrators can only edit. You wasted your time with your feud with SchrutedIt08 on your edit war, forcing him to revert your unsourced edits and that forced Wiki admin to block that article only to admin access. I do hope you understand what you done to that article and learn from your mistakes. Specialized Wikis don't hold the same standards as this site does, like SchrutedIt08 said above. It's apparent to all of us that you're a disruptive editor. Therefore, you're out of line with your edits on The Mentalist (season 5) article and it has gone far enough to be blocked by admin of Wikipedia. So you have two choices, Aeusetereleiea. Be patient, read the Wikipedia guidelines, wait for a reliable source before you edit any future episode titles of The Mentalist, and, when you learn from those guidelines and find the reliable source, we will have a understanding between us. Because if you keep on doing what you've been doing on that article, you be blocked from editing this site. Think about that? BattleshipMan (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert war, block/unblock, and all sorts of mess

    Arts on the Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen a revert war ongoing due to disagreements of whether NFCC applies to the 17 images it currently has/had in a table. There's ongoing discussions taking place on the article talk page. But Slowking4 (talk · contribs) and Werieth (talk · contribs) decide to have a rather large revert war, and the revert war basically short-circuited the discussion (somewhat). Foxj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked both Slowking4 and Werieth for 60 hours, and Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) immediately granted an unblock, followed by a revert on the article. I am requesting more comments on this issue, as I do not feel that Kww's unblock reasoning is sound (the discussion on the article page, for me, doesn't feel that it's a clear NFCC violation). Thus I'm calling into question as to whether the 3RR exception applies here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    both Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) clearly noted the violation on the talk page, both of those users have extensive histories with the non-free content policy. Werieth (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    They are clearly WP:NFCC violations, although there are editors on on Talk:Arts on the Line that don't appear to be particularly concerned about that. There's a pretty clear consensus among editors that are not specifically concerned with the article that the images are in violation. The images need to stay out until there is a consensus to include, and this kind of problem is specifically the reason we have that exemption in WP:3RR.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I noticed people arguing re: #3, #8, NFLISTS/NFTABLE; I can only see #8 being the valid issue. NFLISTS - this isn't really a list article (and, frankly, we'd fall to bullet point 6 for this). NFTABLE - the current wording of NFCC allows consideration. #3a/b - 19/20 separate pieces of art laying across Boston demonstrates the impossibility of actually reducing it (unless, obviously, a blueprint or something exists). #8 is the only one that I would consider to be the valid challenge (and even then, this can be fixed by writing the appropriate paragraphs). I'm seeing the argument, but relevant bullet clearly indicates that this should have been discussed in other forums prior to the revert war; thus, I still believe Werieth has to shoulder part of the blame. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • NFCC problems clearly favor removal of material, and that's why the exemption is in WP:3RR, so that we will block the person adding the material and not the person removing it. Explaining an arts program doesn't require an illustration of each and every piece of art selected by the program, and "writing a few paragraphs" won't fix the #8 problem.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Involved editor here - contributed a couple of the files in question, and responsible for a lot of the talking on the talk page. Regardless of the final decision on this specific article, this should perhaps prompt a fresh look at the wording of the NFCC policy, and particularly at the validity of NFTABLE. Trying to word my arguments on the talk page was very difficult because so much of the disagreement here comes down to the semantics. NFTABLE was also (so far as I understand) written considering lists and tables of a) albums, b) TV episodes, and c) currency. Trying to apply it to a list of artworks has proven both difficult and polarizing - one very quickly either sees Arts on the Line as a giant NFCC violation or a perfectly reasonable application of it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this looks like a clear violation of WP:NFTABLE. However, instead of engaging in an edit war, I think that it is better to discuss things like this at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear; the images were a violation of WP:NFC _GUIDELINE_ not WP:NFCC _POLICY_. WP:NFTABLE, a part of WP:NFC, is NOT policy. It is a guideline. This is an important distinction. WP:NOT3RR contains an exemption for blatant violations of NFCC policy, not guideline. The use of the images in the table is a judgment call, not a blatant violation. A blatant violation would be, for example, missing a rationale for the use. All the images had rationales for the use. Whether it violated NFC or not is irrelevant. There is nothing in NFCC POLICY which prohibits the use of non-free images in tables. If there were, we would not have articles displaying non-free images like History of British film certificates, Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) and South African Navy do in tables. This is a judgment call, one that was heavily disputed on the talk page. The appropriate action was not edit warring, and both User:Werieth and user:Slowking4 were blatantly out of line for the pointless dozens-of-reverts-long edit war conducted over the span of less than an hour. Additionally, administrator User:Kww was out of line for granting the unblock of Werieth and at a minimum should have discussed the issue with administrator User:Foxj before doing so, but this did not happen. Kww's actions effectively condoned User:Werieth, and this is utterly wrong. The edit war was clearly, blatantly disruptive and no exemption in 3RR trumps that. Had it been 4 or 5 times by Werieth, I could maybe..maybe...see it. 18 reverts in less than an hour by Werieth and Kww effectively condones Werieth's actions? Absolutely the wrong call. User:Slowking4 should be unblocked since the article can not be edited by non-admins for the next month, and an RfC should be initiated with Slowking4 as a participant. Kww should be admonished for undoing the block of another administrator in this case, and should be reminded of the importance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by editors, and the importance of following Wikipedia:BLOCK#Unblocking in so far as it says that an unblock should be performed when "the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake." That was not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the violation of WP:NFCC #8 or #3a is a judgment call. If it were not, then the articles I noted above would have had their images stripped already. That's why I noted those articles. A certain someone attempted to use the 3RR exemption for this same purpose. Their efforts were soundly rejected by the community. This exemption does NOT trump disruptive editing nor further discussion at an RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Hammersoft. The existing 3rr text says: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (emphasis original). It's not clear to me how to improve that. (Adding Kww, this means you, stop acting like a doofus is prohibited per point.) NE Ent 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a clear consensus that the quantity of images violated WP:NFCC as the article stands, so the "should be established as a violation first" standard had been met. The images had already been removed by Black Kite, who specifically stated that he felt the removal of the images was subject to the 3RR exemption, which Werieth says that he relied upon. There was considerable discussion about what could be modified to make the article compliant or whether there should be a specific exemption for arts projects, but there was no consensus about what degree of modification would be required or how sweeping of an exemption would be required.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There at no point was any consensus to remove the images. In this diff, Found5dollar established the basic arguments as to why the images are acceptable within the fair use guidelines - and neither Werieth nor Black Kite at any point could name why any of them were wrong. However, it's become very clear that the NFCC patrollers consider their opinions to be more important than any of those who dissent; note this diff where Werieth calls for myself and others to be "enlightened" as though we are children. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With non-free material there must be consensus for inclusion, without that, removal is necessary until such time as consensus is reached. Werieth (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff for that policy? NE Ent 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFCC it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; ... see burden of proof Werieth (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That says a fair use rationale must be provided; one is provided here. Whether the rationale is sufficient or not is a matter for consensus discussion. NE Ent 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sympathetic to the concerns about "endorsement" noted above, and have left this message.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I appreciate it. I think, given the fact that a concern is raised elsewhere re: this, it can continue elsewhere (unless anyone else have anything else to add?) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we seriously get this user banned from editing again. It seems all he is doing is trolling the Wikipedia for pages with images and removing them, there seems to be no pattern to the types of pages he is removing images from. I see he was blocked yesterday and then unblocked minutes later and basically back at it again. I see the user has removed all the warnings from his talk page and if I see today has received a warning for 3RR on the article FTSE 100 Index, so he hasn't learnt his lesson at all. All this user is doing is upsetting other users who have worked hard to contribute information to the Wikipedia. I do understand the users edits may be making pages comply to some standard but the amount of removing of images this user is doing is just insane. Bhowden (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images clearly and unequivocally failed WP:NFCC#3a (overuse) and WP:NFCC#8 (significance), which are policy. Therefore the 3RR exemption clearly applies, and Kww was correct to unblock Werieth. Regardless of whether they are in tabular form or not, 17 images which are purely decorative are a clear fail of our policies. As I pointed out on the talkpage, one or two may be admissible if they were clearly described in the text as representative and/or iconic, but the editors there appeared to believe that our policies did not apply here. They were incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having said that, I'bve just seen the history; this all started after I was asleep (I'd removed the images earlier). Yes, that was a rather daft revert-war and Werieth should have stopped and simply reported Slowking to WP:AN3, he was already over 3RR before Werieth was. Ah well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same way as discographies don't have album cover images despite being the subjects of the article, or articles about lists of characters from TV shows don't have images of all but the most notable. Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves. That's why I said that a few (at most) representative images may be acceptable. There's also the issue of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). Since the table already says (for example) "A large stained glass wall composed of mostly blue glass with the exception of a red band that runs the length of the work.", does that need an image as well for the reader to understand what it is? I'd say it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves." That makes sense, and I'll accept that as a reason for limited fair use in the article to one or two images. But that's the first time that's been said - at no point was that articulated previously. While a simple point, that's critical to this entire debacle. While I think the issue for this article has thus been settled, there needs to be a process for those points to be articulated sooner, as it appears that issues like this have come up previously in the removal of large numbers of non-free images for articles. I'll perhaps make an RFC on the NFCC talk page (I believe the rule is that I should wait for the ANI to be closed first?) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Turning Wikipedia into Spamapedia

    User:Causeandedit seems to be misusing Wikipedia to promote numerous record labels, artists, and turning articles into link farms with bogus references, consistently ignoring polite requests to follow WP's rules. An occasional good reference is swamped by junk. It creates a huge amount of work for others here to undo; Hoopla Worldwide is just the tip of the iceberg.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice that User:Causeandedit is vengefully putting up a satisfactory Nat Gertler article for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I think it's time some other admin has a look at this. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some interesting comments have been made at User talk:AGK#Harrasment By User and someone with time to work out what this all about should study the situation because it looks like it will get ugly quite soon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that in the history Causeandedit's interesting comments from 8:04 12 March are struck and not accessible yet they still appear at User_talk:AGK#Harrasment_By_User. Oversight gone not quite right? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • General comment. We are all volunteers. We help in various ways of our own choosing. Some fix typos. Some add content. Others delete content. Some fix grammar. Some add photos. Some settle disputes. The only way different agendas can cooperate is if we try to follow Wikipedia's self-made rules. The result is an incredible source of information, a powerful first for humankind, widely read, and has such a powerful web presence that it is highly tempting to misuse it for promotional purposes. Spam, advertising, and other promotional junk can undermine the entire project, reducing our encyclopedia into one big sales blurb, so the community has decided, wisely, to keep spam out. Most contributors who look into this matter will agree that User:Causeandedit is a prolific spammer who is bombarding "articles" with bogus references. When challenged, Causeandedit complains of harassment or strikes back; for example, a Wikipedian and notable author Nat Gertler voted to delete some of the spam, prompting User:Causeandedit to slap a spurious AfD tag on apparently from spite. In my view, Causeandedit is a nuisance to the community, is not following Wikipedia's rules, is not acting in good faith, is harming the project, and should be blocked, hopefully permanently.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Somebody had indeed tried to suppress that content but not quite did it right. I've fixed the mess. AGK [•] 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I !voted "not sure yet" for Sabrina (pop singer) but I can assure I will shed no tears if you speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G11 right here and now if you so wish. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left that one sitting for now but !voted for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose formal ban of Causeandedit and any socks

    Are there any objections to a formal ban of Causeandedit and his socks, if any? It looks at first glance like typical advertising activity but I totally lost any good faith in this user after they were called out on falsely claiming Sabrina had been certified gold in the United Kingdom and then, with all the eloquence of a toddler claiming Darth Vader had raided the cookie jar, they tried to claim that by UK they meant "University of Kentucky". If that isn't silly enough on the surface, the article said "United Kingdom" (not just UK), linked to the BPI site, and gold records are certified by industry groups like the RIAA and IFPI, not by colleges. But that's a once-in-a-lifetime wackiness, right? Wrong. He did it again on the Audio Stepchild AFD. Not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The assertion of gold status in the UK by Causeandedit for Sabrina (pop singer) appears to be an obvious falsification. Perhaps the editor was hoping to benefit from the confusion with Sabrina Salerno, who does have a Silver certification in the UK and is a much better known performer. Sabrina Salerno has sold 10 million records worldwide. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support a formal ban. Amongst so much deception the claim of accidently mistaking "United Kingdom" for "University of Kentucky" show that this editor has no respect for the truth, this project, everyone here. If claims of Mr Hay talking to this editor are to be believed (source redacted for other reasons) then Mr Hay should express issue with how bad CaE is making him look. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed

    Can I get an admin to block 71.135.171.193 (talk · contribs). The IP's been laying down some undirected insults on the Kim Jong-un talk page that I've reverted, and when I reverted and warned him, the IP promptly put attacks on my page (fortunately a few watchers dealt with that). I could block myself but I'm technically involved. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, blocked. Lectonar (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Back again at 71.135.172.66 (talk · contribs). --MASEM (t) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Both contributors are from the same range, so it is likely that all insults come from the same person and that the person is able to switch IP addresses. Would it be possible to semi-protect Talk:Kim Jong-un for a few days? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Men's rights movement (again)

    Resolved
     – CSDarrow (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Drmies for 72 hours

    Recently, there has been an influx of new editors. It appears that some of Reddit's men's rights activists were invited to edit the article which is on article probation. In this difficult editing environment, CSDarrow (talk · contribs) has repeatedly tried to remove sourced material, sometimes using questionable edit summaries suggesting that he "moved" something when in fact he deleted and rewrote, calling someone's edits disruptive or referring to prior discussions which did not yield support for his position [30][31][32][33][34]. There is no consensus for CSDarrow's edits, quite the opposite actually, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Removal of Williams.2C 1995 and the two subsections. Today, I left a reminder on CSDarrow's talk page that the article is on article probation and that he appears to be edit warring to remove sourced material against consensus. In response, he called me "ignorant peasant" and basically blamed me for everything that is wrong with the article. I consider this a pretty clear violation of the terms of the article probation.

    I bring this here because KillerChihuahua seems to be absent. I hope that additional experienced editors can have an eye on the article as new Reddit users arrive or if those already arrived need further instructions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • CSDarrow has been warned: any next battleground move or personal attack should be met with a block. That talk page situation is ridiculous, but I'm no expert in the history of the article and cannot act expeditiously. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, those arbitration guidelines indicate that any sufficiently uninvolved admin may et cetera. I am so sufficiently uninvolved that I had to read those guidelines. As it turns out, CSDarrow was made aware of them in September 2012 yet chose to edit war; I've listed four instances of edit-warring on their talk page, right above the standard block template. I've given them three days to read up; no verdict on other disruptive edits. It's time for my lunch break, as Sheriff Bart said--I hope KillerChihuahua will clock in soon to have a look. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Drmies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of order, it's not an arbcom remedy, but a probation added by the community for significant disruption in the area.Hasteur (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CSBulut14

    Blocked by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would someone mind indef'ing User:CSBulut14? They seem to be a so-called "sneaky" fact-changing vandal. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Eeekster

    The reporting editor found a boomerang returning to them. De728631 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admins,

    Please help. User:eeekster has set up an account to destroy the works of others. He "edit-wars" with others users and forces them to keep reverting their edits in order to keep them. Eekster does not obey the WP policies himself and routinely threatens to block people as if he was an admin. His reverts are purely POV.JaMikePA (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved here from WP:AN, since this is an incident report. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The reporter has persisted in removing delete templates without correcting the problems. Claims I can't add them because I'm not an admin. Already reported as vandalism before this incident was opened. Eeekster (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a 3RR warning for JaMikePA; he should be blocked if he continue anywhere else. Both parties have gone past 3RR on numerous files, but Eeekster has been doing it for the sake of enforcing our copyright policies, so he should be praised rather than sanctioned for it. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Eekster's modifications to File:LancasterBarnstormers.PNG seem to be unambiguous corrections of WP:NFCC#3b violations and thus seemingly covered by WP:NOT3RR. At File:Brooks Robinson Plaza.png, he has readded a template saying that there is no evidence of permission and that the source URL is insufficient. I agree that the templates should be there, but I would have used WP:PUF if templates are removed too many times. In a deletion discussion, it is easier to explain why there is a problem with the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And http://www.stadiumjourney.com/stadiums/sovereign-bank-stadium-s369/images (image #3) is the third of those images. It has no permissions statement, and the copyright statement unambiguously claims copyright for all content. He says at his talk that he's forwarded permissions emails to OTRS, so I'll not speedy-delete it, but I strongly doubt that we're going to get an {{attribution}} permission for images from this source. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Cvpatel95

    Also blocked by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Cvpatel95 keeps placing spam links on Portal:Current events/2013 March 11, I have warned the user two times now (Which brings it to the user's 4th warning counting ones from others) but looking at the contribs it seems it is a vandal account. Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    LittleBenW, diacritics topic ban, and personal attacks (yet again)

    Resolved
     – LittleBenW blocked for one week. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated his diacritics topic ban yet again, even after a block for it and further warnings as detailed below:

    I'm sure he'll accuse me of "hounding" him, but the AE case involves me directly and his posts mostly consist of unprovable accusations against me personally ("fraudulent", etc.) which is also a violation of the WP:ARBATC "all parties reminded" discretionary sanctions against personalizing style/titles disputes, and of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; meanwhile his participation in the aforementioned ANI case is clearly noted on his own talk page, and so is hard to miss. If he were actually a party to either of these disputes, I wouldn't consider his participation improper (even if much of its content is), but he's not; he's intentionally shoe-horning himself into diacritics discussions despite many warnings to avoid them. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This name seems to be showing up fairly often on these boards. I'll have a look — Ched :  ?  01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've suggested that SMcCandlish let others look after this for a bit, but it appears that his observations, links, and assessments are accurate.
    • I've blocked LittleBenW for one week, and notified him that I have done so. I didn't bother with a template as the account appears to be quite familiar with the procedure by acquiring 4 blocks in as many months. I don't see cause for blocking talkpage access at this time, and I've informed him of our "helpme" template.
    • Any administrator is fully welcome to review the situation and make adjustments that they feel are needed. I'll leave any "closing" or marking of resolved to this thread to someone else. — Ched :  ?  01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told Black Kite (the admin who most recently warned LittleBenW on his talk page), I have tried to ignore LittleBenW's attacks in his diacritics rants at WP:AE, but even after two more administrative warnings there regarding them, he just wouldn't stop, and even started lambasting those warning him. I trusted that admins at AE would deal with it, but one explicitly declined to do so, saying AE wasn't the right venue for topic-ban enforcement. There has been a strong general theme of "use the appropriate dispute resolution forum" everywhere lately. Thus I brought it up here; if this is not the right place/format/whatever, please let me know. While I believe that process is important, I'm honestly finding it difficult to keep track of the increased bureaucracy on Wikipedia over the last year or so. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 02:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite is a top-notch admin and editor. Now, if there were an "unban me" request, and they confined their comments; respectfully and focused on his own "topic ban", then yes - I'd not block them. The snark and focus on another editor (Fyunck) was why I feel justified in blocking. — Ched :  ?  02:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Even regardless of that, his complete and utter determination not to stick to his topic ban, despite several warnings, deserved a block I reckon. I truly hope he gets the idea now, but I'm not exactly hopeful. (He's been warned multiple times about incivility - especially attributing motives to other editors that are figments of his imagination - before as well). Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on way too long. Blocking is the only remedy we have when a user refuses to follow an editing restriction, so yeah, right call. Hopefully Ben will now understand that the only thing that will be accomplished by his continued ignoring of the restriction is that blocks will increase in length with each subsequent incident and his best course of action is to respect the restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amadscientist - Edits since 8 March 2013 to Adam Ant

    Admin are not content police. Use the article talk page, and then WP:DRN if that fails. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Since 8 March, user User:Amadscientist has been carrying out edits on the Adam Ant article. So far, this seems to primarily consist of (1)exiling to the talk page an "Upcoming Projects" section which he/she considers to be "promotional" (2)deleting section headers for most of the first half of the article so it becomes one extremely long single section (3)deleting content (some of it unreferenced, some of it referenced) in the name of "trimming excessive detail" (an objective I would strongly suggest is in disregard of WP:NOTPAPER and WP:N#NCONTENT)

    More seriously, the user has left the article in a state of chaotic disrepair. As well as (2) above, sections of the article have been moved around clumsily - for example quotes from a 2000 interview with Ant's then manager Bryan Stanton regarding the then state of Ant's recording career have been moved to the Personal Life section. Also input in there is a section, unsourced and seemingly from a recent press interview, which repeatedly refers to Ant by his legal name Goddard, inconsistent with the use of "Ant" throughout the remainder of the article and indeed the article title. A section on the late 1980s and Ant's concentration on acting has been moved out of the main biography to the end. One edit removed under (3) above was the deletion of sections referring to Ant's lost album Persuasion all the remaining section headers up to the present day appear as subheaders of "Solo Career 1982-1985". Reference #161 was orphaned (although this has been resolved by AnimeBOT). A reference to Biography in a later section header has been deleted - this actually referred to Ant's autobiography, the publication of which is covered in the section.

    I did offer a revised version taking in legitimate concerns raised by Amadscientist about certain section headers and other issues and adding sources and clarification, however this has been rejected out of hand by the user as "Unconstructive" who then reverted back to his/her last version. My revised version can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Adam_Ant&oldid=543465969 . I also wrote on the user's talkpage offering constructive cooperation on improving the article - this appears to have been simply ignored. I still also wrote on the article talkpage suggesting that the user reinstate section headings - so far this too has been ignored, not even so much as an explanation why not to restore headings. The reversion by Amadscientist (edit 543468450) is the only work he/she has carried out on the article since 9 March except for an (acceptable) reversion of copyrighted material by another user (edit 543359890).

    I do not think it is acceptable for Amadscientist to leave the article in this state, looking frankly like roadworks abandoned overnight. Since I do not wish to engage in a revert war with him/her, I would ask for a sufficiently privileged Administrator to intervene. I myself would recommend reversion back to edit 543465969. I would concede it is not perfect but it is considerably better than the state which Amadscientist has chosen to leave the article in. 95.144.236.108 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Since writing the above, I have found that Amadscientist has posted a constructive reply to the article talkpage to which I am responding. I would still however welcome some intervention by an administrator. 95.144.236.108 (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like he is in the process of trying to improve the article to get it to Featured Article status. I'd suggest you bear with him for a while. Future events are problematic and have to be based on very reliable sources and not appear promotional. He may put some less promotional language back in after reviewing the sources. In my experience, he is pretty knowledgeable about WP policy and will probably do more good than harm in the long run. Yworo (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just content, it's the general state of chaos & disrepair Amadscientist has left the article in since last working on it. It can't just be left like that. 95.144.236.108 (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And those are issues for the article talk page. Administrators are not content referees. If a user is acting in good faith then the situation needs to be addressed editorially. Tiderolls 02:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at every version since Amadscientist stated working on it, and I see zero evidence for the "general state of chaos & disrepair" claimed above. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Carptrash, personal attacks and incivility in Talk:Men's rights movement

    I really hope I'm in the right place, that it's appropriate I'm adding this and that I'm not out of line in thinking this is unacceptable. Their activity when I logged in to take notes about some more sources pushed it over the edge for a second time for me to try and figure out how to resolve this. The Men's Rights Movement article was probably one of the worst choices for me to pick to try and dramatically improve as a first one. I was completely clueless about the topic, which is what I was looking for, and expected that there may be some heated discussions from people who held particular perspectives, but User:Carptrash seems completely unwilling to take part in the discussion outside of verbal assaults, political grandstanding, personal attacks, and completely ignoring civil and straightforward questions trying to move the discussion forward. I've tried to link to a large selection of the relevant diffs below, in chronological order.

    • here, here and here were my first introduction to them.
    • here, here, here, here and here where I mistakenly spent time grabbing exact pages numbers for a source I was studying at the time, not realizing they would be completely ignored instead.
    • here continues to not even contribute to the discussion except sarcastically suggesting a clean slate approach.
    • here continues having an obvious bias against new editors and the topic of the article under discussion.
    • here is more sarcasm and bias
    • What I saw when I logged in to collect some more sources was this (first change they made to the article since I started working on it) with a corresponding comment on the talk page of this. And had decided to let the admin's who had warned them know about the issues here and here.

    I haven't discussed with them on their talk page, but I'm really not sure what I could say that would help resolve it. I don't know why they feel the need to attack everything (or nearly everything) me and a couple of new (and not-so-new) editors do, why I'm lumped in with those other editors in their mind other than having started editing around the same time or what I've done to deserve the treatment leveled in my direction. Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Before you go any further would you like to try checking your bias at the door? Phrases such as "where I mistakenly spent time grabbing exact pages numbers for a source I was studying at the time, not realizing they would be completely ignored instead" are 100% unhelpful to diffusing the situation.Hasteur (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patrolling admin comments: I'm aware of Carptrash's sarcasm, but I do not feel it has risen to the level of sanctionable yet. He's been a mix of disruptive, pointy, but also has been helpful with reviewing sources. His bias against new editors has been my primary concern for which he's been warned; it's hostile and exceeds normal caution towards new editors. I do not see any administrator enforcement necessary at this time and I'll keep my eyes on the topic area. However, Carptrash might consider taking some time away anyway until they relax a bit.--v/r - TP 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved Comment: Observing the actions taken by Cartrash, I concur with both Hasteur and TParis on this matter. My main concern is the ninth diff, where Cartrash makes a rather offensive analogy towards Jerusalem. Is such a comment acceptable? Shiny Bauble 14:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Odes of Solomon

    I tried to edit this entry because the original article had a link to (King) Solomon, son of King David. I wanted to correct this since the Odes of Solomon are attributed to someone named Solomon, but they were written in the 1st century A.D., so they were not written by King Solomon of the Old Testament.

    I've edited other things on Wikipedia with no problem, but, apparently, I messed up on this entry. I would appreciate an administrator trying to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.253.230 (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I just reverted in good faith. I don't quite know enough to incorporate that information without further study, and the link you provided was interesting, but I'm not sure if it passes WP:RS on its own. Usually, when you break the formatting that way, the best thing is to just revert yourself and add the raw material on the talk page, asking someone who is more familiar with the subject matter to work it in. I still do that from time to time, drop a note on the talk page when I'm not sure how/what to add, but have some facts that are worth adding by someone more familiar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 98.200.253.230 needs to read the Pseudepigrapha article. The Solomon that the name "Odes of Solomon" refers to is the biblical Solomon, not "someone named Solomon (but not King Solomon of the Old Testament)". That the ascription is false doesn't change that, and the source cited by 98.200.253.230 doesn't say anything about this supposed other person of the same name. Deor (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, haven't thought of the Odes since an undergraduate paper in 2007! For future reference, the technical problem with your edit was the string of <ref> and </ref> tags with nothing in between them. The software will get angry if you don't put anything inside ref tags, apparently. What's more, you can always revert yourself if you don't like what happened: click the "History" button and find your edit, next to which you can see an "Undo" link. Click it and save the changes; this will put the page back to the way it was before you edited it. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fly, my pretties....

    This problem started with the rants on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Drmies and I have both tried to talk to them on their own talk page as uninvolved editors, encouraging them to engage rather than enrage, but looking at their last post on my talk page, where they just rant more and call other editors my "wiki minions" [35], I question their motives. Their continued ranting on that article talk page screams "POV" as well. While they raised some interesting points (and Drmies and I both acknowledged that, yet they failed to notice) their methods are less than optimal, to the point of being disruptive. It is 3 am, can't sleep, just stumbled into the kitchen to get a cup of tea and after seeing this rant, I give up. I don't think I can help this person as they don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. So, my dear wiki minions, I leave them in your charge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not the best sock hunter in the drawer, but I've blocked for 31 hours, "disruptive editing". Any admin. is fully welcome to review and adjust the block. — Ched :  ?  08:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know my fellow cabalists are on patrol ;-) Someone else defrocked the sock at SPI. I think we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's just great. Another POV warrior with too many feet. Dennis, "defrocking a sock" is an expression I cannot accept and I'll mark it in your admin log. In reference to the SPI, if Betsy comes back sailing the same tack the vessel can be boarded, redirected to port by an administrative pilot, and chained to the quay indefinitely at that moment, I suppose. See, Dennis, it's not easy to not mix metaphors, but it's worth trying. One final note: my oldest just did a class presentation on Betsy Ross, and I have a lightly-used size 8 colonial dress for sale. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue with Wikipedia:Esperanza

    According tot he Esperanza page, an issue with the following hidden text is causing the entire full page version of the Signpost to appear on the page. I'm not sure if this is an isolated problem, or if it is not how exactly to fix it, so I'm leaving it here in hopes that someone can look into it and figure out if there is a problem and if so how to fix it. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am seeing legal threats at Talk:René Redzepi: Diff --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The diff does not appear to be a threat as per the definition (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read again as there has been no legal threat to anybody. What I wrote to the User "The Banner" is the legal consequences he might be liable in case he deliberately writes false or half truthful information about a living person. If someone writes on Wiki, for instance, that Schwarzenegger is an ethnic Dutch, and not Austrian, he has all the right to sue the author for spreading false information about his person. That's not a direct threat coming from me, that is the law! Etimo (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Though not a direct legal threat, the chilling effect is still evident. Support indef.--WaltCip (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly doesn't deserve an indef. There is a fine line between creating an improper chilling effect, and trying to warn someone in good faith of the potential consequence of their acts. I would advise Etimo to be very careful when discussing this type of thing, and that avoiding it is probably better, but I don't see anything actionable about the comment. Monty845 16:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But that also depends on the subject matter. There is nothing at all suggesting that we are dealing with WP:BLP violations or anything like that in this dispute which would require a friendly warning of legal consequences. And this means that mentioning legal implications can only be interpreted as a chilling effect attempt. Etimo has also made frivolous accusations of racism in the same discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it is worth, when I filed this it looked to me like, at most, a possible 24-hour block, and possibly a 24-hour block for bad behavior on the other side of this dustup, if any. I didn't imagine anyone suggesting an indef. That would be like swatting a fly with a bulldozer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments. I agree the line might have sounded a bit intimidatory in that contest, although the intention was mere informational in nature. The discussion with the user "The Banner" has become a bit overheated, that tends to happen when someone avoids questions on the discussion topic. The accusation of Racism or prejudice, were made as a personal final evaluation of both the user's general attitude in the discussion (tendency not to read carefully people's comments or simply ignoring, giving short, unexhaustive answers to arguments, avoiding direct questions) and his rhetorical question about a particular ethnic group, totally unrelevant with the discussion. This brought me to accuse him of being biased or having prejudice. Of course that is my personal opinion, I might be wrong. Despite everything though, I'm confident things will cool down soon. Thanks again Etimo (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That will completely depend on your behaviour. It was you accusing me of racism and prejudice because I kept asking for reliable sources instead of the YouTube-clips and blogs you offered initially. It was you who went to war about the ethnicity of his father. It was you, who dumped the case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard without properly knowing what they can do. So stop kidding, I have been polite enough towards you. The Banner talk 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been shown politely other reliable sources and asked to substitute the poor one you provided but you deliberately refused to do it without never giving any explanation to that. You have been repeatedly asked politely (quote: "if you are so kind to edit the article..", "if you are so kind to show us your evidence..") to edit the article, but you purposely refused to do it with a cocky and mocking attitude. You have been told why the ethnicity of the person in question was important and worth mentioning, but you deliberately made a deaf ear giving provocative and unrelevant answers ("there must be some local Albanian atists, scientists...??") and accuse me of "going to war for ethnicity"(??). You was asked to watch the video-interviews which supported the evidence provided, but you again, refused to do so. You provided false information (lied, basically) on the DRB by saying that I was the ordinary "POV-pusher" providing uacceptable "YouTube videos and blogs" as evidence, while the evidence we provided was quite different (as it turned out), and had my account being investigated for Sockpuppeting. Why? Because I was able to fill the DRB form..actually, because you didn't like that someone else was pointing out that you were wrong. So you might have been "polite" enough, but we have been patient enough. If I have said something out of the line, I sincerely apologize (I thought at first you were another Macedonian nationalist). Now, for my part, I have nothing more to add to the issue!! Etimo (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blackdoom77

    Serial author of copyright violation articles, continuing unabated after warnings, without response or explanation. All of their edits, including additions to categories, merit review. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, not pretty so far. Chasing them down now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed--this goes back to 2011, so I'm still tagging for copyright violations and/or speedy deletion. The sources aren't even reliable. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone comment on these IP addresses

    At Stone of the Pregnant Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3 IP addresses are making identical deletions of sourced text and similar comments on the talk page. These are 93.141.66.201 (talk · contribs), 2001:470:26:a07:16::1 (talk · contribs) (warned for 3RR) and 93.136.193.149 (talk · contribs). Is there any chance these are the same editor? The sourced text they are deleting says it's a Roman stone. I wouldn't mind so much if they found reliable sources giving a different opinion, but they won't do that, only adding insults to the talk page and suggesting only someone from Lebanon should be used as a source, although not naming them. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The two IPv4 addresses come from the same geographic area, but the IPv6 comes from half a world away. IPv4 are probably the same person.--v/r - TP 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. However, I know that it is possible to use IP addresses half a world away, I'm just not sure if this is one of those where it's possible. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPv6 address is owned by Hurricane Electric, so they might be using HE's IPv6 tunnel broker service to switch their IPv4 address to an IPv6 one. -- 92.2.76.62 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever he is using Hurricane Electric for, what I can tell you is that the geolocation of a Hurricane IP has literally no relationship to the user's actual location, and is often in the wrong country. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there you have it. I was just about to say I know little about IPv6 and I was going to ping User:Jasper_Deng but Someguy1221 seems to know what he's talking about.--v/r - TP 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dougweller, I wouldn't dignify these accounts' credibility by adding the factual accuracy template. The claim that this is Roman is supported by reliable sources, but we haven't seen references that claim otherwise. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated removal of cited lede 2

    User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB) had started a thread on this noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Repeated_removal_of_cited_lede) about a dispute on the lede in Kamrup region. On the advice in that thread, a discussion was started in the talk page: (Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary). Unfortunately, BB made no substantial contribution to the discussion, and soon left on a hiatus. He has since returned (diff, diff, diff), and has shown scant interest in moving the issue toward a resolution. Is it possible to bring this issue to some kind of closure? Thanks, Chaipau (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has not edited again at Kamrup region since 24 February. However he did edit Assam on March 12. It is not easy to see whether this is the same dispute. The original disagreement was whether Kamrup region should be given a modern or an ancient definition. The discussion at Talk:Kamrup region#Lede dispute -- A summary is hard for outsiders to follow. Neither his position or yours is clear enough. Perhaps you could improve it by adding to that thread and providing references to support your view. If nothing else works consider asking for dispute resolution at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, BB's edit on Assam (diff) is indeed related to this dispute. So instead of addressing the dispute resolution efforts, he has widened the scope of the dispute. This despite the note I left at his talk page asking him to contribute to the resolution process (which he has since acknowledged by blanking -- diff).
    I shall flesh out the dispute resolution thread with references and shall announce it here when done. The main body of Kamrup region describes most of the historical regions named Kamrup with references. Chaipau (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually since mid last year i am involved in long disputes with user Chaipau on different articles like Assam dispute and many others. At the moment i am not in a position to devote time on Kamrup region lede text dispute, so i let user Chaipau's version hang there. I don't think my latest edit is related with Kamrup region lede dispute. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad that BB is refusing to participate in the process, that he himself has initiated, at WP:ANI itself. BB, nevertheless, continues to make controversial edits (diff). Chaipau (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the date of above edit and by the way i have put some sources in Kamrup region talk page. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)comment removed by duffbeerforme; restored. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK

    Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/ExternalSites

    An extended discussion; currently consists of:
    1 Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK (currently closed)
    1.1 Proposal to reduce MZ's block length
    1.2 Proposal to restore the Status Que Ex Ante
    1.3 Increasing drama
    NE Ent 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Need admin help . . . Mangoeater1000 is vandalizing my user subpage

    See here for vandalism by Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet. An SPI case is languishing at SPI due to backlog. Please block User:Slawtony vigorgusto and protect my user sub pages. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Account nuked and I protected your sandbox. Could you please list the other pages he's targeting? Elockid (Talk) 23:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a long list, Elockid. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tor Proxy

    Resolved

    — Ched :  ?  08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a regular editor of Wikipedia. I am looking at Tor proxies and saw that this one is unblocked. Please block it as soon as possible. --188.95.52.40 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the proper place to request a tor proxy to be blocked is at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies.OakRunner (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to turn up negative, but this seems to turn up positive. Huh. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Our editor, whoever it is, seems to have demonstrated that it's a proxy, so I've blocked it definitely. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone reblocked it to a year. It was more interesting the way you had it - 3 decades plus 1 year plus some fraction of a year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP-based abuse

    There has been a long-term IP-based abuser active on Syncopy Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the past several months. The IPs include 98.67.161.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.67.168.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.81.14.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.67.162.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This individual has been warned on multiple occasions, and has even been blocked at one point. Discussions about this user's edits, which are not always overtly vandalism, are nonetheless disruptive as they are constantly made despite objections by other editors and their good faith attempts at discussing the issue on the talk page. Such discussions go nowhere as the person behind the IPs resorts to ad hominem attacks, red herring arguments, baseless accusations, and other methods that fail to actually address the topic of discussion. I am not too sure what course of action should be taken, but I do believe some form of blocking and page protection are in order. – Zntrip 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The most recent thing is a somewhat ridiculous edit war. I've warned both participants; the IP is just as guilty there as their opponent. I will grant you that the IP's contributions appear to be much more combative than necessary, and their refusal to sign their messages is more than irritating. What helps is establishing a consensus on the talk page so there is something to fall back on. But that talk page, and the rest of the history, reveals that there is dispute among other editors as well, so I don't know how easy it is to come by consensus on individual issues. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell you one thing--this sort of stuff is just stupid and disruptive, and was warred over as well. It warrants semi-protection on the one hand and a block on the other, but blocking a changing IP is useless, and that particular idiocy was a few months ago, so semi-protection now isn't necessarily warranted. I don't see anything in the article history from those other two IPs, so I cannot argue there has been constant disruption over the last couple of months. If it continues, then semi-protection is warranted. Right now, I don't see what I could do. Is there an admin with a shorter fuse and bigger balls around, and does that admin disagree? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In response, users such as Zntrip act as a pack of wolves whose only purpose on Wikipedia ppears to be to tear apart every common user on Wikipedia. Look at this horrible page and think about their behaviors. They play by rules they don't even keep themselves (calling people delusional then sending repeated warnings to the other users over lesser implied comments) and they repeatedly bully or group bully anyone they disagree with by abusing the warning mechanisms and admin mechanisms. I think if someone at Wikipedia looked at their behavior closely as shown on this page that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. They do not own Wikipedia and they discourage people from using Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.110.153 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This rant, left also on the article talk page (unsigned, of course), is sufficient indication of the editor's disruptive intentions and lack of good faith. I'll lock the article; that much seems fair now, and I've blocked the IP after also looking at User:98.67.162.21. Is the range too big for a range block? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So speaking reasonable language is now a rant? Wow, do you make this stuff up as you go along? Obviously there is a group of regular users who now cyber bully common users, ban for rules they don't follow themselves and show absolutely zero good faith. Never seen anything like it. Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.157.46 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GAtechnical

    Suicide by admin: GATechnical indeffed and talk page access revoked after TParis' unblock decline was reverted by GAT with the comment "Paris bollocks we alll know about the one word unblocks". IDHT is not effective against unblock declines. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is my first time, and hopefully my last time, I have to report a user's actions to this noticeboard. User:GAtechnical has been creating disruptive edits in regards to a moving the page Julia Görges by erasing user's comments on the talk page Talk:Julia Görges (which is currently Talk:Julia Goerges since the editor seems to be moving the talk page by itself and I cannot move the page anymore until there is an Administrator involved due to this looking like an edit war), started a new move discussion prior to closing the last one, did not go through WP:RM guidelines to start a new discussion, has verbally attacked other editors by calling them names, and is masking comments on their own talk page to hide the evidence of this discussion. Here are the distructive diffs on the page Talk:Julia Görges:

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    ...and here is the edits that GAtechnical has performed on their own talk page to hide the fact that they were sent talk page vandalism warnings, as well as verbally attacking another editor with profanity:

    1 2 3

    As requested in the editnotice, I will also send these to the email address provided, as well as apply the proper template onto GAtechnical's talk page. Thank you for your time. Steel1943 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing wrong with deleting your own comments on ones own talk page. Where have I called anyone names, oh right on deleted comments how very sad you are steel to try and get another editor banned all because you don't agree, grow up, becuase ignorant is a fact not a childish name calling word. Also I moved the page as per wiki policy on WP:ENGLISH WP:NAME Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and the fact that is what the name is correctly translated to in English. Which Steel is citing as vandalism which is not. Secondly if you move it back then you might as well call this international wikipedia which it is not as it is the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. And should follow it's own guidelines and policys correctly which others seem blatantly wanting to ignore citing WP:Diacritics and then going around saying that all UK press are unrelaibla as the don't use accents which is basically bollocks as they are then getting non English sources to support themselves which again is a violation of what is written in diacritics. GAtechnical (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record:
    1. I am not stating that deleting information from a talk page is wrong. My point in bringing up this fact is the profanity that was used during this time on the talk page.
    2. The move discussion was not closed properly, leading multiple editors who were involved on the Talk:Julia Goerges talk page who warned GAtechnical regarding their disruptive edits on the talk page, even if GAtechnical was the one who initiated the move request.
    3. The move request was not closed properly after there had already been at least one editor involved in the discussion, as well as the fact that there are already two move discussions on Talk:Julia Goerges that did not result in a move, a bold move would have been controversial anyways (such is this case.)
    4. Rather than discussion these actions with involved parties, GAtechnical disruptively moved the article/talk page, and said disparaging remarks to other editors. At the point where other editors are involved, they have to be involved in the final discussion/talk. Either that, or the discussion should have been formally closed by the submitter (GAtechincal), which resulted in sections on the Talk:Julia Goerges being blanked rather than the discussion being formally closed to retain attribution to all of the editors who were already involved in the discussion.
    Steel1943 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not those users are not following wiki policy so it doesn't matter what they think. 2. one it's not controversial when following the policy properly so i'm entitled to move it and keep it at the proper English name as per the policy i cited. 3. your the one being a vandal and disruptive by undoing the move which in noway is controversial, but it is to move it back to Gorges as it is not English. 4. If you're bring me here for that do it yourself instead of being disruptive. 5.Yes you were stating that deleting stuff is wrong with your trying to mask it policy and no i'm not swearing at another editor since I've removed the comments so I have no idea why you're bring it up. Steel withdraw this request as you blatantly haven't grasped the rules. or how to use templates properly. GAtechnical (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my fault steel can't use the template properly. Not vandalism. GAtechnical (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactoring or removing another editor's comments persistently is something you can be blocked for, GATechnical. Editing/deleting another editor's comments on that editor's talk page should not be done unless it is a direct violation of policy, e.g. WP:BLP WP:PA etc. Normally, per WP:COMMONNAME, an article should be titled based on their most commonly used spelling in reliable English sources, however as two RM's were raised and consensus to move was not reached the unilateral page move is controversial. GATechnical, you reverted an admin's reversion of your move with the edit summary "Doesn't matter policy trumps everytime". In this case, your move violated policy as you had no consensus to move. As a final point, your constant harping about another's English is entirely an attack made particularly ironic when your own posts are laden with spelling and grammatical errors. Blackmane (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked GATechnical for three days for edit-warring and removing comments from talk pages, moved that article back to Julia Görges, and move-protected it for a week. Two previous RMs decided on that title, and it should not be moved unless the currently open RM reaches a consensus to do so. I have no objection if any admin reading all the diffs above decides that GATechnical's conduct deserves a longer block; any resumption of edit-warring on this issue after his block expires will certainly incur one. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably would have blocked for longer - their multiple attempts at justifying their actions above by basically saying "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, fuck you" makes me believe that we will have future issues once this short block is over. However, I'd play it this way: when the block expires, if GATech a) performs one more controvertial move OR taunts/attacks Steel (or indeed, anyone who disagrees with a move) anywhere on the project, then it's an indef (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's done yet. I have reason to believe GAtechnical is now using their IP address as a sockpuppet to make edits to Julia Görges. If/when I have enough evidence, and I post enough disruptive edit notices on that IPs talk page, I'll probably have to start a new discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked, for edit warring and blatant block evasion. I was planning to second Bwilkins suggestion above (a short leash after a short block), but given these edits I'm inclined to propose an indef, at least until we can be sure that edit-warring and this sort of thing isn't going to be recurrent. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaaand indefed for legal threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was perhaps the most boneheaded suicide by admins ever. I actually supported his mere 3 day block, and clearly specified his method of proper behaviour in the future in order to avoid an indef, and I get accused of threats, then threatened a lawsuit, and now he's indeffed? When I say "WTF", does it clearly get my WTF-ist point across? 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
    No, routine use of WTF makes an editor appear overreactive, and, in the transient, semi-anonymous Wikipedia environment would only be effective if used by an editor one was both familiar with and whom did not use it regularly. In that instance, I'd used the explicit "what the fuck" for maximimal impact. (Maybe italicized or bolded, depending on the context of the rest of the contribution.) NE Ent 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BWilkins that a longer block was appropriate: my 3 days was just for edit warring, but having reviewed the whole story, including blanking an RM that was not going his way and calling people idiots, I went back to extend the block but found he had already been indeffed for legal threats. I have left a note for any reviewing admin that if the indef is lifted any substitute block should be longer than my 3 days, particularly as he has been socking with an IP (see below). JohnCD (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:92.18.27.197 ... possible sockpuppet

    Well, it looks like there are issues with edits happening on the Julia Görges article once again. Seems like a user who uses the IP 92.18.27.197 has been making disruptive edits on Julia Görges, changing every mention of her last name's spelling from "Görges" to "Goerges". I've already had to revert three instances, and another user reverted another. Here are the diffs in question:

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

    Due to the nature of the comments in these diffs, referring to one of my reverts as "vandalism", I have reason to suspect that this IP address is a sockpuppet of GAtechnical mentioned in the aforementioned section of this page. I cannot say that with 100% certainty, but someone with check user privileges might be able to find out. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also socking as 92.22.82.168, now blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made this a subsection to the original ANI on GATechnical. Blackmane (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kwame Kilpatrick

    Already being discussed at BLPN, no need to bring it to ANI. GiantSnowman 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please review the content that I added to the page for Kwame Kilpatrick. It is being reverted. I say that the man was proven to have made millions in criminal activity and will now be known more for his criminal activity than his other professions like teacher or author. Everything was backed with citations, good citations. Thanks. 76.226.66.20 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a "criminal" is not a profession. If that is indicative of the type of crap you're trying to put in to the article then the reverts are proper. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    No administrator action required here. duffbeerforme suitably boomeranged for edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ive been trying to remove inappropiate link to shops from an article. Wikipedia is not here to promote stores. Any refrerence from a shop is not independent and is not a reliable source. My atempts have been me with abuse and claims of disrution (eg [37]). Are spam links from Itunes acceptible? Is it OK to harras editors who dont think promoting iTunes is OK? Is it OK to call an attmept to remove spam links to iTunes an act of vandalism? Am I misguided? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a case for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Itunes and Amazon has been discussed there before on several occasions, most recently in this discussion (which contains links to previous discussions). The conclusion about their reliability seems ambiguous though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Duffbeerforme is apparently involved in a huge edit war at Pon de Replay and has received numerous warnings on their talk page. Regardless of whether s/he's right or not, edit-warring is definitely not the way to solve the dispute. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Editwaring is not the way to go. Thats why I've come here. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know it's not the way to go, then why did you wait until after you received four warnings to bring it here? I'm sorry, but I doubt you'll get much sympathy here based on your inappropriate behavior. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that this question should first have been taken up on the talk page of the article in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Saddiyama is exactly right. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a look at Pon de Replay and noticed Duffbeerforme's reverting. Remember that it doesn't matter who's "right" and who's "wrong" in edit wars, and I think it would take a strong argument to convince somebody your removal of sources had some sort of BLP related exemption to get off WP:3RR. This all needs to go to Talk:Pon de Replay. For what it's worth, I think Amazon and iTunes are reliable sources that can be used to prove existence of something, but can't be used towards notability - since notability's not at stake here that's not relevant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Not sure about iTunes, but a listing on Amazon proves nothing at all, not even existence. I'm an Amazon seller myself, so if I wanted to create a listing for an XBox 720 or a holographic PurpleRay disc of Toy Story 5, I could. Amazon's sales ranks and reviews are also commonly manipulated, and even their core catalog has plenty of errors. Generally speaking I would say that these aren't useful links. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking of basic information like ISBN codes for books, product IDs or otherwise uncontroversial and non-opinionated stuff, but nothing else - certainly not reviews. I notice discussion of this flavour turns up on WP:RSN every now and again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wether you support me or not look at this [[38]]..l duffbeerforme (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Last I checked, iTunes and Amazon (MP3) links were valid for sourcing release dates and track listings. That was at least how it went a couple of years ago when I got in a kerfluffle about using particular links as sources for such data. Additionally, WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO mention nothing about stores. It would be wrong for someone to go to a page like tea kettle and post a link to their ebay or etsy page where they sell tea kettles, but in this digital era it should most definitely not be forbidden to give links to iTunes or Amazon or whatever artist websites that are out there that might happen to sell the CDs as well. It would only be spam in this case if it was someone with a financial stake in the matter, and I doubt that someone adding an iTunes Store link as a source to an article on Rihanna really has much of a financial gain to be had.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just my two cents, but I don't think this content dispute should even be discussed here because it's essentially validating Duffbeerforme's very inappropriate behavior of getting into a major edit war and ignoring four warnings on his talk page, not to mention coming here without even attempting to discuss it on the article's talk page. Bypassing appropriate protocol after bad behavior should not be rewarded. And that's exactly what's being done here by discussing the content issue, rewarding Duffbeerforme. Therefore, I think this thread should be closed and that s/he should be told to stop edit-warring, stop ignoring warnings, and take it to the talk page. Perhaps s/he should even be blocked for a little bit for doing all these things. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another valid point. Duffbeerforme's actions were way out of line here. He should not have edit warred and then brought this to ANI to make it appear he was without fault in the debate. So he is wrong in his actions on links and wrong on his actions on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Ryulong. And if it's a "spam link", then why is it not on the blacklist? I think we've already been through this.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It's still a valid discussion, but definitely not here. This discussion should move on to the talk page of the article in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200

    I had some discussions with Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200 (see his/hers recent contributions). It seems to me that he/she is a combination of WP:LISTEN with WP:COMPETENCE. It seems to me that he/she is a troll who wants to harass editors. He/she produces some preposterous arguments from the fringe of the fringe, like that there would be historical proof for Jesus's resurrection and in general that historians should seek to falsify supernatural causation. Such arguments should not be expected from anyone with a minimal scientific education, this is why I said he/she is a case of lacking editorial competence. I have explained what historians do and that history has a naturalistic methodology because historians of all faiths have consensually agreed upon it, but he/she refuses such arguments, which shows that he/she is a case of failing to get the point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a red herring, it was a distraction from my main point. While I know that you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus resurrected, I was just explaining that some people like me believe that and thus "the strong scientific evidence" that is an exception in Wikipedia's FRINGE policy would be satisfied.
    All I wanted to do was make some edits to the extremely biased material on the History and the Bible Wikipedia page as it exists right now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as we agree that proving miracles isn't, cannot be and will never be part of any empirical science, we can smoke the pipe of peace. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Google gives the definition of empirical as:
    • Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
    I think miracles fit this definition. We can observe things in the present that would have happened if a certain miracle occurred. The Shroud of Turin is a very interesting archaeological discovery that atheists aren't quite sure about.
    Obviously we can't "prove" that something happened, supernatural or not.
    So no, I disagree with you. While miracles themselves can't be explained by natural laws since some of them are temporarily withheld, the events that follow afterwards are definitely part of empirical science.
    And that is still a distraction from my main point of removing the horrendously biased statements that are present on the article now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And now I have a username and have created an account! JasperTech (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I had already admitted that I got irritated by your claim that historians could prove the occurrence of miracles and that I was vitriolic about it. But please don't pour gas on the fire. You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever or you have unlearned what you learned in it, otherwise I see no possibility to deviate from the idea that empirical sciences are by definition naturalistic. E.g. name one science (but not a pseudoscience) which studies the supernatural. There is a contradiction between the idea of arbitrary divine intervention and the idea of empirical science. The Age of Enlightenment has taught us what is admissible as fact and what should be relegated to the realm of mere faith. It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia editors have respect for science and your mockery of the scientific method could irritate them. I hope you do understand that attempting to pass supernatural claims through peer-review is extremely ill-advised for anyone who wants his studies published in a respectable scientific journal. Wikipedia can only take the side of the reviewers, they are the gatekeepers who forbid the entrance of pseudoscience in respectable scientific publications. I don't attack your right to believe in miracles, I just say that by definition sciences could never attest the existence of miracles: physics has naturalistic methodology, chemistry has naturalistic methodology, biology has naturalistic methodology, psychology has naturalistic methodology, sociology has naturalistic methodology, anthropology has naturalistic methodology, history has naturalistic methodology, religious studies have naturalistic methodology and so on. I would advise you to watch the short movie at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cweYRarq664 , wherein Bart D. Ehrman makes it expressly clear that claims that miracles have really happened are not historical claims, but they are theological claims. Any historian worth his salt would agree with Ehrman, except practitioners of pseudoscience, who conflate history with theology. Historical facts should be valid for people regardless of their faith and of their theological persuasion. What you want is eat your cake and still have it. You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method. As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange pattern detected at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

    We are seeing an unusually large number of new accounts reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, all of which are of the pattern User:OfficialThusandso or User:ThusandsoOfficial. The account does not edit for a while, certainly does not edit the article Thusandso, and thus is not blocked by anybody at WP:UAA; and after a while the report drops off the UAA radar. Much as I prefer to AGF, I begin to worry whether somebody is attempting stealthily to set up a large batch of sleeper accounts which will quietly achieve autoconfirmed status, then sometime be used in a mass-attack scheme. Any comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who tackles UAA often, the recent number of "OfficialThusandso"-type accounts doesn't seem unusually high to me. Even though those types of usernames are usually not blocked unless they engage in some type of promotional editing, I suppose soft-blocking them wouldn't be unreasonable. But it hardly seems worth the effort to do so in order to head off such an unlikely mass-attack scheme. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If they have the word "official" in their name, they'll b pretty easy to spot no matter how long they wait, yeah? :) Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket

    I would like to ask why this "educational course" which has limited term is not confined to sandbox or userspace edits? It is not a wikiproject in the sense of permanent development of a subject's coverage. Why are the course members allowed to disrupt long-standing articles with uninformed (albeit good faith) edits based on dubious sources? The articles are there for the benefit of the readers and not for some educational joyride. Can this please be escalated as it is serious issue with the integrity and credibility of several articles at risk. Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 19:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Input needed regarding new "conflict resolution" project (and process?)

    Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution#How_is_this_project_different_from_Dispute_Resolution_project to determine if a new project (and perhaps a new Dispute Resolution process) is needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BlackJack: issues with WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:AGF, among other things

    Further I guess to this ANI report, in which User:BlackJack came to ANI declaring that an ongoing educational project was a "hoax," this editor has been increasingly problematic over the past few days. As I am now an involved admin (and fear I may have broken WP:3RR myself in the process), I'm reluctantly bringing this here. The last straw is User:BlackJack's moving the project page from Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket to Wikipedia:Englishness and Cricket, over two previous moves. I believe that this is the first time I've ever initiated a discussion in this venue.

    Anyhow, here are some highlights. Plenty more diffs could be provided:

    Beyond multiple discussions on the Education Noticeboard (also here), on the project talk page (also here and here), plus on the various article talk pages, I also opened up a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

    User:BlackJack seems to think that the underlying problem is with the use of a source he regards as unreliable. But he hasn't bothered to comment at the relevant venue. Throughout, moreover, his tone has been unwelcoming and hostile.

    Please note that I agree that User:BlackJack has raised some relevant issues of detail about the information that students have been adding to a number of pages dealing with cricket. But in my view the way he has been going about things is unhelpful and repeatedly contrary to due process.

    Advice and thoughts most welcome. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me say one more thing: I agree with many of BlackJack's specific points, and as I have said I think that (so far; the project is far from over) the students' contributions have had mixed results: some articles have definitely improved, in at least once case thanks to BlackJack's rewriting them in response to their interventions. At least one other has ended up rather askew, with undue weight put on (here) the importance of cricket on Englishness. But this is not a content dispute that I am raising here. The point is that Wikipedia articles improve thanks to good faith edits to which regular editors then respond with equal good faith, indeed correcting any errors that may have crept in, but taking into account new information, new sources, and so on. For a short while there may be some instability in an article before a new consensus is established. But this is the Wikipedia process. Sadly, User:BlackJack is not respecting it. I would have expected better of a long-term editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, responsibility for the 3RR rests with Murray who has repeatedly undone a bone fide reversion to remove false information introduced by the "Cricket and Englishness" group from the dubious source which he continues to defend. Please note that I am a subject expert re early cricket history and have written widely about it in and outside WP. Murray objects to the source being denounced (not only by me) and is intent on making a WP:POINT about the whole thing. During Murray's edit war, I twice spelled out to him that I am removing false information but he just ignores it so what can I do?
    If there is one thing that is unwelcome and hostile it is Murray's attitude. I have the support of two other CRIC members at least and these two are both subject experts also. Murray arrogantly insists he is right about this source even though we have in numerous forums and citing the work of several recognised authorities proved that references taken from this book are false and misleading. No matter what we write, he ignores and reverts. By taking the view that we are attempting to subvert the work done by the students he is breaching WP:AGF because we have not removed anything done by them that is useful, only that which we as experts know to be false or misleading. Our view in CRIC is that our articles are there for the benefit of the readers and so must be credible and as accurate as possible. Murray just cannot see this and his behaviour throughout this dispute has been reprehensible. He simply will not communicate with anyone who doesn't agree with him. His attempts above and at the 3RR page to discredit are sad and pathetic.
    The issue here is ensuring that long-standing articles, including one that is WP:GA remain credible and of use to the readers. ----Jack | talk page 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen the two ANI threads by BlackJack. I've not really understood his issue with this Wikiproject, and, having been told twice that this is not an appropriate venue for his complaints, and that there is no issue with this project, it is flat-out wrong of him to move it from the Wikiproject namespace. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. That is a separate issue and my contention is that an exercise of that kind should not intrude on established articles: they should use sandboxes. I repeat that the issue here is protecting the credibility and accuracy of long-standing articles by preventing addition of dubious or false information. ----Jack | talk page 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely relevant - this ANI thread mentions your moving of the Wikiproject, which is therefore not a separate issue. As is the fact you've opened two ANIs here - also relevant. Don't try and pawn it off as irrelevant. Lukeno94 (talk)

    I would ask whether or not User:BlackJack has read Dominic Malcom's book Globalizing Cricket and, if not, under what grounds he is able to judge its credibility. I believe that he certainly had not read it upon the first reversion of contributions made citing Malcom, and therefore his stating of credibility as the main, principle issue seems rather strange. In addition, as a student in the Englishness and Cricket project, User:BlackJack began his comments and suggestions regarding our project in an incredibly rude and condescending manner. Although I realized that it is not the job of Wikipedia or its users to provide a pleasant experience for contributors, his reaction to our project has been completely anti-academic in its stifling of education/learning. While I understand that as a newcomer to WP, my input in this subject "may be disregarded" (as mentioned on this page), I just thought I'd share my opinion and experience. Aependleton29 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LesLein

    Following the line of Goldbergs Liberal fascism User:LesLein tries to portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US [42]. After finding out that Goldbergs Liberal fascism is reagarded as fringe and not as a reliable source he changed his strategy. As he admittet to the noticeboard "Since Goldberg is so controversial at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I only use his book to find other sources." He Cherry picked some quotes out of context and arranged them in a way that imposes the notion of New Deal Liberal fascism upon the readers. Since then he continuously makes edits like that one until today.

    User:LesLein got talk page advice and edit comments by User:Rjensen, User:DD2K, User:RashersTierney and User:no qwach macken to stop that kind of edits

    Smacks of POV, "I hate America" wrote Kennan at this point--he had lost faith in democracy and America at this point says Gaddis (2011) p 100, the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly; the second quote is falsified--Ickes never said it (Goldberg got it wrong), The Swope was not part of the new deal – this background information belongs in the NIRA article, No, there is no Talk page consensus for linking FDR to Hitler, and this article is about the New Deal, not Wilson's programs, drop pov claims; FDR and Mussolini did not have a personal relationship, change 1 is unnecessary, change 2 doesn't completely make sense, change 3 needs a better source at least - just the title sets my BS detector off already, One problem with using primary sources is you can except them to make them sound diabolocal...""He said that what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way." now that means he is communist? fascist? opening death camps? killing Jews? killing kulaks? starving millions? jailing opponents? setting up a secret police? gigantic increase in military spending? shutting down churches? killing priests? building roads and highways? deficit spending? jailing political opponents? sending spies around the world???? By not explaining the context the quote is a deliberate device to make readers suspicious of FDR's motives., the problem with the actual Ickes quote is that it does not say anything about the new deal. Some people will read it to say that Roosevelt imprisoned or killed millions of people as Stalin and Hitler did in their countries. The 2nd Ickes quote (" Ickes warned Roosevelt that there was an increasing tendency by the public “to unconsciously group four names, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Roosevelt.") is a fake – Ickes never said it. The statement came in a letter to FDR, one of millions he received from private citizens., Goldberg got the source wrong--Ickes is nowhere mentioned. cite book|author=Alan Brinkley|title=The End Of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War ***click to read |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3KwH05L49aYC&pg=PT39|year=2011|page=39 As for the first quote--it's a paraphrase and Ickes simply does not tell what FDR was talking about. Mentioning it is forbidden OR -- it involves contested interpretation not based on any reliable secondary source. Mentioning it is a rhetorical device that confuses our readers, suggesting FDR's atrocities on the order of Stalin & Hitler. As for Mussolini, there was one New Dealer (Johnson) who had a favorable view and he was fired for it. As Diggins says, "Hugh Johnson notwithstanding, the published writings of the Brain Trusters reveal no evidence of the influence of Italian Fascism." Diggins goes on to say there was zero influence of Mussolini on FDR. William Edward Leuchtenburg (2001). [http://books.google.com/books?id=grAgV8Dub_gC&pg=PA221 In the Shadow of FDR: From Harry Truman to George W. Bush ***click to read. p. 221.], The article will be used by high school kids who know very little about the New Deal but have heard plenty about Hitler's atrocities. "Any intelligent layman" will rwalize he's being fooled by the linking of FDR and Hitler but the kids won't. Again the Ickes quote (the genuine one) tells the informed reader zero--what program was FDR referring to??-- but will hint to the poor student that FDR admitted actions similar to Hitler., why can't you call FDR a dictator here -- because the RS strongly disagree. (Cooke wrote that passage when he was in his 90s and he garbled it completely. suggesting FDR was just like Hitler is likewise a no-no., re attacks on FDR try "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt" article, yes = primary sources. Hoover wrote at length and there is no mistaking what he meant: fascism = control of government by big business. (That is what Hoover meant by fascism but that never happened under Hitler or Mussolini.) FDR was talking to Ickes about XYZ, but Ickes never tells us what XYZ was. No historian has tried to guess XYZ -- there are simply no clues. The Ickes quote is used by enemies of FDR to trick people into linking FDR with Hitler's atrocities., I agree with Rjensen here. Might I also add that you seem to be trying to push a WP:POV here in an obvious manner. Using words like 'dictator' and attempting to link FDR to Hitler is definitely WP:FRINGE..

    A request at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Charges_of_fascism_and_charges_of_communism was commented by several users all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals. It is now resolved by User:UseTheCommandLine with the comment relentless WP:POVPUSH, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DEADHORSE, progress towards WP:CON seems unlikely.

    User:UseTheCommandLine left a note at LesLeins talk page to stop his disruptive editing [43]. LesLein responded that Wikipedia tells him to be bold and that NPOV takes precedence over consensus so he "would rather continue to give it a try at the article a little while longer." [44]. I am afraid that dispute resolution is pointless since User:LesLein apparently does not listen to anyone. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User Weireth removing images

    Over the past week I have witnessed user Werieth (talk · contribs) trolling Wikipedia pages that contain images in tables and removing them citing WP:NFCC standards. While I understand Wikipedia has various standards for displaying content it appears all this user is doing is trolling pages on the Wikipedia for such content and removing. The number of pages having images removed in a day is quite high. On Monday this user was blocked for a 3RR and minutes later unblocked by another user and then the users was back to removing content as if he hadn't learnt his lesson at all. If the number of pages the user was removing images from was small or from a one section of the Wikipedia I wouldn't consider this an issue but there is no pattern as to what the user is removing he is simply trolling the Wikipedia for such content. I feel all this user is doing is upsetting other users on the Wikipedia and using the guidelines to bully people. Bhowden (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=543932675"